• expired

Sight & Sound Theatres Offers 'Jesus' Production for Free Easter Weekend Viewing

1922

Sight & Sound Theatres had planned to release "Jesus" on the big screen this Easter weekend but with movie theaters around the country closed due to the coronavirus outbreak, the entertainment company will instead be offering it for free.

“With people not being able to gather together to celebrate Easter, our hope is that by making this show available, we might all feel a sense of community and connection as we watch the greatest rescue story of all time come to life in this unique way,” said Sight & Sound Chief Creative Officer Josh Enck.

The original stage production — which focuses on the people the Son of God came in contact with when He walked the earth and how He rescued them, from the Apostle Peter to Mary Magdalene — will be on TBN, April 10-12.

“Sight and Sound’s ‘Jesus’ show premiered 2018 and ran for two years, and the way it was produced was so cinematic in nature with the 300-foot wrap-around stage that it adapted perfectly to the screen,” Enck told The Christian Post. “When we saw it on the screen as a finished product, we were blown away by it. We’re so passionate about it because this story needs to be out there, told in this fresh new way.”

Over a million people have watched the live performance of “Jesus” at Sight & Sound’s theater in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The musical stage adventure is being shown on TBN on Saturday (April 11) at 1 p.m. ET. It is also being made available on the TBN app and website for viewing anytime beginning Friday and through Easter Sunday.

Katie Miller, corporate communications manager at Sight & Sound told CP that the production takes a "very personal approach to the Jesus story.”

“We meet so many characters and learn the story of who they were both before and after they encounter Jesus," she said. “After watching the show, so many people came to us and said, ‘That’s my story. That’s how Jesus rescued me.' Act One is about individual rescues from the Bible; Act Two is about our rescue.

"I think that's one of the most inspiring and unexpected things that came out of that show. People saw themselves in the characters and in the way that Jesus was meeting every single person, right where they were at, and bringing to them what they needed to be rescued.”

The event also dramatizes inspirational moments from Jesus’ life, from challenging the Pharisees to healing the sick and hurting. According to Enck, the writers wanted to highlight Jesus' humanity and ability to connect with those of every walk of life.

Related Stores

tbn.org
tbn.org

closed Comments

  • +43

    Nailed it

  • +4

    I've heard of Jesus Christ Superstar but this is ridiculous!

  • +3

    Haters will hate.

    • -2

      And men and women of faith will continue to believe for bad reasons :)

      • +2

        And the foolish bargain-hunter thought to himself, "What am I to do? I have not enough room to store my Sanyo Eneloops, USB-C adapters, Sorbent rolls, 20% off Lego and other good things. This is what I will do: I'll pull down me old shed and build a bigger one, and store all my bargains and my goods in it, laid by for many years to come."

        But lo, what if that very night, an unclean droplet or unsanitised hand came for his face? This hoard of his, whose will it be then?

        So it is when someone stores up treasure for himself instead of becoming rich in the sight of God. But those who share their bargains with their neighbour, will store riches for themselves in heaven.

  • +2

    Hide deals from store Tbn.org and move along

    • +8

      Probably the most sensible thing to do if this offends you for whatever reason

    • Or maybe just don't click on these deals. Saves your lazy fingers from doing anything!

  • +2

    thanks for sharing, didn't know TBN would allow subscriptions from non-US countries.
    I can confirm, no geoblocking :)

  • +8

    If the main story isnt your thing. At least have a look at the making of the play. Its amazing the amount of work put into the sets and just appreciate that?

    • +1

      I agree. The set is amazing, definitely worth watching just for that.

    • -4

      unfortunately most people aren't that cultured.

    • +2

      Just looking at the "Training the animals" - why are there pigs in it considering Jews don't eat pork?

      • +2

        They lived among non Jews at the time, who did tend pigs to eat. In the gospels it's recorded that they went across Galilee to the region called the Gadarenes.

    • I heard the ISIS Christmas play is well produced too. Maybe watch that too?

  • +8

    Had a look at trailer. Looks amazing. Will watch with the family tonight. Thanks so much.

  • +1

    Thanks for the freebie

  • Thanks OP!

  • +1

    Thanks OP.. under Live TV section, I found programmes in other languages Spanish, Arabic and Italian etc

  • +3

    " So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal.’ Then you will know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel."

    Good thing God has toned down the plagues a bit since then.

    • +1

      Mate, The context of quoted verse is different. As of today, Christian population in Egypt is 100 times more than Christians population in Israel.

    • +7

      Why would God punish the entire population of Egypt by killing even firstborn infants for something Pharaoh did? While Pharaoh was responsible for bringing the plague upon the people by his refusal to obey God, the Egyptians were also rejecting God by worshiping false gods and by cruelly enslaving the Israelites.

      Having lived with the Israelites for over 400 years, the Egyptians would have heard about God and what he had done. They would also have heard about the signs Moses and Aaron performed (e.g. Ex 7:8-12) and seen firsthand the previous nine plagues, noting they affected Egypt but not Israel. This should have been a clear enough sign for anyone that the Israelites' God was powerful and should be listened to. Indeed, some of the Egyptians were able to escape the effects of the plagues when they heeded God's warnings and acted accordingly. Those who took shelter when God warned them of the plague of hail survived (Ex 9:19-21). Additionally, the plagues demonstrated the impotence of various Egyptian gods (see for instance Ten Plagues of Egypt).

      As with the other plagues, the Egyptians were warned in advance of the plague on the firstborn. Had an Egyptian family gone to ask the Israelites how to serve their God and avoid the plague, they could have received the instructions for the Passover and thus spared their family. Their failure to do so indicated they still didn't believe God's word and were still rejecting him, hence the plague.

    • +1

      Is Jesus not part of the Trinity? Is it blasphemy to say that Jesus is God? If not, then 'Jesus' has toned down the plagues since then.

      “This is what Jesus says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal.’ Then you will know that Jesus makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel."

      • When Jesus started his ministry he got up in the synagogue and proclaimed this is the year of the Lord’s favour. The physical plagues are largely on hold and this is humanity's opportunity to receive redemption. But those plagues in Egypt are almost nothing compared to ETERNAL suffering that awaits.

        Jesus does make a distinction between Egypt and Israel, the sheep and the goats…

        All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats
        “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire
        Matthew 25:32‭, ‬41 NKJV

        Can you see how complementary this passage is to the one you quoted? And they were written nearly two millennia apart by different authors. And in fact the plague Jesus warns of is infinitely and eternally worse.

        So you are absolutely right to attribute those words to Jesus, but far from disproving Jesus, it actually affirms who he is.

        • Can you see how complementary this passage is to the one you quoted?

          Oh indeed, maybe these similarities are due to an act of God, or maybe it's just the New Testament authors knowing their source material - the signs of memesis are strong throughout the New Testament.

          How could we know the difference? Does internal consistency in a story make it more likely to be true?

          • @defecat0r: Yes Jesus did know his source material and often said to the religious teachers "have you not read…". If you think the independent authors of the New Testament have concucted their writings to fit the ancient prophesies, then arguably you have more faith than any religious person.

            • @inherentchoice: Is it more reasonable to believe that some things in the bible are true and some things are false, or that a man rose from the dead, then floated into the air?
              Is it more likely that ancient writers used the Old Testament as a template for their work, or that demons were cast into a herd of pigs and zombies roamed the streets of Jerusalem?

              Which of these do you consider to be more reasonable, which requires more faith? How do you define faith?

      • +1

        To the Gospel writers and early Christians, Jesus was the prophesised messiah. The "son of God", supernatural, but not a God.
        The doctrine of the Trinity came a couple of centuries later to attempt to resolve some contradictions in the dogma that were leading to conflict.
        So it is not really biblical.
        I'm not sure any two people understand it the same way. All they could tell me in Sunday School was that it was a "holy mystery" - and stop asking hard questions.

        See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

        • It's there in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts including the Septuigant. People have tried challenging it for millennia and yet it still endures as does the church.

          • @inherentchoice: Without the Gospel of John, can you point to a Gospel that states definitively that Jesus is God?

            • @defecat0r: You don't like the first chapter of Matthew?

              “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
              Matthew 1:23 NKJV

              Or how about the first chapter of Genesis?

              Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
              Genesis 1:26 NKJV

              Or how about the genealogy from Adam to Noah, whereby if you translate the 10 names into English you get this message:

              Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

              This genealogy is of course also in Luke 3:36-38.

    • +1

      This plague was the first Passover which Jews still celebrate to this day. It shows that you need a sacrificial lamb and is also a prophetic symbol of Jesus who would be slain on the Passover a few millennia later. The Passover is the real date of Easter.

      And it happened on the exact same mountain where God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son centuries earlier! And now we see God wasn't asking Abraham to do something which God himself would not do.

      How could anyone have ever made up such a seamless integrated message written in 66 books by 40 different authors over 2000 years?!?

      And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.”
      Genesis 22:8 NKJV

      John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
      John 1:29 NKJV

      They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony
      Revelation 12:11 NIV

    • +11

      Have a look at the historicity of Jesus, you might be surprised to find that his existence is considered a historical fact by the relevant secular experts.

      • +1

        Do you mean this one? - Richard Carrier - On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
        https://www.amazon.com.au/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Dou...

        The one that makes the case that the evidence is so bad, it's possible Jesus didn't exist at all?

        How many other messiah claimants were there around that time? Does a secular scholarly consensus agreeing that a man named Yeshua likely existed in the region of Judea mean that we have good reason to believe that he was the son of a god and raised from the dead and ascended above sea level to heaven? (because heaven is up, don't you know…)

        • +2

          You really need to step out of the Antitheist echo chamber and read more widely, even just have a look at Carriers "Reception and Criticism" section on his Wikipedia page. To give you a sample though

          However, most contemporary scholarship has been critical of Carrier's methodology and conclusions. Both classicists and biblical scholars agree that there is a historical basis for a person called Jesus of Nazareth.

          and it goes down hill for him from there. No one who actually cares about the truth would be putting up his work as attempted proof of Jesus not existing, only those who are wilfully ignorant (they can't even make the effort to read a wiki page) or those that have an axe to grind.

          • @tryagain: You accuse me of being stuck in an echo-chamber? Sir, I'll have you know that I support the apologetics empire!

            Who is attempting to prove that a man called Jesus didn't exist? Richard Carrier makes it clear early in the book that this is not his goal, he believes Jesus most likely existed. He's simply making the case that the evidence is nowhere near as strong as many would have us believe, and that there is a CASE TO BE MADE for the mythical Jesus.

            This is neither here nor there though, is the historical accuracy of the New Testament the reason you believe?

      • https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-hi...

        Yes, his existence has never been seriously doubted. But we know very little about his history. There are even two origin stories: one says he was born in Nazareth and visited by the Magi, the other story says he was born in Bethlehem and visited by shepherds. The two have since been merged in popular culture. The Gospels were not written as history books.

        The main counter-theory is that Jesus is a composite character, created by St Paul (who definitely existed) from a mix of true stories, and old testament prophecies. This theory does not have a lot of support.

      • +1

        Nope, ZERO evidence of a biblical Jesus ever existed. Same as ZERO evidence jews where ever slaves in Egypt or the exodus ever happened!

        All you have is faith. If you want to have faith a bronze age god created by some illiterate goat herders is real, that’s for you. Free world. But if you’re gonna lie and make up fake evidence, you’re gonna get smacked down.

        This isn’t 100 years ago, you can’t lock us up for speaking the truth, and not long before that you would have killed me and my family. Your time is over, you’re just too stupid to realise.

        • +1

          Come back when you have even just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited Uni who doesn't believe in the existence of the historical Jesus mentioned in the bible, I'll wait, forever, that how black and white his existence is, the only "faith" position here is for those who don't think he existed.

          • @tryagain: By "biblical Jesus" I believe Jjason means a Jesus that flies around in the sky, walks through walls, withers fig trees and is the creator of the universe. You are correct that most biblical scholars agree than a man called Yeshua most likely existed and had some sort of following at that time, but in your opinion do we have sufficient justification to believe all of the rest?

            • @defecat0r:

              a Jesus that flies around in the sky, walks through walls, withers fig trees and is the creator of the universe……. in your opinion do we have sufficient justification to believe all of the rest?

              Well, I don't think the Bible actually claims 3 out of 4 of those so I will go with no.
              I think from a historical perspective, there is certainly sufficient justification to believe that Jesus lived, he was crucified on a cross, he was buried at Arimathea then on the Sunday following his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty and there was then a number of both groups and individuals, that on different occasions believe they saw him alive.

              • @tryagain: You disagree with some of these? I would encourage you to read your bible:
                1. Jesus flies around through the clouds like a Mig-31 interceptor - Acts 1:9
                2. Jesus walks through walls (will also accept a teleporting Jesus) - John 20:19
                3. I'll assume that you agree that Jesus wrekt the fig tree…
                4. Jesus is the creator of the universe - Do you disagree that Jesus is Lord? Is it blasphemy to say that Jesus is God? Is Jesus not one person of the Trinity? Agree to these then you believe Jesus is the creator of the universe. If you want a direct reference to Jesus' role in creation, refer John 1:2

                I agree that we have sufficient justification to be fairly confident that a person called Jesus lived and was crucified, some evidence that he was buried in a rich man's tomb and this tomb was found empty, and we have some anonymous non-eyewitness accounts asserting that a number of people believed to have seen Jesus alive.

                Now, of all the other miracle claims in other religions around the world… of all the events in other cultures and other times that we cannot explain, why do you choose to believe that THIS specific even in the middle east, 2000 years ago actually happened? Why DON'T you believe that the angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith and gave him access to the last testimony on the golden plates? There were multiple witnesses that believe they saw him? Why are you not a Mormon?

                • @defecat0r: Sigh, this is really really basic stuff that you are getting wrong. It has been gone over and over and over and over again just about every time an antitheist spills their ill-informed hyperbole. I'd answer, but you aren't interested, you're just looking for a gotcha, but there isn't one here.

                  • @tryagain: Ok that's fine, I'll leave you with a couple of last questions in that case. I want you to really think about these.

                    1. What do you value more highly - Jesus, or Truth?
                    2. What markers have you set in your faith by which you can determine if what you believe is NOT in fact true?

                    Peace

                    • @defecat0r:

                      1. Both equally, this would be a bit like me asking you if you value reason or logic more highly?
                      2. Overwhelming Evidence. I have listened to and read literally 100's of hours of the most prominent Antitheists arguments, and although some of it has caused me to change my position on relevant matters, on the whole, it falls short. Most although, is a lot of it far better reasoned than "Jesus flies around through the clouds like a Mig-31 interceptor", that kind of hyperbole I find is generally symptomatic of people whose argument is pretty weak.)

                      I'll leave you with this, from an objective perspective where do you think the evidence leads too? I'd say it is Deism. I think the Antitheism world view requires as much ignoring of the evidence as young-earth creationism, same fervour, just the opposite end of the scale.

                      I'll happily admit that Christianity requires faith, its one of the fundamental tenents, and therefore although there may be evidence for, there can never be evidentiary proof of. The standard most Antitheists seem to want to adhere to is evidentiary proof which in and of itself is not unreasonable, but then they take a belief position in regards to religion devoid of any evidentiary proof, this is plainly intellectual hypocrisy.

                      • @tryagain:

                        Both equally, this would be a bit like me asking you if you value reason or logic more highly?

                        This answer speaks volumes. It tells me that you have already concluded that Jesus IS Truth and that you may not be open-minded to the possibility that you might be wrong. Sound reason is based upon logic; you cannot have the one without the other. This is a false equivalence. If I could ask again, if you had to pick one (acknowledging that they could be the same) would you prioritise Jesus or truth?

                        Overwhelming Evidence. I have listened to and read literally 100's of hours of the most prominent Antitheists arguments

                        Likewise, I have spent many, many hundreds of hours listening to prominent apologetics in support of a belief in Christianity, and although some of it has caused me to change my position on some things, on the whole it falls short. I wonder what it is that is so different between the way you and I think that sees us likely consuming much of the same information, but reaching so very different conclusions?

                        I'll leave you with this, from an objective perspective where do you think the evidence leads too?

                        I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I am open to the possibility of there being a god, however recognizing how much we don’t know about the universe and witnessing the absurd conclusions people have reached throughout the ages by drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence, I believe that when it comes to many of the difficult questions in life, “I don’t know” is the intellectually honest answer.
                        If by ‘evidence’ you mean the Bible specifically, I think it is contradictory on so many levels and in so many ways that it is very strong evidence that Christianity specifically is false and that the Bible is not an inerrant work inspired by a god. I do understand from first-hand experience though, how difficult it is to see this when still in the position of believing it to be true.

                        I'll happily admit that Christianity requires faith, its one of the fundamental tenents, and therefore although there may be evidence for, there can never be evidentiary proof of.

                        If you were to pie-chart out your reasons for belief, would you say then that faith constitutes a good chunk of the pie? How would your confidence that Christianity is true be affected without faith?

                        • @defecat0r:

                          It tells me that you have already concluded that Jesus IS Truth and that you may not be open-minded to the possibility that you might be wrong.

                          Yes, I have, but only after much consideration, based on lots of open-minded research. That, however, doesn't mean I am not open-minded towards new information that could change this. This is pretty much the way science works for that matter, conclusions are based upon the best evidence, if the evidence changes, then so do the conclusions, that doesn't prohibit an original conclusion from being made though. (I think the evidence has been trending towards belief though as Anthony Flew has claimed)

                          This is a false equivalence.

                          I don't think so, "reason Jesus is based upon logic truth; you cannot have the one without the other" seems to fit just fine.

                          I wonder what it is that is so different between the way you and I think that sees us likely consuming much of the same information, but reaching so very different conclusions?

                          Probably the starting point, and therefore question asked, ie I was brought up with faith, over that time I have had experiences, that for me has confirmed this belief for me. I, therefore, have approached the topic as "is it reasonable to hold these beliefs" and "is there overwhelming evidence points to me being wrong" I suspect you have the reverse burden of proof though, and maybe reasonably so.

                          Just as an FYI, they aren't "I prayed for a car park and a car pulled out" type experiences, one such example I'll put here, not because I would expect you to believe it, but to serve as an example of the type of "experiences" I am referring. Once I had a car crash mid-week, on Friday I was called by the assessor and told the car was going to be repaired, On Sunday I attended a church that I didn't normally go to, I had someone come up to me afterwards and nervously tell me that they felt God wanted to say to me "not to worry about my car, because I didn't need it" this was a bit weird on a number of levels, not least that my car was going to be repaired. Long story short is the assessor called me on Monday morning to say they had just had a closer investigation and had now decided they were going write the car off. A superior at work then told me he was good friends with someone who was looking for someone in a role that was a step up from mine and he had heavily recommended me, I went and had a chat to him and in less than a month, I was in a new role with a company vehicle.

                          Now it is possible that this was coincidental, but the probability would have to be very low, now combine that with many other say "low probability coincidences" throughout my life and for me, it forms a body of evidence that leads to me likely having a different default position to you.

                          I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I am open to the possibility of there being a god, however recognizing how much we don’t know about the universe and witnessing the absurd conclusions people have reached throughout the ages by drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence, I believe that when it comes to many of the difficult questions in life, “I don’t know” is the intellectually honest answer.

                          You don't present as one here though, being an Agnostic is I think the easiest defendable position, the I don't know so "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." makes logical sense to me, those that feel the desire to rail against religion though I personally don't think fit into the "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." category, they seem to be firmly in the Antitheist camp, which I then think requires a burden of proof to say that on the whole that religion is bad, this is where I feel they become intellectually dishonest.

                          If by ‘evidence’ you mean the Bible specifically, I think it is contradictory on so many levels and in so many ways that it is very strong evidence that Christianity specifically is false and that the Bible is not an inerrant work inspired by a god. I do understand from first-hand experience though, how difficult it is to see this when still in the position of believing it to be true.

                          I think the gospels, are evidence of Jesus existing from a historical perspective, I think that is fairly uncontroversial. When you start talking about the inerrancy of the Bible, if you are saying that it says some things that aren't factually true, I think that is a given, but I would say that when taken in context, what it teaches is true. By evidence, I was actually referring to philosophical arguments and scientific discoveries regarding the origin of the Universe, again, Anthony Flew's writing is a good goto on this.

                          If you were to pie-chart out your reasons for belief, would you say then that faith constitutes a good chunk of the pie? How would your confidence that Christianity is true be affected without faith?

                          With only giving it a passing thought, maybe equal thirds of faith, experience and evidence. I am assuming you would say your world view is based on logic and reason, your last question would be like me asking how would your confidence in your world view be without logic and reason, its a poorly framed question.

                          • @tryagain:

                            Yes, I have, but only after much consideration, based on lots of open-minded research. That, however, doesn't mean I am not open-minded towards new information that could change this.

                            Then you are open to the possibility that Jesus (and Christianity) may in fact not be truth?

                            I don't think so, "reason Jesus is based upon logic truth; you cannot have the one without the other" seems to fit just fine

                            My point is more that you can’t have reason without logic as reason is dependent on logic, while it IS possible that Jesus as presented in the Bible may not be truth. Do you disagree? If not, Jesus or truth, which would you hold as a higher priority in your life?

                            Probably the starting point, and therefore question asked, ie I was brought up with faith, over that time I have had experiences, that for me has confirmed this belief for me.

                            So you were brought up with the belief, then throughout the course of your life you have had experiences that you can’t explain. These experiences you have then attributed to the belief you hold, which served to solidify this belief?

                            I, therefore, have approached the topic as "is it reasonable to hold these beliefs" and "is there overwhelming evidence points to me being wrong" I suspect you have the reverse burden of proof though, and maybe reasonably so.

                            See, more recently in my life, I have tried to approach justifying my beliefs in a different way. I see people in different cultures using similar methods to reach different conclusions – a Hindu might be raised believing that Vishnu is the true prime god. She might question whether her believe is reasonable to hold, then only in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves positively that Vishnu does NOT exist be open to belief revision. Her belief is then strengthened when she faces difficulties in her life that are resolved by situations and experiences that she can’t explain and seem too farfetched to be mere chance - these things she attributes to her god.
                            Do you agree that it’s possible that a Hindu could use the same epistemological standard and reach a conclusion that we could both agree is not true? Is there a better way? What would you point to in her thinking that leaves her open to reaching conclusions about reality that may not be true?

                            I think the gospels, are evidence of Jesus existing from a historical perspective, I think that is fairly uncontroversial. When you start talking about the inerrancy of the Bible, if you are saying that it says some things that aren't factually true, I think that is a given, but I would say that when taken in context, what it teaches is true. By evidence, I was actually referring to philosophical arguments and scientific discoveries regarding the origin of the Universe, again, Anthony Flew's writing is a good goto on this.

                            Well I see the Bible as being the ‘evidence’ that many people use as a foundation for their belief. As the revealed word of God I personally would expect something truly special that separates it from the sacred books of the array of other religions. What markers would you look for – inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies, doctrinal contradictions, etc that would lead you to question its reliability? How would that affect the ‘evidence’ portion of your pie-chart of belief? I’m not familiar with Anthony Flew’s writing, however I’m familiar with most of the typical philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I’m not sure how much of an overlap there would be there.

                            With only giving it a passing thought, maybe equal thirds of faith, experience and evidence. I am assuming you would say your world view is based on logic and reason, your last question would be like me asking how would your confidence in your world view be without logic and reason, its a poorly framed question.

                            I think the question works well for positive belief claims, but I agree it may not work to well with my worldview :)
                            How do you define faith? How does faith operate in your life to lead you to the conclusion that Christianity is true?

                            • @defecat0r:

                              Then you are open to the possibility that Jesus (and Christianity) may in fact not be truth?

                              Yes, already at least implied this this

                              My point is more that you can’t have reason without logic as reason is dependent on logic, while it IS possible that Jesus as presented in the Bible may not be truth. Do you disagree? If not, Jesus or truth, which would you hold as a higher priority in your life?

                              Think I have answered this twice both, might not be the answer you want, but if you want the truth, sometimes you have to be prepared for answers you may not want.;)

                              So you were brought up with the belief, then throughout the course of your life you have had experiences that you can’t explain. These experiences you have then attributed to the belief you hold, which served to solidify this belief?

                              I would say that is a poor characterisation of what I have said, I think most people would have had experiences they can't explain, these like most I chalk these up to things I can't explain, what I offered was a specific example where I didn't attribute causation that was implicit in the situation and then applied Occam's razor.

                              See, more recently in my life…..

                              The false premise here, like your previous point, is attributing a cause after the fact, I specifically used an example that provided a cause before the occurrence. Without the false premise, the rest of this hypothetical falls down. But on the broader claim, there are things that I believe separates Christianity from other religions, one of the main ones is the testability of its claims, The historical facts around the claims of Jesus death and resurrection (that he was killed, buried and then had multiple individuals and groups of people claim to have seen him on multiple occasions afterwards) are testable and verifiable, even from independent sources. Now you can choose not to believe this, but this is a widely considered historical fact so you need to be honest with yourself and admit you are not going where the evidence leads. As far I know no other religions claims are testable and verifiable in this manner.

                              Well I see the Bible as being the ‘evidence’ that many people use as a foundation for their belief. As the revealed word of God I personally would expect something truly special that separates it from the sacred books of the array of other religions.

                              see above

                              What markers would you look for – inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies, doctrinal contradictions, etc that would lead you to question its reliability? How would that affect the ‘evidence’ portion of your pie-chart of belief?

                              I read it in accordance with the intention and way it was written. It's testable historical claims are the main ones I would put in the evidence section of my "pie chart" the rest I would regard more as instructional.

                              I’m not familiar with Anthony Flew’s writing, however I’m familiar with most of the typical philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I’m not sure how much of an overlap there would be there.

                              He was probably the most influential atheist before Dawkins, Hitches, Harris etc, who in his later years went on to become a deist. His book "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" is a must-read (with an open mind), not sure how you haven't come across his work if you have "dived down the rabbit hole" and looked outside the echo chamber we can often find ourselves in. He was originally known for his philosophical work, but it is predominantly scientific discoveries that led him away from atheism.

                              • @tryagain:

                                Think I have answered this twice both, might not be the answer you want, but if you want the truth, sometimes you have to be prepared for answers you may not want.;)

                                I’m not sure I got a straight answer which is why I repeated it, that’s ok though, I understand it’s an uncomfortable question :)

                                I would say that is a poor characterisation of what I have said
                                The false premise here, like your previous point, is attributing a cause after the fact, I specifically used an example that provided a cause before the occurrence. Without the false premise, the rest of this hypothetical falls down.

                                Not my intention to mischaracterise, could you possibly clarify where my summation was inaccurate?

                                But on the broader claim, there are things that I believe separates Christianity from other religions, one of the main ones is the testability of its claims

                                It's testable historical claims are the main ones I would put in the evidence section…

                                What do you mean specifically by testable historical claims? How can we test these claims today? Would you include things such as a global flood, an original man and woman, a biblical creation account? Or do you mean simply that through historical analysis we will determine that all biblical accounts presented as history will prove to be true?

                                The historical facts around the claims of Jesus death and resurrection (that he was killed, buried and then had multiple individuals and groups of people claim to have seen him on multiple occasions afterwards) are testable and verifiable, even from independent sources. Now you can choose not to believe this, but this is a widely considered historical fact so you need to be honest with yourself and admit you are not going where the evidence leads.

                                I can happily grant all of this – that a man named Jesus existed, was killed, buried, and even that multiple people believe to have seen him alive after the fact. I agree that this is the scholarly consensus, however are these facts sufficient evidence to warrant believe? There are hundreds of people that truly believe they have been abducted by aliens. You can talk to these people today. Do you believe their claims? If multiple abduction accounts were written down, assembled into a book and then read ~2000 years later would that grant more credibility to the claims? In a world with people making outlandish claims, experiencing hallucinations, bereavement delusions, creating and then and attributing miracles to myriad gods, am I really being dishonest in not expecting more from a god that actually exists? Am I really guilty of not following the evidence where it leads? Can you show me what I am missing here?

      • +3

        Why would you say that "there is no logical basis for any morality if the world originates from nothing followed by random interaction."?

        I'm almost certain that you don't actually derive your morals from the bible. If you did, you would be justified in committing some ghastly, immoral atrocities. You presumably believe that slavery is immoral, however you don't get this teaching from the bible.

        Most religious people use their own moral compass, which they take from modern societies teachings, which have changed, adapted and progressed considerably in the thousands of years since the bible was written; and then use this internal compass to cherry pick the parts of the bible that fit with modern society, while dismissing the parts that are now considered abhorrent.

        The fact that people are able to cherry pick the moral parts of the bible, shows that our sense of morality is distinct from merely receiving religious instruction from texts.

        • +2

          Some well-considered objections, Lurk H. My apologies with the first quote - I'm probably not very clear. What I meant by "there is no logical basis for any morality if the world originates from nothing followed by random interaction" is that I cannot see a clear line of argument from a meaningless Universe to one in which our actions can be morally distinguishable as "good" or "bad".

          Or going in the reverse direction, Ravi Zacharias uses the logic flow of: When you say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver.

          The last line is one that some object to, so there is some detailed discussion here.
          https://www.rzim.org/read/just-thinking-magazine/must-the-mo...

          Yes, I do derive my morals from the Bible, and I don't think anyone is ever justified in committing "ghastly, immoral atrocities".

          I can see why you say the Bible doesn't seem to teach that slavery is immoral. However, a couple of points should be noted:
          1. Unfortunately some English translations use the word "slave" when the original Greek word doulos could mean "slave", "servant" or "bondservant", and often referred to people who had a surprising level of legal and social status in the first-century Greco-Roman world. The "slaves" are not equivalent to the deplorable conditions seen in the slave trade we may imagine. That helps to frame some of the Bible instructions.
          2. Biblical instruction about slaves isn't necessarily biblical "approval". Someone can encourage a soldier to obey his commanding officer, without agreeing with the reason for the war.
          3. Philemon is probably the clearest book on the issue. The slave-owner Onesimus is instructed to receive the slave Philemon "as a dear brother". Paul replaces the slave-master relationship with a brother-brother relationship.
          4. God clearly says all humans are of equal value, and we must treat everyone with love. Any form of slavery fails to meet this command.

          For further discussion, see this article:
          https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-wrong-say-bib...

          You said that some people cherry pick the moral parts of the Bible. I agree. But there are two sides to the coin. Some people cherry pick parts of the Bible that give a skewed impression of God. They whole Bible must be taken into account. The Bible often gives a historical account of events, without making any moral judgment of the actions of the people involved. Sometimes explicit judgment about the person's actions is stated (e.g. the prophet Nathan confronts King David about his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband). Other times, the Bible text remains silent, but we have to infer what is right and wrong from other parts of the text that reveal what God's likely judgment would be based upon his revealed character, according to the Principle of Charity.

  • +10

    Looks good. Great content for Easter. Happy Easter All.

    • +1

      Happy Easter! Good to see some positive attitude during this time :)

  • +2

    I wonder if they've had a screening for the 2nd coming of Jesus, George Pell.

Login or Join to leave a comment