After reading about the author’s fascination with the situation in which the less religious group accepted Jesus as the son of God willingly whereas the supposed higher tier of society, deeply religious Pharisees were unable to recognize Jesus as the Messiah I can speculate a number of things. One of which is that the author is curious and reads into things in hopes of finding a pattern since they distinguished two different groups of people during the time and searched until they found a similarity. I can also ascertain that whoever wrote this reflection on the bible is a believer in Jesus being the son of God since they reference Jesus in the introduction as “the son of God” and in the closing paragraph indicate that the Pharisees did not recognize the messiah which shows that they believe Jesus was the Messiah. It also appears to me that the author of this passage may have some doubt or at least lacks clarity in the full account of the story on why the Pharisees condemned Jesus. I say this because they talk about how it doesn’t make sense why that group of people would be so quick to rule out the possibility that Jesus was who he claimed to be and that the very idea doesn’t make
Page 1 H.J. McCloskey claims that “proofs” are not valid and do not provide enough evidence that God exists. In the article, he claims that these “proofs” should be abandoned but he also claims that theist do not come to God or religion solely based on these “proofs”. In the article on page 62, McCloskey quotes a colleague saying, “most theist do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion based on other reasons and factors.” Theists believe in God and His Word over any “theory” that scientist can come up with. The Bible outweighs any other “theory” to theists.
It does not matter how much you give, but when it is not from the heart it will only dissatisfy the Lord. You see a standard among many Christians is the belief that the Bible's books were inspired by God, and thus the Bible is the major or only source of knowledge of what is right and wrong. The ethics themselves are those derived by interpretations of the behaviors of individuals in Bible stories, and not from the Bible stating specifically what is ethical. There is no mention of ethic, ethics, ethical, moral, morals, or morality in the Bible (or at least none known in the King James) (Gowdy, 2009-2010). In Christianity the behaviors and teachings of individuals in the Bible stories are subjectively interpreted as good or bad - or the stories are said to be holy or evil within the eyes of God, which then leads the reader to conclude which specific acts are deemed right or wrong - and ... ... middle of paper ... ... to their claims to justice (Nash, 1999, p. 360).
The Bible is written more as a theological account rather than a historical record (Harris 281).With little to no additional resources to confirm Jesus’ existence and doings, it becomes almost impossible to confirm via modern methods what Christians believe as an absolute truth. JESUS THE ENIGMA - DETERMINING HIS TRUE THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS In trying to understand who Jesus was, what he did, and what he said, most people turn to the Bible for guidance and answers. Within the four Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, one can find a vast amount of information to help with this quest. This information, however, can lead to confusion when one discovers the many disparities between each of the individual accounts presented in these gospels. Many times when a person reviews all of the gospels side by side, they find that they end up with more questions than answers regarding the type of person that Jesus really was.
While reading “Of Myth and Miracle” the reader might infer that Paine is an atheist. However, another of Paine’s works, “Profession of Faith,” proclaims that he is a believer in God; “I believe in one God” (Paine, “Profession” 351). In this same work, Paine also states, “My own mind is my own church” (Paine, “Profession” 351). Clearly, Paine has faith in God, but he does not follow any type of religion; rather, he has a personal relationship with God. Because of his personal relationship with God, he understands that it is the right of everyone to have a relationship (or to not have a relationship) with God on their own terms (Paine, “Profession” 351).
He felt that the men who wrote the Bible were not directed by God in any way whatsoever. He also began to doubt that Jesus was even the messiah (Franklin, 6). Franklin’s God had become a... ... middle of paper ... ...te apparent in the differences and very few similarities in the way they view God and His Word. Deist believe that God created the universe and left it up to mankind to decided how it will be run while the Puritan congregation depended entirely on God to decided how Earth will be run and hoped for His love, grace and salvation. Although these particular individuals originated from the same areas around the same time, their ideas of God are on two different extremes.
Which raises a question: how does one really know there are no losses believing in God? Pascal fails to mention other types of religion because his argument is based on a Christian God. What if an atheist loving God existed? One may argue that there may be more to lose; therefore, he/she will oppose Pascal’s Wager due to the fact that there may be more than one God. In today’s modern world, there are believers as well as non-believers who constantly question the existence of God.
Jesus reflects a God that does not expect virgins or animals to be sacrificed in His name; but, a God that is pleased by followers that love not only God, but each other also. These seem like simple, logical rules to live by. But, they reflected a time in history where that kind of love for one another was hard to find because of the hardships inflicted upon the people. I find some conflict in Jesus' actions, however. Jesus never (as far as I know) says to ignore to commandments of God in the Hebrew Scriptures; however, constantly breaks the Sabbath (Matt 12:13 and others), and gives VERY flimsy and unconvincing explanations for it.
While the belief in Jesus Christ as a divine being, God himself come to earth, is a core belief of Christianity, in his book, How Jesus Became God, author Bart Ehrman seeks to disprove this. Focusing on answering the question of who Jesus thought he was, Ehrman argues that Jesus himself did not believe he was a divine being, and he illustrates his point by discussing how divine beings were common around Jesus’s time, and by exploring biblical texts to back up his claim that Jesus saw himself as a messiah rather than God. With these arguments, Ehrman paints a clear picture of the time period, while using historical and biblical references to prove his point. Ehrman 's first argument delves into the history of 'divine beings ', particularly
St. Thomas tells us that natural theology does not give us saving knowledge, because even if you know God exists does not mean you have salvation. St. Thomas gave the example that even devils know God exists. All of my arguments provided are philosophical theology or natural theology. For my first basis for the existence of God I will use the a posteriori, ontological arguments. Ontological arguments are a priori, which show that God exists without appealing to a sense experience.