- To some a miracle of God or work of the devil , to others its just plain everyday magic, trickery or illusion.
cHristians may call it non miracle BS even though they saw it with their very own eyes, yet they will believe a person rose from the dead 2000 yrs ago without seeing it.
nOt believing the things you do see , yet believing the things you haven't seen.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
The truth is the truth, with or without the Bible.
heaven and hell exist in your mind only because you read it in a book, or you started believing someone who told you those places exist.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The death and resurrection story from the very beginning was shared on the basis of fact.
So for christians the resurrection of Jesus is not based on their FAITH / BELIEF..? If christians knew it as FACT , why would they need to trust in their FAITH..?
def. of faith: = strong belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
PROOF is needed to demonstrate a claim as FACT ..Thus FAITH cannot be FACT based, because facts require proof - if you have proof establishing fact ,then its not faith.
Christians with their lack of proof thus does not permit them to establish fact, and if they did have such it would nullify their need for faith. Christians overwhelmingly rely on their faith simply because faith [or beliefs] don't require facts, evidence, proof or truth.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Statements without evidence are merely statements.----------That sums up the whole bible. Thank you
When evidence is presented in the form of contradictictions and history, stories taken from older cultures and religions, etc....It is all dismissed without consideration.
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
The historical evidence is reasonably undeniable--check the records.
Undeniable, really?
Let's here what you got!
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
You find Ehrman’s evidence insufficient.....? Lol...... Ok, you can be the judge, after all it is only you that you have to convince. Perhaps someday you will reconsider when you are confronted with conflict.
Who is this “religious follower who’s obligated to mindlessly believe.....?” Sounds like you. You are obligated to only believe the science.
There is an entire suite of reality, beings and experiences out there that you are seemingly unaware of.
But, by all means trundle on, keeping your eyes shut.
The Bible refers to those in this condition as “blind.”
Why would you presume I've never been confronted with conflict?
I've faced my fair share and see no benefit in confronting conflict through a distorted lens of reality.
As for what I'm "obligated" to believe, as a skeptic, unlike the religious, I'm not "obligated" to believe anything until I find the evidence is sufficient to support a given belief.
When scientist initially make claims about the existence of what we label Dark Matter, it was probably 10 years before I found the evidence sufficient to support the claim it existed. Theologians have had a couple thousand years, and yet, they still can't come up with anything as convincing as the lensing effect of dark matter.
His goal was to philosophically convince Rome to officially reject Christianity and return officially to paganism. His arguments against the deity of Christ clearly establish Jesus as a man of history. He had access to the Roman census records. Anyone who says there is not evidence to prove that Jesus is a man of history has either not done the research or they refuse to believe the evidence. Unbelief in in the historicity of Jesus Christ is a matter of the heart and not the head. Skeptics are typically not willing to believe the evidence.
Julian wasn't born until 331ce. He's not a contemporary source for Christ.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
Isaiah 53 prophesied in advance that the Jews and many others would largely reject Christ as their Messiah. Your "evidence" is merely proof of what Isaiah foresaw with divine inspiration before you were born and could make your statements. Truth is not created or annihilated by belief, but by facts. The facts of history are that Jesus died and rose again. Whether you choose to believe that He is the promised Messiah is a personal faith choice that does not alter the facts of history in either way.
But the passage is not about Jesus. The Suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
[quote=Jahrs]Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
You can’t lump all Jews into that category. Wernt they all jews that were praying in the upper room? All of the initial Christians were Jews as well. And to question the truth of the proposition, as you say, made in Jesus’ name being dependent upon whether or not he existed would mean that the Bible, His Word, would be false.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true?
And with this question you are admitting that those propositions are true.
I should of been more clear and asked if it would change the truth value of the precepts, or something of that nature. In other words, do the Christian claims regarding what's proper behavior and wisdom survive scrutiny with out the supernatural god claims. Can the Christian precepts stand on their own?
They have for centuries--does your belief system have the same track record?
Skepticims predates Socrates. It goes back until at least the 5th century bce, so it actually has a longer track record than Christianity.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
That's easy. Use a trick illusion to fulfill any prophecy you want. I mentioned identical twins. I watched a pretty blond from a camera in a helicopter in the air. She disappeared from the ground and showed up riding in the helicopter. Cool illusion.
Explain how the prophecy concerning Cyrus' destruction of Babylon was a magical illusion.
The book of Isiah wasn't finished until around 70ce.....No magic's required when you are adding and "interpolating" after the fact.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Hes stupid enough to think Jesus walked the earth giving the Good News knowing it wasnt true and hoping to hoodwink millions of people to spend billions over the ages supporting churches and pastors without seeking financial gain for himself.
Sheesh.
What was Jesus to get out of life for his charade other than crucifiction? Dumbasses never consider these things.
Hey rimfire, Jesus only wanted to pull the wool over on guys like me,
Or, "If it were not so i would not have told you so".
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
