gregor

The more pedantic answer to the council of Nicea is that in 325 it was voted on and decided that orthodoxy required that Jesus be considered a co-equal of God, begotten from God, but not a lesser deity.

They anathemized Arians who felt Jesus was lesser than God, but otherwise divine.

Jesus had worn so many hats up to that point, the Church had to get its position straight.

Johnny Skeptic

Let me put it this way: If a being claiming to be Jesus came to earth and instantly healed all of the sick people in the world, is it your position that a lot of skeptics would not become Christians? If so, where is your evidence? If not, then Jesus needs to return to earth and heal all of the sick people in order to cause more people to end up in heaven. Requiring faith limits the number of people who will go to heaven. Not requiring faith would greatly increase the number of people who will go to heaven. The Bible says that only a few people will go to heaven. In the NIV, Matthew 7:13-14 say "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Tangible evidence is what matters most to skeptics. Tangible evidence is much more objective than spiritual/emotional evidence. That is why the New Testament claimed that Jesus healed people and that he bodily rose from the dead. In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite "tangible" evidence of Jesus' power. The book of Acts basically says that the disciples went about confirming "the message of his grace" by performing miracles.

It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "do not" acknowledge that God has supernatural powers. Therefore, we don't have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then, not to mention that lack of any eyewitnesses.

Do you know of any first hand testimonies of miracles in the Gospels?

Has God ever performed a tangible miracle in your life?

CJD

The super-duper pedantic answer to the council of Nicea is that in 325 the bishops were attempting to draw some sort of boundary around the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. Outside this grand playground included those who didn't like, on Greek philosophical terms, that Jesus could somehow be co-essential with his father and still a distinct person. But the Greek words themselves were not the point; it was what those terms pointed to, biblically speaking. The bishops saw that in the NT Jesus was described as doing what YHWH always said he was going to do; they also saw Jesus being worshiped and not rebuking those who worshiped him. They thus argued either that the disciples of Jesus were not monotheists (being devout Jews, this would be hard to imagine) or that they considered Jesus to be somehow "caught up" in the identity of the one, true God.

They, in other words, quite conceivably were confirming what the early church had been thinking,the second through fourth centuries notwithstanding. We all see that it is difficult to accuse the bishops pulling Nicean christology out of thin air, yes?

CJD

achristianbeliever

You are my evidence. You once said something along the lines of even if Jesus showed he rose from the dead I would still not worship him because of all the horrible things Christians and God has done or however you put it. Now I ask you your evidence that if a skeptic is shown God exists they'll love and worship him with all their heart, soul and mind. I already spoke about this in your other thread here

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146778

But to summarize what I said show me the skeptics here who are saying, "I am ready to serve and follow the Christian God. I am ready to be against homosexuality, I am ready to condone slavery, ready to agree that sending millions to Hell is just and God was right to flood the world if only God proves he is real". Are you ready to do that Johnny? (And please if you respond to the previous statement in the positive only do it because you are being honest and not simply because you want me to be wrong)

But what about what matters most to me?

Well what if God is doing that just for me because that is what I want? Don't I matter? What if all I want the world to have is the same non-tangible evidence that convinced me? Are you saying you should be more important to God than me?

Johnny Skeptic

No, if spiritual/emotional evidence is all that you require (of course the followers of many other religions claim spiritual/emotional evidence too), that is fine with me, but are you saying that what I require is less important than what you require and that you are more important to God than I am?

In my previous post I quoted where Jesus offered tangible evidence to some skeptics who wouldn't accept his words. I require that same kind of evidence, and if those skeptics were entitled to it, then so am I. I also mentioned that the disciples went about performing tangible miracles in order to confirm "the message of his grace." I find the necessity of the disciples needing to do that to be quite strange since there were supposedly hundreds of still-living eyewitnesses around who saw the risen Jesus, and thousands of still-living eyewitnesses who had seen Jesus perform many miracles, including many thousands of Syrians. Matthew 4:24 says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them."

It is interesting to note that although the Gospels writers and Paul put great emphasis upon both spiritual/emotional evidence AND tangible evidence, you seem to be putting emphasis only upon spiritual/emotional evidence. Is that true? Are you a liberal Christian or a conservative Christian? I usually get along fine with liberal Christians, but usually not with conservative Christians.

You would have made a good gnostic. Gnostics were Christians, but they believed that Jesus spiritually rose from the dead, not bodily. Does it make any difference to you whether or not Jesus bodily rose form the dead, and whether or not he healed people? Christians persecuted the Gnostics, killing many of them and destroying all of the Gnostic writings that they could find.

achristianbeliever

Maybe I am. And quite frankly there is no reason why I can't. But let's wait a second I want to see what else you write.

But what if I don't want you to? What if I am specifically praying to God that he never gives you or any skeptic tangible evidence? God will have to choose between us.

Good for them. I don't see how because they got evidence somehow you are entitled to it. In fact God said to Thomas, "blessed are those who believe and don't see". So God is saying a person will lose the special blessing if they see.

I don't really think about that.
What's your criteria for a liberal Christian vs. a conservative?

I don't know how to take that. But ok.

Yeah I know I've read that in Elaine Pagals.

Sure it does. But that was 2000 years ago.

I think I said it in this thread or another but that sounds like the Davinci Code. Two books that I felt spoke well against this: Hidden Gospels and The Gospel Code. But I don't want to derail this thread to another topic.

The point is your saying how could a loving God not give tangible evidence to the skeptics. But I don't believe a loving God should give tangible evidence to the skeptics. I'm not gonna explain why I believe that its irrelevant. I could have the stupidest reason and it doesn't matter. Its what I want from God. So you and I have two completely opposite viewpoints over what we think God should do. So God is gonna have to go against one of us whatever way he goes on this subject. So you can see the problem this puts God.

Kosh

That's easy:

Q: Why is there a hole in the roof of the Astro Dome?

Liberal A: So the grass can grow?

Conservative A: So that GOD can watch his team play!

Johnny Skeptic

That is not what I am saying. I already told you about several Scripture references where God ALREADY gave tangible evidence to skeptics and set precedent by doing so.

But the texts say that he already has many times. Are your only reasons for accepting Christianity spiritual/emotional experiences, or are any tangible events part of your belief system, either during the time of Jesus or today?

Suit yourself.

If the God of the Bible exists, I want him to show me some tangible miracles, just like the texts say that he has already done on numerous occasions.

Then welcome to skepticism. God has already gone against you on a number of occasions. I already gave you some examples. Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that Christianity is appealing to you without any tangible evidence whatsoever, either past or present?

Amaleq13

After careful deliberation, this thread has been determined more appropriate for GRD. Woosh!

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

achristianbeliever

Yes he did. But I don't believe that means he is required to do so today. The question isn't why hasn't he shown any skeptic anywhere at anytime because that's not what I believe. After all Paul was a skeptic. The question is why isn't he showing you? And I already gave two reasons why I believe that and I'm not gonna bother repeating them.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This thread is about why God hasn't shown his message to millions of people. I've explained why I believe he did that. Asking me how he has revealed himself to me has no bearing on why he hasn't revealed himself to millions of others.

And if the God of the Bible exists I don't want him to show you those tangible miracles he showed the people in the Bible as I've already talked about. Besides you know his message. You may have rejected it but you can't say you haven't heard it. So whether or not God has shown you tangible miracles has no bearing on the topic of why he hasn't shared his message with millions of people.

I don't care if God showed miracles to the skeptics of the Bible that is not what I'm talking about.

It doesn't matter because that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the millions who have never heard his message. I'm not gonna let you derail this thread.

Why are you so going away from the main topic? I don't see how God showing tangible miracles to you has any bearing on why millions of people haven't heard his message.

We've got two completely different topics going on here. 1. Why hasn't he revealed himself to millions of people over the years (which I've answered) 2. Why hasn't he shown tangible evidence for his existence to people who doubt he is real? The two have no bearing on each other.

Again I ask the point that you seem to continuously ignore