Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Well.. a jesus could have existed. I don't know what historical records you are talking about but I have never seen any that support it.. Not credible ones. Could a jesus have existed.. yeah.. could he not.. yeah.

If you want to look for "evidence" that God is evil and everything in the Bible is fabricated, then you can find it as you've shown. But the same is true if you'd take the time to do the other research as well. And you should honestly ask yourself this question... if you're not willing to research and look at both sides, then who is really the close-minded, foolish one? I don't mean this harshly as I've told both of my kids the same thing - you're free to believe what you want, but if you're not doing the full research to honestly evaluate all the possibilities but rather are only focused on researching one side of an issue (i.e. the side you "want" to be true), then you are making a biased, uneducated decision.

There are a number of historians to reference regarding support for the existence of Jesus, but I chose these three because they are as far removed from Believers in Christ as possible.

Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Accounts
There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan, non-Christian sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity; some ancient authors denied the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events surrounding His life:

Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

If only more of Thallus’ record could be found, we might find more confirmation of Jesus’ crucifixion. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, He was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of His crucifixion.

Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

“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 (Christ Jesus), 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, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, 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.”

In this account, Tacitus confirms several historical elements of the Biblical narrative: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.

Hostile Non-Biblical Jewish Accounts
In addition to classical pagan sources chronicling the life of Jesus and His followers, there are also a number of ancient hostile Jewish sources describing Jesus. These are written by Jewish theologians, historians and leaders who were definitely not sympathetic to the Christian cause. Their writings are often very harsh, critical and even demeaning to Jesus. But there is still much these writings confirm:

Josephus (37-101AD)
In more detail than any other non-biblical historian, Josephus writes about Jesus in his “the Antiquities of the Jews” in 93AD. Josephus was born just four years after the crucifixion. He was a consultant for Jewish rabbis at an early age, became a Galilean military commander by the age of sixteen, and he was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century A.D. Under the rule of Roman emperor Vespasian, Josephus was allowed to write a history of the Jews. This history includes three passages about Christians, one in which he describes the death of John the Baptist, one in which he mentions the execution of James (and describes him as the brother of Jesus the Christ), and a final passage which describes Jesus as a wise man and the messiah. There is much legitimate controversy about the writing of Josephus, because the first discoveries of his writings are late enough to have been re-written by Christians who were accused of making additions to the text. So to be fair, we’ll examine a scholarly reconstruction stripped of Christian embellishment:

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed by John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person).

Now there are many other ancient versions of Josephus’ writing which are even more explicit about the nature of Jesus’ miracles, life and his status as the Christ, but let’s take this conservative version and see what we can learn. From this text, we can conclude: Jesus lived in Palestine, was a wise man and a teacher, worked amazing deeds, was accused by the Jews, crucified under Pilate and had followers called Christians.

Here's a link to some additional information if you'd care to read it.

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible

Even Wikipedia supports that Jesus existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[3][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][2]:168–173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.

 

[Roustabout]

I don't speak for any Christian except me......there is absolutely no fear in my salvation.....it is exactly the opposite actually......I would get off that "evil" God of the OT and focus on where he wants the focus now......but, I appreciate your thoughts

I've blocked this troll, so I can't see his comments except when someone else quotes. Don't waste your breath. In that one paragraph there were blatant fallacies such as broad brush, bald assertions and hasty generalizations. You can't reason with a person that thinks the entire Christian faith is accurately represented in his butt hurt view.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This may or may not answer your question, but I tend to look at things simplistically and in a way that I can relate to personally (for example, when I think of the relationship our Heavenly Father might want with us I often equate it with the type of relationship I, as a father, want with my own children).

So I would ask you this question: which of the following puppies would you prefer to have as a companion?

The one on the top will do exactly as you program it to do, and will always follow your commands. The one on the bottom will sometimes do what you want it to do, though at times might also disappoint you by chewing on your favorite shoes! If your answer is the one on the bottom, then ask yourself why you would prefer that one over the one on the top and I think you'll have your answer.

Would you create an everlasting consious torture for the second puppy when he disobeys your commands?

 

[PKT_VOL]

I disagree with the rest of your analogy. First off, we must ask, could God have done things differently than He did? In one sense yes, but in another, no. Sure, God's power could have created a world different than the one we know, but then we must ask what results would such a world present. Now, if anyone thinks they are qualified to work through those contingencies, then please be my guest.

So, best of all possible worlds?

In other words, is God just playing in His sandbox, or does this world 'fit' His ultimate plans? That is to say, is God working all things together for the good of those who love Him? If it's the latter, then love really is the ultimate ethic, and that begs the question, what then is love? If we are to be the recipients and reciprocators of God's love, then we must have the potentiality to do so.

Example, let's say you are fond of another, and you are romantically pursuing this person. Unfortunately, they are not interested in you, and the more you pursue them, the more resistant they are to your advances. What do you do? Do you force them to love you? Can you?

From a classical perspective, evil is not a thing, but a privation. And thus, Hell (whatever that is) is not a thing, but a privation. God is not going to force anyone to spend eternity with Him. If He did, that wouldn't be very loving would it.

So, could God create a world where love (reciprocal, genuine love) was possible, but rejection of it was not? No, it is logically impossible. And if love is the ultimate ethic (and it is) then people can also reject this love. This can manifest in a number of ways. Sin, then, is at its root, a privation of love. So, one might say Hell is a privation of eternal life, and although unfortunate, necessary.

Now, we can discuss whether Hell is annihilation, temporary, or eternal and whether it is the same for everyone, different degrees, fire, brimstone, etc.

What are the epistemological qualifications of rejection?

 

[Roustabout]

So, best of all possible worlds?

I'd ask William Lane Craig, since he is a platonist. I'm not actually suggesting those are actual contengencies. You could get into a whole discussion about counterfactuals and what not.

What are the epistemological qualifications of rejection?

What do you mean, how probable it is?

 

[Roustabout]

Would you create an everlasting consious torture for the second puppy when he disobeys your commands?

Sure. There is nothing objectively wrong in torturing puppies for fun

Kidding. I was going to point this out myself, but got on another tangent. Come on PKT, all analogies break down at some point. The issues of man's moral obligation is different than a puppy chewing up your shoes. The analogy was the point of free will.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'd ask William Lane Craig, since he is a platonist. I'm not actually suggesting those are actual contengencies. You could get into a whole discussion about counterfactuals and what not.

Why would I ask him? He's an embarrassment to Christian apologetics.

What do you mean, how probable it is?

No, I'm asking what is the epistemological foundation/framework for the rejection to be valid?

 

[T-TownVol]

I've blocked this troll, so I can't see his comments except when someone else quotes. Don't waste your breath. In that one paragraph there were blatant fallacies such as broad brush, bald assertions and hasty generalizations. You can't reason with a person that thinks the entire Christian faith is accurately represented in his butt hurt view.

SD is "passionate" that's for sure.......

 

[Roustabout]

I don't speak for any Christian except me......there is absolutely no fear in my salvation.....it is exactly the opposite actually......I would get off that "evil" God of the OT and focus on where he wants the focus now......but, I appreciate your thoughts

Just curious, as I wouldn't dignify his comment with a response, but why is fear an improper motivator? Do you lock your doors at night? Wear a seatbelt? Fear, in and of itself does not invalidate a response. I've heard preachers manipulate with fear and I've heard them use it appropriately.

Also, even if a person fears Hell, judgment, failure, whatever, it doesn't follow that those things aren't true.

 

[Roustabout]

Why would I ask him? He's an embarrassment to Christian apologetics.



No, I'm asking what is the epistemological foundation/framework for the rejection to be valid?

Embarrassment? Ok. I have some different takes, but I've probably invested 30 hours of lectures in addition to reading a good bit and I've never been embarrassed.

Sorry, but still not following your question. Dumb it down for us idiots.

 

[T-TownVol]

Just curious, as I wouldn't dignify his comment with a response, but why is fear an improper motivator? Do you lock your doors at night? Wear a seatbelt? Fear, in and of itself does not invalidate a response. I've heard preachers manipulate with fear and I've heard them use it appropriately.

Also, even if a person fears Hell, judgment, failure, whatever, it doesn't follow that those things aren't true.

I spoke for me.....I never said fear is not a good motivator.....what ever motivate one to accept Christ is between that person and God.....all the above are true IMO....I just grew up a legalistic c of C believer and now see the pure joy in the fact that I will be with my Mom, who passed when I was 21, again .....that is my personal motivation......

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Would you create an everlasting consious torture for the second puppy when he disobeys your commands?

No. And ftr, God doesn't do this either. In fact, the salvation we have through Christ is just the opposite of what you're suggesting. I'm sure I've disobeyed God's commands numerous times.

 

[Roustabout]

I spoke for me.....I never said fear is not a good motivator.....what ever motivate one to accept Christ is between that person and God.....all the above are true IMO....I just grew up a legalistic c of C believer and now see the pure joy in the fact that I will be with my Mom, who passed when I was 21, again .....that is my personal motivation......

I totally understand, I just saw it from a different angle.

 

[Daddy Gee]

No. And ftr, God doesn't do this either. In fact, the salvation we have through Christ is just the opposite of what you're suggesting. I'm sure I've disobeyed God's commands numerous times.

Yes. He gave Himself for us while we were enemies. We can choose to live apart from Him, now and always.

 

[Vol8188]

Yes. He gave Himself for us while we were enemies. We can choose to live apart from Him, now and always.

Right. He sacrificed himself because the father can't deal with sin. Except that the father can deal with it because he's god and can literally do anything. He even turns a blind eye to in when it comes to polygyny because he's only God. What could he have done about it?

 

[Roustabout]

Right. He sacrificed himself because the father can't deal with sin. Except that the father can deal with it because he's god and can literally do anything. He even turns a blind eye to in when it comes to polygyny because he's only God. What could he have done about it?

High five, you win the inter web today!!

 

[T-TownVol]

Yes. He gave Himself for us while we were enemies. We can choose to live apart from Him, now and always.

Hey Gee.....long time.....hope all is well......

 

[Orangeslice13]

no worries.....you can still change....but, no worries as of now

Hebrews 6:4 says maybe not.
4 For when people have once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, become sharers in the Ruach HaKodesh, 5 and tasted the goodness of God’s Word and the powers of the ‘olam haba — 6 and then have fallen away — it is impossible to renew them so that they turn from their sin, as long as for themselves they keep executing the Son of God on the stake all over again and keep holding him up to public contempt.

 

[T-TownVol]

Right. He sacrificed himself because the father can't deal with sin. Except that the father can deal with it because he's god and can literally do anything. He even turns a blind eye to in when it comes to polygyny because he's only God. What could he have done about it?

8188 has an quip/answer for everything.......you ARE the winner!!!!!

 

[T-TownVol]

Hebrews 6:4 says maybe not.
4 For when people have once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, become sharers in the Ruach HaKodesh, 5 and tasted the goodness of God’s Word and the powers of the ‘olam haba — 6 and then have fallen away — it is impossible to renew them so that they turn from their sin, as long as for themselves they keep executing the Son of God on the stake all over again and keep holding him up to public contempt.

I am holding out hope we is not totally gone Slice........

 

[Vol8188]

8188 has an quip/answer for everything.......you ARE the winner!!!!!

Who would've thought that people would express their views on a message board? What a terrible thing of me to do

 

[T-TownVol]

Who would've thought that people would express their views on a message board? What a terrible thing of me to do

and get no respect from you on any thought they express that you do not hold as true.......

 

[Orangeslice13]

I am holding out hope we is not totally gone Slice........

Fair enough.
I've actually been praying for that guy. Don't tell him though. I don't think he'd like it.

 

[Daddy Gee]

Hey Gee.....long time.....hope all is well......

Hey T-Town. All is good. Hope the same goes for you.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Who would've thought that people would express their views on a message board? What a terrible thing of me to do

Just curious 88, but is this how you express your views toward you students if they have different opinions than you do... by mocking their beliefs? Or do you do that only in this forum?

And ftr... nearly every time (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here by saying "nearly") you express your views on Christianity, all you do is prove how ignorant you are on the subject.