How do we respond to jews who believe messiah hasn't come?

[DivineNames]

I will ask you again-

Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does?

I will reply you again, YES it does need historical evidence when you make claims like Krishna or Rama are historical, So what is your postion, Are they historical or mythical?

I don't think this is really an answer to the question. Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does? Is the notion of salvation in Hinduism tied to an historical event?

 

[Gary]

More evidence:

• (1) -Easter and the Resurrection-
  
  (2) -The Essential Works of Josephus-
  
  (3) -Confirmation of Jesus in non-Christian Sources-
  
  (4) -Evidence for the Resurrection-
  
  (5) -Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions-
  
  (6) -Resurrection – Order of Events-
  
  (7) -The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus-

... but the skeptics will never believe. They need a new heart. That can only happen when they pocket their pride and let the Lord and the Holy Spirit do His work.

 

[Karma2Grace]

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition (His resurrection), thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

"The Roman historian, Tacitus is often cited as an authority. However, the passage only mentions the historical existence of a "Christus", who was put to death under Pontius Pilate. No mention is made of the resurrection"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrecti ... an_records



"But, despite kindly influence, despite the leader's generous handouts, despite appeasing the gods, the scandal did not subside, rather the blaze came to be believed to be an official act. So, in order to quash the rumour, Nero blamed it on, and applied the cruellest punishments to, those sinners, whom ordinary people call Christians, hating them for their shameful behaviour. The originator of this name, Christus, was sent to execution by Procurator Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius, but although checked for a moment, the deadly cult erupted again, not just in Judaea, the source of its evil, but even in Rome, where all the sins and scandals of the world gather and are glorified. (Tac. Ann. xv.44.2–3)"

"the text merely mentions that Christians existed, which is not generally in doubt, and that they had founding in someone called "Christ" executed by Pilate, a statement that could have come merely from a conversation with a Christian, rather than a statement of fact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

In Wikipedia i can write any article as it was not authentic and open to all. Always try to get info from unbiased sources.

Everything is passable but we need find out what is plausible, How would you explain the empty tomb? , Why Talmud should say the courageous (?) disciples went against the mighty roman army and stole His body!

I don’t think we can get much evidence than the above for a incident happened in 1st century , If you ought to discard it then you may as well do the same for Alexander and Aristotle , I can very well argue that they are mythological

 

[Karma2Grace]

I will ask you again-

Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does?

I will reply you again, YES it does need historical evidence when you make claims like Krishna or Rama are historical, So what is your postion, Are they historical or mythical?

I don't think this is really an answer to the question. Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does? Is the notion of salvation in Hinduism tied to an historical event?

YES YES!, For every belief system we need faith, The word faith comes as we need to believe something which we haven’t seen or cannot prove (at least by the commonly acceptable parameters), When you put your faith on particular belief, You need to have at least some evidence to prove some claims the belief system makes, In that aspect Christianity has much proves than any OTHER system in the world in a sense IT IS NOT a blind faith

So when Hindu puranas makes historical claims we need to have some kind of proof to accept its philosophical counter part, as per Hinduism goes it is a BLIND FAITH.

You didn’t answer my question, do you believe in historical Krishna or Rama?

 

[SpiritualSon]

What It Means In The Word By Being Rich

Revelation 3:17
Verse 17. Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased in goods, signifies that they think they possess in all abundance the knowledges of truth and good which are of the church and heaven. "To be rich and increased in goods," means nothing else than to know and understand fully such things as are of the Word in the church and heaven which are called spiritual and theological, because these are here treated of; spiritual riches and abundance are nothing else.

They who believe from themselves, and not from the Lord through the Word, also believe that they know and understand all things. The reason is, that their spiritual mind is shut, and their natural mind alone open; and this mind, without any spiritual light, sees nothing else, such as what happen at the Council of Nicene in 325AD, when a trinity of three Divine persons before creation was invented, because they looked to self for answers, and not from the Lord. That by "riches" and "wealth" in the Word are signified spiritual riches and wealth, which are the knowledges of truth and good, is manifest from the following passages:
In thy wisdom and in thy understanding thou hast gotten thee wealth, gold and silver in thy treasures; by the multiplication of thy wisdom thou hast multiplied thy wealth Ezek. 28:4-5.

This is spoken of Tyre, by which is signified the church as to the knowledges of truth and good. In like manner:
The daughter of Tyre shall bring thee a gift; O daughter of the king, the rich peoples shall entreat thy faces Ps. 45:12.

Jehovah will impoverish Tyre; He will shake off her wealth into the sea (Zech. 9:4).

O Tyre, they shall plunder thy wealth (Ezek. 26:12).
Assyria said, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, because I am intelligent; whence I will plunder the treasures of the peoples, my hand shall find the wealth of the peoples (Isa. 10:13-14).

By Assyria the rational is signified; here that it perverts the goods and truths of the church, which here are the "treasures and wealth of the peoples," which he will plunder.

I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and the hidden wealth of the lurking-places (Isa. 45:3).

Happy is the man that feareth Jehovah; wealth and riches are in his house, and his justice standeth forever (Ps. 112:1, 3).


God hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He hath sent away empty (Luke 1:53).

Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your joy; woe unto you that are filled, for ye shall hunger (Luke 6:24-25. This means woe too all the thou knoweth all Jews, Catholics and Protestant learneth men who believe falsely and teach it to others. One thing good about the Jews, they believe as I do, that God is One, and not three. I believe God is One in Person and in Essence.

By the "rich" here are meant those who were in possession of the knowledges of truth and good because they have the Word, who were the Jews: the same is meant by the rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen (Luke 16:19); and in like manner by the "rich" and "riches" in other places (as in Isa. 30:6; Jer. 17:11; Micah 4:13; 6:12; Zech. 14:14; Matt. 12:35; 13:44; Luke 12:21).

Harry :fadein:

 

[bibleberean]

How do we respond to Jews that say the Messiah has not come?

Preach the gospel.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 

[DivineNames]

.... There are many proofs for the resurection even outside the bible

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection  Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Thanks Karma2Grace. In the links below, I have the whole book:

• (1) -Simon Greenleaf-
  
  (2) http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

Critique of John Warwick Montgomery's Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity

by Richard Packham

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/montgmry.htm


This article is a critique of some modern 'legal apologetics'. At the end of the article it has links to a couple of responses, and also his replies to these articles.

I will quote from one of these replies-

"What, then, of this "sleeping giant" of "legal apologetics" which Montgomery and Pehrson claim to have re-awakened? Is it really a useful combination of law and apologetics? As Montgomery and Pehrson practice it, it appears to be mostly apologetics, and practically no reliable law. Goliath was also a giant, and was put out of commission by one well-placed stone. Perhaps "legal apologetics" will find better practitioners than Montgomery and Pehrson, but perhaps this giant should not be resurrected, since that may take a miracle as powerful as the one that supposedly raised Lazarus.

In my original article, I closed with the invitation: "If I am wrong, I beg to be corrected. Any Christian attorneys out there?" Pehrson does not appear, from his handling of legal topics, to be an attorney, and he makes no claim to be trained in the law. And since I first put my article on the internet, I have had only one Christian lawyer respond to me. His comment was that he felt it was foolish for Montgomery to try to prove Christianity by use of the legal rules of evidence. He gave two reasons: 1) it can't be done; and 2) Christian faith should be just that: faith, as Jesus himself supposedly said to Thomas (John 20:29)."

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/pehrson.htm

 

[DivineNames]

"The Roman historian, Tacitus is often cited as an authority. However, the passage only mentions the historical existence of a "Christus", who was put to death under Pontius Pilate. No mention is made of the resurrection"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrecti ... an_records



"But, despite kindly influence, despite the leader's generous handouts, despite appeasing the gods, the scandal did not subside, rather the blaze came to be believed to be an official act. So, in order to quash the rumour, Nero blamed it on, and applied the cruellest punishments to, those sinners, whom ordinary people call Christians, hating them for their shameful behaviour. The originator of this name, Christus, was sent to execution by Procurator Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius, but although checked for a moment, the deadly cult erupted again, not just in Judaea, the source of its evil, but even in Rome, where all the sins and scandals of the world gather and are glorified. (Tac. Ann. xv.44.2–3)"

"the text merely mentions that Christians existed, which is not generally in doubt, and that they had founding in someone called "Christ" executed by Pilate, a statement that could have come merely from a conversation with a Christian, rather than a statement of fact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

In Wikipedia i can write any article as it was not authentic and open to all. Always try to get info from unbiased sources.

I am being lectured on the use of sources by a freaking plagiarist!

At least people can see what sources I am using mate.

:-D

It seems you have not even made an objection to the quotes I used, other than to suggest that they are from a biased source. Do you get material from Christian sites? If so, is that more likely to be impartial than an online encyclopedia article?

 

[DivineNames]

... but the skeptics will never believe. They need a new heart. That can only happen when they pocket their pride and let the Lord and the Holy Spirit do His work.

So if I don't believe in the truth of Christianity then it can be blamed on my 'pride'. If thats what you want to think Gary...


I will quote again from Richard Packham-

"What purpose then do such attempts as Montgomery's serve? I doubt that they convince non-believers. I doubt that non-believers read such journals as the Global Journal where Pehrson's article appeared. Such "legal apologetics" writings are intended to reassure those who already believe to some extent, or those who want to believe, or those who may be doubting their faith. Thus, apologetic writings function as the cheerleaders for the home team. Believers do not have to think much when reading such material. In fact, as I have shown, it is probably not intended that the readers do any thinking. They only have to read the conclusions: So-and-so says that the gospels are reliable; Montgomery says that even tested by legal evidence rules, the gospel stories can be taken as absolutely true. Ah! Sigh of relief! All doubts vanish! The "authorities" (who of course are reliable, since they are telling us what we already think) have spoken!"

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/pehrson.htm

 

[DivineNames]

YES YES!, For every belief system we need faith, The word faith comes as we need to believe something which we haven’t seen or cannot prove (at least by the commonly acceptable parameters), When you put your faith on particular belief, You need to have at least some evidence to prove some claims the belief system makes, In that aspect Christianity has much proves than any OTHER system in the world in a sense IT IS NOT a blind faith

So when Hindu puranas makes historical claims we need to have some kind of proof to accept its philosophical counter part, as per Hinduism goes it is a BLIND FAITH.

You didn’t answer my question, do you believe in historical Krishna or Rama?

If there never was an historical Krishna then this presumably somewhat undermines the Hindu notion of avatars. (It certainly wouldn't prove it false however.) Nevertheless, no real damage would have been done to Advaita Vedanta (as one example), not as far as I can see.

Was Krishna a historical figure?

I don't have a clue, and it isn't something that especially interests me.

Some will argue that he was-

Search for the Historical Krishna
Prof. N.S. Rajaram

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encycloped ... -krsna.htm


Whether or not there was ever an historical Krishna, material about him was presumably mythologized. We may also suspect that material about the historical Jesus was also mythologized. Many people would think it likely anyway.

 

[Gary]

... but the skeptics will never believe. They need a new heart. That can only happen when they pocket their pride and let the Lord and the Holy Spirit do His work.

So if I don't believe in the truth of Christianity then it can be blamed on my 'pride'. If thats what you want to think Gary...

I think I made it very clear. I was a skeptic like you for 30+ years. Only God can change your heart. But your own pride can prevent that happening.

:wink:

 

[Solo]

We may also suspect that material about the historical Jesus was also mythologized. Many people would think it likely anyway.

Until one meets Jesus in person, one will not know the truth. I met Jesus in 1983, and he hasn't left me yet, just like he said. The material about Jesus is written in the Bible beginning in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", through Revelation 21:27 "27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life".

None of this material is a myth as each of us will find out either just in time, or too late.

 

[Lewis]

None of this material is a myth as each of us will find out either just in time, or too late.

Right on Solo.

 

[DivineNames]

We may also suspect that material about the historical Jesus was also mythologized. Many people would think it likely anyway.

Until one meets Jesus in person, one will not know the truth. I met Jesus in 1983, and he hasn't left me yet, just like he said.

Are you claiming that you know the 'truth' from your own religious experience, from 'meeting Jesus'?

If so, then you need some very substantial argument to support the truth of the religious experience in question, against the religious experience of non-Christians, which could be claimed to confirm the truth of various other religions.

Some people would have a highly skeptical view of all religious experience of course.

 

[DivineNames]

Even if Christians do have a genuine experience of God, does it automatically follow that Christianity is true?

I will quote something I recently read on the BBC religion forums-

"I know what you mean in terms of the joy of fellowship with God. I used to be a born again Christian and had a real and genuine experience of fellowship with God. Since then i have left Christianity and express my spiritual fellowship in a completely different manner - indeed one in which the fundie community cast as diabolic. The joy is still there - indeed if anything its even stronger than before.

This is the trouble with all the fundamentalist fanaticisms we see in various religions around the world that is causing so much trouble at the moment. Your spiritual experience of God, while quite genuine, is interpreted as a legitimation of the rigid religious interpretation framework in which you first approached it. When this framework tells you that only you have access to the truth we get fanaticism..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F22 ... ead=802414

 

[DivineNames]

I have a question for Karma2Grace and Gary, who both seem to have endorsed 'legal apologetics'. Do you think this is a good idea? endorsing the testing of Christianity by legal evidence rules?

When Christianity doesn't stand up to scrutiny using this set of criteria, the approach appears to go disastrously wrong...

 

[Solo]

We may also suspect that material about the historical Jesus was also mythologized. Many people would think it likely anyway.

Until one meets Jesus in person, one will not know the truth. I met Jesus in 1983, and he hasn't left me yet, just like he said.

Are you claiming that you know the 'truth' from your own religious experience, from 'meeting Jesus'?

If so, then you need some very substantial argument to support the truth of the religious experience in question, against the religious experience of non-Christians, which could be claimed to confirm the truth of various other religions.

Some people would have a highly skeptical view of all religious experience of course.

I don't need a substantial argument to support the truth, you do. I am resting thankfully reassured that the God of creation has determined to save me in spite of my sinful condition when found. Glory be to God almighty and his Son Jesus Christ and his Spirit.

My experiences with God almighty through his Son Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit have no comparison with the religious experience of non-Christians. The non-Christian stance is upon their ability to become good enough to reach toward the gods of their imagination; Christians are awakened by a new life in the God of creation when God reached down to them in their lost condition.

The word believe is very important after the word repent. Without those two, there is no hope.

 

[Solo]

Even if Christians do have a genuine experience of God, does it automatically follow that Christianity is true?

I will quote something I recently read on the BBC religion forums-

"I know what you mean in terms of the joy of fellowship with God. I used to be a born again Christian and had a real and genuine experience of fellowship with God. Since then i have left Christianity and express my spiritual fellowship in a completely different manner - indeed one in which the fundie community cast as diabolic. The joy is still there - indeed if anything its even stronger than before.

This is the trouble with all the fundamentalist fanaticisms we see in various religions around the world that is causing so much trouble at the moment. Your spiritual experience of God, while quite genuine, is interpreted as a legitimation of the rigid religious interpretation framework in which you first approached it. When this framework tells you that only you have access to the truth we get fanaticism..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F22 ... ead=802414

They were not born again Christians, they only believed themselves to be for the Bible says differently than they:

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1 John 2:18-19

The sealing of the Holy Spirit upon true believers gives believers all truth, and those that disregard the truth of Jesus Christ are anti-Christ.

20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. 1 John 2:20-25

 

[Gary]

I have a question for Karma2Grace and Gary, who both seem to have endorsed 'legal apologetics'. Do you think this is a good idea? endorsing the testing of Christianity by legal evidence rules?

When Christianity doesn't stand up to scrutiny using this set of criteria, the approach appears to go disastrously wrong...

Again you have got it wrong. First READ the links I gave you... you may then at least argue with some degree of knowledge.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 628#199628

Thanks.

 

[Gary]

Great posts Solo! Those who have never experienced the Holy Spirit have no way of determining spiritual truths.... they flounder and toss like ships in a storm. It is evident in posts from people like DivineNames and Soma-Sight.

Born-again Christians have security. "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand." John 10:28

That is a wonderful promise from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The believer's salvation is forever secure in Him.

Born-again believers have God as the Guarantor!

"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand." John 10:29

Maranatha! I love you... my Lord and Saviour.