what if Christ left a personal sign for mankind?

[JCamilo]

One flaw in the equation is that this prophecy from Isaiah 50:

Amazing. So, the bible will contradict the fact that Jesus was also portraited without beard during the dark ages as well ? I suppose we should destroy all those byzantine vitrals with the bible.

And now, the biggie. This shroud being true or false will not be what decides my faith. My faith in God is already decided as true, and in Jesus as true. What did He leave for me? Forgivness for my sins. That is plenty.

Then why trying to build up such argument that Jesus have an universal figure with beard and thus the shroud is true because the beard there? It is a flawed argument... If the Shroud is a farse the artist would use the beard because it is an universal figure and he had to use a figure people would reckon as Jesus and it is factual, poor of the bible prophets, that Jesus was also portraied without beard before.

[NikolaiI]

I used to have a 5 picture set of creation and Jesus as a black person in the middle.

[Pendragon]

Amazing. So, the bible will contradict the fact that Jesus was also portraited without beard during the dark ages as well ? I suppose we should destroy all those byzantine vitrals with the bible.

Please bear in mind I said "would seem to indicate", not "proves".

Then why trying to build up such argument that Jesus have an universal figure with beard and thus the shroud is true because the beard there? It is a flawed argument... If the Shroud is a farse the artist would use the beard because it is an universal figure and he had to use a figure people would reckon as Jesus and it is factual, poor of the bible prophets, that Jesus was also portraied without beard before.

I stated that I would be satistfiied that the shroud was false merely because the face appears to match the common conception of Jesus. Others, yourself for example, may not see it that way. It is something called "preception, or point of view". Everyone may see the same thing and yet see it differently. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the cloth is simply not old enough.

Now the question is one of faith. Does mine lie in the cloth that may or may not be the burial cloth of Jesus or in Jesus himself? In other words, do I believe there was a ressurection? I do. That is something that cannot happen by any scientific means, when the body has been dead three days, buried in the cave tomb. It would take a power beyond science, the power of God. Let argument cease on this point.

God Bless

Pen

[Niamh]

Rather than continue with this argument over what is considered a religious artifact by the church, and Maybe to keep on track of the topic, we should be discussing that the personal mark or sign that Jesus left for mankind and his followers is his word, wisdom and his death. We have no evidence that these words were truely spoken by Jesus but the whole point of christainity is faith, so therefore we should have faith in these words and not look for evidence. The fact that he died on the cross for humanity, is the sign he left. He is basicly saying "i died for you, so that you can feel the true love of god. Love one another as i have loved you."
Also in the mean time i'd like to remind you to respect each others opinions. Just because we believe one thing doesnt mean everyone should. Everyones opinions are equal and should therefore be treated as equal.

[sciencefan]

So, explain to me ...

I have no intention of debating with you.
You will never change your mind, and neither will I.
Apparently the original poster has no intention of taking part in this discussion he started.
I am not here to argue with people.

[Redzeppelin]

Allow me to suggest something I've gleaned from a recent reading of Philip Yancy's Disappointment with God.

Had Christ left actual evidence - writings or something such - we would still not be convinced of anything. This idea also points to the atheists who insist that "proof" of God is necessary for them to believe. The OT gives us ample proof in the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt that belies the idea that a tangible demonstration from God would silence scoffers. The Israelites had tangible proof of God's presence - He guided them in the form of a cloud and pillar of fire, gave them water from rocks, parted the Red Sea, opened the earth to swallow rebels and gave them startling military victories and clearly demonstrated His presence in the desert tabernacle and on Mt. Sinai. Nonetheless, none of these "proofs" apparently convinced the Israelites to serve God for longer than a few weeks/months at a time. Apparently, even "proof" is insufficient to foster the proper faith in God. God made Himself a daily, tangible reality in the world of the Israelites, and it did nothing to bring them into a proper relationship with God; in fact, they continued to be rebellious and unfaithful throughout the OT history.

So much for proof.

[Pendragon]

Had Christ left actual evidence - writings or something such - we would still not be convinced of anything. This idea also points to the atheists who insist that "proof" of God is necessary for them to believe.
So much for proof.

You know me, Red, and you know how I stand.

But I hardly think your statement is completely fair. Many people who choose not to believe in God do not do so because they are firmly convinced that God does not exist. Rather they do not believe that God as described in the Bible doesn't exist. They cannot equate a God of love with the very obvious terrible things that go on in this world.

I have been asked the question many times, "Couldn't God stop it, if He is so loving and all-powerful?" Not a question with an easy answer, slice it anyway you like.

I don't know you personally, mon ami, maybe everything has always gone good for you. For one like myself who must daily walk that razors edge, faith has come at a high price. I will not lie to people, and tell them that God doesn't allow things to happen. He does.

I don't claim, as some do, to understand the purpose behind all of it. To do so would be another lie. Will I become your enemy because I am unafraid to face the truth, that no one really understands God, we only know of Him what He allows us to know?

Niamh said it best right here: The fact that he died on the cross for humanity, is the sign he left. He is basicly saying "i died for you, so that you can feel the true love of god. Love one another as i have loved you."


That is all we know of Him. We accept it, the love and the grace, and try to pass it along, even when people don't accept us. The rest, all that God is and His purpose in doing things, we cannot understand.

In closing, I will say that, like the Devil, God gets the blame for a lot of things that are all too human.

Matthew 24:

[3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
[4] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
[5] For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
[6] And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
[7] For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
[8] All these are the beginning of sorrows.
[9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
[10] And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
[12] And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

God Bless

Pen

[earthboar]

See, I question all of that. I don't know that Jesus died for me, or that Jesus even died on the Cross. I only know those things were written into gospels, many of them, after the life of the one about whom they were written.

If there is anything about the many gospels written in the First and Second Centuries I would trust, that might be Jesus' humanism, and faith in human potential, rather than a theological ideology. Jesus didn't say he was God, but according to the Gospel of John, he did say we are all gods:

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?

My interpretation of Jesus' teachings? He was showing us how to be like gods. When he called himself the son of God (John 10:36), he did not say, "that applies to me, only, and not you."

It's historical relevance is all moot, anyway, since those were sayings written by others between 60 CE and 100 CE. We don't know who actually wrote them, but we know people gave them names like "The Gospel of John".

Niamh said it best right here: The fact that he died on the cross for humanity, is the sign he left. He is basicly saying "i died for you, so that you can feel the true love of god. Love one another as i have loved you."


That is all we know of Him. We accept it, the love and the grace, and try to pass it along, even when people don't accept us. The rest, all that God is and His purpose in doing things, we cannot understand.

In closing, I will say that, like the Devil, God gets the blame for a lot of things that are all too human.

Matthew 24:

[Pendragon]

See, I question all of that. I don't know that Jesus died for me, or that Jesus even died on the Cross. I only know those things were written into gospels, many of them, after the life of the one about whom they were written.

If there is anything about the many gospels written in the First and Second Centuries I would trust, that might be Jesus' humanism, and faith in human potential, rather than a theological ideology. Jesus didn't say he was God, but according to the Gospel of John, he did say we are all gods:

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?

My interpretation of Jesus' teachings? He was showing us how to be like gods. When he called himself the son of God (John 10:36), he did not say, "that applies to me, only, and not you."

It's historical relevance is all moot, anyway, since those were sayings written by others between 60 CE and 100 CE. We don't know who actually wrote them, but we know people gave them names like "The Gospel of John".

OK. That is exactly what I was saying. Some question the Bible, or perhaps better stated, the way the Bible has been presented to them. Earthboar, you state you do not know that Jesus died for you or even that He died on the cross. This isn't because you haven't heard it or read it in the Bible. It is because it is something you find difficult to accept. And please, people, trying to force feed others what you personally believe has caused a lot of heartache.

Rom.14 [5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Note the part I highlighted.

I don't have the answers. People say, "You're a preacher, you're supposed to have the answers!" Why? Am I super-human? Did I suddenly become divine? Do you pray to me? Of course not. I have to study for a sermon, and if I should get that wrong, I will answer for it someday myself. I'll pray for you, Earthboar, but in the end, you must find your own peace with God.

God Bless

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

You know me, Red, and you know how I stand.

But I hardly think your statement is completely fair. Many people who choose not to believe in God do not do so because they are firmly convinced that God does not exist. Rather they do not believe that God as described in the Bible doesn't exist. They cannot equate a God of love with the very obvious terrible things that go on in this world.

I have been asked the question many times, "Couldn't God stop it, if He is so loving and all-powerful?" Not a question with an easy answer, slice it anyway you like.

I don't know you personally, mon ami, maybe everything has always gone good for you. For one like myself who must daily walk that razors edge, faith has come at a high price. I will not lie to people, and tell them that God doesn't allow things to happen. He does.

I don't claim, as some do, to understand the purpose behind all of it. To do so would be another lie. Will I become your enemy because I am unafraid to face the truth, that no one really understands God, we only know of Him what He allows us to know?

Niamh said it best right here: The fact that he died on the cross for humanity, is the sign he left. He is basicly saying "i died for you, so that you can feel the true love of god. Love one another as i have loved you."


That is all we know of Him. We accept it, the love and the grace, and try to pass it along, even when people don't accept us. The rest, all that God is and His purpose in doing things, we cannot understand.

In closing, I will say that, like the Devil, God gets the blame for a lot of things that are all too human.

Pen, I'm not sure which part of my statement you quoted that you take issue with; I'm well aware that there are many, many reasons for which people decide God is not real; my comments were in reference to the numerous posts I've read and responded to sprinkled throughout the religious threads where non-believers insist upon some sort of "evidence" in order to believe in God; my comments simply pointed out that even a direct "appearance" by God (as the Israelites experienced) would likely be insufficient to change their hearts (as it failed to do for the Israelites). How does that point suddenly warrant your response to me?

I'm also at a loss as to how my response warrants a comment about my life in terms of its "suffering content." Could you help me a bit?

[mike thomas]

I wrote:

what if Christ left a personal sign for mankind?
We have quotes, in ancient Greek, from people who lived after the events,
but no direct words.

There is no handwriting, or drawing or anything left from Jesus. His disciples,
knowing what they knew, and witnessing what they saw, did not think to preserve something for posterity.

Christ, being God etc, could easily have arranged to have a sign left somewhere, and which could be used to ward of the evil one.

If such a sign was found, what would be the reaction of believers?

*****************

mtpspur posted:

I'm slightly confused here. I would think the quotations of the Lord Christ as recorded in the texts of the Bible are a sign from Him. I would think that testimony would stand. Personally I would be very suspicious of any relic purported to be of Him, for example the Grail. We all know Indiana Jones found THAT!! Hope this helps or I've helped kill another thread but I do believe the scriptures are enough to study and feed on to last many a lifetime.

********************

Pen replied:

I agree on this, mon ami, but I think the movie did get one point right. Jesus was a simple man. His work experience was a carpenter. There would be no "Holy Grail" as in some large Gold or Silver chalice if it were the cup from the Last Supper.

Wooden or earthenware, and very anceint, not bright and new looking. But
seriously, ever noted the wording of these two scriptures:

Matt.12
[39] But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation
seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the
prophet Jonas:

Matt.16
[4] A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign

be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

Perhaps we are not meant to look for signs. Most of us, if we would be truly honest, find it difficult enough to simply try to "love thy neighbor as thyself." We grow angry without cause, bicker and fight, become selfish, hold grudges, and are apt to be quick with our mouth. And please note I said "we" which includes me.

***********************************

mtpspur is slightly confused. I too get confused when trying to follow the bible texts.

Pen tells us that Matthew has the answer to anyone who seeks to find evidence or proof of what Scripture would have us believe.

I get confused with the notion that a god provides us all with a brain to think with, and somehow we are not supposed to question that which seems to make no sense at all.

Pen quotes Matthew 12 and 16 but what about the passage which generated those two lines?

Matt 12:38
Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we
would see a sign from thee.

Here, we have the scribes and Pharisees (both of whom are literate, unlike the rest of the plebs) and they ask for a sign of evidence. But just previously to that passage

(Matt 12:22 ) Jesus cures someone who is both blind and dumb.

How one cannot see the connection makes me almost speechless: Scribes wrote, and Pharisees made speeches.

Anyway, the plebs were amazed (Matt 12:23).

But not the Pharisees, those with learning, for upon hearing of this remarkable feat, they feel justified in asking Jesus about it.

Matt 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

So, not being given any evidence, the Pharisees resort to accusations that Jesus is a wicked man that practices the black arts.

Pen, like the Pharisees, seems to believe that I must be wicked also, because I dare to question the basis of Christianity.

I maybe wrong, but I sense that to be his drift. But I am in no way offended by his reply, because I have a brain, and can use it to formulate a repy.

As to the sign of Jonas (Jonah), I cannot find one in the Bible, all I can find is a story about Jonah, who is not a prophet, by the way, it's Amittai, his dad who is the prophet, so Matthew is wrong there surely?

What is the sign of Jonah? Even allowing that a man can be swallowed by a fish, and be taken to the bottom of the sea in the fishes belly etc, the story itself seems very confusing.

Unless the sign of Jonah means that gifts from God contain worms and rot
overnight, I fail to see the sign.

Regards

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your comments

and

please be prepared that there will be those who disagree with your ideas and question them.

[Pendragon]

The sign was that Jesus would rise from the dead within three days, that was as long as He would be dead, as Jonah was thought to be.

I myself have questioned everything on occasion, my faith still holds. It isn't evil to question, it's what you will you do with the answer if it isn't the one you want.

My apologies to anyone offended by any remark made by me. I seldom visit this area, mainly because I tend to believe a bit differently, and one thing I don't believe in, is forcing others to see it my way.

God Bless and probably good-bye from this area. Anyone who wishes can PM me.

Pen

[earthboar]

where non-believers insist upon some sort of "evidence" in order to believe in God;

I can appreciate your frustration, but try to take the perspective this isn't really a religious forum, but a literature discussion forum, and nobody has forced you into debate. Likewise, we are free to discuss such literature, if not here, then somewhere else. The questions we ask here about who wrote scriptures, and why they wrote them makes sense in this context. Perhaps such discussion would not make sense on a religious forum, I can't say.

Regarding belief, the concern is that it is possible for one to misplace his belief, mistaking the words of writers who have a political or theological agenda, with the actual words, intent or will of the prophet or savior (for which we seem to be without primary artifact). This is an eternal question, perhaps not answerable, but one some of us find worthy of questioning. Others may not wish to challenge the authenticity of scripture. Fine.

[Redzeppelin]

I can appreciate your frustration, but try to take the perspective this isn't really a religious forum, but a literature discussion forum, and nobody has forced you into debate. Likewise, we are free to discuss such literature, if not here, then somewhere else. The questions we ask here about who wrote scriptures, and why they wrote them makes sense in this context. Perhaps such discussion would not make sense on a religious forum, I can't say.

Regarding belief, the concern is that it is possible for one to misplace his belief, mistaking the words of writers who have a political or theological agenda, with the actual words, intent or will of the prophet or savior (for which we seem to be without primary artifact). This is an eternal question, perhaps not answerable, but one some of us find worthy of questioning. Others may not wish to challenge the authenticity of scripture. Fine.

OK - I'm at a loss as to why this comment of mine is provoking such responses; it was simply a tangential remark about the inability of "proof" to actually do what many individuals believe it is capable of doing. That was all I was trying to say. There is no attack on anybody, no frustration, no condemnation, no nothing. Simply an observation that connects to the thematic idea in this thread about physical "evidence" that may/not corroborate a claim. My apologies if I've been misunderstood to be saying something I'm not.