what is religious experience?

There is no reason to believe that the NT is completely true.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is. There are 25,000 New Testament manuscripts in existence today, which can be seen in museums throughout the world, written in 15 languages and dated within a few hundred years after the crucifixion of Jesus. At least 5600 Greek manuscripts and fragments still exist and are dated within a few decades of the crucifixion. Many scholars recognized the abundance of evidence that supports the accounts of Jesus.
W.F. Albright, a renowned archaeologist wrote, “No other work from Graeco-Roman antiquity is so well attested by manuscript tradition as the New Testament. There are many more early manuscripts of the New Testament than there are of any classical author, and the oldest extensive remains of it date only about two centuries after their original composition.”
Sir Frederic Kenyon, a director of the British Museum, wrote, “Besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors… In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.” He concluded “both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, spent 30 years of his life trying to disprove the New Testament, especially Luke’s writings. After intensive research, and while many of his contemporaries waited and were expecting a thorough refutation of Christianity, Ramsey concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of all time.

They use the argument that the people of the time would have proven it false. This is not neccessarily correct, as they'd have to take the witnessing of the resurection on faith.
Click to expand...
For the people who did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, especially for the Jewish Pharisees who hated Jesus, faith would have no part in order to disprove the claim of the resurrection. It would have been easy for them to disprove it - find and show the dead body of Jesus. Christianity would be dead before it began. But the tomb was empty and the body of Jesus was not found.

The fact that believing in Jesus changes people's lives, and is therefore proof, is simply flawed. Every single other religion changes people's lives too... that's why they join them. So either all religions are correct, or this isn't a good measure.
Click to expand...
The flawed part is not realizing whose lives we are discussing about. It is the lives of the disciples of Jesus, the ones who lived with Jesus during His three years preaching to the populace. It is their eyewitness testimony they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross, which is the legal proof. After abandoning Jesus when He was arrested and hid for their lives while He was tried and crucified, these men turned around and began proclaiming Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to them in flesh and blood, and were willing to face horrible executions rather than to renounce their message. It defies any explanation that these men, with little or no education, were able to confound educated men, and go to theirs death proclaiming, “Jesus is Lord.” The only conclusion is they were witnesses of an actual historical event.
 
Originally posted by Cris
Bridge,

Yes, I agree, it is astonishing how such apparently intelligent and insightful people can abandon their reason when seduced by the idiocy of religion. I think that makes it easier to understand the ‘ordinary’ person who also seemingly easily succumbs to these insidiously irrational concepts. I think it is the duty of those of us who can think more clearly to offer significant tolerance to those that have been so unfortunately beguiled by religion.
Click to expand...


Really???!!! I always thought it was the atheists who always took up denial and resorted to insults when they had no way out. And didn't they also abandon logic by being completely ignorant? They are the wonder to me! I always did think they valued the logic the most. And I think it is the duty of those of you to find out the truth rather than being blinded by arrogance and determination not to change.
 
It is their eyewitness testimony they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross, which is the legal proof.
Click to expand...

I used to run a chatroom for alien abductees. I heard very many 'eyewitness testimonies'. Are you silly enough to believe eye witness testimony becomes 'legal proof'? I ran this chatroom last year and heard all these testimonies in the year 2002. You state some apparent testimony that has been written 2000+ years ago is 'legal proof'? Dont be such a fool.
 
And I think it is the duty of those of you to find out the truth rather than being blinded by arrogance and determination not to change.
Click to expand...

Hypocricy at its finest.

SanDolphin said: You don't know me well enough to make that statement and really seems to me a put down because I read and study scripture.
Click to expand...

Its kinda funny you say that considering all i did was write exactly what you had written to me on the post before that. When i say it its an insult but its ok for you?
 
Are you silly enough to believe eye witness testimony becomes 'legal proof'? I ran this chatroom last year and heard all these testimonies in the year 2002. You state some apparent testimony that has been written 2000+ years ago is 'legal proof'? Dont be such a fool.
Click to expand...

Thank you fo a reply, SnakeLord, but as I wrote before, God does not need me to prove He exists. He has acted by resurrecting Jesus from the dead. You have shown to be knowledgable and resourceful by your posts that I am sure you can investigate the facts behind the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the changed lives of the disciples, with both an open mind and skepticism. So I hope you can take the challenge God has presented - find the facts that disprove the resurrection and find the facts that prove it did happened. Then you decide from your research of both sides which is true.
(Just an aside, it has taken people years to do this research on their own, so you don't have to reply immediately to my post. Good luck.)
 
Ok well firstly whether jesus was crucified, ressurrected, walked on water of drove a motorbike doesn't bear any plausability to the existence of god. indeed in sumerian scripture there is talk of ressurrections which are dated 1,500 years before any talk of jesus. That doesn't mean there is, was or ever will be a 'god'. God is such a flexible word though so i mean god as in a spiritual all powerful, all knowing 'being'.

My personal belief which has taken me 17 years to firmly establish is that mary was in fact not human. She left a dying planet which exploded, (the bright star the kings followed to find jesus). he could do things which we deemed as miracles and could in fact ressurrect. Stories abound in sumerian writing of such events performed by the gods. Those gods were mortals but there were many things they could do we would now consider as impossible.

So because they could ressurrect it should now be instantly undeniable that aliens created us and our planet? Remember it's a belief and the road to truth isnt as easy as saying: "God does not need me to prove He exists." Maybe he/it/she/whatever doesnt need to prove anything to you, but for any credibility to be passed you must prove it.

Certain toads and puffer fish contain poisons that will 'officially' kill a person. They are not actually dead but will be classified as such. A bokor will then dig them up and give an 'antidote'. The person will be brought back to life. That person will inevitably be messed up pretty bad. They are then regarded as zombies. This practice, although localized to specific haitian areas and some others does happen and is factual.

There's also a 'disease' of sorts, i forget the name- my apologies- which will leave a person to all intents and purposes dead. They will be buried or whatever then at some stage they come back to life, as if by miracle.

What we have here are just 3 scenarios which put doubt, no matter how slim, on a 2000 year old story. There can be a million and one different answers which is exactly why the text itself isnt an answer. The only proof is to have been there at that time.

From an investigative standpoint our best possible chance now is to either find the holy grail to test dna samples etc, which still might yield no answers, or to find jesus' remains. If neither is found no definite answer ever will be and even if it is found there's nothing to suggest it would be any more helpful.

If we consider the bible to be a literal truth in its story of jesus, then we must assume the holy grail is somewhere out there. Would possibly be a great help to find it.

find the facts that disprove the resurrection and find the facts that prove it did happened
Click to expand...

The important thing to know is not once have i doubted the validity of jesus death/ressurrection. I firmly believe it holds some accuracy worth looking in to. However as stated it could be known 100% fact but that still would fail to prove the existence of god. Jesus may have spoken like a god and been believed to be a god by millions of people... so was david koresh. That doesn't mean he is/was.

It seems a no win situation- even with dna testing it wouldnt prove all that much. Whats to say god's earthly figure wouldnt just have human dna like everyone else? The only way to prove anything is if it wasn't human dna... but then how would we know if it's alien or godly? The difference between god and aliens seems vast yet so similar its hard to differentiate a belief in either. We are two sides of a coin and yet it's all about an external being controlling, judging, or just knowing who/what created us. While i endeavor to find truths knowing i never will, i never forget to appreciate that which is right in front of us instead of above us. I dont need to thank anyone for the beauty that is here on this earth, i just need to appreciate it.

I apologise if this post bores anyone, i just like typing :D

What is important, as far as i see it, is never settling for an answer without proof. Unfortunately such is life where people will believe as they want to believe. I will worship any god or any being only when it is a known fact that its true. Some might consider that too late- i will then be judged as a non believer but apparently god gave me the right to live- i would assume that also includes the right to use my brain and the right to have 100% undeniable proof before committing myself. No book, no tablets of stone, no scripture is 100% proof.

Until that day i remain truly open minded which means not being confined to one belief.
 
Historical evidence...

Three historians of Jesus time documented the darkness that came over the world from noon to three, and the earthquake, while He was on the cross (as documented in the Gospel accounts). It was also in the Roman Archives at that time so anyone at the time could read it for their selves
 
Religious experience vs opinions

The intellectual atheists sit up in ivory towers of exegesis and lack the courage to really get their hands dirty, to find out if the words of Jesus are true or not. Jesus said that “those who DO the things he taught would find out weather He was from God or not.” He did not say “those ANALYSE” His words. (He was talking directly to the intellectuals of His time and culture) This sitting around formulating opinions and presuppositions takes absolutely, absolutely no courage. Not even a speck of it.
Going out into the unknown, in action; loving, helping, risking your life and praying for the poor; takes great courage. You won’t find many atheists in the epicenter of AIDS (Masaka, Uganda) in rural Africa, in the little mud huts visiting the poorest of the poor widows and orphans (I have spent much time there and know this for fact). And it is on roads like this that Jesus comes alongside His followers and shows up in power. (See the story I shared about the dead man coming back alive that I witnessed)
Not when we are sitting the couch passively formulating endless opinions and ideas. The ivory tower intellectualists will just sit back and scoff but never actually GO to find out. Do not underestimate this fact. I have many times invited them to “come and see” (as Jesus said to His followers) to find out if this stuff is real or not. Not once has anyone taken me up on the offer. Every time they turn me down flat. (And call me delusional) This is the intellectual denial protective mechanism working so that they can be right about everything but never risk getting out of their chairs to get their hands dirty. But as I said before “A man with an experience is NEVER at the mercy of a man with a MERE argument.”
So if you want to know if God is The God of the Bible, go out and try doing what it says to do (proactively get involved with deep needs of the suffering) pray for the sick and dying – and see if God will heal or not. Only then will you have any authority at all to talk about it.
 
Originally posted by SnakeLord
Hypocricy at its finest.



Its kinda funny you say that considering all i did was write exactly what you had written to me on the post before that. When i say it its an insult but its ok for you?
Click to expand...

Really??? and when was this insult? I encourage anyone to look at my answers to your questions and your full blown page and a half of rhetoric which basically boils down to your hating Christians and it doesn't matter if they don't fall into that narrow little category that you have lumped an entire faith into. If they believe in "JESUS" it's enough to definitely put your panties in a wad!

Please go on with your smoke and mirrors.

:bugeye:
 
Originally posted by SnakeLord

My personal belief which has taken me 17 years to firmly establish is that mary was in fact not human. She left a dying planet which exploded, (the bright star the kings followed to find jesus). he could do things which we deemed as miracles and could in fact ressurrect. Stories abound in sumerian writing of such events performed by the gods. Those gods were mortals but there were many things they could do we would now consider as impossible.
Click to expand...

Even Sitchen who was responsible for the deciphering of these texts would not make those claims about Jesus. He also doesn't support the exploding star theory, but then again he did exhaustive research with the help of those who are noted authorities in the field of Astronomy.
 
MarkM,

This sitting around formulating opinions and presuppositions takes absolutely, absolutely no courage.
Click to expand...
You mean just like the world's largest humanitarian organization, the Red Cross/Red Crescent which just happens to be secular.

And perhaps I have missed something here but isn't debating in a debate website about idle intellectualizing actually intellectualizing? I'll have to look up the word hypocrit again.

Fortunately I'm not an intellectual, whatever that means, so I'm glad you didn't accuse me of anything, especially since you have absolutely no idea what I do in the rest of my spare time. But then I completely understand how some people enjoy the ego boost that comes when they boast about their latest good deeds.
 
I was refering to the saying that an experience was so profound that it was religious.
Haven't you heard that?
 
Even Sitchen who was responsible for the deciphering of these texts would not make those claims about Jesus. He also doesn't support the exploding star theory, but then again he did exhaustive research with the help of those who are noted authorities in the field of Astronomy.
Click to expand...

Who cares what Sitchen says? He has his beliefs as do i. Im currently in consultation with some of englands finest astronomers and in talks via email with nasa. Whatever they say is still not going to be definite proof or otherwise. And how do you know Sitchen wouldn't support it? You spoken to him recently? Im about to email a friend of his who maintains his website and see if i can get his views on it. Until then you do not have right to say what he will support or not.

There's also a big difference between theory and belief. What i stated above was my belief which you think is easy to walk all over and claim because one man would disagree that makes the belief worthless.. But whatever, it's all ok.

Really??? and when was this insult? I encourage anyone to look at my answers to your questions and your full blown page and a half of rhetoric which basically boils down to your hating Christians and it doesn't matter if they don't fall into that narrow little category that you have lumped an entire faith into. If they believe in "JESUS" it's enough to definitely put your panties in a wad!
Click to expand...

You managed to boil my full blown page into a couple of sentences? I doubt you even read much of it, if any. I've noticed we have a language barrier between us, i'm not sure where you're from but you're struggling to understand my english and turning things into completely different arguments. But to help you out here is a quote made by you:

and really seems to me a put down because I read and study scripture.
Click to expand...

If it's a 'put down' to you then i regard that as me having insulted you. I apologise for doing so but as stated i simply copied the text you had written to me. That's on page 6... you encouraged everyone to look, i did, and found it within 30 seconds.

As for hating christians... I use the term: religious people in my posts. I do not usually specify on particular religion. What makes you think i was talking about christians? That was a rather bigheaded assumption on your part i guess. I suggest you actually read posts before making wild assumptions and guesswork based on nothing.

As for people who believe in 'jesus', so do i.. I firmly believe he existed, got crucified and ressurrected. Of course if you actually read my posts instead of just making it up as you go along you'd already know that and wouldn't have made such a stupid statement.
 
Cris: The Red Cross was established by a devout Christian, Henri Dunant. Incidentally, he was shunned by Geneva because his business failed and they lost money, and he died in poverty in a hospice. But he was the first person ever to win the Nobel peace prize.

But just like the separation of church and state, to be truly effective it has to be stripped of religious (and therefore non-PC) affiliation. In that light, maybe it was a mistake to opt for the "red crescent" to make the movement more acceptible outside christianity - it could have been a more neutral symbol, and it reinforced the christian connotation with the simple red cross - but unfortunately symbols are rarely without emotional meaning.
 
Snakelord, I was just wondering why you think you have more information or insight on the resurrection of Jesus than any of his contemporaries had?
 
Snakelord, I was just wondering why you think you have more information or insight on the resurrection of Jesus than any of his contemporaries had?
Click to expand...

Jenyar, i wonder what makes you think thats what i think. Where did i say that? I said i have my belief, just like you do too heh? I continue to research in order to add credibility to a belief, knowing it can never be proven as fact- same as your belief.

How much can we honestly trust people born 2000+ years ago? It really doesn't make that much difference in the realms of proof what some guy said two millenniums ago. That does not constitute fact.

I have two nice large telescopes that i use at night to look at the wonders of the sky. It's nothing more than a hobby but from all we know of the cosmos the mention of the 'bright star' arouses curiosity, purely from a astronomical point of view- my thoughts could be as wrong or right as anyone elses but im not the type of guy who can just stand by without asking questions and seeking answers.

I may be asking questions and looking for answers that differ hugely from yours but not once have i ever laid claim to know more than you do, or anyone else for that matter.

San Dolphin and i have now mentioned Sitchins work several times. There's nothing to say he's right and nothing to say he's wrong but he has offered an alternative and studied it regardless of people who might claim he too thinks he knows more than "jesus' contempories". You were lucky enough to find your answer, is everyone else allowed to search for their own? That doesn't mean they're any better, they just have their own ideas, beliefs and methods they would like to put into practice.

I am here to question... not to put down anyone or their beliefs but to find my own answers.

I spoke to a young girl several years ago who had been abducted and raped by aliens. She drew pictures and relayed in detail events and happenings. We have a choice here:

1) We dismiss her claims and regard her as a liar
2) We just accept her claim and agree 100% that it's now total and utter fact
3) We ask questions and search for answers. As i've now said a thousand times- we're very unlikely to find those answers but that doesn't mean we can't ask the questions.

If you chose 1, then she has total right to say the same thing to you.
If you chose 2, then we now have to consider the possibility that she is right, you are wrong. What i mean by this is the very debates between religions or anything of that nature. If you just accept one as truth you must consider the other ones wrong. Do we have the right to just dismiss others beliefs? Do we have the right to just accept a belief as fact without the facts? We have the right to accept anything we want as our own individual truth but you can't think everyone is that willing to just accept something on 'faith'.
If you chose 3, you should understand exactly my purpose in life and wouldn't be sitting here thinking i think something i dont think.
 
Those ancient astrologers were looking at the stars - perhaps looking for their destiny - and when they saw the star rising to followed it to Bethlehem and Jesus. With gifts, because what they saw signified the birth of a king.

I have no problem with looking for answers, but you can do all the research you want - it will only confirm what you already know, it won't give you special knowledge about God. One truth doesn't not make another false. Jesus did not resurrect himself, God resurrected Him, as He will resurrect us when the time comes. And God is not "out there" anymore, He has come among us in Spirit.

There are accounts of heavenly beings sleeping with "the daughters of earth" in the Bible. I don't know what to make of them, so I am also at point 3 about it - but I know that it won't make a difference to what I do know about God though His son.

As for trusting people from 2000 years ago... Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates are even before that. Yet people give more credibility to Plato's Atlantis myth, which had no witnessess, than to the accounts of the apostles and people who knew Jesus and experienced his resurrection. If something was true then, there's no reason it can't be true now. And in fact the Biblical prophesies pointed to that truth long before that even.

The Bible itself is a witness, and its credibility has long been considered phenomenal. An example is that of Nimrod, whose name was preserved in the Bible even when it was almost lost by all other accounts. He was remembered as the Akkadian god of war, Ninurta. Genesis refers to his cities in the land of Shinar, which should be familiar to a student of the Sumerians. It predates even Babylonian records.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top