I think you're mistaking "belief" for "proof." A proof should be repeatable, not an anecdotal incident experienced by some and not by others.
I agree that an anecdote has no useful significance if the evidence it is based upon is not repeatable. However, it is repeatable. That is why I said that my testimony was common across the Millennia and cultures; for one of the tests of proof is that it is not affected by such things as time or culture.
However, according to the Gospel's claim (justification from sin by faith in Jesus Christ) there are conditions. If those conditions are met, then the person receives those benefits made in the claim. The conditions are repentance and faith in the risen Jesus Christ. It is the nature of these conditions that make it experienced by some and not by others. Since not everyone cares to repent of their sins and put their faith in him, they will not experience the promised justification and its accompanying effects.
And, not to nitpick, but I didn't suggest the use of "circular logic" in anyone's belief system. Such circular logic does exist, but that wasn't the point of my earlier post.
I stand corrected.
Whether or not Jesus was actually the son of God is the foundation for Christianity, and it is the fundamental BELIEF that all the other BELIEFS rest upon. And, it can't be proven or disproven, at least not in this world.
As to whether is was or was not proved in this world, Luke says in Acts 1:3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Their record says that He did indeed prove Himself alive. Thomas, the skeptic in the group, saw for himself the bodily evidence of the crucifixion and came to the state of belief. Indeed, those who knew Him on the earth based their belief on proof.
Romans 1:3 says "who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, "
Paul makes the assertion that the resurrection is proof of His divinity.
I found for myself that He is alive. My own discoveries of the truth of the Gospel is in agreement with the claims the record makes of Him. The proof is there.
What further evidence do you suppose I should wait upon before saying that my belief in Him is based on adequate proof?
Stan |
