Knowledge vs belief

[aik]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You are putting the cart in front of the horse here, moy droog.  Scripture says that we "know" by faith.  Walt has already made this point.  I would have to have faith first, then I could know.

I am not. The scripture also speaks about faith which comes from having information. Shall i show several verses to you?

 

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We have a historical record of Siddhartha Gautama's life, written by historians who were also alive during the time.  We have the actual Dharma written by Siddhartha himself after he became the Buddha.  There is no mystery here.  Events happened that people thought were important enough to record.

 

But, with jesus... well.  Nothing.  So either nothing happened that was important enough to be recorded; or nothing happened.  There is the slim possibility that something important happened but nobody wrote it down; but that doesn't seem to be the kind of inspiration we would expect from an omniscient and omnipotent god. 

Let us be serious here. If you are able, please think of what i say. Starting from the old testament we have many prophecies about the saviour, massiah, jesus the son of god, son of man, ruler of gods nation. Some of prophecies are very accurate and require conformation of many factors to become true. Some of them can be applied to various persons or situation if we take them one by one. But they are multiple. And they happened all together in one person, among those are the ones about his death and resurrection. 

 

Promises of god come true one after another. And all this is revealed in the only Jesus the Christ. 

 

Plus Jesus as a historical person born with a miracle, among witnesses, did miracles among witnesses, died among witnesses, rose again among the witnesses. The point. A person who was fortold as a saviour was born, did miracles died and rose again according to prophecies. It is not just an accidential event. And it is not just an ordinary event. What is budda, what is muhammed, what is any other man?

 

Then, those eye witnesses were telling to manies about the good news. Then paul met the eye witnesses and was told about the events. Then paul met dionysius and damaris and they heard the good news and they decided to belive. Many people had heard by that time about the good news, but these two decided to believe. Information was the same for all of them, but attitude of the two differed from of the others. 

 

The message is the same up til now. Attitudes are different up today. You decide my friend. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, aik said:

Starting from the old testament we have many prophecies about the saviour, massiah, jesus the son of god, son of man, ruler of gods nation. Some of prophecies are very accurate and require conformation of many factors to become true. Some of them can be applied to various persons or situation if we take them one by one. But they are multiple. And they happened all together in one person, among those are the ones about his death and resurrection

The writers of the gospel also had access to these "prophecies," and given that they were writing decades after the events, could very well have told the stories about the jesus character in such a way as to make it seem like he fulfilled them.  Fiction is a simpler explanation than trying to explain how all of it really happened but nobody thought to write it down in real time.

 

17 minutes ago, aik said:

Plus Jesus as a historical person born with a miracle, among witnesses, did miracles among witnesses, died among witnesses, rose again among the witnesses. The point. A person who was fortold as a saviour was born, did miracles died and rose again according to prophecies. It is not just an accidential event. And it is not just an ordinary event.

And, yet, nobody thought to write any of it down.  Nobody decided it would be worth it to follow jesus around and record his wonderous works.  Historians of the day simply ignored him, as if he didn't even exist.  And nobody ever even heard of him outside of Judea until a half-century later. 

 

None of this seems remotely plausible.  

 

21 minutes ago, aik said:

Information was the same for all of them, but attitude of the two differed from of the others. 

You seem to be confusing attitude with faith.

[sdelsolray]

Once again, folks, Poster aik is delusional.

[walterpthefirst]

Here's a few more questions about scripture for you, aik.

 

 

Acts 2 : 37 - 41.

 

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 

41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

 

 

Did any of these three thousand people actually see Jesus rise from the dead with their own eyes?

 

Did they acquire any knowledge of his resurrection for themselves and by themselves?

 

Or did they just believe Peter's testimony about it - without any objective evidence they could test and check for themselves?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Here's another quote for you, aik.

 

 

Acts 4 : 1 - 4

 

1 The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 

2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 

3 They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 

4 But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.

 

 

Did any of these additional two thousand people actually see Jesus rise from the dead themselves?

 

Did they acquire any knowledge of his resurrection for themselves and by themselves?

 

Or did they just believe Peter and John's testimony about it - without any objective evidence they could test and check for themselves?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, aik said:

I am not. The scripture also speaks about faith which comes from having information. Shall i show several verses to you?

Certainly. 

[aik]

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Certainly. 

John 2:23: "While He was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the signs He was doing and believed in His name."

 

John 4:39: "Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Jesus because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.”"

 

John 4:41: "And many more believed because of His message."

 

John 7:31: "Many in the crowd, however, believed in Him and said, “When the Christ comes, will He perform more signs than this man?”"

 

John 10:41-42: "Many came to Him and said, “Although John never performed a sign, everything he said about this man was true.” And many in that place believed in Jesus."

 

John 11:45: "Therefore many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in Him."

 

John 20:30-31: "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name."

 

Acts 4:3-4: "They seized Peter and John, and because it was already evening, they put them in custody until the next day. But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand."

 

Acts 9:41-42: "Peter took her by the hand and helped her up. Then he called the saints and widows and presented her to them alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord."

 

All these verses speak about people who believed after they had got an information such as the eye witnesses testimony or a miracle. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, aik said:

All these verses speak about people who believed after they had got an information such as the eye witnesses testimony or a miracle. 

Yes.  Believed,  which is an act of faith.  Notice how they all believed simply because someone else told them to, not because they were presented with testable and repeatable evidence.  This is no different from people who believe in Allah simply because they hear someone speak from the Koran.

 

Yet, still, with all of these "miracles" and wonderous works, not a single historian thought jesus was worth mentioning. 

[aik]

15 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  Believed,  which is an act of faith.  Notice how they all believed simply because someone else told them to, not because they were presented with testable and repeatable evidence.  This is no different from people who believe in Allah simply because they hear someone speak from the Koran.

 

Yet, still, with all of these "miracles" and wonderous works, not a single historian thought jesus was worth mentioning. 

There was a physician whos hobby was to be a historian, his name was Luke. He thoroughly wrote about ac5s of Jesus. Also eye witnesses, who saw, and then wrote what they had seen. Their names were Mathew and John. And there was a man, who accolpanied one of tte apostles, and he wrote from a mouth of the apostle. His name was Mark. And i have to mention Phlabius Josephus also, who in one place very slitely mentioned that christians worshipped a dead man saying that he had resurrected, whose name was Jesus. 

 

All these papers were written in various places by various people in various times. And the most valuable among them were saved by the church and read in congregations in rememoration of things happened. 

 

How many more people should have written one story for you to say that we have historical evidence? 

[walterpthefirst]

30 minutes ago, aik said:

There was a physician whos hobby was to be a historian, his name was Luke. He thoroughly wrote about ac5s of Jesus. Also eye witnesses, who saw, and then wrote what they had seen. Their names were Mathew and John. And there was a man, who accolpanied one of tte apostles, and he wrote from a mouth of the apostle. His name was Mark. And i have to mention Phlabius Josephus also, who in one place very slitely mentioned that christians worshipped a dead man saying that he had resurrected, whose name was Jesus. 

 

All these papers were written in various places by various people in various times. And the most valuable among them were saved by the church and read in congregations in rememoration of things happened. 

 

How many more people should have written one story for you to say that we have historical evidence? 

 

As many non-Christian people from that period as it takes to independently corroborate what the bible tells us.

 

Relying on what the bible says to support what the bible also says is circular logic.

 

And arguments based upon circular logic are, by definition, invalid and unreliable.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Here's a list of all the churches mentioned in the New Testament, aik.

 

 

Antioch, Pisidia: Acts 13:14; Gal 1:2

Antioch, Syria: Acts 11:26 (Paul's home base)

Athens: Acts 17:34

Babylon: 1 Peter 5:13; Acts 2:9

Berea: Acts 17:11

Caesarea: Acts 10:1,48

Cenchrea: Rom 16:1

Colossae: Col 1:2

Corinth: Acts 18:1

Crete: Titus 1:5

Cyrene: Acts 11:20

Damascus: Acts 9:19

Derbe: Acts 14:20; Gal 1:2

Ephesus: Acts 18:19

Hierapolis Col 4:13

Iconium: Acts 14:1; Gal 1:2

Jerusalem: Acts 2:5

Joppa: Acts 9:36, 38

Laodicea: Rev 1:11, Col 4:15

Lydda: Acts 9:32

Lystra: Acts 14:6; Gal 1:2

Pergamum: Rev 1:11

Philadelphia: Rev 1:11

Philippi: Acts 16:12

Puteoli, Italy: Acts 28:13-14

Rome: Rom 1:7

Sardis: Rev 1:11

Sharon: Acts 9:35

Smyrna: Rev 1:11

Tarsus: Acts 9:30

Thessalonica: Acts 17:1

Thyatira: Rev 1:11; Acts 16:14

Troas: Acts 20:6-7

 

 

Did any of the Christians of these churches actually see Jesus rise from the dead themselves?

 

Did they acquire any knowledge of his resurrection for themselves and by themselves?

 

Or did they just believe other people's testimony about it - without any objective evidence they could test and check for themselves?

[walterpthefirst]

Oh and the writings of Flavius Jospehus do not qualify as truly independent and reliable evidence for Jesus.

 

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

 

 Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while most scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the life and execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or alteration.  However, the exact nature and extent of the Christian addition remains unclear.

 

A historical document that has been altered from its original form is hardly reliable.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, aik said:

There was a physician whos hobby was to be a historian, his name was Luke. He thoroughly wrote about ac5s of Jesus. Also eye witnesses, who saw, and then wrote what they had seen. Their names were Mathew and John. And there was a man, who accolpanied one of tte apostles, and he wrote from a mouth of the apostle. His name was Mark.

https://www.thenotsoinnocentsabroad.com/blog/who-really-wrote-the-new-testament

 

1 hour ago, aik said:

And i have to mention Phlabius Josephus also, who in one place very slitely mentioned that christians worshipped a dead man saying that he had resurrected, whose name was Jesus. 

Unfortunately, most scholars, theologians, and biblical historians acknowledge and agree that this passage from Josephus was a forgery which was added later.  Even if it were authentic, it would only establish that christians worshipped a dead man saying that he had resurrected, whose name was jesus.  It does not establish thst jesus actually existed, nor that he was the son of god, nor that he was the messiah.  And it certainly does not establish that he genuinely rose from the dead.  Simply put, nothing in Josephus, or any other historical document validates what is written in the gospel. 

[aik]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

As many non-Christian people from that period as it takes to independently corroborate what the bible tells us.

 

Relying on what the bible says to support what the bible also says is circular logic.

 

And arguments based upon circular logic are, by definition, invalid and unreliable.

 

 

 

my point here was that the bible was not a bible at the beginning at all. The authors were not intented to make a book collection.

[aik]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Here's a list of all the churches mentioned in the New Testament, aik.

 

 

Antioch, Pisidia: Acts 13:14; Gal 1:2

Antioch, Syria: Acts 11:26 (Paul's home base)

Athens: Acts 17:34

Babylon: 1 Peter 5:13; Acts 2:9

Berea: Acts 17:11

Caesarea: Acts 10:1,48

Cenchrea: Rom 16:1

Colossae: Col 1:2

Corinth: Acts 18:1

Crete: Titus 1:5

Cyrene: Acts 11:20

Damascus: Acts 9:19

Derbe: Acts 14:20; Gal 1:2

Ephesus: Acts 18:19

Hierapolis Col 4:13

Iconium: Acts 14:1; Gal 1:2

Jerusalem: Acts 2:5

Joppa: Acts 9:36, 38

Laodicea: Rev 1:11, Col 4:15

Lydda: Acts 9:32

Lystra: Acts 14:6; Gal 1:2

Pergamum: Rev 1:11

Philadelphia: Rev 1:11

Philippi: Acts 16:12

Puteoli, Italy: Acts 28:13-14

Rome: Rom 1:7

Sardis: Rev 1:11

Sharon: Acts 9:35

Smyrna: Rev 1:11

Tarsus: Acts 9:30

Thessalonica: Acts 17:1

Thyatira: Rev 1:11; Acts 16:14

Troas: Acts 20:6-7

 

 

Did any of the Christians of these churches actually see Jesus rise from the dead themselves?

 

Did they acquire any knowledge of his resurrection for themselves and by themselves?

 

Or did they just believe other people's testimony about it - without any objective evidence they could test and check for themselves?

What they had was the witnesses testimonies. They believed in what the witnesses handed them over. 

[aik]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Oh and the writings of Flavius Jospehus do not qualify as truly independent and reliable evidence for Jesus.

 

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

 

 Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while most scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the life and execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or alteration.  However, the exact nature and extent of the Christian addition remains unclear.

 

A historical document that has been altered from its original form is hardly reliable.

Ok. If scientists have no agreement here, i will not argue this.

[aik]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Unfortunately, most scholars, theologians, and biblical historians acknowledge and agree that this passage from Josephus was a forgery which was added later.  Even if it were authentic, it would only establish that christians worshipped a dead man saying that he had resurrected, whose name was jesus.  It does not establish thst jesus actually existed, nor that he was the son of god, nor that he was the messiah.  And it certainly does not establish that he genuinely rose from the dead.  Simply put, nothing in Josephus, or any other historical document validates what is written in the gospel. 

What he said is not so valuable.  What really was valuable we collected into a book.

[aik]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

https://www.thenotsoinnocentsabroad.com/blog/who-really-wrote-the-new-testament

Don't  worry about it. We have scholars, well educated, skilled, literally reliable, who knows his job. 

 

We have some missing information, but we going on investigating it. For the last 100 years we found much. 

[aik]

My dear friends, generally i wish to tell you. The problem is not an information in major part but how you treat that information. For example, there is one book, but many variants of doctrines. Eastern orthodox, western catholic, protestant, euangelical, baptists, pentecostals, presbyterians and etc. Why? Does this happent because each one of us has one part of the message? No. We have the same bible. But how we understand things, what value we do give to a particular passages of the message, how we practice it in our services, all these things lead us to have doctrines. Though some of my church leaders think that there should be only one doctrine, but i do not think so. I mean that all we, i mean human of the world, are different, and we have to learn how to behave to one another. Ok. This was an example showing that the core information can be one, but variety comes from our treatment of such an information. 

 

The same with some of you guys here. I think some of you here came to this community not because of a bad pastor who tortured you, for example, but because you considered that if a pastor does it, then the gospel is a falsification. And you fell. 

 

This is clearly my subjective opinion. You say if it is not so. I am opened. 

 

So what a believer should do if another believer, even who is a minister, makes him to leave the church? Does the church belong to a pastor? No. Am i in the church because of a man? No. Do my beliefs depend on any pastor? No. So why should i leave the house of my Father, even if one of His children rebelled against Him? If i leave anyway, it means that i did not know the Jesus of the Gospel as i should know. 

 

This is the treatment.

 

Come back to you Father, lost children. He is still waiting for you.

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, aik said:

my point here was that the bible was not a bible at the beginning at all. The authors were not intented to make a book collection.

 

The size of the book collection is irrelevant.

 

The fact that there are no non-Christian writings that corroborate the bible is.

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, aik said:

What they had was the witnesses testimonies. They believed in what the witnesses handed them over. 

 

And in a court of law, which witness testimonies are more reliable?

 

Those supported by independent sources?

 

Or those that aren't?

 

 

Believing what people say without first checking and testing for yourself is doing exactly what the bible asks.

 

That is, believing by faith in the absence of independently verified evidence.

 

So my point stands.

 

 

Christians believe by faith, without evidence and without knowledge.

[aik]

30 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

And in a court of law, which witness testimonies are more reliable?

 

Those supported by independent sources?

 

Or those that aren't?

Witness is the source by itself. 

 

32 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Believing what people say without first checking and testing for yourself is doing exactly what the bible asks

If you do exactly what the bible says, your sins will be forgiven, you will be changed and become a new creature.

 

33 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

So my point stands.

You stand on your point, and still in darkness. God, have mercy and save. 

 

36 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Christians believe by faith, without evidence and without 

Christians believe by faith with evidences and knowledge. 

 

If you wish to get learned about them ask those who know something, avoid believing to the people who look at the evidences and keep saying that they do not know anything.

[walterpthefirst]

 

Witness is the source by itself. 

 

You didn't answer the question the question,aik.

 

I asked you which was more reliable in a court of law. 

 

A witnesses testimony on its own or one supported by independent evidence?

 

Please answer THAT question.

 

 

 

If you do exactly what the bible says, your sins will be forgiven, you will be changed and become a new creature.

 

Your testimony is not supported by independent evidence that I can check and test for myself.

 

Therefore I do not believe you.

 

 

 

You stand on your point, and still in darkness. God, have mercy and save. 

 

I do not accept your testimony because it is not supported by independent evidence that I can test and check for myself.

 

Therefore I do not believe your claim that I am still in darkness.

 

 

 

Christians believe by faith with evidences and knowledge. 

 

No.  That's not true.

 

Christians believe the testimony of people which is not supported by objective evidence that can be independently tested and checked.

 

Which means that there is no evidence and no knowledge.

 

Evidence that cannot be tested cannot be trusted.

 

Knowledge that cannot be verified cannot be trusted.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, aik said:

If you do exactly what the bible says, your sins will be forgiven, you will be changed and become a new creature.

Moy droog, did you know that if you do exactly what the Dharma says, you will realize that you are already sinless to begin with, and only need to take a few simple, practical steps in order to become a better person in this life and have a better incarnation in the next life? 

 

It's true.  Millions of practicing Buddhists have done it and are witnesses.  And the Buddha spirit, which is in everyone, also testifies the truth of it.  May Quan Am pour her compassion upon you.

 

Do you see the problem here, moy droog?  The Buddhist has the same "evidence" that you have.  They have a holy book, an enlightened spirit, witnesses... everything you have.  Only the information is different; and therefore, the belief.

 

You will claim that their book is false, but yours is true.  You will claim that their witnesses are deceived, but yours alone speak the truth.  You will claim that the Buddha spirit is a demon from hell, but the holy spirit is god almighty himself.

 

But you cannot support your claims with any kind of evidence that they don't also have.  Thus, your claims fall under the category of Special Pleading, which is an informal logical fallacy.  Arguments built upon a foundation of fallacy cannot be reliable.

 

When it comes to what you believe, you should believe whatever brings you peace, comfort, happiness, and goodness in this life.  But when it comes to convincing others to believe with you, you need to offer them some kind of evidence that no other religion or philosophy has to offer, in order to demonstrate that your beliefs really are the Truth.  But that's simply not possible.  Not for you.  Not for the Buddhist.  Not for the Mohammedan. 

 

This is the difference between belief and knowledge. 

[aik]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Moy droog, did you know that if you do exactly what the Dharma says, you will realize that you are already sinless to begin with, and only need to take a few simple, practical steps in order to become a better person in this life and have a better incarnation in the next life? 

 

It's true.  Millions of practicing Buddhists have done it and are witnesses.  And the Buddha spirit, which is in everyone, also testifies the truth of it.  May Quan Am pour her compassion upon you.

 

Do you see the problem here, moy droog?  The Buddhist has the same "evidence" that you have.  They have a holy book, an enlightened spirit, witnesses... everything you have.  Only the information is different; and therefore, the belief.

 

You will claim that their book is false, but yours is true.  You will claim that their witnesses are deceived, but yours alone speak the truth.  You will claim that the Buddha spirit is a demon from hell, but the holy spirit is god almighty himself.

 

But you cannot support your claims with any kind of evidence that they don't also have.  Thus, your claims fall under the category of Special Pleading, which is an informal logical fallacy.  Arguments built upon a foundation of fallacy cannot be reliable.

 

When it comes to what you believe, you should believe whatever brings you peace, comfort, happiness, and goodness in this life.  But when it comes to convincing others to believe with you, you need to offer them some kind of evidence that no other religion or philosophy has to offer, in order to demonstrate that your beliefs really are the Truth.  But that's simply not possible.  Not for you.  Not for the Buddhist.  Not for the Mohammedan. 

 

This is the difference between belief and knowledge. 

Nope. But now i have no time to type and answer. Maybe later i will refer to what you have said here.