"Biblical Christianity Is Bankrupt"
That's right, so argues Michael Dowd, a liberal author of the book Thank God for Evolution
. I agree with his criticisms most emphatically. Check him out. When Christians are done tearing into each other all I have to say is that I agree with them all. And I agree with the non-Christian religions too. What's left after these religions tear into one another? Atheism. Get the point.
. I agree with his criticisms most emphatically. Check him out. When Christians are done tearing into each other all I have to say is that I agree with them all. And I agree with the non-Christian religions too. What's left after these religions tear into one another? Atheism. Get the point.
125 comments:
hmmmmm. Christians tearing each other apart? Yup it happens. Is it Biblical?
No. Therefore the argument fails.
There is nothing more biblical than Christian factions tearing each other apart. But that's not his argument, Marcus. Therefore your rebuttal fails.
Mmm, John Loftus has 446 followers and who knows how many hundreds more that read regularly.
Walk carefully John. That's a lot to answer for.
John,
You better believe in Heffalumps or else I'm going to sick one on you!
Thom, where do you find that proof in the Bible? The point was about Loftus' comment not the article he referenced.
Marcus,
You misunderstood Loftus's point. He doesn't say that Christians tearing apart Christians disproves Christianity. He says that all factions do a great job of exposing the irrationality of all the other factions when they engage in critique of each other's beliefs. It's just that each faction is blind to its own irrationalities, but not to those of other factions.
As for proof that Christians tearing apart Christians is perfectly biblical, read Galatians for starters.
Thanks for the link, John.
Marcus - your man Paul already distrusted some other factions and warned against them - in writing. But you knew that, of course.
Marcus,
The first thing that comes to mind is the letters to the churches in Revelations, the writer is hardly singing kumbaya.
The very idea that something has to be Biblical to be Christian is the result of Christians tearing each other apart and a high view of scripture coming out on top. In fact the Bible itself is a collection of winners of one big scriptural grudge match.
I disagree. The fact that the scriptures do not change is why it's powerful for basing one's life and practice on. There is no reason at all not to have a world view based on the Bible without integration of evidence regarding science and history. Some will say that we have so much evidence that shows the Bible to be wrong, but when I study and look at all the evidences I come to the alternate conclusions.When I have done so I have only seen the Bible supported not broken. I would endorse "Sola Scriptora" or "Scripture Alone" as a non-negotiable characteristic of Biblical Christianity and a good way to understand what is and what is not Christian. Anyone who depends on just the Discovery or History channels (to say nothing of public school) is going to get a woefully inadequate view of reality. I don't think at all that people should be shielded from opposing ideas or viewpoints. I say "Bring it". The Bible can take it. Don't just take a single side but look at and judge all sides. Your soul weighs in the balance, best to be sure...really sure you are taking a view you can live with.
More
That's your problem Marcus. You take "Scripture Alone" as a non-negotiable characteristic of Biblical Christianity. With a worldview like this it's no wonder you have closed yourself off to the evidence against your religion. You say that those who depend on Discovery and History channel will get a "woefully inadequate view of reality." I agree, but not for the reasons you think. There is much more to learn than what is on these stations. Try reading a book by a serious scholar like Richard Friedmann's "Who Wrote the Bible" or L. Michael White's "From Jesus to Christianity." If you limit yourself only to what your pastor says and the things that confirm what you want to believe, it is you that will have a woefully inadequate view of reality.
Evil Done, I have not closed myself off to evidence against Christianity and the Bible. I just find the evidence woefully inadequate in supporting the conclusions you infer. Thanks for suggesting those particular books. The thing is I think you should read James White's book The King James Only Controversy. There are many "serious scholars" who disagree with your position. Men like RC Sproul,James White, Dan Wallace, and Ben Witherington are top notch scholars and curiously they don't see things the way you do. May be you should find out why. Wouldn't want to have a woefully inadequate understanding of reality would we?
Marcus and other believers.
The fact of the matter is that the bible has conflicting doctrines and precepts and that is why there is so much confusion and argumentation!
I dont care what the excuses of modern christianity are, the inconsistencies and doctrinal conflicts are evident.
Contrast the Apostle Pauls letters with the gospels, compare Romans and Galatians with the letter of James.
Both Calvinists and Evangelical christians can justify there beliefs-because there both biblical!
Just as Robert Ingersol said- "the bible claims that God is not the author of confusion. But I ask you, has any book ever caused so much confusion as the bible?"
Marcus.
The King James Only Contraversy?
The king James version wasn't even translated into english till around the fifteenth century.
There wasn't even a definite bible before that time.
Plus the books that our modern bible includes, were writtings chosen out of many writtings about Christ that the various church fathers DECIDED were divine!
It is standard knowledge among biblical scholars and historians that our current bible has many intrapolations and the names attributed to many of the books, are not even the actual authors.
The bible cannot withstand critical evaluation.
I find it funny that christians will appeal to so called experts that agree with their beliefs and consider them authorities on the bible, but ignore the experts that do not agree.
@ Shane....
The fact of the matter is that the bible has conflicting doctrines and precepts and that is why there is so much confusion and argumentation!
Name one doctrine in conflict.
I dont care what the excuses of modern christianity are, the inconsistencies and doctrinal conflicts are evident.
Contrast the Apostle Pauls letters with the gospels, compare Romans and Galatians with the letter of James.
Name one inconsistency or doctrinal conflict found between Romans and Galatians and James. I'm calling you out. Back up your assertion.
Both Calvinists and Evangelical christians can justify there beliefs-because there both biblical!
I don't think you really know what the differences are between Calvinism and Arminianism. Many Calvinist would consider themselves evangelical. Here is the question. If you are a believer would either veiw point really make a different in terms of salvation? Nope. Are the differences worth fighting over and consigning one another to hell? Nope. Are both scriptural? Now that is debatable and important...but not a salvation issue. I would say that an Arminian is just as saved as any Calvinist. The most important and definition of who a Christian is can be found in many scriptures. Read 1 Corinthians 15...both Calvinists and Arminians would agree. Also I bet most Christians would not even be able to tell you the difference between a Calvinist and an Arminian.
The King James Only Contraversy?
The king James version wasn't even translated into english till around the fifteenth century.
There wasn't even a definite bible before that time.
Excuse me...but the Bible was not originally composed in English...contrary to "KJV Only" Christian opinion. That is what the book is about. IT traces how the English versions came to be and how the Bible was transmitted and the various lines of transmissions through hebrew, greek, and latin. You need to read it.
Plus the books that our modern bible includes, were writtings chosen out of many writtings about Christ that the various church fathers DECIDED were divine!
It is standard knowledge among biblical scholars and historians that our current bible has many intrapolations and the names attributed to many of the books, are not even the actual authors.
Sounds like someone has been reading "The Da Vinci Code" again. I recognize that widely circulated myth is popular, but some scholars disagree. You should do more study and find out why. You obviously think you know why some scholars would agree with your assertions but do you know why others do not?
The bible cannot withstand critical evaluation.
I find it funny that christians will appeal to so called experts that agree with their beliefs and consider them authorities on the bible, but ignore the experts that do not agree.
You should also wonder why you don't consider scholars who disagree with your conclusions are not experts. Are you smarter than they are? I don't make the same unfounded observations. I recognize that there are experts who disagree with my conclusions. But there are experts who agree. The evidence supports the conclusions I hold that is why I side with the experts I do. Why do you discount the experts who disagree with you?
Marcus
Sounds like someone has been reading "The Da Vinci Code" again. I recognize that widely circulated myth is popular, but some scholars disagree. You should do more study and find out why. You obviously think you know why some scholars would agree with your assertions but do you know why others do not?
Actually, mainline scholarship would agree with the basic assertion Shane is trying to make, as far as the NT is concerned. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not likely the names of the authors of those Gospels.
The books included in the NT were basically included based on what Shane asserts. They were considered divine or divinely inspired. Others not included were considered apocryphal.
Also, the Bible is under critical analysis all the time. Don't think blasting the "it's literally true" argument is critical analysis. Use of the historical critical method has been going on for 150 years - but in mainline seminaries, not bible colleges.
John, when all the religions are arguing against each other, does it not matter that they uniformly argue against atheism?
Brad,
Atheism doesn't really have any tenets to debunk.
Thom, I feel like I've got to press you on Galatians. Do you think they are "tearing each other apart" in chapter 2 or later on?
In other words, faith is a matter of, well, faith.
Paul is tearing other factions of Christians apart throughout the whole letter.
Thom, I might have my terms confused, but isn't "there is no god" a tenet (or doctrine)? I get a little tired of atheists skirting around defending naturalism on the guise that they just have a "lack of belief in god(s)". I know you aren't, but I hear that almost as a get out of rigorous argument free card.
I brought Galatians up, Thom, because I happen to be going through a detailed study of it right now and it seems to me that Paul's main concern is to bring different faction to unity. It's much more relational than I realized at first.
Bringing them into unity by castrating them? Was that his strategy?
But that's an equivocation anyway, Brad. ALL factions want to bring their opponents into unity with themselves. That's what they mean by "Recant."
Thom, I'll email you my thoughts on Galatians, its a little too involved for comment boxes.
I might have my terms confused, but isn't "there is no god" a tenet (or doctrine)?
Is "Reincarnation does not exist" a tenet or doctrine?
Is "Astrology does not work" a tenet or doctrine?
Is "John Edwards is not a psychic" a tenet or doctrine?
Is "Muhammed did not ascend to heaven on a winged horse" a tenet or doctrine?
Even a confirmed atheist such as Richard Dawkins does not assert 'there is no god' as a doctrine or starting point. Instead the vast majority of atheists could best be described as strong agnostics. We tend to say instead something like;
"There probably is no god." or
"I do not find the evidence for god's existence to be sufficient.".
With the examples above, if you say "I see no evidence that warrants belief in reincarnation." this would be a better description instead of insisting it is a tenet or doctrine of some worldview or belief system.
Just as I see no evidence to convince me that John Edwards is a real psychic or that homeopathy is a viable way to cure disease...I see no evidence (or am not convinced by the evidence offered) that your god exists. Is "Thor does not exist" a doctrine or tenet for you?
I no more hold this lack of belief in god or gods as a tenet or doctrine than I do these other examples. If you insist, I suppose you could label me an A-astrologist, but we non-believers in astrology hold no grand doctrine, worldview, nor do we form some vast anti-astrology coalition. In fact, you and I may both be members.
@shane (or anyone else)
I'm curious as to which 'conflicting' doctrines you are speaking about? Any examples?
"Biblical Christianity", or "American Christianity" ?
Zenmite,
I believe that you are sincere in this post, and you have thought about this, but I also think that you have swallowed this line as an excuse for epistemology.
All of those things you mentioned are tenets, or doctrines, or conclusions, or facets of a worldview, whatever you want to call them. You just seem to think that denying something doesn't require any sort of justification. I hardly ever hear any "new atheists" try to justify their epistemology, or ground their metaphysics.
Let's be honest here, you are operating under a worldview of metaphysical naturalism, and that has a whole host of tenets, usually beginning with the proposition that "god probably does not exist," and including Loftus' favorite doctrine: "all religious believers are brainwashed." Just because these premeses are unstated doesn't mean that they don't need justification.
But even granting the empiricist model of epistemology, many of the sweeping statements are not born out by actual science. The one atheist whom I saw arguing for naturalism as a positive worldview takes as his first premise the denial of the Self! I see vague hand-waves to this position by claiming that our conscious experience is an emergent property of brain chemistry, but that still isn't established by a couple of correlation studies that only predict binary decisions with a litttle better than 60% accuracy (I think that's what the study showed, but I'm open to correction).
So let's grant the denial of Self, then how do you ground epistemology? You can't even sniff metaphysical doctrines, such as, "god probably does not exist."
I'm sure there is a lot of this grounding in the philosophical literature, but if Christians can be called ignorant for not knowing what or why they believe even though there are competent scholars who have formed models, then I can level the same charge against atheists who make claims without the proper justification.
Rigorous argument should be a tenet for everyone.
Brad,
If you're going to mount an attack on atheism based on epistemological grounds, then you damn well better have an epistemology that isn't a content free appeal to the supernatural.
I'll be the first to freely admit that when push comes to shove, it is very hard to really justify that we know much of anything. I can't tell you why that is, maybe it is because we don't understand what knowledge really is very well, maybe we don't really understand who and what we are all that well, maybe it is something else. I don't know, but one thing is clear: You're positing a starting point for knowledge without any justification at all and then claiming that you have the answer. Who's making the more absurd claim? The guy that denies the existence of self? Or the guy that posits that God solves the problem without have any idea how?
At least the guy that denies the existence of the self believes there could be some measurable mechanistic explanation. You don't even have that, but you are being critical of hand waving arguments?
This is the difference between you and I, Brad. I don't know if claims of the denial of the sense of self are necessarily invalid (even though it seems pretty absurd to me) as well as a great many other attempts to solve this problem. What I do know is that you're path to the solution leads nowhere unless you can prove that your God really does exist, and you can show how God gives us the ability to truly know things. Until then you are not contributing to the solution of the problem, you are just obfuscating.
Marcus said,
"Name one doctrine in conflict."
Ready?
Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:21
"Eye for an eye", Old Testament
Matthew 5:38-39,
"Turn the other cheek", New Testamant
Want more?
Old Testament: Obedience to the Law through sacrifice, etc.
New Testament: Salvation through Grace.
Completely different approaches. God changed His mind?
Brad said,
"...I hardly ever hear any "new atheists" try to justify their epistemology, or ground their metaphysics."
If you define 'metaphysics' as "supernatural", then here's the reason:
atheists ("new atheists" doesn't describe me at any rate; I've been an atheist for 40 years, long before I ever heard of Hitchens, Dawkins, or any others of the so-called "New Atheists") don't believe there's such a 'realm' of "reality" that transcends the natural.
If you need a better answer than that, then define "metaphysics" more thoroughly.
I have not closed myself off to evidence against Christianity and the Bible.
You people always say this - and it always turns out to be a lie.
Walk carefully John. That's a lot to answer for.
Ooohhh, scary. Did you play suspense music in the background as you typed it?
Dunt dunt dunnnnnnnnn...
All of those things you mentioned are tenets, or doctrines, or conclusions, or facets of a worldview, whatever you want to call them. You just seem to think that denying something doesn't require any sort of justification.
No, my views aren't any of those. My view that 'Thor probably does not exist' is a working hypothesis, not a conclusion or doctrine. If someone can present evidence that convinces me that Thor does exist I will happily change my view.
Let's be honest here, you are operating under a worldview of metaphysical naturalism
My worldview is constantly updated and changes as I acquire more information and process that information. It is not based upon any ideology nor is it a fixed conclusion. I realize you tend to see this 'no ideology' as just another ideology. I do not.
I do not and did not begin with a worldview of naturalism. As a child I entertained all sorts of possibilities. Santa was real. Magic may exist. The easter bunny comes once per year. God heard my prayers. Monsters might be under my bed. The list is long. I've come to doubt that Muhammed didn't really fly on a winged horse, not as a result of embracing some weird ideology called 'naturalism', but rather because the evidence I've been able to find does not support the idea that reality works that way.
My bet is that you too embrace what you call naturalism at nearly every point of your life. When you turn on your computer, do you believe that fairies or aliens cause it to boot -up or that it is a result of electricity? When you get sick, do you go to a doctor or ascribe your illness to demons and go to an exorcist? Do you think a car-spirit makes your car run or do you believe in the naturalistic view that it has something to do with an internal combustion engine? There's a long list of phenomena that were ascribed to magic powers, demons and gods and all of them so far have been shown to have nonsupernatural causes. The need for the god hypothesis as well as the magic hypothesis has simply become ever weaker as we discover more about the world.
What christians actually seem to be arguing for is not an equivalence of supernaturalism and naturalism, but rather for accepting your supernatural worldview in particular. I recently posted an article here about the Milk Miracle in India. My bet is most christians would readily accept the naturalistic idea that it was either mass hysteria, or some simple physical explanation instead of the power of vishnu or ganesh.
I've talked with many christians that accept the naturalistic view that Muhammad may have had epilepsy or may even have been insane. It's just that when it comes to your own tightly held supernatural beliefs you want special consideration. The same christians that readily accept that Muhammad's visions may have been the result of epilepsy are not so enthused about accepting the same explanation for Paul's vision on the road to damascus.
Zenmite said,
"...Do you think a car-spirit makes your car run or do you believe in the naturalistic view that it has something to do with an internal combustion engine?"
I don't know about anyone else, but I believe that there are giant hamsters riding around in KIAs....
Steven,
I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge weaknesses in bio-chemical formulations of self and epistemology (though I think much of your response to me is a tu quoque fallacy). The reason you can't offer a good epistemology naturalistically is that you can't overcome the subject-object dichotomy. It's probably the most ancient problem for philosophy, so don't feel let out by the fact that you haven't solved it.
Most of the modern ways around this split are to posit "brute facts" or "properly basic beliefs" that don't need any argumentation because they are self-presenting. So if the intelligibility of the universe in our minds is a brute fact, then you can start that as a base for an epistemology. Problem is, if you deny free-will and the self, then there is no such thing as a belief, only pre-determined bio-chemical reactions.
Christianity has problems, too, but I think denying the one thing that is the hallmark of our existence is much more difficult to do.
For example, those same guys (Luke Melhauser sp?) were saying that recognizing that you don't have a free-will opens you up to be more compassionate, and I thought, if you don't actually make decisions, then what in the world does compassion mean?
GHE,
Metaphysics is concerned with the ontology of reality, and I rarely even hear an attempt at defining what "natural" is. Sorry for the misnomer, but I don't think you'd want me to call you an "old atheist," right?
Zenmite,
I'm not sure your view is coherent. If the proposition "Thor probably does not exist" is merely a hypothesis, then what are your plans to test that hypothesis? If every proposition for you is merely a subject of inquiry without conclusions or tenets, then how can you make any knowledge claims at all? Santa isn't a working hypothesis for you, right?
And I think you are a little confused on how a worldview works. A traditional Christian worldview allows for natural processes, such as electricity or combustion. Even the ancient Hebrews parted ways with their pantheistic neighbors by ascribing creation to the act of one divine being rather than reality being an integrated whole emerging from primieval chaos.
I think that the glib dismissal of other miraculous claims by Christians is a mistake and a product of naivete in culture. One thing we can be sure of is that the Koran is not merely a product of epilespy. And I don't know much about the milk miracle, only a few videos I saw, so I can't really comment on it. I'm not closed to "supernatural" explanations, I suppose. It would have to be a working hypothesis, right?
Steven,
I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge weaknesses in bio-chemical formulations of self and epistemology (though I think much of your response to me is a tu quoque fallacy). The reason you can't offer a good epistemology naturalistically is that you can't overcome the subject-object dichotomy. It's probably the most ancient problem for philosophy, so don't feel let out by the fact that you haven't solved it.
Most of the modern ways around this split are to posit "brute facts" or "properly basic beliefs" that don't need any argumentation because they are self-presenting. So if the intelligibility of the universe in our minds is a brute fact, then you can start that as a base for an epistemology. Problem is, if you deny free-will and the self, then there is no such thing as a belief, only pre-determined bio-chemical reactions.
Christianity has problems, too, but I think denying the one thing that is the hallmark of our existence is much more difficult to do.
For example, those same guys (Luke Melhauser sp?) were saying that recognizing that you don't have a free-will opens you up to be more compassionate, and I thought, if you don't actually make decisions, then what in the world does compassion mean?
GHE,
Metaphysics is concerned with the ontology of reality, and I rarely even hear an attempt at defining what "natural" is. Sorry for the misnomer, but I don't think you'd want me to call you an "old atheist," right?
Zenmite,
I'm not sure your view is coherent. If the proposition "Thor probably does not exist" is merely a hypothesis, then what are your plans to test that hypothesis? If every proposition for you is merely a subject of inquiry without conclusions or tenets, then how can you make any knowledge claims at all? Santa isn't a working hypothesis for you, right?
And I think you are a little confused on how a worldview works. A traditional Christian worldview allows for natural processes, such as electricity or combustion. Even the ancient Hebrews parted ways with their pantheistic neighbors by ascribing creation to the act of one divine being rather than reality being an integrated whole emerging from primeval chaos.
I think that the glib dismissal of other miraculous claims by Christians is a mistake and a product of naivete in culture. One thing we can be sure of is that the Koran is not merely a product of epilepsy. And I don't know much about the milk miracle, only a few videos I saw, so I can't really comment on it. I'm not closed to "supernatural" explanations, I suppose. It would have to be a working hypothesis, right?
I think a good working definition of "natural" would begin like this:
"anything that can claim existence without appealing to agency(-ies) that has/have no similar claim to existence..."
Not very good, philosophically speaking, but gets across the point that for something (matter, for instance) to exist, something made of matter would serve as a logical source for matter's existence, as opposed to some conjectural(and by no means universally agreed upon) immaterial agent.
Or, if you prefer, if you have to invoke magical explanations, you've explained exactly zip.
P.S., 'atheist', without further qualification is fine.
GHE, so are you saying that everything is contingent on a prior state of affairs? How about quantum wave fluctuations producing matter? Are mental events and qualia real or natural? From where did this first matter/energy come from?
I'm not sure your view is coherent.
That's ok, Brad. I don't see Christianity as coherent either.
If the proposition "Thor
probably does not exist" is merely a hypothesis, then what are your plans to test that hypothesis? If every proposition for you is merely a subject of inquiry without conclusions or tenets, then how can you make any knowledge claims at all?
In some sense that hypothesis (thor) is tested every day. Each day goes by and I see no reason to believe Thor exists.
Knowledge claims...hmmm. I don't claim to know the creator of the universe. But why should I make knowledge claims at all? I see some things as likely and others as not so likely. Santa isn't likely. Neither is Yahweh.
A traditional Christian worldview allows for natural processes, such as electricity or combustion
Well, it does today. Lightning used to be attributed to God, if I recall correctly. Earthquakes.....God. Disease....Satan or demons or punishment from God.
So you pick and choose which things you attribute to supernatural forces or God and which you accept natural causes for. You seem to hold a partial naturalist worldview. You use naturalism when the evidence for it is overwhelming and revert to supernaturalism when you want to support your unlikely beliefs.
I view the whole idea of 'worldview' as a simplistic notion. The idea is overly simplistic as you attest to yourself when you say christians accept many things as having natural causes (now). You want to insist that atheists must share some over-arching worldview and I don't think that makes sense. I share much of my worldview with you and other christians. My worldview probably has much more in common with a modern day christian than an ancient atheist. Just as some christians believe in literal hell and others do not, some are mormon, some jehovah's witness. Some atheists are communists, some anarchists, some republicans, some buddhists. What could it mean to assert they all share a 'worldview'?
Yes, my entire mindset is a working hypothesis. I hold my beliefs as tentatively and nondogmaticly as possible. I'm fairly sure that I'm not in a vat ala the matrix but it would be dishonest to claim absolute certainty. I'm a little less sure that men really went to the moon...but still fairly certain. I think String Theory or some version may well be true but I wouldn't be willing to stake my life on it or insist that you agree with me. As for Jesus being the son of the creator of the universe and rising from the dead, I'm well toward the sceptical end of the spectrum. But if the evidence comes along....
Santa, like Jesus was a real person. But like Jesus, he's dead now. I strongly doubt Santa is alive and living at the north pole or delivering presents on xmas eve. I also strongly doubt Jesus ascended to heaven and is sitting on a throne waiting to judge whether you've been naughtly or nice.
BTW, I don't think the neighbors around the hebrews were exactly pantheistic. More like animist and polytheistic. It is true that they viewed themselves more as a part of nature (like the american indians) but true pantheism arose in India and not the middle east. They didn't view reality as synonymous with deity as in hinduism. If you have scholarly information that supports your view I'd be happy to have a look at it though. All the sources I've read (I've studied this for decades) so far describe these near eastern religions as polytheistic, not pantheistic.
Marcus and other beleivers.
My posts have nothing to do with the da vinci code, its actually just historical knowledge?
Marcus, I have already tried to bring up inconsistencies to you before and like most christians you just always appeal to narrow minded and pathetic apologists.
You say there is no inconsistencies because you dont allow yourself to see any!
"You people always say this - and it always turns out to be a lie."
Forgive him; he lives in Boston.
"...it is you that will have a woefully inadequate view of reality."
This would be much more credible coming from someone who was not an encomiast of Avalos.
@ Brad,
I did say it's "(n)ot very good, philosophically speaking..."
This should have tipped you off that this isn't a rigorous definition.
I kicked it out, and if you like, we can try to beat the dents out of it.
"Are mental events and qualia real or natural?"
Yes.
"From where did this first matter/energy come...?"
If you NEED an answer for that question and your answer MUST be certain, then choose God.
If you're willing to allow that science may find a suitable answer that we don't know yet (science is far from being a finished business, and the jury is still out on that one...), then you're agnostic.
@Shane
You wrote the following:
Marcus and other beleivers.
My posts have nothing to do with the da vinci code, its actually just historical knowledge?
Marcus, I have already tried to bring up inconsistencies to you before and like most christians you just always appeal to narrow minded and pathetic apologists.
You say there is no inconsistencies because you dont allow yourself to see any!
History? Not all Historians look at the evidence and come to the conclusions you have presented. Those who agree with your understanding of history inspired Don Brown's fictional novel. I've named a book that describes how the English Bibles came down to us. I want to know why you disagree. The King James Only Controversy by James White. Until you can tell me why Dr White is wrong and the historians who think that books that now make up the Bible were chosen by committee and voted upon are right. By that I want to know where did this happen, when did it happen, and a name or two of the people you know who were there doing the voting. If it happened these should be easy to answer - historically.
As for inconsistencies in the Bible. Each and every one you brought up disappear when you look at the context in which it was written. Information you cannot have without study because you did not grow up in the cultures that give the Bible it's context. IF you choose ignore the cultural and social contexts of the Bible then you are choosing contradiction over reason. Good luck with that.
Marcus.
Lol...choosing contradiction over reason?
Sorry but christianity has nothing to do with reason! Faith and reason are two incompatible things! You dont need to have faith if there is reason involved.....otherwise what purpose would faith serve?
Faith comes in only in the absence of reason.
Reason is based on the observed and experienced natural world....last time I checked, people rising from the dead, walking on water, floating axe heads, people turning into pillars of salt..etc.. are not naturally observed?......no....these things are taken on faith aren't they?
Also, if there is no inconsistency, then just try comparing (for an easy example) the four gospel stories regarding the events surrounding Jesus resurrection and the events thereof.
As for the rest.....what do you suppose the council of Nicaea was all about if im wrong?
Why are Mathew,Mark,Luke, and John included and none of the rest of the writings about Jesus which are known to exist?
Marcus.
You asked before why I dont consider those who disagree with me to be experts, and am I smarter then they are?
I never said they are not experts, I said "so called" experts.
And what I was getting at is the fact that you can have two "so called" experts on any given subject and they may totally disagree!
Yes I do know why apologists, christian scholars, and creation scientists come to the conclusions they do......its because they already have the presupposition that the bible is factually true.
Scince they already have this preconception, they operate with a selectively observative mind set!
I realize this may not be true for all religious minded professionals, but I have read some pretty wacky concepts from creation scientists and apologists!
I'm not sure your view is coherent.
That's ok, Brad. I don't see Christianity as coherent either.
If the proposition "Thor probably does not exist" is merely a hypothesis, then what are your plans to test that hypothesis? If every proposition for you is merely a subject of inquiry without conclusions or tenets, then how can you make any knowledge claims at all?
In some sense that hypothesis (thor) is tested every day. Each day goes by and I see no reason to believe Thor exists. Knowledge claims...hmmm. I don't claim to know the creator of the universe. But why should I make knowledge claims at all? I see some things as likely and others as not so likely. Santa isn't likely. Neither is Yahweh.
A traditional Christian worldview allows for natural processes, such as electricity or combustion
Well, it does today. Lightning used to be attributed to God, if I recall correctly. Earthquakes.....God. Disease....Satan or demons or punishment from God.
So you pick and choose which things you attribute to supernatural forces or God and which you accept natural causes for. You seem to hold a partial naturalist worldview. You use naturalism when the evidence for it is overwhelming and revert to supernaturalism when you want to support your unlikely beliefs.
I view the whole idea of 'worldview' as a simplistic notion. And example is when you say christians accept many things as having natural causes (now). You want to insist that atheists must share some over-arching worldview and I don't think it makes sense. I share much of my worldview with you and other christians. My worldview probably has much more in common with a modern day christian than an ancient atheist. Just as some christians believe in literal hell and others do not, some are mormon, some jehovah's witness. Some atheists are communists, some anarchists, some republicans, some buddhists. What could it mean to assert they all share a 'worldview'?
Yes, my entire mindset is a working hypothesis. I hold my beliefs as tentatively and nondogmaticly as possible. I'm fairly sure that I'm not in a vat ala the matrix but it would be dishonest to claim absolute certainty. I'm a little less sure that men really went to the moon...but still fairly certain. I think String Theory or some version may well be true but I woudn't be willing to stake my life on it or insist that you agree with me. As for Jesus being the son of the creator of the universe and rising from the dead, I'm well toward the sceptical end of the spectrum. But if the evidence comes along....
Santa, like Jesus was a real person. But like Jesus, he's dead now. I strongly doubt Santa is alive and living at the north pole or delivering presents on xmas eve. I also strongly doubt Jesus ascended to heaven and is sitting on a throne waiting to judge whether you've been naughtly or nice. None of this forms an ideology or is carved in stone. It is dependent upon the evidence. Rigorous thinking does not begin with conclusions.
GHE,
I won't press you any more on your definition because I appreciate your humility and I think that it proves the point that it is much tougher to actually defend a model. (I think if you count thoughts as real, though, then they necessarily have to be immaterial, and different from biochemical processes, but then maybe you're working on that problem already)
Thanks for the conversation!
Zenmite? Did I read a comment from you that is now deleted? I still wanted to clarify.
Claiming that the ANE religions were pantheistic is a little misleading in how we think of it today. There was certainly a pantheon of gods, but they were all connected materially with the rest of the cosmos in emerging from the primeval sea of chaos (tiamat). It isn't unlike Hinduism except that the ultimate reality is chaos rather than absolution. The Hebrew bible, on the other hand, reflect a sense of God as total creator and not emerging from the primeval sea (i.e. there is no creation myth for "elohim" in Genesis 1), thereby allowing for natural processes and God's providence in all creation. Recognizing the process doesn't negate God's providence.
If you're still reading the thread, I've got a bit of a snarky question for you to challenge your life view: Is it always best to view reality probabilistically?
@Shane
If you think Faith has nothing to do with reason then you don't know how the Bible defines"Faith". Faith is not the absence or antithesis for reason.
You believe atoms are real...no...you know atoms are real although you have never see an atom in your own hands. You can feel the wind...but you don't really know where it came from or to where it will go. The laundry list of things you appeal to and then conclude they can't be true because you have not oberved them is a conclusion you can't prove. Who say God's actions have not been observe, weighed, counted or measured?
Faith is based on relationship and previous experience. You have faith that when you go home and sit in your favorite chair it will support your weight. Why? You have no proof of that. You believe it will because it always has up until that point. Faith in God is similar because it grows over time - relationship. A miracle is just that...out of the ordinary experience. That does not mean that they don't happen. They don't happen every day. IF they did they would not be miracles.
Like I've said before, I'd be more than happy to step through the gospels and show you that there are no contradictions...just varying levels of details when you look at context.
Do you even know what happened at the Council of Nicea? Which Council are you referring to? There was more than one. At which Council was it that they discuss Canon? IF you are talking about the 325 AD Council that everyone reference and ties with Constantine, that was about Jesus' deity not about which books to include in the Bible.
Mathew,Mark,Luke, and John were included and none of the rest of the writings about Jesus which are known to exist as scripture before the Council of Nicea was even called. The Church Fathers of the 2nd century point to this.
If you claim that the only reasons why people disagree with you regarding the Bible's validity is because of presupposing that the Bible is true how do your guard against your own presuppositions and Bias. You are wrong about when and how the Gospels were included as scripture. What else could be wrong about?
Hi Brad. I wrote a response to you, posted it and it never appeared according to my computer. Next day, I posted it again. Again it didn't appear. I gave up. I don't know if it was a technical problem or John deleted it or what. You seem to be replying to the post so maybe it was up for awhile, so I hate to post it again.
"I've got a bit of a snarky question for you to challenge your life view: Is it always best to view reality probabilistically?"
Probably.
; )
zenmite, it went to my spam folder and I don't know why. Let me know if this happens again and I'll release them.
Cheers.
Marcus, although I have never seen an atom in my hand, I have seen images from scanning tunneling electron microscopes which show individual atoms. Also, atomic theory makes specific predictions about how elements behave and react which have been verified.
We know what the wind is and how it is caused. What you feel from the wind is air molecules crashing into you. Wind is caused by differences in pressure, and this too has been used to make predictions which have been verified.
Your chair analogy fails, because what evidence is there that god has done anything that is comparable to the chair consistently and predictably supporting our weight?
Here's a contradiction from the gospels you can try to explain. Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Luke has Jesus born during the year of the Census under Quirinius. We know that Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 CE and Josephus confirms that this is when the census was taken. Which gospel writer got it correct?
You are also wrong in stating that the Church Fathers of the 2nd Century had already rejected all of the other gospels besides the 4 in the NT. The Church Fathers who were part of the sect of Christianity that would eventually win out over all the others may have done this, but Christianity was a very diverse religion at that time. You agree with these particular Church Fathers because they won and were able to pass their doctrines and holy books down to each subsequent generation, including yours.
zenmite, I got the comment in my email feed, so that's where I read it first. I'll let this go by pointing out that I'm not the only one saying this about atheism. Luke over at commonsenseatheism has a post up about arguing for naturalism right now. You should probably go check it out.
Thanks for the conversation!
@Evil Don the Pirate
Marcus, although I have never seen an atom in my hand, I have seen images from scanning tunneling electron microscopes which show individual atoms. Also, atomic theory makes specific predictions about how elements behave and react which have been verified.
I agree, but how do you know the pictures aren't fake? You don't have any verification with any 5 of your own senses. I totally agree that it's verified. But not using the same criteria you are using to deny God's existence.
We know what the wind is and how it is caused. What you feel from the wind is air molecules crashing into you. Wind is caused by differences in pressure, and this too has been used to make predictions which have been verified.
I agree with what you are saying about what wind comes from. No one can accurately predict all minute details in air currents...if we could we could acurately predict the weather - 100%.
Your chair analogy fails, because what evidence is there that god has done anything that is comparable to the chair consistently and predictably supporting our weight?
I have had first hand evidence of God keeping His promises to those who dilligent seek Him. Just because you haven't does not mean that there isn't evidence. You just haven't recognized it. You trust that that chair will support your weight due to past experience. I know I can reliably trust God due to past experience.
Here's a contradiction from the gospels you can try to explain. Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Luke has Jesus born during the year of the Census under Quirinius. We know that Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 CE and Josephus confirms that this is when the census was taken. Which gospel writer got it correct?
Before I give an answer...I've got to wonder do you really think that after 2000 years no one has given an answer to this question and Christians just ignore it? Here is the answer most scholars who disagree that there is a contradiction gives: Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? What I want to know is why would you reject this explanation?
You are also wrong in stating that the Church Fathers of the 2nd Century had already rejected all of the other gospels besides the 4 in the NT. The Church Fathers who were part of the sect of Christianity that would eventually win out over all the others may have done this, but Christianity was a very diverse religion at that time. You agree with these particular Church Fathers because they won and were able to pass their doctrines and holy books down to each subsequent generation, including yours.
Please cite some of the "Church Fathers" who accepted the gnostic gospels or any of the others. Also state where these other folks are considered "Church Fathers". Can you also explain why you would give these other gospels any weight equivalent to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Can you prove any of them are from the first century and not the second or later?
Just because you haven't does not mean that there isn't evidence. You just haven't recognized it.
Right,of course - it always ends up being our fault. Always.
Marcus, I'll offer that there's been evidence in front of you that he doesn't exist, or that he doesn't keep his promises. There are good, faithful Christians (along with people of other faiths, but, naturally, you'd maintain that he doesn't respond to them) who cry out to God for help every day, and walk away empty-handed - but you'll deny the evidence, or use the same rationalizations you're using hear to dismiss them, because the only important thing for you is to continue to believe. As long as you get the security blanket - that's all that matters. Everyone else can quite literally go to hell.
I agree, but how do you know the pictures aren't fake?
People, I don't know why you're bothering arguing with Marcus. Your goal is to perceive reality objectively. The goal of the believer is to continue to believe. Moreover, he thinks that because his mind works that way - your does as well.
@Cypher
Right,of course - it always ends up being our fault. Always.
Exactly the point the New Testament makes! Not just about you as an atheist but everyone. No one is worthy or perfect enough. That is why Jesus cam...to give us what we could not obtain on our own. If we could, do you really think God would go through that much trouble?
Marcus, I'll offer that there's been evidence in front of you that he doesn't exist, or that he doesn't keep his promises. There are good, faithful Christians (along with people of other faiths, but, naturally, you'd maintain that he doesn't respond to them) who cry out to God for help every day, and walk away empty-handed - but you'll deny the evidence, or use the same rationalizations you're using hear to dismiss them, because the only important thing for you is to continue to believe. As long as you get the security blanket - that's all that matters. Everyone else can quite literally go to hell.
Nope, I would not say that God ignores anyone. God has answered everyone of my prayers just sometimes it's been with "No" or "Not Yet". I thank him for that because I don't want a "yes" if its not good for me. God answers the prayers of atheists and other other faiths other than mine. He healed people in the Bible who weren't Jews or Christians. Her talked to people who had no intention of doing right...even in the Bible. Your argument makes no sense. God has mercy on whom ever he wants. When he want. How he wants. No, God does not want you or anyone else to go to hell. If you do it's because you rejected him not because you rejected Him. Whatcha go'in' to do 'bout it?
I had said in previous comment regarding the evidence of atoms:
I agree, but how do you know the pictures aren't fake?
'You said
People, I don't know why you're bothering arguing with Marcus. Your goal is to perceive reality objectively. The goal of the believer is to continue to believe. Moreover, he thinks that because his mind works that way - your does as well.
Funny you didn't answer the question. You didn't take the microscope pictures yourself did you? How do you know you aren't being tricked? Sounds like faith to me. I'm using the same argument you were trying to use about prayer and God but it makes no sense because I have personal experience with God. He has intervened in my life and your (although you are blind to it). I know he has intervened your life because if He had not you would not be here to read this!
For the record, of course I accept the evidences of atomic and quantum science. I actually confirms many of the predictions made in those fields when i was studying Engineering and Physics at UC Berkeley. But I wonder if you have any direct first-hand experience doing experiments. If you haven't how do you know the stuff you read in science books are true?
Exactly the point the New Testament makes! Not just about you as an atheist but everyone. No one is worthy or perfect enough
That's what you inferred from what I said? You thought this was an appropriate segue? Are you really that dense?
As for the rest of what you said:"Blah, blah, blah, Jesus-babble, blah, blah." It's always the same crap. Serves me right; I broke my own rule. I've arrived at a point at which I won't even speak to Christians - it's simply that what you said was so moronic, I couldn't contain myself.
If you had any integrity, you'd call Berkeley and give them back the degree.
Cypher, I merely agreed with you that you are saying that I am saying that it's your fault. I know you don't think so...but that's because the Bible is right about people.
Besides you didn't answer my questions. Just more personal attacks since that is the on;y arguments you have. Real sad.
What's sad is that you're willing to see billions of your fellow human beings suffer for all of eternity, so that you can have the security blanket for a few brief decades while here.
It has far more to do with your self-esteem than it does with divine revelation.
@Cypher
What's sad is that you're willing to see billions of your fellow human beings suffer for all of eternity, so that you can have the security blanket for a few brief decades while here.
It has far more to do with your self-esteem than it does with divine revelation.
Excuse me. Who said I wanted to see you or anyone else going to hell? That is why I'm taking the time to talk to you!!! I want God to touch your heart so that He can save you and you don't have to go to hell! If I wanted you to go to hell all I would have to do is say nothing. I wouldn't preach.
Sorry Marcus, but your article is full of wishful thinking. The fact is we can account for Quirinius's whereabouts. His career is well documented. Also, Luke's description of the census requiring families to register at the home of their ancestors is nonsense. The author of Luke was using the census as a plot device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. And the year is still wrong. I read your article (and found it poor), now take the time to read From Jesus to Christianity by L. Michael White. He explains very well why Christian attempts at harmonizing this particular contradiction fails.
And, Marcus, I used to be a Christian that believed the same things you do. I was sure that I had experienced god's promises. Now I see that for what it was: wishful thinking. I mean, who wouldn't want to have a benevolent sky daddy looking after them. If you think that evidence from personal feelings are on the same level as evidence of atoms, wind, and chairs, then you are beyond help until you realize how ridiculous that is.
As to the church fathers, the reality you're rejecting is that there was no one Christianity at that time. There was no New Testament at that time. Every sect had their own doctrines and holy books until one of them gained political support and was able to recruit more converts than the rest. This is the sect that Christians today refer to as Christians, but if another sect had won, they would be the true Christians instead. Your holy books and doctrines are merely those of the winners.
@Evil Don
Sorry Marcus, but your article is full of wishful thinking. The fact is we can account for Quirinius's whereabouts. His career is well documented. Also, Luke's description of the census requiring families to register at the home of their ancestors is nonsense. The author of Luke was using the census as a plot device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. And the year is still wrong. I read your article (and found it poor), now take the time to read From Jesus to Christianity by L. Michael White. He explains very well why Christian attempts at harmonizing this particular contradiction fails.
I'm real disappointed I wanted you to cite sources and sates! Name Names. Fully explain why you disagree with this answer and prove it wrong. Yet, you just offer the same argument....which is just the question. If you are saying the book does that...then fine. I'll take it up with him.
And, Marcus, I used to be a Christian that believed the same things you do. I was sure that I had experienced god's promises. Now I see that for what it was: wishful thinking. I mean, who wouldn't want to have a benevolent sky daddy looking after them. If you think that evidence from personal feelings are on the same level as evidence of atoms, wind, and chairs, then you are beyond help until you realize how ridiculous that is.
So you were born again? I mean did God reach into you life and change you?
As to the church fathers, the reality you're rejecting is that there was no one Christianity at that time. There was no New Testament at that time. Every sect had their own doctrines and holy books until one of them gained political support and was able to recruit more converts than the rest. This is the sect that Christians today refer to as Christians, but if another sect had won, they would be the true Christians instead. Your holy books and doctrines are merely those of the winners.
Again with this assertion. Where is your proof? Name Names. Cite sources. How do you know, for example, that the gnostics have just as a valid claim to being a Christian as Apostle Paul or Peter, or James, or John? I think what you are missing is that "Christian" is definable term with a particular worldview, doctrine, and teachings. A Historic reality. For example "reincarnation" is not part of historic Biblical Christianity.
"The fact is we can account for Quirinius's whereabouts."
Quirinius could be a mistake for Quinctilius, who was governor of Syria from 7 BC to 4 BC. (It is possible Quinctilius governed longer, but it is certain he governed for at least 3 years.)
"Also, Luke's description of the census requiring families to register at the home of their ancestors is nonsense."
I don't think it's as clear cut as that.
Marcus said,
"...God has answered everyone of my prayers just sometimes it's been with "No" or "Not Yet". I thank him for that because I don't want a "yes" if its not good for me."
What a load of Horse Shit.
Even you're not stupid enouigh to really believe that.
"God answers the prayers of atheists and other other faiths other than mine."
Redundant much?
And to whom would an atheist pray?
"He talked to people who had no intention of doing right...even in the Bible."
This should read:
"He talked to people who had no intention of doing right...ONLY in the Bible."
Cipher said,
"...If you had any integrity, you'd call Berkeley and give them back the degree."
I agree.
O'brien said,
"Quirinius could be a mistake for Quinctilius, who was governor of Syria from 7 BC to 4 BC. (It is possible Quinctilius governed longer, but it is certain he governed for at least 3 years.)"
If Luke was wrong about this, than what else was he wrong about?
If you cast doubt upon this item, you cast doubt upon the rest.
O'Brien said,
"I don't think it's as clear cut as that."
You should have stopped after the first three words...
@GearHedEd
You're funny. Ever hear the old saying "There are no atheists in foxholes." Given the right circumstances even you would pray.
You're just a compendium of Christian cliches, aren't you?
"The Magic 8 Ball has answered everyone of my prayers just sometimes it's been with "No" or "Not Yet". I thank him for that because I don't want a "yes" if its not good for me."
Marcus, you aren't dealing with this honestly. If you had taken a few minutes to think critically about that article you posted to, you would see what is wrong with it. But you didn't. You found someone who confirmed what you wanted to believe and assumed it must be correct.
The first problem: the apologist at that site takes liberties with the wording of the verse. A better translation is this: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." The problem is clear now isn't it?
The second problem: The multiple censuses of Augustus were for Roman citizens. Judea was not even a Roman province under Herod. It was a client kingdom. There is historical evidence of any kind indicating that Rome ever conducted a census of Judea prior to 6 CE.
Third problem: Josephus makes it very clear when the census was taken, why, and by whom. He wrote "Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money." He records no other census of Judea (as does no one else).
Fourth problem: The apologist gives no evidence of any other censuses in Judea. He merely asserts that previous censuses of other areas are evidence that censuses were taken in Judea as well. What he fails to emphasize is that the other censuses are recorded history, whereas the supposed Judean censuses are not.
Fifth problem: This one is especially important, so pay close attention. There is absolutely no justification anywhere in Luke for supposing that the census is any other than the one he is clearly referring to. Do you understand that? The census Luke describes matches the one (and only) census we know about in Judea. The only justification (and this is typical of Bible harmonizers) for supposing an earlier census is the Christian dogma that the gospels can't possibly contradict each other. There is no other way to justify the idea that Luke was not referring to the 6 CE census, which he clearly was.
Marcus, in response to your other comments to me:
Yes, I was "born again." I truly believed Jesus had died on the cross for my sins and there was no other way to salvation but by believing in him. I believed he had changed me. I moved overseas to share his love with people who had never heard of him because I wanted them to know my joy and be saved from their sins. I know the game you're trying to play. It's called "The no true Scotsman fallacy." I was every bit as much of a Christian as you are now. I even believed that those who left the faith were never really Christians to begin with, because if they had really experienced the love of Jesus that I had experienced they would never leave. What can I say? I was wrong. I was an arrogant douchebag.
Your comments about the church fathers are nonsense. Christian is not a definable term in the sense you mean. Every Christian has a different definition. Your definition is not the one right definition. As to the gnostics not having an equal claim to being apostles as Peter, Paul, and James, what makes you think they don't? You don't know who they are. We know little about them because the "Christians" worked so hard to suppress them. The reality you're refusing to deal with is that at that time every sect was heretical (even the "Christians") in the eyes of every other sect. Every sect read heretical books, even the "Christians." I've said it before and I'll say it again until it gets through your skull, the only reason the "Christians'" doctrine and scriptures are now considered correct and their leaders the true apostles is because they won the battle for converts and were able to impose their will (with the support of the Roman emperor) on everyone else. Bart Ehrman covers this very well in "The Lost Christianities" and Charles Freeman covers much of it in "The Closing of the Western Mind" and "AD 381."
And one more thing Marcus, the apologist claims that families returning to their place of familial origin for the census is a fact. This is not a fact. Luke is the only source for this. This is not how Romans conducted censuses. It defies logic and common sense. The census was for taxation purposes. Returning to the home of an ancestor that lived about 1000 years ago to register would have done nothing but create confusion. And imagine how many descendants of David there would be. Both he and Solomon and their heirs were prolific lovers. There would be tens of thousands of people returning to Bethlehem to register, if not many more. It would have created chaos for the Roman officials, and they weren't stupid enough to do it that way. It also puts the lie to the apologists claim that Herod's slaughter of the innocents in Matthew was ignored by every other historian because of Bethlehem's small size where few babies would have been killed. If all the descendants of David really had to go to Bethlehem at this time, you can bet there would be many babies killed and the uproar would not have gone unnoticed by historians.
Marcus.
By the time I came back here, Don has said pretty much everything I would have replied myself.
You are comparing rational faiths here with irrational faiths. Example- We expect a chair to hold up our weight because past experience has given us reason to believe so. Yet...nothing in our past observation or experience would suggest someone rising from the dead or walking on water!
And no Marcus, contrary to your belief's, christian beliefs are not founded on reasonable propositions?
Faith is NOT another means of aquiring knowledge. Even the bible says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for"! Not the substance of things known!
Reason is based on what we know from logical observation and experience, religious faith is believing inspite of reason and rationality!
Therefore, christianity has no foundation in reason.
@Evil Don
First thanks for taking the time to explain why you disagree with the given answer regarding the census around the time of Jesus' Birth. I disagree and I will be writing a fuller response to the points you raised tonight.
In the meantime I think it's important to say something about the other points you raised. You said:
Yes, I was "born again." I truly believed Jesus had died on the cross for my sins and there was no other way to salvation but by believing in him. I believed he had changed me. I moved overseas to share his love with people who had never heard of him because I wanted them to know my joy and be saved from their sins. I know the game you're trying to play. It's called "The no true Scotsman fallacy." I was every bit as much of a Christian as you are now. I even believed that those who left the faith were never really Christians to begin with, because if they had really experienced the love of Jesus that I had experienced they would never leave. What can I say? I was wrong. I was an arrogant douchebag.
This is where "born again" is not just jargon. I'm asking if you had a personal change in your outlook, your desires, and your feelings. The Bible describes the changes with the word "metamorpho". as you know it's where we get the word "metamorphosis" from. You know like a caterpillar who changed into a butterfly. It's a one way process. Butterflies never turn back into caterpillars and no wherein the New Testament does it describe a process in which a person becomes un-"born again". Even naturally, you can be still born, but you can't become unborn after your birth. I'm not paying a game. This is no fallacy nor a word game. I'm asking given theses facts, according to scripture, can you really claim to have once had salvation? Again I'm not ruling out that you were not saved. You may be like Jonah, running from God. That'll change. If you were once born again then God will bring you back to Himself because you are His. And i hoe for your sake this is the case. If it is not, You can still come to God.
@Evil Don
Your comments about the church fathers are nonsense. Christian is not a definable term in the sense you mean. Every Christian has a different definition. Your definition is not the one right definition. As to the gnostics not having an equal claim to being apostles as Peter, Paul, and James, what makes you think they don't? You don't know who they are. We know little about them because the "Christians" worked so hard to suppress them. The reality you're refusing to deal with is that at that time every sect was heretical (even the "Christians") in the eyes of every other sect. Every sect read heretical books, even the "Christians." I've said it before and I'll say it again until it gets through your skull, the only reason the "Christians'" doctrine and scriptures are now considered correct and their leaders the true apostles is because they won the battle for converts and were able to impose their will (with the support of the Roman emperor) on everyone else. Bart Ehrman covers this very well in "The Lost Christianities" and Charles Freeman covers much of it in "The Closing of the Western Mind" and "AD 381."
Dude. I've read many of those "lost" books. Even many of the Gnostic gospels. You know what? They did nothing for me. No less than what you claim when you read the Bible we do have today. Just because one sect thinks another is heretical doesn't necessarily mean it's heretical. Of course I know that there were different viewpoints 1,500 years ago. I think what you need to prove is the the first century church was fragmented and that the original apostles disagreed with one another about what the Gospel is and then you need to show that the Gnostics and other "lost" Christianities shared those views and other ones to make your argument fly. Basing your argument on text that were definitely not written by those who claimed to have writing them and say completely contradictory things to the 1st century texts prove nothing except you are grabbing at straws.
@Shane
You are comparing rational faiths here with irrational faiths. Example- We expect a chair to hold up our weight because past experience has given us reason to believe so. Yet...nothing in our past observation or experience would suggest someone rising from the dead or walking on water!
Who say that I have no previous experience of God intervening in my life and in the lives of other that I can observe? I do. I have not seen the dead raised after 3 days and i have not seen a man walk on water. but i have seen God take my heart of stone and replace it with a heart inclined to Him so that
i want to please Him.
Faith is NOT another means of aquiring knowledge. Even the bible says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for"! Not the substance of things known!
Reason is based on what we know from logical observation and experience, religious faith is believing inspite of reason and rationality!
Therefore, christianity has no foundation in reason.
Shane, you misquoted the passage. Faith is not just the substance of things hoped for its also the evidence of what we do not see!
Faith is not believing despite evidence. Faith is trusting God even when you cannot see the whole big picture. It is believing even if you can't prove it; not believing even if you can prove it wrong. If that is what you think, then no wonder you are confused.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the council of Nicea, under Constantine, closed the canon of the New Testament.
Evil Don,
I waited to see what his response would be, and I wasn't disappointed. This is the game they play. No explanation you give will be satisfactory; he will ALWAYS find a way to invalidate you. As I said yesterday - the goal of the believer is to continue to believe. Nothing else matters. If he allows himself to consider, even for a moment, that you may be correct - what does it get him? Annihilation at best, eternal damnation at worst. We simply have nothing attractive to offer him. He wants eternal life so badly that he's willing to see every man, woman and child who has ever lived in hell for all of eternity. As long as HE'S saved - that's all that matters. The tragic irony is that he thinks we're the ones who are deluded, who refuse to see what's in front of us.
I'm convinced it's a neurological issue, and the evidence is beginning to bear this out. In any case, you're all wasting your time; you'll get absolutely nowhere.
Cypher
I waited to see what his response would be, and I wasn't disappointed. This is the game they play. No explanation you give will be satisfactory; he will ALWAYS find a way to invalidate you. As I said yesterday - the goal of the believer is to continue to believe. Nothing else matters. If he allows himself to consider, even for a moment, that you may be correct - what does it get him? Annihilation at best, eternal damnation at worst. We simply have nothing attractive to offer him. He wants eternal life so badly that he's willing to see every man, woman and child who has ever lived in hell for all of eternity. As long as HE'S saved - that's all that matters. The tragic irony is that he thinks we're the ones who are deluded, who refuse to see what's in front of us.
I'm amazed...simply amazed. I'm not invalidating anyone. The Bible says what it says. If you have a problem with it...it is not with me. If I'm wrong about the Bible and if it is false then I know it's annihilation - nothingness. I'm not afraid of that, I'm just certain that is not the way it will end up. It is you, cypher, that should be concerned. If you are right, then none of this matters and I wasted my life (1st Cor 15). If you are wrong you are going to hell. My personal salvation is a done deal. Set. I'm not worried about it. I don't want to see people go to hell that is why i want to tell as many folks as possible about Jesus. What are you talking about? It's not enough for me to just go to heaven. If it were, I'd keep my mouth shut. Do you ever go back and re-read the drivel you write? Does that thought really make sense to you? Lots of people are going to go to heaven, receiving the gift of eternal life because they trusted God. Not just me. TODAY is the day of salvation. Don't miss out.
"If Luke was wrong about this, than what else was he wrong about?
If you cast doubt upon this item, you cast doubt upon the rest."
1. It need not be Luke's mistake. It could be an early copier's mistake.
2. In the event that Luke mistook one for the other, I don't think it detracts from the integrity of Luke-Acts as a whole. Similarly, I don't think Josephus' account of Masada, which has been criticized by modern historians, indicts the totality of his work.
"You should have stopped after the first three words..."
I don't need an editor, especially one that is a vapid atheist from one of the ****tiest states in the union.
Do you ever go back and re-read the drivel you write? Does that thought really make sense to you?
Look in the mirror, God-boy.
I don't need an editor, especially one that is a vapid atheist from one of the ****tiest states in the union.
Robert, you seem to be inordinately interested in which states others reside, especially as you're reluctant to reveal your own - or are these barbs your way of telling us, "I've been checking up on you"?
You really ought to stick to statistics. You seem to know what you're talking about there - and, even if you don't, it's a subject so impenetrable to most people that you can always give the impression that you do. When it comes to theology, you're just another petulant theist trying desperately to prove to yourself that atheists haven't a leg upon which to stand.
Why don't you run along now back to PZ Myers' dungeon? Grown-ups are talking.
"Robert, you seem to be inordinately interested in which states others reside, especially as you're reluctant to reveal your own - or are these barbs your way of telling us, 'I've been checking up on you'?"
Yes, I've gone through the painstaking trouble of clicking on the profiles you and others have provided. Amazing, ain't it?
"You really ought to stick to statistics. You seem to know what you're talking about there - and, even if you don't, it's a subject so impenetrable to most people that you can always give the impression that you do. When it comes to theology, you're just another petulant theist trying desperately to prove to yourself that atheists haven't a leg upon which to stand."
I don't take unsolicited advice, especially from pretentious morons.
"Why don't you run along now back to PZ Myers' dungeon? Grown-ups are talking."
I already know you are lacking in native intelligence; there is no need to keep swinging at a busted piñata.
Pretentious?
LOL! - and that's an expression I almost never use! I literally laughed out loud!
When Marcus is finished with the mirror, you may want to have a turn.
Cypher, I'm more than happy to pass my mirror to you...it's the Bible.
@Evil Don the Pirate
Here is my response to Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries
Evil Don: There is [no] historical evidence of any kind indicating that Rome ever conducted a census of Judea prior to 6 CE.
Marcus: There is also no historical evidence that there were no censuses prior to 6 BC.
Amazing, isn't it? With these people, it's always "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", until one gets to evolution; then it's "Where are the transitional forms?!"
Don, I'll leave the rest to you, if you care to bother.
I noticed that Marcus has also posted a video in which Dawkins explains why he won't debate William Lane Craig.
Marcus' analysis:
Translation: "I'm Chicken!!!"
What are you, twelve? I'm done with you.
Marcus.
You mean you experienced a transofrmation in what you call your heart (mind,will,emotions).
These kinds of transformations need no supernatural intervention, they just need a reason powerful enough for us.
Alot men after a war come back drastically changed!
Therefore this is not evidence of a divine intervention- even if it was a divine transformation for you, it is still not evidence for me, and im still justified in doubting it!
Marcus, faith and reason cannot be at the same time!
Either the propositions of the bible can be demonstrated by logic and rationality in the natural world and therefore become a prospect of reason, in which case we have no need of faith.
Or....the prospects of the bible cannot be demonstrated by logic and rationality in the natural world, and therefore defy reason and become an issue of faith......you cant have both!
How did the council of Nicaea create the canon?
What I do know from history is that there were two councils held, one in 325 Ad and one in i think 787 Ad.
In 325 Ad, roughly 300 religious leaders came together because of the diverse belief systems surrounding the earlier forms of christianity.
Out of the many writings, doctrines, and practices only some were decided to be divine and the others were discarded. This is were the orthodox church came out victorious.
T
Why do you suppose the other gospels about Christ were not included in our bible.
Why do you suppose the church centuries later consider the four gospels divine, yet only the Catholic church reads from the Apocrypha as a secondary book even though it contains alot of writings about Jesus before his ministry began?
Obviously because the earlier church had to try to come up with one harmonized story about Christ and other such writings were too contradictory. Even the four gospels we have today are irreconcilable regarding many important events and issues. (not to mention the fact that modern christianity is formated after Paul of Tarsus's teachings rather the gospels themselves).
@Shane
The bottom line is that you have every right to doubt my testimony. It doesn't matter because if you knew Jesus for yourself you would know what I refer to. I've seen God move things in my life and in the lives of others that can't be explained away as you have done.
As for your thinking of reason and faith, it is seriously flawed. you are not using the biblical definition of faith. By your definition, you are right, but that is not the faith I'm practicing and it's not what the Bible is calling for or what God give us.
As for your account of Nicea, you may wanna check your sources the 325 Ad council of Nicea had nothing to do canonization. They were discussing whether of not Jesus was divine or only human. In addition you show woefully ignorance of the Apocrapha. Have you ever read it? They have nothing to do with Jesus. They were all written before his birth. Anyone who has truly studied how the English bible has come down to us would know that. The other Gospels about Christ were not included because they come much later and it was known that they were not written by eyewitnesses. However tradition and textual criticism points to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all coming from the first century and written by the men whom names are attached to them. Have you ever read those others? The Jesus in them is unrecognizable.
I want to be clear you said:
Why do you suppose the church centuries later consider the four gospels divine, yet only the Catholic church reads from the Apocrypha as a secondary book even though it contains alot of writings about Jesus before his ministry began?
Obviously because the earlier church had to try to come up with one harmonized story about Christ and other such writings were too contradictory. Even the four gospels we have today are irreconcilable regarding many important events and issues. (not to mention the fact that modern christianity is formated after Paul of Tarsus's teachings rather the gospels themselves).
This wrong. Afgain the Apocrapha has nothing to do with Jesus' life of ministry. Read 'em. The 4 gospels were considered divine form the 2nd generation of Christianity - the get-go. The earliest church fathers quoted from them and attested to them from the beginning. It's possible to reconstruct the entire Neww Testament except for 11 verses just based on their writings and commentaries. this ain't rue about the books that were left out. If you look at the history, you can see the hand of God behind all of history. This is no different. No where does Paul contradict th4e Gospels. He points to Jesus as Lord and Savior and admonishes people to follow Jesus, not himself. sorry, but your views are biased and base on erroneous information
Shane, Don,
Do you understand now? It doesn't matter what you say. You could show him a sworn affidavit from God - it wouldn't matter. He will always find a way to rationalize or obfuscate. Always. His need to beleive outweighs all other considerations.
It's o form of addiction.
@Cypher
Either explain why you disagree with my comments or admit they are right.
Ad hominem attacks are not an apologetic. Just shows how small you are.
That last bit wasn't ad hominem, genius - just descriptive.
No group uses the term so frequently yet understands it so poorly as do Christians.
As for the rest - I wouldn't waste my time. The others here have far more patience, but I'd wager it's wearing thin about now.
Marcus said,
"@GearHedEd
You're funny. Ever hear the old saying "There are no atheists in foxholes." Given the right circumstances even you would pray."
Nope.
I was a career soldier on active duty in the U.S. Army for ten years.
And before you accuse me of being some remf-ass pogue, listen up:
For the last seven of those years, I was a combat engineer, whose job is primarily concerned with mobility, counter-mobility and survivability missions, many of which are accomplished at combat speed with the use of high explosives. Watch "Saving Private Ryan". The guys who shoved the bangalore torpedo under the wire to create a breach for the infantry to advance were combat engineers. And just because I never saw real combat (not my fault, I didn't shy away; I was stuck in Korea during Desert Storm in 1991), don't think that we didn't drill those same missions using real explosives.
Oh, yeah. And the reason I didn't stay in for 20 years was because I injured my spine jumping out of airplanes with parachutes.
Without praying.
Evil Don said,
"...Returning to the home of an ancestor that lived about 1000 years ago to register would have done nothing but create confusion. And imagine how many descendants of David there would be. Both he and Solomon and their heirs were prolific lovers. There would be tens of thousands of people returning to Bethlehem to register, if not many more."
I'll bet Marcus didn't even think to point out that that was why there was no room at the inn...
O'Brien said,
Quoting me:
"If Luke was wrong about this, than what else was he wrong about?
If you cast doubt upon this item, you cast doubt upon the rest."
O'Brien's rebuttal:
"1. It need not be Luke's mistake. It could be an early copier's mistake.
Moving the goalposts...
2. In the event that Luke mistook one for the other, I don't think it detracts from the integrity of Luke-Acts as a whole..."
Of course not. You're committed to the story, and you CANNOT asdmit that we may be right about this...
"...Similarly, I don't think Josephus' account of Masada, which has been criticized by modern historians, indicts the totality of his work."
Again with the "I don't think"...
"You should have stopped after the first three words..."
"I don't need an editor, especially one that is a vapid atheist from one of the ****tiest states in the union."
No, what you need is a brain.
Marcus said,
"@Shane
The bottom line is that you have every right to doubt my testimony. It doesn't matter because if you knew Jesus for yourself you would know what I refer to. I've seen God move things in my life and in the lives of others that can't be explained away as you have done."
Marcus.
You don't know Jesus. Jesus died 2000 years ago. You only KNOW what someone else told you.
Marcus said,
"As for your thinking of reason and faith, it is seriously flawed. you are not using the biblical definition of faith..."
You CANNOT use the Bible to prove what's in the Bible. That's circular logic, and it is FALLACIOUS.
Marcus said,
"...As for your account of Nicea, you may wanna check your sources the 325 Ad council of Nicea had nothing to do canonization. They were discussing whether of not Jesus was divine or only human..."
Don'tcha think if Jesus WAS divine, that it would be KNOWN before 300 years after he died? Why was the matter even up for debate???
Why was the matter even up for debate???
And among Christian BISHOPS, no less?
@GearHedEd
A combat drill is a lot different than being pinned down in a foxhole. Not to take away from your service, but you obviously haven't been in a situate where you felt the need to pray. However if you did perhaps you wouldn't have hurt your spine
I thought that the city of Bethlehem being full of David's descendants filling up the inns was a point that I didn't have to make. Obvious. Thanks for making it for me.
By the way Jesus lives. Just because you haven't related to Him doesn't mean no one else has.
I didn't use the Bible to prove the Bible. I used the Bible to define "faith". Didn't you read the conversation? Guess not.
Just because not all of the Bishops at Nicea agreed that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God doesn't mean that it wasn't known. I mean the writers of the New Testament prior to 100 AD thought that.
@GearHeadEd: You're committed to the story, and you CANNOT asdmit that we may be right about this...
That's correct. This is the reason I'll no longer even speak to them, let alone argue with them. As I said earlier, I broke my own rule.
Conservative Christians cannot be reasoned with; they can only be managed, when we have the ability to do so, which we frequently haven't. This is, in my opinion, the main reason civilization is going down the tubes. Our current socioeconomic crisis is the result of many factors, but chief among them is the behavior of the criminals and lunatics these people have spent the last thirty years voting into office, ever since Reagan made them feel empowered. We aren't coming back from this, and, due to the interconnected nature of the global economy, as we continue to go down, we'll be taking the rest of the world (which is already not in great shape) down with us. We're facing, within the next several years, the end of our global civilization - quite possibly the end of our species. And they are responsible; in the end, they'll turn out to have been far more toxic to humanity as a whole than the Islamic fundies have yet had the opportunity to be. The Muslims want a theocracy, but they at least want the world to go on. Christians can't wait for it to be over, so they go to heaven, or meet Jesus in the sky, or whichever flavor of psychosis they subscribe to - then spend eternity watching the rest of us fry. Millions of them fantasize about it daily; they think it will constitute the large part of their "heavenly reward". It gives them great, big erections.
Of course, as humanity meets its end, the last fundie, on his deathbed, will be still be bitching about those whom he knows to be the real culprits - the liberals, the atheists and the gays.
"A combat drill is a lot different than being pinned down in a foxhole. Not to take away from your service, but you obviously haven't been in a situate where you felt the need to pray. However if you did perhaps you wouldn't have hurt your spine..."
Shut the fuck up. You're a moron. I VOLUNTEERED to go to Saudi Arabia, along with everyone in my company in Korea, but no one was sent to the Gulf.
You're ASSuming that my beliefs are so weak that I'd go crying to your imaginary friend that I don't believe in. Tool.
Don't EVER condescend to think you know what I would do. You don't know me, and I find your beliefs idiotic and without effect.
@Ed
I didn't say you weren't brave. It has nothing to do with courage. You just haven't been in the correct situation to force you to humble yourself and bow down to God.
Still training with real explosives is a lot different than being shot at in anger. I'm not even sure why you would even try to make the comparison.
And last, watch your language young man. Profanity shows an inability to be articulate.
Well, that does it for me. I'm unsubscribing from these threads. As so often happens when I come here, I can only watch these train wrecks for so long. If you people want to continue to argue with this cretin, knock yourselves out. I have better things to do - and even if I had absolutely nothing else to do, it would still be a better use of my time. GearHeadEd is correct: "Marcus is a friggin' idiot."
As the quote goes (generally but probably erroneously attributed to Einstein): "Neurosis is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result."
Marcus.
You dont know Jesus either, you did not live in Palistine 2000 years ago either!
What you know is what the bible tells you, and there is evidence that the bible is not based in fact. Also, who were these eye witness testamonies?.....Mark was never an eyewitness neither was Luke, they recieved their info from hearsay witnesses who's identities cannot even be confirmed.
And even if Matthew and John are the true authors of their gospels and based on a real witnessing they still grossly contradict eachother!
You should know if you have done any history on Palistine in the time of Jesus, that Palistine was under Roman rule and the Jews desperatly saught a savior from their oppressers.
Many people went around claiming to be prophets and Messiahs!
Many of the stories surrounding these people have alot of things in common with the story of Christ as related to us in the gospels! Its not like everything Jesus was cliamed to do was original or unheard of!
As far as the whole council of Nicaea goes....?....you say it had nothing to do with the canonization of the bible, but you admit it was regarding Jesus divinity?
Marcus...Jesus divinity was not the only thing decided upon, they also decided upon doctrines and scriptures. Scince the gospels (all of them) aswell as Pauls letters were definitely written within the first century, those writings were obviously considered!
The council had to decide which scriptures accurately described Jesus and His teachings once the orthodox view was the greater accepted!
Hence we have the New Testament scriptures. They may not have been canonized at that time, but they were definitely considered the "holy" writings after that council!
Marcus.
Paul does contradict the gospels. Nowhere does Jesus teach salvation by faith. He repeatedly warns to follow the commandments and refrain from sin, he never said we are saved by faith on the mount. Instead he told us that the measure we give is the measure we get back!
Many of his stories warn about acts of love and charity not faith for salvation.
The letter of James backs up this point. James refers to the law as "the law that saves you"!....he also said to follow the law because each will be judged by the law, James is in sharp disagreement with Paul!
How can you say that when Paul tells us in Galations and Romans that we are saved by faith apart from the law, and whether or not we follow the law, is not in contradiction with James? Seriously, read James 1?
@Shane
You dont know Jesus either, you did not live in Palistine 2000 years ago either!
I hope that Jesus will reveal himself to you. i pray that he does.
What you know is what the bible tells you, and there is evidence that the bible is not based in fact. Also, who were these eye witness testamonies?.....Mark was never an eyewitness neither was Luke, they recieved their info from hearsay witnesses who's identities cannot even be confirmed.
And even if Matthew and John are the true authors of their gospels and based on a real witnessing they still grossly contradict eachother!
Find a single fact that you can point to that the Bible is wrong and evidence.
Eyewitness? Take Peter and James (their letters), if you want to discount Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John. You keep claiming contradictions yet never presented.
You should know if you have done any history on Palistine in the time of Jesus, that Palistine was under Roman rule and the Jews desperatly saught a savior from their oppressers.
Many people went around claiming to be prophets and Messiahs!
Many of the stories surrounding these people have alot of things in common with the story of Christ as related to us in the gospels! Its not like everything Jesus was cliamed to do was original or unheard of!
Name someone else and let's see just how much Jesus your example really is. Yes, there were itinerant preachers, teachers, and a lot of men claiming to be the messiah (heck there are folk today who think they are the messiah). None of them are any where close to Jesus. if you disagree, name one.
As far as the whole council of Nicaea goes....?....you say it had nothing to do with the canonization of the bible, but you admit it was regarding Jesus divinity?
Yup
Marcus...Jesus divinity was not the only thing decided upon, they also decided upon doctrines and scriptures. Scince the gospels (all of them) aswell as Pauls letters were definitely written within the first century, those writings were obviously considered!
Nope none of the books that you allege was decided to have been thrown out was written in the first century. If you disagree, name one.
The council had to decide which scriptures accurately described Jesus and His teachings once the orthodox view was the greater accepted!
Hence we have the New Testament scriptures. They may not have been canonized at that time, but they were definitely considered the "holy" writings after that council!
The council of Nicea was not about deciding what books should make up the new testament. It was about understanding what the New Testament teaches about Jesus' nature.
@Shane
Read John 8:24. It isn;t the only pace Jesus tells us we need to believe in Him. I have a list of other such scriptures if you need help lifting your veil of ignorance.
As for James/Paul they are talking about different works. Paul is saying we are saved apart from the ceremonial laws and James is telling us that if don't do good our faith is worthless.
In Ephesian 2:8-10 says.
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
I'm not trying to prove the Bible with the Bible. I'm using the Bible to show you, Shane, that the Bible does not say what you say it says.
Marcus.
Just reading your posts is yet another example of you cherry picking the scriptures!
Paul is so refering to the law of Moses....
why else do you suppose James continuously confronts the prospect of salvation by faith and repeatedly disagrees with it saying "not by faith alone but by works"
Obviously he was refering to christians who believed they did not need to follow the law of Moses!...if Paul was merely refusing the ceremonial law, then what was James's beef all about????????
Think about what your saying...lol.
You still haven't explained where Mark and Luke got their information from?...hearsay I believe...
I have given you examples of contradictions before and you have defended them with your childish christian notions, so I refuse to go that route with you its a waste of time.
Marcus you said name someone else?
How about a man named Theudas who came up from Egypt with 400 followers and called himself Joshua the prophet of salvation (Joshua is the same name as Jesus). He claimed he could part a river by his word and allow his men to cross it. He was oppossed to the Roman occupation of Palistine and wanted to uproot it. The Romans eventually beheaded him!
There was also a certain visionary who had around 40,000 followers. He occupied the Garden of olives (another association with Christ) this man claimed he could shatter the walls of Jerusalem with his voice.
There are other records of so called saviors. The stories of Jesus are not an uncommon thing at that time in Palistines history!
But.....there is absolutely no historical affirmations that Jesus himself ever existed...none...
Dont even think of mentioning Josephus, or Tacitus, of any others. Those historians mention Jesus very breifly in their historical documents, but those men did not write their histories until 3 centuries after Jesus death.
Those historians had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus, nor did they ever speak to anyone who ever did!
They also had no contemporary historian from Jesus time to go by.
Those historians got there information by word of popular stories regarding Jesus, and they probably only recorded Him in the first place because the church was well established in the time and places those men existed.
@Shane
Obviously he was refering to christians who believed they did not need to follow the law of Moses!...if Paul was merely refusing the ceremonial law, then what was James's beef all about????????
Think about what your saying...lol.
You have not thought about what I'm saying. The Greek word that James used for "work" is not the same word as "work" when Paul used it. Bottom line. If you want to see how this really worked out and how Paul and James interacted over it Read Acts 15.
How do you explain the majority of Historians agrees that Jesus existed as a historical person. Name 10 historians who deny Jesus was a man in first century Palestine.
As for the other saviors, I want to thank you for proving my point. We don't remember those others. Their movements are gone! IT's been 2000 years and Jesus' teachings are still here. The Church he started is still here.
Gamaliel who was not a Christian summarized my point. He even uses Thuedas as an example just as you did!
34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." - Acts 5:34-39
Stop fighting against God.
Marcus.
Dont know if you are still subscribing to this post, but the very fact that you quote bible scripture in your last post is nothing more then presupposition of there truths.
As for those other examples, I mentioned them because they are remembered? That is exactly why both of us have the information we do about them-because history remembers them!.....Yet...history does not remember Jesus exept for the christian faith itself.
Who is to say that the Jesus story is nothing more then a compilation of more then one individual attributed to one person?
@Shane
As for those other examples, I mentioned them because they are remembered? That is exactly why both of us have the information we do about them-because history remembers them!.....Yet...history does not remember Jesus exept for the christian faith itself.
Who is to say that the Jesus story is nothing more then a compilation of more then one individual attributed to one person?
How many people remember the other "messiahs"? If you walked upt to most people who are they more likely to remember? Theudas or Jesus - Christian or not? The answer is obvious. What is wrong with the Bible passage I quoted. We have a non-Christian Jewish attestation of Theudas in the Bible itelf by some we knowhistoritically existed. Even today, Gamaliel is considered one of the greatest Jewish scholars/Teachers ever - who was contemporaneous to the events of the Gospels and Acts. Gamaliel was one of Paul's teachers. We see why Theudas is not considered the Messiah from this quote.
How is it not relevant. There is nothing in it historically disputable.
Shane, be honest. You say Theudas existed as a historical person. The Bible agrees. You even agree about who he was and what he did. And I'm certain your source for Theudas was not the Bible. Don't you get the significance of what this means? Gamaliel was right. Quit resisting God. I'm not suggesting that Gamaliel ever became a Christian. I hope he did, but I don't know.
Post a Comment