There is most certainly evidence for knowing Jesus to be the Lord… and when this evidence is taken together it makes for a strong case.
Peter makes an argument from Scripture that the risen one is the Lord (2:25–31, 34–35), an argument from the testimony of eyewitnesses and the Spirit’s present confirmation that Jesus has risen (2:32–33), with the resulting conclusion that Jesus is the Lord (2:36).
Craig Keener, Exegetical Commentary on Acts
This reminded me of a favorite quote I have from Richard Lovelace’s Dynamics of Spiritual Life,
One group of genuine believers can never remember a conscious conversion to faith in Christ; another insists that a datable experience of being “born again” is essential; a third says that a second distinct experience of “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” is necessary for Christian maturity. When we “test the spirits” in the lives of representatives among these groups, we often find an equal level of spiritual vitality—or deadness!—in each sector.
Yes but…
Too often we extrapolate our own experiences to the process of interpretation of the biclical scriptures. When others do not have the same experiences, there will be points where the differing experiences do not fully fit to our narrow interpretation. Differing use of terms confuses the picture even more. The terms ‘born again’ and ‘the baptism of the Holy Spirit’ are typical cases where the words have differing meanings to different Christians.
I can check/tick these two terms in my own life, even according to the most strict fundamentalist/pentecostal sense. Experience (40 years as a believer) and teaching has made me understand the limitations of my early interpretations about these points, as well as the various problems that rises from the differing use of the words. There have been numerous events where misunderstandings related to these words have caused disagreements. It may have been that both parties would agree about the matter but the colored terms prevent understanding of what the other person is really trying to tell.
On the other hand, there are interpretations that are not dependent on our own experiences. Our ‘colored spectacles’ often make the interpretations partly subjective (we repeat and support interpretations that someone has fed to us) but the interpretation itself is based on something else than extrapolating our own experiences.
Rather than focusing on the narrow definitions and past experiences, it would be better to ask where am I now? What is my state and situation at the moment?
Yes, I couldn’t agree more with this. People should be free to work out their understanding. Religious authoritarianism in the sense of the church bearing the civil sword has plagued us for too long. I am dumbfounded by its total absence from the NT teaching regarding the church.
Somewhat on the side, I had an ironic conversation with a knowledgeable ‘liberal’ Christian about how chiastic literary devices could explain some of the discrepancies we find in Genesis. For this person, chiastic interpretations were too arbitrary 
I actually like that there is a degree of arbitrariness to them
If you had evidence you wouldn’t need to present arguments based on hearsay.
No, but it is his thing. He always goes on about the church and power.
(If you insist i will try, but Mitchell does it better)
Not the same thing.
Says you?
Still doesn’t change anything.
It doesn’t actually say that if we don’t. He won’t
You are being legalistic because of your insistance on relating it to the Jewish Sanctuary. Thay are not the same.You are making a connection that Scripture does not.
I am still not talking about Salvation, or righteousness or being a follower of Jesus.
The forgiveness is there for all. Salvation and righteousness are a different story.
You are tryig to press gang people into faith.
“You have the king’s shilling, therefore you re drafted”
Forgivensess stands aone. It has nothing to do with discipleship, salvation, or any other religious notion. It is.
Your example from Mattew 25 proves my point not yours. Most of the sheep hadn’t confessed or identified any sins, and God ignored that. He was only interested in their charachter. The charachter that you claim cannot exist because of Adam. It is all poppycock!. God forgives Sins!
I shall do no such thing.
The Scanctuary is for Judaism not me!
Stop trying to mix Judaism with Christianity. They split 2000 years ago (more or less)
Richard
Or we can both stand next to each other and be shocked when Zeus asks us why we never sacrificed any animals to him.
You should probably reread Keener’s statement, as the argument is partly based on a self-evident work of the Spirit… What do you mean by heresay? It feels derogatory,.
No, it isn’t. It would be nice, but it’s hardly important.
No, it is the last. Your statement requires that Jesus be a liar. When on the Cross He didn’t say, “It is begun”, He said, “It is [now and forever utterly and completely] finished”.
That’s a humanistic notion; the scriptures know nothing of such an idea – in the scriptures, baptism is something God does to us through which we are made dead to sin and the Law by being buried with Christ and having our sins remitted.
Christ’s death was not merely blood on the exterior altar, it was the blood on the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. That’s why the veil in the Temple ripped when He died.
Your little scheme is cute but it is in the end heresy.
Apparently at least 1/5 of it is plagiarized from poetry at the time, Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic.
Yes – at least twenty known versions with significant differences.
That varies between Islamic scholars; I listened to a debate about it once but didn’t get much out of it other than that there was disagreement – they spent too much time quoting scholars in Arabic.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
In that specific text Richard has a point; the grammar does not make the proposition unique.
It’s an interesting passage since it isn’t initially clear what the jailer means by “be saved”, nor even exactly what Paul was promising – just spiritual salvation, or that the jail wouldn’t fall down, or both?
But other passages do support your statement, notably Acts 4:12.
Im sorry but this whole assumption has already been argued by world expert scholars such as Bart Erhman and he has been comprehensively demolished in debates almost every single time.
The reality is, we know we have the original atuograph because there are so many copies that mostly align with minimal dissagreement.
The vast majority (99%) of biblical errors have zero impact on meaning, theology, and doctrine.
Now i can promise, that if you want to make a complete ass of yourself sticking with that arugment, you are going up against the publised works of some of the most famous and renowned biblical textual experts in the world…you have absolutely zero chance of beating their arguments on this. If Bart Erhman cant do it, you havent a hope in hell…so id give up on that right now.
You can dislike what im saying,.you may even be angered by it…im just trying to save you the academic disaster you’re walking into there. Its not nice but that is the mine field you are walking into
What I wrote was to show some differences in how the Bible and Qur’an are treated among those who think the scripture includes revelation about the will of God. The purpose was not to argue anything about the apparent contradictions in the biblical scriptures.
One interesting point to note is the difference in how translations are treated. Muslims have an extreme attitude (translations are just imperfect interpretations of the true Qur’an). This should remind us Christians that also the translations of biblical scriptures are ‘just’ translations, necessarily interpretations about the ‘original’ scripture because the translators have to select one alternative among the several potential meanings of the original sentence. Beliefs such as a particular translation is the ‘correct’ one just shows the person does not understand the basics of translation and linguistics.
Personally, I think that any decent translation can give the essential message. If we are unsure about some point, comparing different translations is likely to reveal the message better than trying to read the Greek or Hebrew scriptures with elementary understanding about the original language and culture.
I also think that the minor textual variants among the oldest manuscripts do not undermine the essential message in the text - we have a pretty solid understanding of what was in the original NT scriptures and the few uncertain points do not change the essential message.
We know less about the origin and development of the OT scriptures but even in the case of OT, it should be kept in mind that the authority of these scriptures among Christians is based on a fairly universal acceptance and canonisation of the texts. How the OT scriptures were formed is less important than the fact that early and later Christians recognized the value and role of the scriptures that were canonised.
Hearsay, as in “information received from other people which cannot be substantiated”.
In this case, Peter making an argument from scripture and from the testimony of eyewitnesses. Which is actually (i) Luke writing about what Peter said about what David (who was long dead) said, and (ii) Luke writing about what Peter said about people whom he said were eyewitnesses, but who didn’t provide testimony.
You said there was evidence. This isn’t evidence.
Eyewitness testimony cannot be substantiated in a rigorous sense. That is why I felt historical arguments for the resurrection were at best believing what someone else claimed to see. It counts as evidence, but it was totally convincing for me.
You haven’t got eyewitness testimony. You’ve only got hearsay.
What’s your view on eyewirness testimony for miracles today?
I’m not aware of any that’s reliable. What have you got?
(anything really recent would probably have been captured on a phone-cam)
The healing of Delia Knox was recorded on video. Pretty cool story.
Keener talks about the willingness someone has in believing another person’s account based on their own individual experiences. I get that and it’s why I appreciate the Acts 2:14-36 passage so much.
Yes, it is a cool story.
It’s not evidence that Jesus is Lord though.
The gospel accounts, which were written in living memory of Jesus, are better evidence than I originally thought
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.