What do you think the Holy Grail is?

Status
Not open for further replies.
you give me proof there is no God, and I'll give you proof there is.
Click to expand...

To me ^ that doesn't make sense. And if that's the case, why don't you give him proof He does exist first?
 
Again, you portray typical Christian behavior. You aren't willing, EVER, to change your mind...even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. YET, you want others to do something you aren't willing to do.

That is hypocritical!
Click to expand...

And you are always so apt to change? Perhaps the hypocritical one is not DarthDapor at all...
 
If I had proof that God doesn't exist, then I would be a Strong Atheist, which I am not.

Besides, we can't both have proof that God exists and doesn't exist...that doesn't make sense now does it?

<EDITED FOR CONTENT - GENESIS1315>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dark Virtue said:
Besides, we can't both have proof that God exists and doesn't exist...that doesn't make sense now does it?
QUOTE]
Exactly, thats what faith is: knowing without actually seeing. You've just proved my point.
Click to expand...
 
DarthDapor said:
Dark Virtue said:
Besides, we can't both have proof that God exists and doesn't exist...that doesn't make sense now does it?
QUOTE]
Exactly, thats what faith is: knowing without actually seeing. You've just proved my point.
Click to expand...

Uh, not exactly.

There is a huge chasm of a difference between knowing something to be true and believing, wanting or wishing something were true.

You can't have knowledge that God exists without proof.
Click to expand...
 
DarthDapor said:
Dark Virtue said:
No, you con't hov knowledge that he exists (period). You con only hov faith in somthing that you'll never know is real until you see it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's not true.

Sorry bub, but the Bible proves your statement to be horribly incorrect.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe I should make that a little more clear. I believe its real. Thus I know its real without actually proving its real.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Not examining the problems historians and theologians have with the account of Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum, et al, would definately be considered intellectual negligence.
Click to expand...

Not examining those same secular accounts that have been acccepted by historians and theologians alike (minus the obvious interpolations) as accurate and indeed proving Jesus was an historical figure is irresponsible. There's really no true "scholarly" debate (that I'm aware of) on whether Jesus is truly a mythical figure.

I believe you've distanced yourself (in the past) from the notion that Jesus was a myth, and rather stated you didn't believe in His divinity.

Are you now saying that you subscribe to the GA Wells POV?
 
Watcher said:
Not examining those same secular accounts that have been acccepted by historians and theologians alike (minus the obvious interpolations) as accurate and indeed proving Jesus was an historical figure is irresponsible. There's really no true "scholarly" debate (that I'm aware of) on whether Jesus is truly a mythical figure.

I believe you've distanced yourself (in the past) from the notion that Jesus was a myth, and rather stated you didn't believe in His divinity.

Are you now saying that you subscribe to the GA Wells POV?
Click to expand...

I personally do not have enough information to say, definitively, that Christ existed or didn't exist. I do, however, lean towards the probability that a Christ figure did indeed exist, but lacked the divinity attributed to him by the Bible.

My position on this has not changed since our last discussion on the subject, at least I hope you don't think it has.
 
Just wanted to clarify...so you're not one then to acknowedge that most historians and theologians agree Jesus did exist (I've yet to see an "authority" in either field subscribe to GA Wells POV)? I mean you either believe it or you don't. My personal opinion is that you have more than enough evidence and information to prove His definitive existence. There's more historical information (secular and non) on Jesus than almost any other person of antiquity.

It's impossible to deny that both the historical and theological authorities of today and yesterday all agree on His existence. I can understand your question of divinity, but to say there isn't enough information to definitively say he existed is just stubborn wouldn't you say? :)
 
Wow! Where did you come from? I thought it was going to be DD (me) and DV posting beck and forth for the end of eternity.
 
I rather thought that whilst it's reasonably likely that a man named Jesus existed, there were other Messiah's around that time who also had documented instances of the same rough events as JC's life?
 
Watcher said:
Just wanted to clarify...so you're not one then to acknowedge that most historians and theologians agree Jesus did exist (I've yet to see an "authority" in either field subscribe to GA Wells POV)? I mean you either believe it or you don't. My personal opinion is that you have more than enough evidence and information to prove His definitive existence. There's more historical information (secular and non) on Jesus than almost any other person of antiquity.

It's impossible to deny that both the historical and theological authorities of today and yesterday all agree on His existence. I can understand your question of divinity, but to say there isn't enough information to definitively say he existed is just stubborn wouldn't you say? :)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's stubborn. You are trying to get me to agree to something that I don't believe is true. That is, to admit that Christ existed as set forth by the Bible, the divine son of God.

That's why I make the distinction between existence and being divine.

I also believe you are loading the deck in your favor when you say things like "most historians and theologians". What theologian DOESN'T admit to the existence of Christ? I'm also sure the majority of your historians are Christian. Can you show me a Christian historian that doesn't acknowledge the existence of Christ?

And no, I don't believe there is enough evidence, unbiased evidence, to cleary state that Christ existed, let alone attribute divinity to him. Remember, I am also a Freethinker, meaning that I prefer to make my rational decisions that haven't been tainted by religion.
 
DarthDapor said:
Then how do you explain hundreds of old testement prophocies coming true all at once?
Click to expand...

Maybe because the New Testament accounts of those prophecies coming "true" were altered long after the death of Christ to make it look like he fulfilled those prophecies.
 
Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal... all Christian scientists. I think if some of the greatest minds ever produced believe in Him, why not us? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top