A most legitimate question. And I offer only weak defense of position, since I can't rightly legitimize my feelings, and while a 'feeling' is only subjective, still it persists: I have to go by my experiences, and the personal axiom "There will always be more to know than what we know". So I keep the agnostic view - a bit hybridized - but it is a more honest position for me. I was an unhappy theist, and an unhappy atheist. Both positions are too sure; and in my heart of hearts I never have been.

i have not given a lot of thought to the question of this topic.
i certainly would not use science. I might use the results of science loosely, mixed with observations of complexity for which we have yet been able to fully account with any degree of conclusiveness.

I am not sure I would want to "argue for god/God".
I would not use the Bible... that would be circular.Besides, the bible should be foolish if it is true, as it claims that it is foolishness to a large audience.

not science
not logic
not the bible
uhmmm. back to why I would argue for God or a god anyway. I believe in salvation, according to the Bible, so I have reason and motivation to 'tell someone' about God. But argue??? not sure about that one.

my continued purpose on either of the two forums i am on, for the present time, is to formulate my own thoughts and to have challenged those ideas and conclusions that are based on false premises or that are divorced from logic. Thus far, it has been very productive.

Now, when someone argues that there is not (or probably not) a god, and directly or indirectly, or by implication, states that this conclusion is based on science..... then I might be motivated to play ball.

RobDegraves

I did find many reliable sources on the subject.

Not before 65A.D. hmm? Look up Job.

Historical records show that it was passed down. By the Jews and they regarded these articles as holy. They wouldn't have dared to have tampered with them or lied about them on their life.

Q:Explain Proof. Is there proof at all in this world? Is it possible to prove anything at all? Ever? Once you have answered this then state your case.

You doubt this? I have a friend who is a theologist and studies these things. So I don't easily believe anything he tells me without sources.

I wanted to point out that this specific translation was considered as one.
Please look more into things if you wish to comment on them.

Did any of those people actually see the person and were around them and are sure they weren't just a fake that wrote a book?

Belief is reality on certain planes of existence and in your mind and life. If you think something is real, who is going to make you believe differently?


Question: "Does the Bible record the death of the apostles? How did each of the apostles die?"

Answer: The only apostle whose death the Bible records is James (Acts 12:2). King Herod had James “put to death with the sword,” likely a reference to beheading. The circumstances of the deaths of the other apostles are related through church tradition, so we should not put too much weight on any of the other accounts. The most commonly accepted church tradition in regard to the death of an apostle is that the apostle Peter was crucified upside-down on an x-shaped cross in Rome in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (John 21:18). The following are the most popular “traditions” concerning the deaths of the other apostles.

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound. John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to what is now modern-day Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.

James, the brother of Jesus (not officially an apostle), was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. He was thrown from the southeast pinnacle of the temple (over a hundred feet down) when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a club. This is thought to be the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the temptation.

Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed in present-day Turkey and was martyred for his preaching in Armenia, being flayed to death by a whip. Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers, they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: “I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.” He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he died. The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church there. Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded. The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero in Rome in A.D. 67. There are traditions regarding the other apostles as well, but none with any reliable historical or traditional support.

It is not so important how the apostles died. What is important is the fact that they were all willing to die for their faith. If Jesus had not been resurrected, the disciples would have known it. People will not die for something they know to be a lie. The fact that all of the apostles were willing to die horrible deaths, refusing to renounce their faith in Christ, is tremendous evidence that they had truly witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

EDIT TO TALK ABOUT JUDAS:
Tradition (and the Bible) state that Judas hung himself from a tree overlooking a field that he owned. After he died (or perhaps while he was alive but hanging there, who knows?) the rope or whatever he was hanging by broke and he fell into the field and "exploded" when he hit the ground.

EDIT AGAIN TO INCLUDE THE REST:
Luke (a Gentile, physician, and an evangelist) was crucified on an olive-tree rather than a cross.

Mark (the disciple and interpreter of Peter, an evangelist, and first to proclaim gospel in Egypt) was dragged throughout the city of Alexandria two days, causing so much of his flesh to be raked off that the blood was flowing from every place from his body. With his flesh being torn to pieces like rags and having much of his flesh to be raked off, he died. Afterward, they burned what was left of his body.

Simon Zelotes (an Apostle) after preaching in Maurtania, and in the country of Africa and in Britain was crucified.

Philip (an Apostle) after preaching to the barbarous nations was not only stoned but also was like Peter crucified head-downward in Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia. His daughters also were killed with him in the same manner.

Thaddæus (also known as Jude and Lebbaeus, an Apostle, and a brother of James the less and Matthew) preached to the Edessenes, and to all Mesopotamia and was killed under Abgarus, king of the Edessenes in Berytus.

With over 6,000 different religions, how do you know which one is correct?




There are several ground rules you should follow. For example, never assume you were raised in the correct religion. There is no guarantee your parents' religion is correct. You must make the choice for yourself. Next, as much as possible, verify everything you are being taught. Never assume something is accurate simply because a person in "authority" has said it. A few years ago the TV show, "Dinosaurs," was making fun of how people use their credentials as verification they are telling the truth. In one episode a scientist from the We Say So Company was making a presentation and said, "…and what I’m saying is true because I am wearing a white lab coat." Just because a person is called an "expert" does not mean he is correct. There still are scientists and doctors who say there is no link between smoking and cancer.

The Bereans were commended in Acts 17:11 for examining the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true. I cannot over emphasize the importance of verifying the claims of others. Even the information provided in this book should not be taken at face value. Check it out for yourself.

When evaluating a religion, the most important item to look at is how does this religion deal with sin and its consequences. Since sin is what’s separating us from God and will send us to hell, the way a religion deals with sin is extremely important.

What is God like? How can we learn about someone we can’t see? Although God is an invisible spiritual being, there is still much we can learn about Him. Basically, we can use indirect analysis to evaluate things we cannot see. For example, looking at some footprints in the snow can tell you a lot about the creature who left them. Likewise, we can learn about God by looking at His creation. His "footprints" supply us a great deal of information.

As we look at nature we see an organized and well thought-out system. We see cause and effect. We see an environment where every action produces a reaction and consequences. There is an accountability system in nature, and everything has to add up. The cause and effect principle is woven so deeply into every aspect of nature, nothing gets ignored. Even our social cultures reflect this. No matter what society you look at, there is always a judgment system for "inappropriate" behavior.

There should be many similarities between the physical world and the spiritual world. Therefore, we must conclude God will hold us accountable for our actions. More important, if God’s spiritual world is consistent with His physical world, God cannot ignore sin. When He serves as judge, He must fully meet all the requirements of His laws. If He fails to do this, He would become a trespasser of His own laws.

As I mentioned earlier, the first thing you should look at in a religion is how it corrects the sin problem. Unfortunately, very few religions offer any reasonable solution for the consequences of sin. What most religions offer are superficial remedies that look "religious" but are of little value. There are many other issues you should consider when evaluating a religion. However, since this is a major study in itself, we will not go into them.

I have come to the conclusion "true Christianity" is God’s method of salvation for mankind. I use the term "true Christianity" because there are many groups which call themselves "Christians" but deny the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as the sole method of salvation. Many people (and religions) say although Jesus was a good man and a great teacher, He was not God. They say His teaching should be viewed with the same authority as all the other great men.

Simple logic dictates Jesus could not be "just another good man." Either Jesus is Lord God Almighty, a liar or a lunatic. On many occasions Jesus claimed to be God. If Jesus was not God, He was either lying about it or He was so deranged He actually believed He was God. Either way this would make him a bad person and His teaching invalid.

Without going into great detail, I would like to point out a couple of facts that convinced me Jesus is the only method of salvation. True Christianity hinges completely on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. If you can prove Jesus did not rise from the dead, the claims of Christianity collapse.

Although the resurrection took place 2,000 years ago, it is still possible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Jesus rose from the dead. Josh McDowell does an excellent job demonstrating this in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Historically, there is no way a person could reasonably deny the existence of the person we call Jesus Christ. There is too much secular evidence supporting His existence. Nor can a person reasonably deny Jesus’ death on the cross. Finally, a person could not reasonably deny that Jesus’ tomb was empty on the third day. The question that is up for discussion is how it became empty. Either Jesus rose from the dead or something else happened to the body.

On many occasions Jesus said that he would be killed and then would rise from the dead on the third day. His prediction was so well known, the Pharisees, after Jesus was killed, went to Pilate about their concerns. They told Pilate they were afraid the disciples would steal the body and then claim Jesus rose from the dead. As a result the tomb was sealed and Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb.

Despite all these precautions, the stone was rolled away and the tomb was empty. What are the reasonable and plausible explanations for the empty tomb? Two of the most common explanations are: The disciples sneaked by the soldiers and stole the body or the disciples overpowered the soldiers and stole the body.

Josh McDowell goes into great detail on how the Roman Empire ruled with an iron fist. They had severe penalties for soldiers who fell asleep or failed to perform their duties. The penalty was often death. There was also a severe penalty for breaking a Roman seal. Josh points out the Roman soldiers were so well-trained and disciplined, the American military has incorporated much of the Roman training into their own training.

Even if all the Roman soldiers fell asleep, thus allowing the disciples to steal the body, the disciples would have committed a major crime by breaking the Roman seal. Nowhere in any ancient writings is there any mention of the disciples being hunted down or arrested for breaking the seal. In fact, the disciples walked freely in public after the resurrection.

Reviewing the writings that were written during the time of an incident is extremely important in validating a claim. For example, let’s say someone is now claiming a gunman in a theater did not shoot Abraham Lincoln, but rather an arrow killed him while he was playing golf. While this claim sounds ridiculous, how can you prove it to be false? You weren’t there when it happened and none of the eyewitnesses are still alive.

Basically, you will look at the books, newspapers and letters written during that time period. If there is no reference to Lincoln being killed by an arrow at a golf course, you can reasonably conclude this was not the cause of his death. This same approach is used to determine what happened 2,000 years ago. Since there are no records of the disciples being hunted down for breaking the seal, we have to conclude they did not break the seal.

The second explanation for the empty tomb is the disciples overpowered the soldiers and stole the body. This is even less likely than the first explanation. The possibility the disciples could overpower these trained soldiers is remote. Even if they did, they would have been wanted for attacking Roman soldiers and breaking a Roman seal. Once again, there is no evidence indicating they were wanted or arrested for such crimes. Since there are no other plausible explanations for the empty tomb, I have to conclude that the predicted death and resurrection of Jesus took place.

There is another reason I have concluded the death and resurrection of Jesus is God’s method of salvation. In fact, I find this next reason even more convincing than the empty tomb. I am referring to the reason the disciples died a martyr’s death. All but one of the 11 disciples died a martyr’s death and the one who wasn’t martyred lived a difficult life and died in exile. You may say, "What is so special about that? Many people have died and suffered for various causes. Thousands of people have died for religions other than Christianity. In fact, thousands of people have died for causes which have later been proven to be false."

While it is true many people have lived sacrificially and died for false causes, it is important to note they thought they were true. Seldom, if ever, will someone live sacrificially and die a martyr’s death for a cause that he knows to be false. For what reason did the disciples live sacrificially and die a martyr’s death? The main theme of all of their messages is they saw Jesus after He was resurrected from the grave. The reason they lived lives they knew would most likely lead to suffering and a painful death was their desire to tell others they saw the risen Christ.

During the first century, there was nothing to gain by being a Christian leader. There was no wealth or status as we have in some Christian circles today. Being a Christian leader only meant loss and suffering. Either the disciples actually talked and walked with Jesus after the resurrection, or they were lying. I find it highly unlikely all of the disciples lived this kind of a life based on a lie. Therefore, I have to conclude their claims of the resurrection are true, validating Jesus as the Christ, the method of our salvation.

Yet, of course, there are always the other ways that people decide to go on. You are entitled to your own opinion.

Wondering...do you have any viable sources on how Budda or Mohammed or any other start-of-a-religion type of person died? How do you know if you don't hear it? And even if you do, how do you know it isn't a lie or misinterpreted?


Do you know what is right, Buttershug? Can you prove it?

Tlocity, God is supposedly a higher power, some thing with abilities that surpass understanding. But I want to ask you something, if we don't have the technology to go light-speed, warp space, perpetual maotion, have robots surpass humans, etc., does that mean that we can not and will not ever be able to do it? No.

Dr Fred a Wolf, just because Hawking says something, does that mean that it is true? What is his basis on this idea? Just he "just say that"?

Vkamath, God was supposedly already here. Because he like, uh, made us. That's kinda suggesting something.

Magpies, God doesn't operate on your time scale or for you to understand him. He is God. But, he does want the best for you.
That there is always hope is always true. (Are you always so contradictary?)

Dr Fred a Wolf, you need to consider what you consider.

Understanding=Wisdom.

If God gives us eternity, well, let me ask you something first. Is eternity infinite as the word implies, or temporary? If it is temporary, it can be eternal right?

Magpies, you might be onto something there.

Tlocity, you could look at creation as the Big Bang, but don't exclude God and do exclude evolution. I have heard this idea before.

I have to go now, but i will finish responding to these posts later.(i am now about to start on p.3)