A Christian Framework

[Roz]

As long as we're into really old writings that 'prove jesus is god' (duh!)

 

Did jesus troll the author of the Bhagavad Gita?  I thought that book was written around 400 years before jesus impregnated a Jewish virgin to give birth to himself.

[mymistake]

The scriptures have not been debunked. That's precisely what I'm arguing. 

 

The first seven books of the Bible have been debunked.  They are fiction.  The only facts contained in them are local geography.  And Paul's theology required an original sin that never happened.  So yes, scriptures have been debunked.

 

Even the verse that declared that "all scriptures are useful" comes from a forgery.  Titus along with First and Second Timothy were late works written by somebody who knew he was not Paul.

 

The Bible is full of lies.

[Orbit]

 

Dear Wolol,

Theology does not count as an argument here. We don't accept the basic premise of theology, which is that god exists.

Good thing I don't care. My argument follows from science, to philosophy, to theology. Theology is the last part, after the framework and groundwork as been laid out. There are people equally or more intelligent than me that are far more educated that have put far more effort into this than me.

 

Show us the science. What you really have is a self-referntial theological house of cards. What was Ravenstar's post if not debunking the scriptures that your sources rely on uncritically. Your sources are building their arguments from flawed sources--that is the point of Ravenstar's post.

[Roz]

How dare you say the Book of Mormon is debunked, MM!  I am shocked and outraged!  My anger knows no bounds! 

[Orbit]

Wololo, theology is only valid evidence for those who believe in god. We don't. What else have you got?

[florduh]

This is philosophy. You don't like philosophy. You want science.

 

Many people here like to play around with philosophy. I don't particularly care for it because philosophy merely consists of questions and guesswork, and that's why there are so many differing conclusions. Actual facts have been discovered by science. Everything leads to theology only if you want it to and declare it so. There is no evidence that it is valid, it's just a choice to believe it.

[Guest afireinside]

Wololo, theology is only valid evidence for those who believe in god. We don't. What else have you got?

Yeah I don't get it.

 

Theology itself is a misnomer, it is merely mythology and can't hold it's own. Philosophising. doesn't give God an entry point, it just wraps a gift box with expensive, shiny paper but when you unwrap it and open the box it's empty.

[Ravenstar]

There are so many philosophies and none are proven…. but science comes down to what is demonstrably true (as best as can be known at any given time), and is also self-correcting to adjust to new data.

 

I am a 'soft' scientist… but my field depends on the conclusions of hard science in the end. I'll stick with facts, thanks.

[Wololo]

There are so many philosophies and none are proven…. but science comes down to what is demonstrably true (as best as can be known at any given time), and is also self-correcting to adjust to new data.

 

I am a 'soft' scientist… but my field depends on the conclusions of hard science in the end. I'll stick with facts, thanks.

 

Sticking with 'facts' and empirical evidence is fine, but saying that it is the only thing worth studying, or considering, would be ignorant.

 

Not to mention that science is not as certain as we like to make it out to be. It's just too bad nobody seems to know enough about science for me to actually demonstrate that to them. Science isn't "hard".

[♦ ficino ♦]

1. return to fundamental beliefs of early Church fathers is a return to a system that holds to sacraments, esp. the Real Presence in the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration, bishops as successors of the apostles, miracles performed after the close of the canon... It is already a return to a sacerdotal church, not to the concoctions of Luther or Calvin or Zwingli. It is questionable whether such an attempted return is warranted, for it seems an effort to leap back over the development that the Holy Spirit, on the Christian theory, will have worked in the Church since then. I suggest that your RO, when followed out consistently, can only lead to Rome. You may be OK with that in time.

 

2. Number of manuscripts of the OT and NT is irrelevant. It only shows that there were religious groups that created a demand for copies. That's how the ancient book industry worked; low demand, few resources devoted to the laborious task of copying. The number of manuscripts does not guarantee the accuracy of the text, and in fact, threatens it, because of the multiplication of chances of error. I know manuscripts and textual studies; I publish on this stuff.

Ironhorse posted the same argument. It appears in Josh McDowell and other apologists.

 

3. Forget about the Testimonium Flavianum. Appeals to it cut no ice.

 

4. The Testimonium Taciteum is more complicated. We can have a separate thread on it if you would like.

 

5. Your suggestion that one can go from science to philosophy to theology does not get off the ground because theism is ill defined. It has no predictive power and does not generate testable hypotheses about the observable world.

I'll add that, while I applaud your or anyone's interest in Plato, your earlier posts on philosophy of language are laden with metaphysical pseudo-questions. If you want to be serious about philosophy of language, as you seem to want to be, I think you'd profit by starting from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, if you have not done so.

[Orbit]

Wololo, I have a Ph.D. I'm not ignorant about science or epistemology. Put up or shut up.

[centauri]

To further refute the point, the Romans stationed guards outside the tomb. Nobody was getting in or out of the tomb. The Romans didn't act because they had no reason to believe he wasn't dead.

The only Gospel that mentions guards is Matthew.

The author of Matthew also claims many dead people were raised to life, went into Jerusalem, and were seen by many.

On what basis do you believe this amazing event happened and on what basis should the Gospel of Matthew be taken as accurate history?

 

Jesus was only popular in Judea, and probably only in certain parts. He was a tiny man in a tiny part of the world. He didn't even live all that long.

 According to the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth garnered a great deal of fame and praise during his ministry.

Jesus was supposed to be so famous that he drew great crowds.

Some examples of the fame of Jesus follow:

Matt 4:23-25

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

 

Matt 9:26,31

And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.

But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.

 

Matt 14:1

At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,

 

Mark 1:28

And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

 

Luke 4:14-15,37

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.

And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.

 

Luke 5:15

But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.

 

It certainly seems like Jesus of Nazareth was renowned in a fairly wide circle.

 

The Gospel of John states that Jesus did so many things that it would fill many books.

John 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

Yet, all of these things that Jesus was supposed to have done didn't fill the books of anyone outside of the Christian cult writers.

 

[Roz]

Sticking with 'facts' and empirical evidence is fine, but saying that it is the only thing worth studying, or considering, would be ignorant.

 

Not to mention that science is not as certain as we like to make it out to be. It's just too bad nobody seems to know enough about science for me to actually demonstrate that to them. Science isn't "hard".

 

 

Still he does not get it.  There is a big gap between studying different cultures' philosophies and actually picking one to be the correct one from the god of the universe. 

 

Just like there is a big difference between the human who may have been jesus and believing him to be the king of kings and the omnipotent god.

 

Until you can jump that chasm, it's the same old tune.

[Roz]

Why did you choose the bible over the koran, the bhagavad gita? 

 

Here's my guess.

 

[Ravenstar]

 

There are so many philosophies and none are proven…. but science comes down to what is demonstrably true (as best as can be known at any given time), and is also self-correcting to adjust to new data.

 

I am a 'soft' scientist… but my field depends on the conclusions of hard science in the end. I'll stick with facts, thanks.

 

Sticking with 'facts' and empirical evidence is fine, but saying that it is the only thing worth studying, or considering, would be ignorant.

 

Not to mention that science is not as certain as we like to make it out to be. It's just too bad nobody seems to know enough about science for me to actually demonstrate that to them. Science isn't "hard".

 

I never said it was the only thing worth studying, or even considering. I have 30+ years of metaphysical studying under my belt… do not read what isn't there please.

 

… 'nobody seems to know enough about science…'?  WTF?  I have a science degree… and I'm a lightweight here, a dilettante. A BABE IN ARMS against a lot of the people here. There are amateurs here that kick my ass in science… and we have our fair share of academics.

 

What in the world are you going on about?

 

There is a distinction between the 'soft' sciences, and the 'hard' sciences. I am an Historian.. a soft science, because you can't get hard answers from it (like psychology, sociology, etc..) - then there are mathematics and physics.. and chemistry… HARD sciences where you can get conclusions that are predictive and you can recreate experiments and double-check your data.

 

Why am I explaining this...

[Wololo]

If you're all so smart and educated, why are most of you giving crap, short answers? You're acting ignorant. Stop.

[Orbit]

If you're all so smart and educated, why are most of you giving crap, short answers? You're acting ignorant. Stop.

I'm about to conclude that you are just a troll. Or that you turn into one when your arguments are questioned.

[sdelsolray]

This one isn't worth the time.  He's full of hubris (as well as full of himself), he uses logical fallacies like they were candy, he fills the gaps with infantile apologetics, unfulfilled promises (e.g., "I'll tell you later, just wait and see.") and has some dysfunctional need to control the discussion.  His arguments are full of shit, even if he had the ability to present them clearly and intelligently, which he doesn't.

 

I realize it may be difficult for posters to ignore him, but I believe ignoring him is the best action.  At a minimum, addressing his posts in the third person (instead of directly) will provide other posters and lurkers with helpful information and your views.

[Guest afireinside]

If you're all so smart and educated, why are most of you giving crap, short answers? You're acting ignorant. Stop.

I'm neither smart nor educated, I didn't even finish high school, I'm a worker not a thinker. However, even I see your logic is silly. You don't need long answers, just common sense

[Wololo]

Right now only one person has demonstrated that they are willing to be reasonable. I'm not going to bother with the rest. We're going in circles.

[RipVanWinkle]

Wololo: I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on Philosophy. I have read some philosophy and taken a college level course in it. But that is merely scratching the surface, I'm sure. What I do know has been interesting learning. And some of it may be true. But it is by nature speculative. It is the abstract creation of one's brain. It is not proof of anything unless it has been tested properly. But it can't really be tested. To infer proof of  god from any philosophy is illogical from the start. To infer such a conclusion (i.e., god) from philosophical speculations is not truly an inference. Inferences are drawn from experiences and observations, not from mere opinion without proof. Indeed, once one makes an inference from a conclusion of your philosophy you have by definition weakened your position, not strengthened  it. It is similar to a principle in the law of evidence which provides that one cannot present any evidence in court if it is an inference from an inference. Why? Because the 1st inference flows from facts; the second is not based on facts but merely another inference. The 2nd inference is weakened so much that it will not even be considered by a court. The same principle applies to an opinion based upon an opinion. It has no foundation. 

 

Not only that, but you are trying to confirm that Jesus Christ, the son of god, who also was god,  was raised from the dead and you think you can establish that from your philosophy? A snake talked to Eve, the first woman, and philosophy can prove that? Adam and Eve sinned (whatever that means) and therefore their progeny is contaminated by Adam's sin and are condemned to hell?

 

Or are you trying to say that Xtinity is consistent with your philosophy? So what? It's inconsistent with mine. Who's right?

You may be able to draw inferences from the bible and call that your philosophy, but you sure as hell cannot infer the bible god from philosophy. That's because the bible sets forth "fact", from which, if they are assumed to be true, you can draw inferences and a philosophy. But you would in the beginning have a huge problem of deciding which of the inconsistent facts laid out in the bible are true. 

 

Your inference upon inference approach to Xtianity is even less believable than the bible fundamentalists. I didn't think that was possible.   bill

[RipVanWinkle]

"If you're all so smart and educated, why are most of you giving crap, short answers? You're acting ignorant. Stop." Wololo

 

Just because you disagree does not make us ignorant. Nor does not understanding what we are saying make us ignorant.   

 

You said in one of your earlier posts that anyone who just assumes there is a god is not being honest. Do you realize that that includes about 99% of all Xians?   

[francesco]

 

If you're all so smart and educated, why are most of you giving crap, short answers? You're acting ignorant. Stop.

 

I'm about to conclude that you are just a troll. Or that you turn into one when your arguments are questioned.

Trolling for jesus is very popular

[thereisnoperfect]

Right now only one person has demonstrated that they are willing to be reasonable. I'm not going to bother with the rest. We're going in circles.

Hey, you're right!

 

Unfortunately, that person isn't YOU.

 

(And by the way, read Bart Ehrman--a guy who believed, and wanted to know more, and looked carefully at all the stuff--and discovered that the scholarly consensus is that the works collected in the bible are not remotely reliable. He ended up an agnostic.

 

Seriously, well worth a read for anyone whose purpose is to question things and discover the truth.)

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

Come on everybody, you're all ganging up on Wololo like a school of piranha feasting on a pork chop. I recommend that only one or two people should engage him at a time, otherwise, you end up with a cornered animal on your hands and such a scenario rarely ends well.