Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alatar
I have a friend who believed that, "logically" it was better to believe, as you don't waste much and have everything to gain, than to not believe and find out that you were wrong. But like many have observed, how does one know which belief system or what diety, sect, group, interpretation (i.e. partial-preterism versus dispensationalism) to choose?
|
How about the one with the most convincing proofs?
I suspect I'm going to be told that this is "subjective" or "personal"...
Quote:
|
But, in the Christian sense, it does as it's a pretty common occurrence. Isn't that why when Jesus went and raised many from the dead that he was thought to be the return of Elijah? Also, Elisha raised the dead. And didn't the bones of one of the twain also return the dead to life? And I quoted to lmp my confusion with Mark 9:37-39, as it seems that there are 'free-lance' miracle workers in the mix. Anyway, if one believes that the dead can truly be raised, then why not the Resurrection? Is it because Jesus brought Himself back? How do we know that another didn't help?
|
Well, you are correct, Jesus did bring Himself back. That, in and of itself, does not imply that He did not have help. But consider that He said that He would "raise Himself up"- and then he comes back to life. No one else raised to life, such as Lazarus, made that claim before or after being raised.
Furthermore, though raised, Lazarus and all those others who were restored to life must still face death again. In the case of Jesus, that is not so. It is an eternal Resurrection.
Quote:
I've read many simpler explanations, and even if I believed as you, I would think that there must! be some doubt for the believer to overcome. Think about it: where would my free will/choice be if even on my best/worst day there was no way that I could refute the divinity of Jesus Christ? It'd be to me like ranting against gravity. And before you say it, I might be skeptical but I'm not that skeptical. 
|
Well, you CAN refute it if you choose to. That just doesn't mean that the argument you are using is more rational. It may be more convoluted or complicated, but you (I mean "you" in a not-necessarily-you sense) HAVE to go along with it if you don't want to accept Jesus.
Holocaust deniers are an excellent example. They are denying that something actually happened, explaining it away using means that, we who accept it as historical fact, would find rather... silly.
What's more, I'd be more than a little curious to see/read any of these "simpler explanations".
Quote:
And please note that I'm hoping not to be attacking, but asking for more information (though none of us here or anywhere might be able to answer), so if I've offended, note that it is unintentional. 
|
No offence... yet. I'm either developing thicker skin, or the vibes I was getting about this thread have stopped... Or something else. Possibly Divine...