Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[RationalOkie]

... as opposed to the Bible which has proven to be very accurate and useful.

'Very Accurate' - in what way? Adam and Eve? Talking donkeys? Does it show knowledge of the Ice Age, Dinosaurs, or other planets other than earth?

 

So, yes there are outside tests that can be applied to both the Bible and the BOM, and so far, the BOM has failed repeatedly.

What 'outside tests'? How has the Book of Morman failed? How is this failure any different from the Bible?

 

...Those that no longer exist continue to be discovered by archeologists.

I get it. When Archeologists find something you like then it's Yeah...way to go science, but when they find a 4 million year old hominid species in Kenya it's 'junk science'.

 

In other words, the Bible is falsifiable...

Not a news flash to this group but thanks for attempting to fain honest intellectualism.

 

...and yet, it's historical information continues to be confirmed.

You truly have selective hearing if you believe that. Do you seriously think Science confirms the bible stories? WOW...with a capital WOW! Oh...you mean "Scientists", like the ones in the Ben Stein 'Expelled' movie. Yes, maybe those quacks do "confirm" talking donkeys and the like.

[LNC]

Even presuming this, the Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about Polycarp claiming to know that John was martyred for his belief. It only says that Polycarp may have known John and Wikipedia says the only surviving account of Polycarp's writings was preserved by Irenaues who was a disciple of Polycarp. But imagine if our only source about Obama's presidency was preserved by a Democrat in the White House who supported Obama. Would you expect everything written in such a source to be historically reliable?

 

I don't consider Wikipedia to be the most reliable source for history. You may want to check out the writings of Irenaeus who lived closer to the events and reports that Polycarp was instructed by the Apostles, including John. Regarding the historical accuracy of the church Fathers, I don't know of many historians who question the veridicality of their reports. So, unless you have evidence that they embellished their reports or changed their history, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Which majority of scholars are these? The ones that you happen to agree with with everyone else being discarded as being illegitimate scholars? If Acts is historically accurate, why is the relationship between Peter and Paul and Peter's teachings on circumcision depicted entirely different in Acts than it is in Galatians chapter two? For example, in Acts 15:6-11 Peter is condemning the Jewish Christians for teaching that circumcision is required for Gentile converts.

 

There are very few scholars who doubt the history of Luke/Acts, so if you know different maybe you can give me your references. I have given you a historian who vouches for Luke's quality as a historian, yet you have given no evidence for your claim about the historicity of Acts. I don't see a difference in Peter's understanding of circumcision in Acts and Galatians. Paul was criticizing Peter for associating with those who claimed that circumcision was necessary for salvation; however, we have no record that Peter believed this himself. Peter never wrote to that effect, nor was his preaching ever recorded to that effect, so your assertion is simply a case of guilt by association. Peter did make a mistake in associating with these people and Paul called him out on it.

 

Uh, we've just spent the last few pages debating the historical authenticity of the resurrection which you claimed really happened. What do you call that if not a miracle? Chopped liver? Again, if the gospels are historically accurate, why is there no non-scriptural accounts that confirm the resurrection of all those dead people the moment Jesus died? Why do you keep ignoring this question? My point about the women is to start with the point where the women arrive at the tomb to the end of the gospel accounts and list everything that happens in chronological order. I'm not sure how much more simpler you want me to be.

 

I have treated the eyewitness to the resurrection if you will read back on my posts. I specifically address the reports that they made as having seen the risen Jesus after the crucifixion. Even skeptics agree that these reports are accurate, that they did make these claims and they believed that they had seen Jesus alive after the dead. Also, scholars do not dispute that the tomb that held Jesus was found empty. Third, there was a drastic change in the Apostles after they claimed to have seen Jesus alive. Those are not disputed facts of history. You have tried to put forward other explanations that do not explain the scope of the evidence, therefore, your explanations have failed. Inferring to the best explanation would lead one to conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead.

 

So, if we mock believing in talking snakes as ludicrous, then we're making fun of you, but if you mock our opinions, then you're just mocking our opinions, not us? Because obviously LNC can do whatever LNC doesn't want other people doing because LNC deserves special privileges.

 

I don't believe I mocked you, nor have I made fun of you. I have not called you names; however, I have been called names repeatedly on this site. Also, even though I haven't "mocked" your opinions, there is a difference between mocking a person and mocking that person's ideas. Do I criticize your ideas? Sure, just as you have done to mine, but that is why we are here interacting and that is how we move toward truth. Criticism of ideas helps us to eliminate ideas that cannot stand up to scrutiny. But again, you end your statement by criticizing and mocking me rather than criticizing my ideas. So, what was your point?

 

Which ones have you used that have been proven? If the resurrection has been proven, why do atheists still exist?

 

You didn't answer my question. I didn't say that the resurrection has been proved since history cannot be "proved" it can only be shown to have a degree of probability of having occurred. However, the evidence is sufficient such that a reasonable person can conclude that the resurrection did occur. I will leave the explanation for the existence of atheists to you.

 

Why do you keep claiming that only people against the Christian movement would steal the body or that the body would still be available to expose if it was? You're creating a false dilemma where you have no proof that these are the only two possible solutions. Here's what Ehrman says about the resurrection on pages 176-177 of Jesus Interrupted.

But what about the resurrection? I'm not saying it didn't happen. Some people believe it did, some people believe it didn't. But if you believe it, it is not as historian, even if you happen to be a professional historian, but as a believer. There can be no historical evidence for the resurrection because of the nature of historical evidence. Some evangelical Christian scholars argue just the opposite, that given the empty tomb and the eyewitness testimony of those who claimed to see Jesus alive after he was dead, there is good evidence that he was really raised. But to make this claim is fundamentally to misunderstand what historians can and cannot do. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. They cannot show that a miracle, the least likely occurrence, is the most likely occurrence. The resurrection is not least likely because of any anti-Christian bias. It is the least likely because people do not come back to life, never to die again, after they are well and truly dead. But what if Jesus did? If he did, it is a miracle, and it's beyond historical demonstration.

 

I have made no such claims, but you have failed to adequately explain how they could have overcome the guards in order to steal the body. If you have other theories you are welcome to bring them forward, I am not making any claims as to possible explanations other than that the ones that have been proffered so far to try to explain away the resurrection have not met the criteria of adequate explanatory power and scope.

 

Ehrman is not an historian so his statement that a person who believes that the resurrection happened don't do so on historical grounds is unfounded. All I have to do is provide one historian who believes it was a historical event and he is proved wrong. That historian is Luke. Also, there are plenty of contemporary historians who would take issue with Ehrman, including N.T. Wright who has written much more extensively on the resurrection than Ehrman. You may want to check out a book I am reading entitled The Resurrection of the Son of God. Just in this one book alone Wright writes nearly 800 pages on the historical evidence for the resurrection. Again, Ehrman is out of his league in making such a claim. Even this statement, "Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past" betrays his ignorance in the subject of historical analysis as that is how history is done. We cannot go back and test history or replay history, we can only look at evidence and make probabilistic inferences. So, for him to see this as a criticism means that he is not familiar with the field or that he is purposefully misrepresenting the field. However, Ehrman does the same thing when he does textual analysis, he makes probabilistic assumptions about what the author originally wrote or meant since he cannot go back and ask them. As I posted earlier, Ehrman has also debated on this topic and showed himself quite poorly in the match up. So, I wouldn't give much credence to what he says on the topic.

 

Many Christians don't want to hear this, but the reality is that there are lots of other explanations for what happened to Jesus that are far more probable than the explanation that he was raised from the dead. None of these explanations is very probable, but they are more probable, just looking at the matter historically, than the explanation of the resurrection. You could come up with dozens of explanations of implausible (but not impossible) explanations yourself. Let me give just one. Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because, frankly, I don't know that it was. Our very first reference to Jesus' tomb being empty is in the Gospel Of Mark, written forty years later after Jesus' tomb by someone living in a different country who had heard that it was empty. How would he know? Anyhow, suppose that it was empty, that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in Joseph's own family tomb, and then a couple of Jesus' followers, not among the twelve, decided that night to move the body somewhere more appropriate. Only Matthew indicates there was a guard at the tomb; what if there wasn't? But a couple of Roman legionnaires are passing by, and catch these followers carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets. They suspect foul play and confront the followers, who pull their swords as the disciples did in Gethsemane.

 

The soldiers, expert in swordplay, kill them on the spot. They now have three bodies, and no idea where the first one came from. Not knowing what to do with them, they commander a cart, take the corpses out to Gehenna, outside town, and dump them. Within three or four days the bodies have deteriorated beyond recognition. Jesus' original tomb is empty, and no one seems to know why. Is this scenario likely? Not at all. Am I proposing this is what really happened? Absolutely not. Is it more probable that something like this happened than a miracle happened and Jesus left the tomb to ascend to heaven? Absolutely! From a purely historical point of view, a highly unlikely event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one.

 

If you have a more probable explanation, then I am waiting to hear it. So far, I have not heard one that is a better explanation of the data. Why do you believe these explanations to be more probable? Is it because you simply eliminate miracles based upon your presuppositional bias? You say that you don't know that the tomb was empty only because your bias prevents you from accepting the eyewitness accounts, isn't that it? How do you know that Mark didn't record Peter's eyewitness account as most historians believe? How do you know that Mark's was the first account since that too is debated? We have dealt with the issue of the disciples moving the body, so I won't continue to address that issue. It still doesn't explain the post-resurrection appearances. If Jesus was still dead, how do you explain these appearances, the change in the disciples and the death of the disciples for what they would have known to be a lie? Your explanation still fails to address these facts. So, now how do you account for these by your theory?

 

Here's what he says about what could have transformed the apostles to believe in the resurrection on page 178.

It is an extremely well documented phenomenon that people sometimes have visions of their loved ones after they died. A man sees his wife in his bedroom after she was buried; a woman sees her dead daughter; a girl sees her dead grandmother. Happens all the time. Is it extremely well documented. In many instances the person having this experience can still talk to the dead person, can give them a hug and feel them. There are documented instances of multiple people having some such visionary experience together, and not just visions of relatives. The blessed Virgin Mary appears to groups of people all the time-there are thousands of eyewitnesses. Do I think that she really appeared to them? No. Or that the granddaughter really did come back from the dead to visit her granddaughter's bedroom? No. Maybe these things happened. But it is unlikely. In fact, from the historian's point of view, it is virtually impossible. But people claim they happen all the time.

 

Jesus' closest followers, and later Paul, claimed they saw him alive afterward. Does it mean he was really raised from the dead? No, it means that they, like so many thousands of other people, had a real-seeming, tangible experience of a person after he died. The disciples had not done any research into postmortem visionary experiences. They experienced what they experienced, and they interpreted it in terms they knew; Jesus was alive. He must have been raised from the dead. Where is he at? He's not here-he must have ascended to heaven. Is my explanation of why they claimed what they did very probable? No. But it's not impossible. From a strictly historical point of view, it is more probable than an actual resurrection.

 

This theory was addressed in his debate with Craig. The problem with this theory is that it would have had to happen multiple times to multiple people and multiple people seeing the exact same vision at the same time. Also, it would have been necessary that all the people in the groups be predisposed to hallucination. At one time it is reported in 1 Corinthians, one of the most reliable writings of the Apostle Paul, that over 500 people saw Jesus at one time and that most were still alive when he wrote that letter (in other words, it was a falsifiable claim). I don't believe you will find a psychologist would will tell you that this is likely to occur. It would only take one or two people in those groups to say that they didn't see the vision for it to be debunked.

 

Also, Thomas was told he could put his fingers in the nail holes and his hand in Jesus' side. Jesus also ate fish in their presence. Too many of these circumstances would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it was not merely a vision or hallucination.

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe I mocked you, nor have I made fun of you. I have not called you names; however, I have been called names repeatedly on this site.

Then rejoice! You're suffering persecution for your faith!

 

Ehrman is not an historian so his statement that a person who believes that the resurrection happened don't do so on historical grounds is unfounded.

He's not? Well... are you? Out of curiosity then, what is the MA you're working on? Is it archeology, anthropology, or history?

 

And your historian was: Sir William Ramsay, was it not? A professor in chemistry with a degree in philosophy... yes, that's a true historian, compared to a person like Ehrman who spent all his money and time to learn the Christian history, learning Greek, and much more.

 

Who is more reliable? A guy from the 19th century with a philosophy and chemistry degree, or a guy from our century with a degree in religious studies and Christian foundations? I think you're a bit deluded here...

[RationalOkie]

Man you bore me. Can you give it a rest for like a year and come back when you have an argument instead of 10,000 questions? Please. Seriously...go away.

[Neon Genesis]

I have treated the eyewitness to the resurrection if you will read back on my posts. I specifically address the reports that they made as having seen the risen Jesus after the crucifixion. Even skeptics agree that these reports are accurate, that they did make these claims and they believed that they had seen Jesus alive after the dead. Also, scholars do not dispute that the tomb that held Jesus was found empty. Third, there was a drastic change in the Apostles after they claimed to have seen Jesus alive. Those are not disputed facts of history. You have tried to put forward other explanations that do not explain the scope of the evidence, therefore, your explanations have failed. Inferring to the best explanation would lead one to conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead.

You still don't get it. I want non-scriptural evidence that show the events described in Matthew 27:51-53 really did happen

Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.* 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Where is the non-scriptural evidence this really happened? By non-scriptural, I mean proof not found anywhere in the bible or church traditions. I want actual non-scriptural proof. This should not be that hard of a question to grasp.

[RationalOkie]

I have treated the eyewitness to the resurrection if you will read back on my posts. I specifically address the reports that they made as having seen the risen Jesus after the crucifixion. Even skeptics agree that these reports are accurate, that they did make these claims and they believed that they had seen Jesus alive after the dead. Also, scholars do not dispute that the tomb that held Jesus was found empty. Third, there was a drastic change in the Apostles after they claimed to have seen Jesus alive. Those are not disputed facts of history. You have tried to put forward other explanations that do not explain the scope of the evidence, therefore, your explanations have failed. Inferring to the best explanation would lead one to conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead.

You still don't get it. I want non-scriptural evidence that show the events described in Matthew 27:51-53 really did happen

Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.* 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Where is the non-scriptural evidence this really happened? By non-scriptural, I mean proof not found anywhere in the bible or church traditions. I want actual non-scriptural proof. This should not be that hard of a question to grasp.

 

His reply will be...'Where's your evidence that the Bible is wrong?'.

 

Slippery this one is master Luke.

[LNC]

Matthew is inconsistent with the records of Luke, who you have insisted is an elite historian.

 

What do you mean that Matthew is inconsistent with Luke? Do you mean that they conflict or that they just report different events? If you believe that they conflict, please show where.

 

What ad hominem?

Your proof for Jesus of Nazareth comes from cult writings.

 

By simply asserting that my beliefs are based upon a cult you are attacking me rather than my arguments. You know that apart from atheists and skeptics, no one considers Christianity to be a cult. So, for you to use that term is simply to attack me and Christianity rather than to deal with the arguments.

 

My answers below in blue.

 

You do like to ignore the obvious don't you? I don't know, maybe it is you who ignores the obvious.

Christianity has cult attributes in spades. Let's see.

The leader claims to have all authority and power, and that he will rule over a glorious kingdom.

The leader claims to be the only conduit to salvation and promises a better life for his followers.

The leader promises great rewards if people devote their full attention to him and obey his commands.

And, what if these things are true? If so, it is simply stating reality.

The leader tells people that if they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they can live forever. Wrong, go back and read the passage in context. Did Jesus cut off hunks of himself and drain his blood for them to drink, or did he give them bread and wine? It seems hard to make your case in light of the reality of the accounts.

The leader promises to kill those that offend him, and simple unbelief is enough to offend him. Again, this is wrong. If that were true, wouldn't you be dead now? Simple unbelief is not listed as a basis for his judgment, it is rebellion that merits his judgment.

The leader overturns traditional regulations, and claims to bring disharmony and change to the old order. Such as?

The leader promises that his followers will have great miracle working powers if they believe in him. Really, where?

The leader calls his followers "sheep", while telling them that they are superior to others. Where does he tell his followers that they are superior to others? If that is the case, then why does Paul call himself the chief of sinners? (1 Tim. 1:15)

The leader is to be the center of attention at all times. If he is the highest possible being and creator of all things, then why shouldn't he be?

 

Again, my answers in blue.

 

The cult leader...aka Jesus of Nazareth.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/cult.html

cult [ kult ] (plural cults)

noun

Definition:

1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader

2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false

 

Most people don't regard Christianity as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false. Nor, has Christianity been shown to be any of these.

 

3. idolization of somebody or something: an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity ( often used before a noun )

the cult of youth a cult hero

 

4. object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration

If that person deserves extreme admiration, then it is not excessive. If God is who the Bible says that he is, then he deserves extreme admiration and therefore, it is not excessive.

 

5. fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts ( often used before a noun ) has taken on cult status

 

Christianity is certainly not a fad as it has been in existence for over 2,000 years and is derived from Judaism which predates Christianity by another 2,000 plus years. Obviously Christianity is not considered fashionable by all as this site shows.

 

6. cultural anthropology system of supernatural beliefs: a body of organized practices and beliefs supposed to involve interaction with and control over supernatural powers

This definition is clearly false, since all religions would be considered cults. This simply shows an unsubstantiated, anti-supernatural bias.

 

7. sociology elite group: a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective

I guess this would include every club, private or otherwise. So, our local country club is a cult - I knew it! I guess that would also include RichardDawkins.net, Pharyngula, Infidels and even this site.

 

I don't worry about what he said, however I do get concerned when people want to use "Jesus" to foist their agendas on others.

 

So do I.

 

I don't recall Jesus ever visiting this site, only his mouthpieces.

 

Although, he did say, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." (Matt. 25:40)

 

He also said, "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:8) So, in a sense, Jesus has visited this site.

 

Why do you bother trying to convince ex-christians that you have superior truth?

Perhaps you're not convinced that you have it.

 

I don't have superior truth, there is no such thing. It is either truth or error, there are no degrees of truth. Why wouldn't I be convinced that Jesus is the truth? He said he was and demonstrated that he was.

 

It wouldn't prove any more than citing the number of dead martyrs of any belief system, which is why I asked for Biblical confirmation about the tales of all the disciples that died because of their beliefs.

 

Again, you obfuscate the point and shift the argument, why do you keep doing that? Maybe because you can't actually address the point in a straight forward manner?

 

You were attempting to equate dying for a belief with compelling evidence for the validity of the belief.

However, it doesn't prove anything.

People die for all sorts of beliefs that they think are true, that's the point.

 

Again, you obfuscate the point. You are trying to convince me that they died for a known lie since you believe that they stole the body. Tell me why they would be motivated to do that.

[LNC]

Has anyone else in this room noticed this guy answers 1 question with 10 more? If you ask him a direct freaking question you get 10 back. What's the point of arguing with this guy? He won't answer your questions, he'll be the one asking questions thank you very much. Ten for every one you ask.

 

LNC...let me make this clear. You believe 2,000 year old fairy tales, not me. I don't need 'evidence' to deny pixie dust or pink, invisible unicorns. I just need an I.Q. with more than two digits. I don't have to justify being rational to anyone, especially a man that believes in talking donkeys, talking snakes, giants and that people can walk on water among many other fairy tales.

 

Sorry, sometimes answers that I receive lead to more questions, however, you cannot honestly say that I have not answered questions, because I have.

 

Regarding fairy tales, no I don't believe in them; however, I do believe in accurately recorded and authenticated history, which is why I believe in Jesus. I will not comment on your I.Q. since I have had limited exposure to your statements and it wouldn't be fair to make a judgment based upon them alone. No, one doesn't have to justify being rational to anyone else, yet there are questions that you are left with as a naturalist. But, since you don't like questions and don't seem to like answering them either, I won't bother asking them of you.

[LNC]

Has anyone else in this room noticed this guy answers 1 question with 10 more? If you ask him a direct freaking question you get 10 back. What's the point of arguing with this guy? He won't answer your questions, he'll be the one asking questions thank you very much. Ten for every one you ask

He also loves special pleading. Like he'll tell you you can't use a certain argument then turn around and use the same argument he told you you can't use. Like if you think the belief in talking snakes is ridiculous, he'll start complaining about us making fun of him and how we can't do that, but then he'll turn around and make fun of our opinions and think it's some sort of excuse that he's only making fun of our opinions and not us yet we can't do the same to him. Then when I cite over 200 scholars that don't see the gospels as historically accurate, he resorts to using a No True Scotsman fallacy to "disprove" him, yet he can cite a majority of scholars to support his views. And he still hasn't explained who these majority of scholars that supports his views are. So far he's only referenced one or two whereas I've referenced 200 yet 200 scholars are not the majority and three or four are?

 

Really, where have I been special pleading? Where did you cite 200 scholars? (BTW, the Jesus Seminar is not made up of 200 scholars, not even 200 people any longer, but they were not all scholars even in its heyday.) When did I resort to the NTS fallacy? You seem to like making assertions, but don't back them up, so I will call you out on this.

[LNC]

That's very sly, trying to convince this person that the reason they spend time discussing this is because they have doubts about how they see all of this, that they secretly are concerned about the Wrath of Jesus. Of course it's all based on ill-founded reasoning on your part, or glossing over the reality of why for the sake of making an evangelical ploy. One of the reasons I rejected Evangelicals: insincerity.

 

Anyway, not that you will read this or respond as you haven't my other posts to you. But here's why people here spend a lot of time discussing religion.

 

#1 reason, they are trying to sort it all out for themselves and define how they now see things by addressing head-on those manipulative little tactics used through misquoting Bible verses laced with emotional messages, like fear of rejection by God. To stand up to it is an act of empowerment, reclaiming what was taken from them through manipulators, who say things such as, "But, if Jesus was who he said he was and you are wasting your time trying to convince yourself that he wasn't, you are missing the opportunity that he gives you."

 

#2 reason, we know a lot about the subject, generally speaking on average far more than your typical believer. It's pertinent to our society in its current state of controversy over these matters, and we feel we have a strong and uniquely qualified perspective to bring to the discussion as members of this society, which the extremists, the Evangelicals seek to manipulate in their favor away from other members of society. We are very aware and above average knowledgeable, not only of your sacred texts, but the manipulative, political culture of this world first hand. We are your worst nightmare.

 

#3 reason, in talking about what failed in it for ourselves, we are able to build on what does work for us. This site is about people getting support for themselves in finding answers that work for them. It's not about conformity to a new theology. It's a place for us to talk about the hurts, disappointments, disillusionment, and anger at having trusted in hope and faith for truth only to find it fall deeply below expectations, and the ensuing guilt-tripping and manipulations of those still in it would wished to see us remain with them for their sake, to validate them, rather than love and support us a human beings with unique needs.

 

#4 reason, we support each other and talk about these matters in this safe environment where people are allowed to have many points of view. It's important to talk about it, if not just for ourselves, but for others who need to hear those of similar experiences in order to feel not so alone, so isolated from a community which now shuns them for not "loving God".

 

 

I can't find a place in my thinking about anyone here that really fits what you said. I'm a pretty insightful person and can read people on this site really quickly and usually dead on, with a couple rare mistakes. I've never really seen what you say. Funny you should. Did you? Or was that just made up for effect?

 

Actually, what I said is true, it was not meant to be a sly trick. BTW, I have never tried to convince you to accept Evangelicals, that is not my concern.

 

I wonder if you are actually reading my posts if you claim that I am not responding to yours. So, let me respond to you point for point lest you accuse me further.

 

1. If anyone is misquoting the Bible and manipulating the meaning of it, it is the people on this site. The main problem is that most here read snippets of the Bible in English language and don't ever go any further. There is no hard work done of trying to understand the passages in context, understanding of the words in their original language, or even reading a simple commentary. You claim that his words were passed down through manipulators but give not a shred of evidence for this assertion. Finally, my statement is true and logical. If you don't think so, then tell me where my logic is missing rather than dismissing it with a mere wave of the hand.

 

2. You have not shown that you know a lot about the subject, merely that you know what you have read on skeptic websites. I have not seen any sign of actual scholarly interactions with the texts that you cite. I see the same skeptical interpretations on every other atheist and skeptic site. You are merely toeing the line of the Infidels site and every other one of its kind. If you feel like you represent the Bible accurately, then show me the evidence, show me your actual research on the history, the hermeneutics, and the theology; don't be satisfied to simply parrot what Bart Ehrman says. Let's dig into the text and the history and get off the empty assertions. Pull up a website or pull out a Bible and read it for yourself. Read the books all the way through to get the context. Read the NT all the way through (again, if you already have). I am happy to wrestle through these texts with you.

 

3. I have no problem with you all getting together to bind one another's wounds, it sounds like some of you have had it rough in your upbringings. But, that discussion should be grounded in truth and truth is grounded in reality. We all need to question our assumptions and check our understanding of reality - our worldview - to see if it matches that reality. When it doesn't, we should be willing to jettison those parts that don't fit and adopt better explanations. I do it in my life and it is part of the reason that I try to have honest discussions with all of you on this site.

 

4. I hope that when you say that it is a safe environment, that you don't mean that you want to shield yourself from other perspectives that may challenge your core worldview. Because, if any of us has our worldview wrong and we try to play it safe with others who think exactly like us, then that is not a safe environment, that is a destructive environment masquerading as a safe haven. I don't shun any of you, nor do I intend to. I hope that you have seen that I interact with you differently than other "Christians" who have come to this site. I respect you and hope you will show the same to me.

 

What I said was not meant to be an indictment against anyone, simply a "gut check" question. Hey, we all want to protect what we believe as it is very personal to us. But, we have to ask questions about our motives and intents. I see a lot of people who use terms like "sky daddy" and say things like that Jesus told people to eat actual flesh and drink actual blood, and other assertions that show that there is an agenda going on with them. My question is simple and logical, if Jesus is who he said he was, then being in rebellion against him would put a person in peril. What we are here to wrestle through, and hopefully we can continue to do that honestly, is whether he was who he said he was. I believe he was and believe that there is good evidence to that effect, others disagree. So, let's keep looking at the data and figure that out.

[LNC]

Non sequitur.

 

Consider that there could be other reasons why we are debating so much about Christianity.

 

Lets turn the tables. Why are you here discussion and debating with us and trying to convince us that we're wrong? Why are you debating non-Christianity so much? Perhaps you aren't completely convinced that we are wrong then?

 

You see, it goes both ways. Unless, there is a possibility that you have other reasons to be here and debate... a big surprise, so could we.

 

Sorry, that still doesn't negate the point that I was making nor does it prove to be a non sequitur.

 

I am here for many reasons. First, because I was invited last year to come over here. Second, because I have actually appreciated interacting with many of you, including you, Han, as for the most part, I consider them to be challenging and meaningful discussions. Third, I think that debating ones ideas helps a person to understand the truth. If a person's ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, then they should either study them better to understand them, or change them. Fourth, and most importantly, because I believe who Jesus was and what he said and that has implications for me, you, and everyone else in the world. I don't think that you are wrong about everything, yet, I do believe that Jesus is who he said he was and that what he said fits reality most closely of any worldview that I have studied.

[RationalOkie]

6. cultural anthropology system of supernatural beliefs: a body of organized practices and beliefs supposed to involve interaction with and control over supernatural powers

This definition is clearly false, since all religions would be considered cults. This simply shows an unsubstantiated, anti-supernatural bias.

I'm sorry, what would 'substantiate' a belief in 'supernatural' events? Are you aware that ALL Science and ALL rational people have an 'anti-supernatural bias'? That's completely absurd to make that statement.

 

In the words of Sir Galahad in Monty Python's Holy Grail, "Is there someone else up there we could talk to?"

[agnosticator]

Non sequitur.

 

Consider that there could be other reasons why we are debating so much about Christianity.

 

Lets turn the tables. Why are you here discussion and debating with us and trying to convince us that we're wrong? Why are you debating non-Christianity so much? Perhaps you aren't completely convinced that we are wrong then?

 

You see, it goes both ways. Unless, there is a possibility that you have other reasons to be here and debate... a big surprise, so could we.

 

Sorry, that still doesn't negate the point that I was making nor does it prove to be a non sequitur.

 

I am here for many reasons. First, because I was invited last year to come over here. Second, because I have actually appreciated interacting with many of you, including you, Han, as for the most part, I consider them to be challenging and meaningful discussions. Third, I think that debating ones ideas helps a person to understand the truth. If a person's ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, then they should either study them better to understand them, or change them. Fourth, and most importantly, because I believe who Jesus was and what he said and that has implications for me, you, and everyone else in the world. I don't think that you are wrong about everything, yet, I do believe that Jesus is who he said he was and that what he said fits reality most closely of any worldview that I have studied.

 

Colossians 2:8 (NIV)-

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather then on Christ.

 

1Timothy6:20-21-

[LNC], guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered away from the faith.

 

What you are doing here is in direct violation of the new testament. You are told to abstain from philosophical chatter with us heathens because philosophy is of this world, and in opposition to the kingdom. I, myself hope you do wander away and realize this earth is your home.

[Neon Genesis]

Really, where have I been special pleading? Where did you cite 200 scholars? (BTW, the Jesus Seminar is not made up of 200 scholars, not even 200 people any longer, but they were not all scholars even in its heyday.) When did I resort to the NTS fallacy? You seem to like making assertions, but don't back them up, so I will call you out on this.

Funny, because the official site for the Jesus Seminar says http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/fellows.html

The Fellows of the Westar Institute include scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies, religion or related fields and, by special invitation only, published authors who are recognized authorities in the field of religion. Since the beginning, more than two hundred Fellows have participated in the Jesus Seminar and other Westar projects, including the Paul Seminar, Canon Seminar and the recently begun Acts Seminar. At various stages of the projects, different Fellows have been involved in the research and deliberations.

But you don't consider anyone who doesn't agree with your unfounded presumptions to be real scholars anyway, so you'll simply ignore anything I say anyway.

 

Just in this one book alone Wright writes nearly 800 pages on the historical evidence for the resurrection. Again, Ehrman is out of his league in making such a claim.

Quoted from the official site http://www.bartdehrman.com/biography.htm

Among his fields of scholarly expertise are the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

And when are you going to answer my question of where's the non-scriptural evidence that Matthew 27:51-53 is real?

 

I see a lot of people who use terms like "sky daddy" and say things like that Jesus told people to eat actual flesh and drink actual blood, and other assertions that show that there is an agenda going on with them.

Why are xtians such crybabies? You'd think after what Jesus went through, a little bit of parody would be nothing. You're an insult to real martyrs for the Christian faith everywhere.

[RationalOkie]

Non sequitur.

 

Consider that there could be other reasons why we are debating so much about Christianity.

 

Lets turn the tables. Why are you here discussion and debating with us and trying to convince us that we're wrong? Why are you debating non-Christianity so much? Perhaps you aren't completely convinced that we are wrong then?

 

You see, it goes both ways. Unless, there is a possibility that you have other reasons to be here and debate... a big surprise, so could we.

 

Sorry, that still doesn't negate the point that I was making nor does it prove to be a non sequitur.

 

I am here for many reasons. First, because I was invited last year to come over here. Second, because I have actually appreciated interacting with many of you, including you, Han, as for the most part, I consider them to be challenging and meaningful discussions. Third, I think that debating ones ideas helps a person to understand the truth. If a person's ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, then they should either study them better to understand them, or change them. Fourth, and most importantly, because I believe who Jesus was and what he said and that has implications for me, you, and everyone else in the world. I don't think that you are wrong about everything, yet, I do believe that Jesus is who he said he was and that what he said fits reality most closely of any worldview that I have studied.

 

Colossians 2:8 (NIV)-

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather then on Christ.

 

1Timothy6:20-21-

[LNC], guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered away from the faith.

 

What you are doing here is in direct violation of the new testament. You are told to abstain from philosophical chatter with us heathens because philosophy is of this world, and in opposition to the kingdom. I, myself hope you do wander away and realize this earth is your home.

 

Well done my good and faithless servant.

[Deva]

1. If anyone is misquoting the Bible and manipulating the meaning of it, it is the people on this site. The main problem is that most here read snippets of the Bible in English language and don't ever go any further. There is no hard work done of trying to understand the passages in context, understanding of the words in their original language, or even reading a simple commentary. You claim that his words were passed down through manipulators but give not a shred of evidence for this assertion. Finally, my statement is true and logical. If you don't think so, then tell me where my logic is missing rather than dismissing it with a mere wave of the hand.

 

While normally I would be completely content to let Antlerman take you apart - some of the things you say are so innacurate and outright full of shit that I can't help but respond.

 

Interesting that you seem to think one must be a Greek and Hebrew scholar in order to know or understand the Bible, hence Christianity. That is quite an admission from a Christian. Obviously if this were a divinely inspired work with the words of God, he is surely capable of translating it into clear English, right? Or, maybe that is too much for him. You are very mistaken if you think we haven't read any commentaries.

 

2. You have not shown that you know a lot about the subject, merely that you know what you have read on skeptic websites. I have not seen any sign of actual scholarly interactions with the texts that you cite. I see the same skeptical interpretations on every other atheist and skeptic site. You are merely toeing the line of the Infidels site and every other one of its kind. If you feel like you represent the Bible accurately, then show me the evidence, show me your actual research on the history, the hermeneutics, and the theology; don't be satisfied to simply parrot what Bart Ehrman says. Let's dig into the text and the history and get off the empty assertions. Pull up a website or pull out a Bible and read it for yourself. Read the books all the way through to get the context. Read the NT all the way through (again, if you already have). I am happy to wrestle through these texts with you.

 

I am sure Antler will be happy to oblige, if he thinks it worth his time. "Pull out a Bible and read it for yourself" as if he hasn't. You are nuts if you think many of us havent' read it many times through.

 

3. I have no problem with you all getting together to bind one another's wounds, it sounds like some of you have had it rough in your upbringings. But, that discussion should be grounded in truth and truth is grounded in reality. We all need to question our assumptions and check our understanding of reality - our worldview - to see if it matches that reality. When it doesn't, we should be willing to jettison those parts that don't fit and adopt better explanations. I do it in my life and it is part of the reason that I try to have honest discussions with all of you on this site.

 

This is quite insulting to everyone here on this site. What you are really saying is that any understanding of reality that doesn't conform to the Bible must be jettisoned. How's this for questioning assumptions - your statement that you are here for "honest discussions" is a pretence with no grounding in reality.

 

4. I hope that when you say that it is a safe environment, that you don't mean that you want to shield yourself from other perspectives that may challenge your core worldview. Because, if any of us has our worldview wrong and we try to play it safe with others who think exactly like us, then that is not a safe environment, that is a destructive environment masquerading as a safe haven. I don't shun any of you, nor do I intend to. I hope that you have seen that I interact with you differently than other "Christians" who have come to this site. I respect you and hope you will show the same to me.

 

The fact that you are able to post your Christian bullshit on a a site that clearly says "EX-CHRISTIAN" is enough proof that we are not shielding ourselves. As far as being different - hell no, you haven't said anything we haven't heard a thousand times. I don't know you as a person but all I have to judge you by is your writing. Heck, maybe in real life, if you are a person and not a committee, you might even be a nice guy.

 

<snip part about our "agenda" WTF?!>. My question is simple and logical, if Jesus is who he said he was, then being in rebellion against him would put a person in peril. What we are here to wrestle through, and hopefully we can continue to do that honestly, is whether he was who he said he was. I believe he was and believe that there is good evidence to that effect, others disagree. So, let's keep looking at the data and figure that out.

 

Finally we get down to the threats, which it always is with Christians. We are not afraid. Do you get that? We are not going to be "in peril" if we don't believe Jesus ever existed. By the way, the Bible is not "data". Its a work of fiction. It is not history, it is not eyewitness accounts, it is stories made up a hundered years after the events described. Whether or not you believe it is something more is entirely up to you, but I don't care anymore, having studied it for decades.

[agnosticator]

Thanks RationalOkie. I just couldn't resist!

[Ouroboros]

Here's the problem:

 

You said:

 

Which leader are you talking about? If you are right and Jesus is dead, why worry what he said? If Jesus was right, then you have something to worry about, you have reason to spend hours on this site trying to convince yourself that you are right and Jesus was wrong. But, if Jesus was who he said he was and you are wasting your time trying to convince yourself that he wasn't, you are missing the opportunity that he gives you. Still, if he was wrong, why bother getting so upset about it? I don't think you are convinced that he was wrong.

 

And my answer to that was:

 

Non sequitur.

 

And why did I say that? Because I tried to wake you up to the possibility that people are discussing these things because of OTHER reasons, or perhaps they get upset of OTHER reasons.

 

So to say that someone is getting upset or arguing because they are not convinced, then you commit a fallacy, since there could be OTHER reasons. Isn't so?

 

And why can both you and I agree to that there would exist other reasons?

 

Because I made you just now admit to it!

 

I am here for many reasons. First, because I was invited last year to come over here. Second, because I have actually appreciated interacting with many of you, including you, Han, as for the most part, I consider them to be challenging and meaningful discussions. Third, I think that debating ones ideas helps a person to understand the truth. If a person's ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, then they should either study them better to understand them, or change them. Fourth, and most importantly, because I believe who Jesus was and what he said and that has implications for me, you, and everyone else in the world. I don't think that you are wrong about everything, yet, I do believe that Jesus is who he said he was and that what he said fits reality most closely of any worldview that I have studied.

 

 

So can you agree that just like you, people have a lot more reasons to do what they do besides your assumptions? You assume much about people, but you don't like the treatment when you get it back to you!

 

I only turned the argument back to YOU. And you don't like it. Well... welcome to the club.

 

You're the one who should treat people the way you want them to treat you. And so far, we are treating you very much the way you deserve, and yet you don't change your tactics.

 

A mistake is when you do something wrong, but stupidity is when you keep on using the same method repeatedly and expect a different result. Haven't you learned yet that the way you act doesn't fit people here? Haven't you noticed the animosity you raise? Do you really believe it's only because of Jesus? Or could it just simply be your attitude?

[centauri]

'centauri' post='463032' date='Jun 23 2009, 07:43 PM']Matthew is inconsistent with the records of Luke, who you have insisted is an elite historian.

 

What do you mean that Matthew is inconsistent with Luke? Do you mean that they conflict or that they just report different events? If you believe that they conflict, please show where.

I've already posted about the conflicts between the the birth narratives, the genealogy of Jesus, and the post resurrection appearance of Jesus.

Did you not read them?

Did you wave them away as inconsequential?

Apparently you expect to make the same claims over and over and over until everyone on this forum finally just gets tired and let's you run wild with your assertions.

 

What ad hominem?

Your proof for Jesus of Nazareth comes from cult writings.

 

By simply asserting that my beliefs are based upon a cult you are attacking me rather than my arguments.

You know that apart from atheists and skeptics, no one considers Christianity to be a cult. So, for you to use that term is simply to attack me and Christianity rather than to deal with the arguments.

No, I'm stating the obvious.

I cited several dictionary definitions of a cult and gave specific examples of what the cult leader said and did to fit the attributes of a cult mentality belief system.

[bdp]

"Jesus" has NO implications for me, whether you think it does or not.

[centauri]

My answers below in blue.

 

centauri:

You do like to ignore the obvious don't you? I don't know, maybe it is you who ignores the obvious.

Christianity has cult attributes in spades. Let's see.

The leader claims to have all authority and power, and that he will rule over a glorious kingdom.

The leader claims to be the only conduit to salvation and promises a better life for his followers.

The leader promises great rewards if people devote their full attention to him and obey his commands.

And, what if these things are true? If so, it is simply stating reality.

If it's true then it's a CULT reality.

A cult is still a cult, whether it's true or false.

 

The leader tells people that if they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they can live forever.

Wrong, go back and read the passage in context. Did Jesus cut off hunks of himself and drain his blood for them to drink, or did he give them bread and wine? It seems hard to make your case in light of the reality of the accounts.

Have you notified the Roman Catholics that they've got it wrong?

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

TRANSUBSTANTIATION:

the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine

 

John 6:54-56

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

 

The Catholic Church guides a large proportion of the world's Christian believers.

The passage of 1 Cor 11:23-29 is used to justify a literal interpretation.

1 Cor 11:23-29

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

 

The leader promises to kill those that offend him, and simple unbelief is enough to offend him.

Again, this is wrong. If that were true, wouldn't you be dead now? Simple unbelief is not listed as a basis for his judgment, it is rebellion that merits his judgment.

You can declare it wrong all day long, but that doesn't change the scripture.

Unbelief is justification to punish people.

Rev 21:8

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

There will be plenty of killing when Jesus establishes his new world order.

Matt 13:41-42

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

The leader overturns traditional regulations, and claims to bring disharmony and change to the old order. Such as?

Jesus overturned the dietary laws, the law on divorce, the law on adultery, and the law about working on the Sabbath.

Jesus said he came to bring division and disharmony.

Luke 12:51

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

The leader promises that his followers will have great miracle working powers if they believe in him.

Really, where?

Mark 16:17-18 and many others.

 

The leader calls his followers "sheep", while telling them that they are superior to others.

Where does he tell his followers that they are superior to others?

Following Jesus makes them superior.

They will sit in judgment of others.

That's what Jesus told Peter when he asked what was his reward would be for following Jesus.

Matt 19:27-28

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

The same theme is illustrated here:

Rev 2:28

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

 

Jesus tells his followers that they are the light to the world.

Matt 5:14

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

 

Jesus tells them that they have a better future than others because they are the "elect".

Matt 24:31

And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

Paul chimes in by equating unbelievers to "darkness".

2 Cor 6:14

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

The leader is to be the center of attention at all times.

If he is the highest possible being and creator of all things, then why shouldn't he be?

Whether he is or isn't is irrelevant.

It's still a cult oriented reality.

[centauri]

Again, my answers in blue.

 

The cult leader...aka Jesus of Nazareth.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/cult.html

cult [ kult ] (plural cults)

noun

Definition:

1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader

2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false

 

Most people don't regard Christianity as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false. Nor, has Christianity been shown to be any of these.

What brand of Christianity?

Do you imagine that it's one big happy family of believers?

There are Protestants that call the Roman Catholic Church a cult.

If I remember correctly that happened a few weeks ago on this forum.

Jack Chick is a Christian and he has depicted the Catholics to be very misguided and false.

There are Christians that call the Mormon Christians a cult.

Jehovah's Witnesses are also called misguided.

There have been severe schisms between the sects all along the timeline of Christianity.

They've been calling each other misguided for centuries.

 

3. idolization of somebody or something: an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity ( often used before a noun )

the cult of youth a cult hero

 

4. object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration

If that person deserves extreme admiration, then it is not excessive. If God is who the Bible says that he is, then he deserves extreme admiration and therefore, it is not excessive.

So that's the way it works.

A cult leader isn't a cult leader if he deserves to be the Lord over every aspect of one's life.

You do realize that your rationalization has been used to justify totalitarian dictators right?

 

5. fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts ( often used before a noun ) has taken on cult status

 

Christianity is certainly not a fad as it has been in existence for over 2,000 years and is derived from Judaism which predates Christianity by another 2,000 plus years.

Perhaps you would like to show where Judaism(or the New Testament) advocates celebrating Dec 25th as the birthday of an expected king messiah.

Wouldn't this qualify as a fad, being popular and fashionable among Christians.

The great Christian mind, Bill O'Reilly, has been a staunch defender of this fad.

Where is this holiday derived from?

 

6. cultural anthropology system of supernatural beliefs: a body of organized practices and beliefs supposed to involve interaction with and control over supernatural powers

This definition is clearly false, since all religions would be considered cults. This simply shows an unsubstantiated, anti-supernatural bias.

It's a common attribute of cults to be steeped in supernatural beliefs.

What's anti-supernatural bias?

Do you have an anti-supernatural bias if you don't believe in Native American creation stories or in the revelation of Joseph Smith?

Did Paul have an anti-supernatural bias?

What Jewish fables did he regard as unsubstantiated?

Are any of them in the Bible?

Titus 1:14

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

 

7. sociology elite group: a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective

I guess this would include every club, private or otherwise. So, our local country club is a cult - I knew it! I guess that would also include RichardDawkins.net, Pharyngula, Infidels and even this site.

It's another attribute that cults can demonstrate.

Christianity demonstrates this rather clearly, where believers insist that their truth is the only truth.

They channel their "truth" through a supernatural god-man, which gives it an extra air of authority.

[centauri]

I don't recall Jesus ever visiting this site, only his mouthpieces.

 

Although, he did say, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." (Matt. 25:40)

 

He also said, "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:8) So, in a sense, Jesus has visited this site.

So if a Jehovah's Witness visits this site, or a Roman Catholic, does that qualify as Jesus visiting?

How do ex-christians know if someone is sent directly from Jesus?

 

Why do you bother trying to convince ex-christians that you have superior truth?

Perhaps you're not convinced that you have it.

 

I don't have superior truth, there is no such thing. It is either truth or error, there are no degrees of truth.

Why wouldn't I be convinced that Jesus is the truth? He said he was and demonstrated that he was.

In your reality Jesus may be "truth" but your reality isn't binding on anyone here.

 

It wouldn't prove any more than citing the number of dead martyrs of any belief system, which is why I asked for Biblical confirmation about the tales of all the disciples that died because of their beliefs.

 

Again, you obfuscate the point and shift the argument, why do you keep doing that? Maybe because you can't actually address the point in a straight forward manner?

Pot meet kettle.

 

You were attempting to equate dying for a belief with compelling evidence for the validity of the belief.

However, it doesn't prove anything.

People die for all sorts of beliefs that they think are true, that's the point.

 

Again, you obfuscate the point. You are trying to convince me that they died for a known lie since you believe that they stole the body. Tell me why they would be motivated to do that.

No, I'm not obfuscating.

You tried to create the impression that it was a historical fact that there was a long list of disciple martyrs that died for their faith.

According to the Bible, there were only two.

I don't know if anyone stole a body or not.

You keep assuming that the tales you rely on as historical facts are validated outside of cult writings.

The "history" is heavily peppered advertising, with an attempt to enhance the credibility of the hero by showing prophecy fulfillments.

I don't trust the advertising 2,000 years ago any more than I would trust the advertising done today.

If it's designed to sell a product, it may have motivations that have nothing to do with truth.

[LNC]

For one example, I think in a language. Language is a form of communication with others-not just talking to oneself. Why would I need a language to think or fantasize by myself? When I speak english to a russian who doesn't understand english, why doesn't he respond in english? How come I don't understand his russian? If I picture a woman in my mind, how could I identify this image as a woman in the first place? How would I know what a monkey is?

 

Aside from that, if I didn't sense or know a speeding bullet would or did hit me (even though it really did, and destroyed my brain or heart), would I still exist by myself or die? How could I imagine that event before, during, or after it happened?

 

However, that still wouldn't prove that language is not just something that your brain conjures up, just as it would other people. The problem is that we have no way of getting outside of ourselves and our thoughts to empirically verify anything outside of ourselves. If we were a brain in a vat or simply the thought of another higher being, we could never prove otherwise. Yet, we don't believe that we are just brains in vats or mere thoughts of another higher being. This points us to the idea that we are more than the sum of our parts, more than mere physical objects. We have both a physical and a non-physical aspect of ourselves that gives us the ability to not only have beliefs, but also beliefs about our beliefs. We not only have thoughts, but thoughts about our thoughts. This is one of the aspects that separates us from the rest of the animal world and also points us to the non-physical reality of our natures.

[LNC]

So your fantasy... sorry, belief in eternal life is what dictates how you look at reality? The eternal life after death is your reality you're trying to comprehend?

 

Well, it's easy to see that we have different views on reality. I for one do not include the imaginary, or the hope for, Heaven in the concept of "reality."

 

It is interesting that you bring up the words fantasy and belief, although I know that you meant it to be some type of insult to me, but let's use that as a point of discussion. Fantasy is that which is unreal. Beliefs are those ideas that we hold that may or may not be connected to reality and it is only by examining the basis and evidence for our beliefs that we can determine whether they are valid. However, as you indicated, what I hold is more than just beliefs since I actually act on my beliefs, those are called convictions. Yes, I do view the world through my worldview which is formed by my beliefs and which forms my convictions, just as do you. The question that we must both answer for ourselves is whether our beliefs and our worldview match with reality.

 

Yes, we do have different views of reality and I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that you don't include the imaginary if I were you, because you still haven't answered some key questions about your worldview; in other words, I don't think your worldview has necessarily passed that reality test. Maybe you could answer some questions to put your worldview to the test.

 

1. Did the universe come into existence or has it always existed? If it came into existence, then what was the mechanism that made that occur?

2. What is the basis of morality? Is morality objective or subjective? If it is objective, on what is it based? If it is subjective, then how can you call anything that anyone else does wrong?

3. Does life have ultimate meaning? If so, on what basis? If not, what would you say to a loved one who is struggling with suicidal thoughts to prevent them from acting on those thoughts? (this is a real question and not just a throw away as people really struggle with this issue)

4. If there is no life beyond this one and no ultimate judgment, what do you say to the victims of a mass murderer who simply got away with his or her crime? What do you say to the person who has suffered injustice in this life and is looking for hope and justice in the next life?

 

Maybe you could help me to establish that your worldview is not built on fantasy by starting with these questions.

 

Thanks,

 

LNC