NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #149]

The gods of other religions are human inventions, unlike the god concept you believe in due to your geographic location on this planet (which I find to be an odd mechanism for believing in a god concept).

All you are doing is to demonstrate one who was a convinced Christian at one time, who later on comes to realize they had no reason to be convinced, who then comes to realize that one of the reasons they may have been a Christian is simply because of their "geographic location on this planet", who then goes on to suppose that anyone else who may be a Christian who is in the same "geographic location on this planet" must have used the same faulty logic. Allow me to give the shortest version of my story as possible, whether you would like to believe it or not.

What you are describing above, is actually one of the first things I thought of. I was raised in a Christian home, When I became 19 I only darkened the door of a Church again for things such as weddings, and or funerals. Can you imagine why? Well, that would be because I knew I was not convinced, and I was not interested in the least. This attitude continued, and it would have continued but for the sake of my children which were coming along, and I knew (in fact it was already occurring) that my parents, and my sister were going to request that I allow my children to go to Church with them. Can you see the dilemma there? I mean, how in the world could I allow my children to attend Church, when I was not attending? What could I possibly tell them?

So then, even though I had no interest in the least, I had no choice in the matter now. One of the first things I thought of was the fact that although I loved my sister, and parents, I knew they could be absolutely wrong, and it very well could be possible that the only reason they were Christian is because of their upbringing. The point I am making is, I had to have an answer for my kids, as to why WE all were going to Church, or I would have to give a reason as to why WE were not attending Church when most all of our extended family, and friends did attend Church. In other words, I was not going to simply allow my children to go to Church in order to be taught things I was not convinced of. Some folks may allow this to happen, but I can assure you that this is not me. The point I am making is, some of us think of such things to begin with before we become convinced.

Next, I do not simply assume, "The gods of other religions are human inventions" because I would have no way to know, since I have not had a reason to study these other religions, and just like Christianity I have no interest in the study of these religions. However, I do not have to know a thing about these other religions in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection claims.

So you see, the arguments you are making are completely lame, in that I cannot imagine one who has not already thought of these things long, long before they allow themselves to become convinced of something. I mean, do you imagine that I would not have actually thought of the fact that most all Christians are indeed Christians only because they were brought up in such a way? GOOD GRIEF! That is a no brainer. It is an absolute fact that most Christians are Christians only because of the way in which they were brought up. It is also a fact that most Christians do not really know what they believe, nor why they believe it. The real question here is, what does these facts have to do with Christianity being false? In other words, the question is not whether most Christians are Christian because of their "geographical location" because there is no question about it. The question would be how is this any sort of evidence that Christianity is false? The only thing I can think of that this would be evidence for, is that there are many folks who are easily convinced. The main point here is though, I cannot imagine anyone not thinking of your objections long, long before they allow themselves to be convinced.

I would really love to respond to some of the rest of what you say, but I do not want to get off track from the point above. Therefore, allow me to end with this. There are some folks who have freely admitted they were convinced Christians at one time, who go on to freely admit they did not use the mind, and, or their reason and logic was faulty, and this is what led them to be a convinced Christian. They now want to convince us that it was the use of the mind which convinced them there would be no reason to believe Christianity to be true, and that their reason and logic is sound now. However, if one looks at the fact that most Christians are Christian simply because of their geographical location, and this fact was used in their mind as evidence against Christianity, then I would suggest the reason and logic is no better now.

[POI]

True or false? John 20:29 tells readers that more blessed are the ones who still believe without seeing.

True or false? Matthew 25:46 tells readers that the unchosen, or the goats, will suffer eternal punishment.

If you logically answered (true) to both questions, then my assertion is confirmed in that "the Bible" promotes (faith and fear). And not the faith you speak of, but instead the one I did. Which are apparently two darn good reasons to follow. So get convert'n....

Now to the thread....

This sort of demonstrates that you do not understand that we would have the material contained in the Bible, even if we did not have the Bible. I mean, you do understand there was other material that was considered for being a part of the NT which was not contained in the NT, but you can still read this material, correct? As an example, James was hotly contested, but it was eventually allowed into the Bible, but even if James would have been excluded from the NT, we would still have the material which has been attributed to James. If The Gospel of Mark had been excluded, we would still be able to read The Gospel of Mark. In other words, simply because certain material was not allowed into the Cannon, does not mean the material disappeared. In the same way, if the Bible had not been composed, we would still have access to all the material contained in the Bible, along with all the rest which was not contained. In that way, it would not be what the Bible says which "becomes damning to my epistemology", but rather what Mark says, Matthew says, Luke says, Paul says, which "becomes damning to my epistemology" since there would be no Bible to say anything. The point is, my reason for wishing the Bible had never been composed, is because this would mean that folks like you, and even Christians would not be able to say, "the Bible says" when the Bible does not say anything at all. It is like you hold the Bible in some sort of high regard, while I as a Christian have no regard for the Bible in the least.

Yes. Some made it, some didn't. You think 'the Bible' somewhat compromised the credibility of these otherwise claimed separate accounts, especially by picking and choosing which ones made the cut and which ones did not. But you assume they are legit claims....

Nor have you moved the conversation forward as to what could possibly explain the reports of the resurrection along with the facts and evidence we can know. Your problem is the fact that I am not attempting to convince you that you should believe the reports, and I am fine with whatever position you take. The problem comes in, when we have those who were once convinced Christianity was true, who are now just as convinced Christianity is false, who now want to insist they did not use the mind in order to be convinced Christianity was true, who now want to insist it was the use of the mind, which convinced them, there was no reason to believe, what they were once so convinced of, and they are just as convinced they are correct now, as they were when they were convinced when they were wrong.

I welcome your input here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7#p1159557). In a nutshell, here is where it is at...

1. Aside from Mark, can you verify "Luke's" other source(s)?
2. Is it possible 'Luke' is a nothing more than a (fake news, damage control, alternative facts) copy of Mark, created by the corrupt church? The video explains...

We are not greatly diverged. I am not suggesting the best explanation is that it actually happened. I am asking what would explain the facts and evidence we have? I am also insisting that when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for the claims to be false, they will come away understanding there are no easy answers as you seem to insist. It was easy when you were a convinced Christian, and now that you have changed the mind it is just as easy now, and I am telling you that it is not that easy in the least, and for one to convince themselves there are easy answers, is for one to simply believe what they would rather believe, whether believer, or unbeliever.

Another shameless plug to address the aforementioned thread above, being this thread is really not applicable to you

When I am talking about the claims being made, I am only talking about the claims of the resurrection. I am not talking about all the details surrounding the claims of the resurrection. The point is, even if we were to demonstrate where the authors may have gotten a few details incorrect, would not eliminate the resurrection. As an example, most all scholars agree the earliest followers were truly convinced in what they report, even if they believe that the stories contradict. The way in which you make it sound is that the authors made some things up in order to pull something off, while the scholars believe these folks were reporting what they were convinced was fact.

Well, we have Paul, who did not even claim to be part of the original "resurrection tour". The rest.....?

This is not "Case/point" in the least. We are talking about ordinary fishermen who followed a man for some 3 years, who watched their leader crucified, who then go on to begin to claim this leader had rose from the dead after 3 days in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claims, and these claims these ordinary fishermen were making go on to have, one of the most, if not the most significant impact in the history of the world, and you want to compare this to a hand full of folks in Church dancing around like they are "drunk in the holy ghost"? GOOD GRIEF! How in the world does the two compare?

The video provides way more first-hand accounts and evidence for many folks simultaneously experiencing a post-mortem Jesus experience. And yet, ancient writings hold more weight to the same claim?

Which is exactly the point! Do you even realize what you are doing now? What these ordinary fishermen were reporting actually goes on to be called, "The Gospel" which not only means, "news" it actually means, "good news" and this "good news" these ordinary fishermen were proclaiming, (which was that this Jesus had rose from the grave) has arguably the most significant impact the world has ever known, and I am here to tell you that attempting to compare these claims to other claims is just not going to get it, unless one is easily convinced. There are no other extraordinary claims which compare in the least.

The whole point here is what these ordinary fishermen were proclaiming is not only "news worthy" but it actually becomes one of the biggest news stories the world has ever known.

Yes they do. You just saw dozens of folks who also experience a post-mortem Jesus. Unless you can prove they are all lying or mistaken? If not, then this video provides way more evidence than the claims of these fisherman. And to boot, maybe some of these folks fish too.

It is not that these folks get any authority at all. The point is folks wrote out what they claim to be a resurrection, to audiences at the time, who were already believers, which demonstrates that what they authored was not intended to convince the world, and we have this material saved, and the question then becomes, what best explains the facts and evidence we can know by reading this material? As an example, I think we can eliminate the possibility that these folks made the resurrection story up since the facts and evidence seem to demonstrate they were reporting what they were convinced was fact. So then, we move on to the next. I am just telling you, it is not like you are going to be able to read the material we have and come away with the idea that Jesus was crucified, and these folks came up with some sort of concocted story. Again, the only ways one can come away convinced of such a thing is, they have not really done the study, or they choose to believe what they would rather believe, or they are easily convinced.

Going back to the video. We can also conclude these folks are not making it up, right? And yet, even though we have better facts and evidence here, you have no problem chucking these claims out. Why?

I can go with that. However, I do not believe the facts and evidence we have will allow us to be under the impression that the claims of the resurrection were made up. So then, even if we were able to demonstrate that most all of the other stories concerning the life of Jesus were mistakes, or made up, what would this have to do with the facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these folks were truly convinced Jesus came alive after death, and continue to proclaim this for the rest of their lives, many of them dying because of it, and these claims they were making has the most enormous impact upon the world, continuing to consume the lives of folks such as yourself, some 2000 years later?

I disagree. For starters, I suspect 'Luke' was made up. See you in the other thread

I am convinced that nothing we see in this video has a thing in the world to do with the Holy Spirit, but what I am attempting to figure out is, what in the world would this have to do with the claims of the resurrection? Allow me to help you out. Nothing whatsoever!

If not already explained well enough... These fine folks are having experiences, just like Paul and co. Why lend any more credence to these ancient claims, versus the many more here? And we actually have confirmed video, which has likely not been edited either.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #152]

True or false? John 20:29 tells readers that more blessed are the ones who still believe without seeing.

True or false? Matthew 25:46 tells readers that the unchosen, or the goats, will suffer eternal punishment.

If you logically answered (true) to both questions, then my assertion is confirmed in that "the Bible" promotes (faith and fear). And not the faith you speak of, but instead the one I did. Which are apparently two darn good reasons to follow. So get convert'n....

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense, and you are a great example of what I am talking about. Does the idea that the Bible teaches faith, fear, have any sort of motivation upon you to convert? Well, it does not, because you do not believe. In the same way, if the resurrection accounts fail to convince anyone then the faith, fear has no effect. So then, the bottom line has nothing to do with faith, fear, but rather whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. This is exactly what Paul had to say, when he penned these words to the Corinthians,

"If Christ has not been raised then your faith is useless".

I would also go on to say, "if Christ has not been raised your fear is useless". It is like I am spending a lot of time at this point attempting to get folks to understand that Trump and company have the aim to do away with our democracy, but it will do no good to attempt to simply scare them into believing this to be the case, because they will have no fear of this until I demonstrate to them that this is exactly what they aim to do.

You think 'the Bible' somewhat compromised the credibility of these otherwise claimed separate accounts, especially by picking and choosing which ones made the cut and which ones did not.

This is not the case in the least. My objection to the Bible has to do with folks like you, along with many Christians who believe the Bible says something, when it does not. The authors contained in the Bible had no intentions of writing in order to be contained in what has been called a "Holy Book" for the purpose of the world reading what they had to say. Rather, these authors were addressing audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing at the time would have been read by anyone else besides their intended audience at the time, which demonstrates they had no concern to convert anyone at all, since what they were writing was addressed to those who already believed.

Next, I do not in any way assume that what the authors penned is legit. It is more to the case that you simply assumed what they wrote was legit when you were a Christian, and now that the mind has changed you simply assume what they penned could not possibly be legit. I am not assuming anything. Rather, I am asking the question as to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. What I will tell you is, no one will be able to sit down to do such a thing and come away believing there are easy answers, as you seem to insist. This alone sort of demonstrates the one who is doing the assuming. This is what I call "easy in, easy out". It did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to convince one to be a Christian, and therefore, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out.

1. Aside from Mark, can you verify "Luke's" other source(s)?

My friend, it has not been verified that Luke copied Mark. That would be an assumption, like most of the rest of what you believe.

2. Is it possible 'Luke' is a nothing more than a (fake news, damage control, alternative facts) copy of Mark, created by the corrupt church? The video explains...

The video is nothing more than "fantasy land". What is the evidence that the Church created the Gospel of Luke? Let us keep in mind that if this is the case, the Church also created "The Actions of the Apostles". I can tell you this, if this is what occurred they were absolutely brilliant. First, they had the presence of mind to address these letters as though they were addressing one individual. Next, they went on to place very good evidence in the second letter that the author was a traveling companion of Paul, and with this we have very good evidence the author was alive at the time of the resurrection. So then, we cannot simply assume the Church created Luke as "fake news, damage control, alternative facts" without adding the second letter addressed to Theophilus.

Moreover, with you attempting to suggest Luke was created by the corrupt Church, it would have had to be created before the year 100. I tend to believe the evidence suggests that both of the letters addressed to Theophilus were authored before the year 70, but even if this is not the case, we know for a fact that it was authored before the year 100. This is only 6 decades after the resurrection. If I am correct, we are only talking about 4 decades, which leaves us with only 2 decades between the two. What all of this means is, the corrupt Church authored Luke as "fake news, damage control, alternative facts, etc." so what is the purpose of the corrupt Church going on to create the second letter addressed to Theophilus?

Another shameless plug to address the aforementioned thread above, being this thread is really not applicable to you

We can address it here or we can drop it because I am not moving between 2 different threads. But I certainly understand why you would not want to address it.

Well, we have Paul, who did not even claim to be part of the original "resurrection tour". The rest.....?

What in the world would Paul have to do with anything I said? What we do know for a fact is, Paul was out violently attempting to put a stop to Christianity only to convert, to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time. We know that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and we know that Paul would have known and spent time with the original apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making, and Paul mentions these folks reporting on the resurrection.

The video provides way more first-hand accounts and evidence for many folks simultaneously experiencing a post-mortem Jesus experience.

Yeah, they are indeed experiencing something, but I see no evidence whatsoever that what is occurring in this video can in any way be compared to the reports we have of the resurrection. I do not recall any of the authors describing anything close to what is going on in the video.

And yet, ancient writings hold more weight to the same claim?

Well, no! The writings of the ancients do not hold any weight at all. In other words, we do not simply assume that what they report would be true. However, we cannot simply assume that what they report would be false. What we do is to sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. I'm just telling you, there is no way you can do this and come away believing there is an easy answer. If one can do this, they are simply demonstrating one who is easily convinced, or someone who believes what they would rather believe. This is exactly why I have no problem with those who have doubts, and, or do not believe, because I certainly understand the doubt, and, or unbelief. Again, the problem comes in when there are those, (and especially those who were at one time convinced Christians) who want to insist there would be no reason at all to believe the claims, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

Yes they do. You just saw dozens of folks who also experience a post-mortem Jesus. Unless you can prove they are all lying or mistaken? If not, then this video provides way more evidence than the claims of these fisherman. And to boot, maybe some of these folks fish too.

My friend, what is occurring in this video, both you, and I, and anyone else who views it will forget about it within a matter of weeks if not less, while what these authors report has consumed the lives of millions, upon millions, including yourself some 2000 years later. How can you imagine the two even compare? I mean, you spend day, after day, consumed with what these folks reported some 2000 years ago, and somehow you are under the impression that this would compare to something you will forget in a week? GOOD GRIEF!

Again, you have "ancient" ordinary fishermen who followed a guy for some 3 years, only to watch this guy be publicly crucified for all to see, and this should be the end of story, but these folks go on to proclaim this news, which has consumed the lives of folks, (again including yourself) for over 2000 years, and you are somehow convinced this compares to a handful of folks dancing around? CO'MON MAN!

Going back to the video. We can also conclude these folks are not making it up, right? And yet, even though we have better facts and evidence here, you have no problem chucking these claims out. Why?

I am not "chucking these claims out", that would be you. I have no idea what is going on, other than the authors contained in the Bible have nothing to say about the sorts of things going on in the video. What I do know is, not very many folks at all will see, and or know about this video, while almost the whole world knows about what these ancient men reported, and they reported these things long before video. Come to think of it, these folks some 2000 years ago reported these things, long, long, before even the printing press, and yet what they report continues to consume your life some 2000 years later. Seriously! You have to give these folks some sort of credit, along with the corrupt Church who authored the two letters addressed to Theophilus.

I disagree. For starters, I suspect 'Luke' was made up. See you in the other thread

No, you will not see me on the other thread. Again, if Luke was made up, whoever made it up also authored the second letter to Theophilus. Do you even realize what all this would entail? This would have been a very painstaking effort in those days, and very risky to say the least. In other words, these folks would have spent months on the effort, with no guarantee in the least that the effort would pay off. It is like you are willing to believe anything at all, no matter what all would have to be entailed, as long as it does not involve what you would rather not believe.

[Tcg]

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense, and you are a great example of what I am talking about.

My objection to the Bible has to do with folks like you, along with many Christians who believe the Bible says something, when it does not.

Moderator Comment

Please cease the personal comments. If you have a valid point to make, you should be able to make absent the incivility displayed here.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[POI]

Does the idea that the Bible teaches faith, fear, have any sort of motivation upon you to convert? Well, it does not, because you do not believe. In the same way, if the resurrection accounts fail to convince anyone then the faith, fear has no effect. So then, the bottom line has nothing to do with faith, fear, but rather whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. This is exactly what Paul had to say, when he penned these words to the Corinthians,

It does no longer for (me), as I actually ultimately decided to read and study the asserted veracity of the claims to their logical end, for myself. But many do not comprehensively study the claims, like you and me. Many instead merely trust authority/other. And when some of these claims still sound a little too far-fetched to the individuals who start to question and doubt, many proselytizers will push concepts such as "Pascal's wager" to grab 'em or hook 'em. As the OP suggests, the writers of the "NT" were aware that the Bible lacks 'facts and evidence'. Most are not going to be receiving such claimed first-hand experience(s), like the Bible asserts. Unless you consider these folks in the video also getting, which you somehow question more-so than these claims from the ancient docs. Hence, the later 'NT' instead props up (faith and fear) to maximize converts. A prime example would be a play many churches use to try and gather new converts, called "Heaven's Gate and Hell's flames". This is just one example. I used to attend this play and watch, as at the end of the play, the church leader would ask if there were any new visitors. There would always be new ones to come to the alter and accept Jesus's free gift for the first time. You see RealWorldjack, most are not believers because of the actual 'facts and evidence', No, many are believers because of authority, indoctrination, fear, credulity, evolutionary behavior(s), etc... "The Bible" pushes these concepts. It's more about the emotion and also trusting authority. The writers knew there really is no 'facts and evidence", which is exactly why the Bible instead pushes (faith and fear). And it has grabbed many, for life. Hallelujah!

"If Christ has not been raised then your faith is useless".

Duh! This goes without saying. This heavily faith-based religion is predicated upon this claim.

It is like I am spending a lot of time at this point attempting to get folks to understand that Trump and company have the aim to do away with our democracy, but it will do no good to attempt to simply scare them into believing this to be the case, because they will have no fear of this until I demonstrate to them that this is exactly what they aim to do.

Depends on when and how you grab them. If the family was raised as a 'lefty', they will only watch the legacy media on the left, and be led to believe "Trump is an existential threat!" But is he really? In current times, think of 'the left-wing legacy media' as Christianity. It is still the majority broadcast. In politics, most are 'low information' voters. It always has been and always will be. The same goes for religion. Many are 'low information' followers. No deep dives done like you and me. When authority pushes a narrative, whether it be from 'the left' or from 'Christianity', many follow. The left pushes faith and fear against Trump, just like Christianity pushes faith and fear, via "Pascal's wager"/other (ala the recommendation of the Bibe in many places). I would not be raising this thread if we were talking about another religion, as they are not the majority rule. Both the left and Christianity still dominate the airwaves.

My objection to the Bible has to do with folks like you, along with many Christians who believe the Bible says something, when it does not.

Are you then saying that *later writers* added and propped up (faith and fear)? If so, maybe you are right? The NT contains many passages which promote both (faith and fear).

The authors contained in the Bible had no intentions of writing in order to be contained in what has been called a "Holy Book" for the purpose of the world reading what they had to say.

I agree! This is why I created this thread. When I say, 'NT writers', I'm speaking about the ones who later likely manipulated the original texts to taste. Unfortunately, we do not have the originals, only the later manipulations. We have no starting point. All we know is that the pages of the Bible prop up faith and fear pretty heavily.

Next, I do not in any way assume that what the authors penned is legit.

This is because the 'facts and evidence' you do have are severely lacking. Which is why you need faith.

It is more to the case that you simply assumed what they wrote was legit when you were a Christian, and now that the mind has changed you simply assume what they penned could not possibly be legit. I am not assuming anything. Rather, I am asking the question as to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. What I will tell you is, no one will be able to sit down to do such a thing and come away believing there are easy answers, as you seem to insist. This alone sort of demonstrates the one who is doing the assuming. This is what I call "easy in, easy out". It did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to convince one to be a Christian, and therefore, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out.

When I was a believer, I was told we have 100's of bonafide eyewitnesses. And since I used to be a 'low information' believer, I believed authority. And even when I found out this was not the case, by definition of the term eyewitness, I still held on anyways, due to fear of the alternative, via indoctrination/etc. Propping up both (faith and fear) are crucial and important elements to keep many from leaving.

My friend, it has not been verified that Luke copied Mark. That would be an assumption, like most of the rest of what you believe.

We know at least one source for 'Luke's' was 'Mark', as many passages are copied word-for-word.

You skipped my question. Who was 'Luke's' source(s)? If you can tell me, then we have a starting point. If you cannot, then we have no starting point, only faith.

The video is nothing more than "fantasy land". What is the evidence that the Church created the Gospel of Luke?

Still attempting my shameless plug. See you in the other thread? This is a completely separate topic, and I do not want them to cross any mire than they already have.... I had YOU in mind, when I created the other thread BTW

Let us keep in mind that if this is the case, the Church also created "The Actions of the Apostles". I can tell you this, if this is what occurred they were absolutely brilliant. First, they had the presence of mind to address these letters as though they were addressing one individual. Next, they went on to place very good evidence in the second letter that the author was a traveling companion of Paul, and with this we have very good evidence the author was alive at the time of the resurrection. So then, we cannot simply assume the Church created Luke as "fake news, damage control, alternative facts" without adding the second letter addressed to Theophilus.

Other thread? Pretty please?

We can address it here or we can drop it because I am not moving between 2 different threads. But I certainly understand why you would not want to address it.

I would love to address it, in the other thread. I created that thread with you in mind, as you reference "Luke" a lot. See you there?

What in the world would Paul have to do with anything I said? What we do know for a fact is, Paul was out violently attempting to put a stop to Christianity only to convert, to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time. We know that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and we know that Paul would have known and spent time with the original apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making, and Paul mentions these folks reporting on the resurrection.

See you in the other thread?

Yeah, they are indeed experiencing something, but I see no evidence whatsoever that what is occurring in this video can in any way be compared to the reports we have of the resurrection. I do not recall any of the authors describing anything close to what is going on in the video.

Well, I do. Paul's experience was a claimed postmortem 'spiritual' one. And you presumably believe Paul's vision was legit... I doubt, just like both you and I doubt these video experiences. <Faith> is needed and/or required to polarize the claim from Paul above and beyond the countless "Jesus experiences" you easily reject in the video. And about the unfounded Gospel claims.... There are different interpretations of whether Jesus' sightings, after his claimed resurrection, were physical or spiritual (i.e.):

Physical: Some say that Jesus' resurrection was physical, and that the risen Jesus had a body with flesh and bones. In Luke 24:39, Jesus tells his disciples, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have". Jesus also testified to having a physical existence, walking, talking, and eating with his disciples.

Spiritual: Others say that Jesus' resurrection was spiritual, and that his sightings were visionary experiences. Some say that the risen Jesus was a spiritual reality, and that Christians should not think of the resurrection as a physical event that restored Jesus' original body. Others say that the risen Jesus was a glorified body with qualities of imperishability, glory, and power.

Visionary: The vision theory suggests that Jesus' sightings were visionary experiences, often classified as grief or bereavement visions.

Well, no! The writings of the ancients do not hold any weight at all. In other words, we do not simply assume that what they report would be true. However, we cannot simply assume that what they report would be false. What we do is to sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. I'm just telling you, there is no way you can do this and come away believing there is an easy answer. If one can do this, they are simply demonstrating one who is easily convinced, or someone who believes what they would rather believe. This is exactly why I have no problem with those who have doubts, and, or do not believe, because I certainly understand the doubt, and, or unbelief. Again, the problem comes in when there are those, (and especially those who were at one time convinced Christians) who want to insist there would be no reason at all to believe the claims, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

You do this a lot. You want to label someone a "simpleton" because they can easily answer. Sure, the study is deep and complex, but it can still be defined and labelled simply. Just like if you were to ask me why 'Plato Republic' was written, I could ultimately easily tell you it is about defining "what is just". And I can also give you a one-sentence answer, elevator-ride style, as to what the book concluded. But yes, we could also carry on about many differing things as well.

Just like I say here, the 'NT writers' propped up both (faith and fear), as the 'facts and evidence' portion are lacking.

Yes, MORE weight IS placed upon claims of ancients. Which is why, with LESS 'facts and evidence' presented, you believe Paul and company had legit experiences, while rejecting more 'facts and evidence' that these folks in the video are likely not having postmortem Jesus experiences.

My friend, what is occurring in this video, both you, and I, and anyone else who views it will forget about it within a matter of weeks if not less,

Even less than that.

Remember what I stated above. Most are indoctrinated and Christianity still holds the majority mode of indoctrination for many regions. Many "low information" followers follow, because authority says so. I guess you are the exception to the rule. But I have to ask, if you were merely taking a comparative religions course, and followed the same 'facts and evidence' about a religion which carried no worldly authority, would you still treat it the same? This is a rhetorical question BTW.

No, you will not see me on the other thread. Again, if Luke was made up, whoever made it up also authored the second letter to Theophilus. Do you even realize what all this would entail? This would have been a very painstaking effort in those days, and very risky to say the least. In other words, these folks would have spent months on the effort, with no guarantee in the least that the effort would pay off. It is like you are willing to believe anything at all, no matter what all would have to be entailed, as long as it does not involve what you would rather not believe.

I will place this in the other thread for discussion.... I hope to see you there, as the other thread was partly created in your honor!

[Clownboat]

The gods of other religions are human inventions, unlike the god concept you believe in due to your geographic location on this planet (which I find to be an odd mechanism for believing in a god concept).

All you are doing is to demonstrate one who was a convinced Christian at one time, who later on comes to realize they had no reason to be convinced, who then comes to realize that one of the reasons they may have been a Christian is simply because of their "geographic location on this planet", who then goes on to suppose that anyone else who may be a Christian who is in the same "geographic location on this planet" must have used the same faulty logic.

You are mistaken (outside of me being a convinced Christian for decades), please read my words again without adding you own narrative.
Your god concepts claims in Isaiah I believe that there are no other gods. Therefore, you are forced to make excuses for why those other gods are false. If they are not human inventions, then what are they? Certainly they cannot be real and competing with your god concept since there are no others, right?

Now I'm going to snip your wall of text to only include the questions you asked of me, because it is polite in debate to answer questions posed.

for the sake of my children which were coming along, and I knew (in fact it was already occurring) that my parents, and my sister were going to request that I allow my children to go to Church with them. Can you see the dilemma there?

Yes, my family is still very religious and goes to church. I allow my children to go to church (my parents take them from time to time).

I mean, how in the world could I allow my children to attend Church, when I was not attending?

There would be nothing stopping you, like there is nothing stopping me from allowing my children to go to church. What's the problem with children to experiencing available religions? I notice that you only offer one choice to your children. Do you find other religions to be human inventions?

I mean, do you imagine that I would not have actually thought of the fact that most all Christians are indeed Christians only because they were brought up in such a way?

I brought it up to you in this thread! Therefore you should have imagined it when you read it if you hadn't already at some point in your life. Don't you find being religious due to geography to be an odd mechanism for determining if a god concept is real? I do, but if they are in fact just human inventions as they seem to be, religion by geography explains this.

The real question here is, what does these facts have to do with Christianity being false?

If religions are human inventions created around the geography of where they were invented, then that would lend credence to the idea that they are untrustworthy, if not false.

The question would be how is this any sort of evidence that Christianity is false?

Same answer.

See how I am not afraid to address your questions head on? No wall of text necessary and no spirit of fear.
Perhaps there is a God and it helps me post replies?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

It does no longer for (me), as I actually ultimately decided to read and study the asserted veracity of the claims to their logical end, for myself.

Which is exactly the point. So then, if I go around telling folks they will burn in hell if they do not believe a dead man rose from the grave, and they must and have to believe such a thing simply upon faith without any evidence at all, how in the world would the faith, fear have any sort of effect if these folks do not buy the idea that a man rose from the grave and they must believe it upon faith? So then, what one is going to do, is to brush the faith, fear to the side in order to determine if there is any evidence for a man rising from the dead, and if they are not convinced, then the faith, fear is going to have no effect.

Next, you say you, "actually ultimately decided to read and study the asserted veracity of the claims to their logical end, for myself." Well, that is great, and I have no problem with the conclusions you have come to. However, this works both ways in that there have been folks like the tenured professor of English at Syracuse, who was a lesbian, who was actually writing against Christianity, and had every reason to be opposed to it, and it was during her study for the paper she was writing that she came to believe the Christian claims, and she does not credit faith, fear, but rather her vast knowledge of language.

Now, you can analyze her in an attempt to come to some other reason she chose to end her life as she knew it which may satisfy your mind, but for some strange reason we are to simply suppose that your story is legit, with no strings attached. Of course, I am not suggesting in the least that her story adds any sort of validity to Christianity, but my question is, are you under the impression that your story demonstrates anything at all? I mean, it shouldn't. I can tell you that I do not hold my story in high regard at all, because I understand that we all have stories. I mean, we can sit here and swap stories of how this person was a convinced Christian, and now he is not, and this person was a convinced atheist who is now a Christian, and at the end of the day it will mean nothing at all.

But many do not comprehensively study the claims, like you and me.

Okay, so I will agree. I will agree that you have studied the claims, and I will agree that you have come to a different conclusion than I have. The only difference seems to be, I am not insisting there would be no reason to hold the position you have. The thing is, I am not really sure there is very much difference between the two of us. We were both exposed to Christianity, and we have both rejected what we were taught. You have rejected Christianity out right (which again I have no problem with) while I have rejected a whole lot of what I was taught concerning Christianity, to the point I could no longer worship with my mom, dad, sister, and many lifelong friends. So then, the only difference seems to be, you have rejected the whole (which again I understand and have no problem with) while I have rejected much of what I was taught about Christianity.

This is exactly why I can say, I certainly understand those who doubt, and or do not believe, because I certainly understand the bad, and reckless theology that exists out there. The reason I understand the reckless and bad theology that exists is exactly because I have done the study, and I can tell you that the Church today in the United States is in bad shape and one of the reasons is the fact that we have continued to allow this reckless theology to continue. Another reason is the fact that the Church has been more concerned with the behavior of those outside the Church than they have about taking care of those inside the Church and making sure these folks know what they believe, and why they believe it. In other words, the Church has been concerned with what has been called the "culture wars" while she has lost the war inside the Church as she is losing her children to the culture she is at war with. The sad thing is, most Christians can tell you what political party you should vote for, but they cannot make a defense for Christ raised from the dead. I know all these things exactly because I have done the study, and it is exactly because I have done the study that I understand those who reject Christianity and because of this I have no problem at all with the position they hold.

The problem I have is with those who want to insist that I have no reason to believe as I do, when many of these folks were convinced Christians at one time, who tell us freely that they did not use the mind in order to be convinced of the Christian claims, who now want to insist it was the use of the mind which caused them to reject Christianity as if their story is some sort of evidence against Christianity. However, there are many folks who have a different story in that they were unbelievers who were completely opposed to Christianity and had very good reason to be opposed, and they claim it was the use of the mind which convinced them of the Christian claims, and somehow, we can find some sort of reason these stories cannot possibly be legit. In other words, it must and has to be some sort of under lying reason these folks converted to Christianity other than the use of the mind and the only reason for this is because their story does not line up with mine, and since I know my story is legit then there has to be a problem with their story. The thing is, my story, your story, nor their story has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Many instead merely trust authority/other.

I agree with this 100 percent, but what I am attempting to figure out is, what in the world does this have to do with it? I mean, if one were to believe the Sun was the center of our solar system, simply because they trusted those who taught them this was the case, does it cause what they believe to be any less true? It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians are so simply because this is the way they were brought up, and they have relied on authority in order to believe as they do, but this is no sort of evidence against Christianity.

And when some of these claims still sound a little too far-fetched to the individuals who start to question and doubt, many proselytizers will push concepts such as "Pascal's wager" to grab 'em or hook 'em.

I know this, and have seen it, and this is what I would refer to as reckless theology. The bottom line is, Christ raised from the dead and as Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised then your faith is useless".

Okay, I am going to end it here because I have only responded to a couple of sentences and this post is already getting long and so I will end with this. You want to insist there are no facts and evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection, but we have enough facts and evidence to convince most all scholars that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Now, whether you want to admit it or not, this is stout in that if these scholars are correct, this eliminates the idea these folks were involved in some sort of hoax. In other words, we can know they were not making the claim up. As I have said in the past, there is no way one can sit down in order to do the study of what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away believing there are easy answers, and the only way this can occur on either side is for one to believe what it is they would rather believe.

[POI]

this is what I would refer to as reckless theology.

Does the 'NT' represent "reckless theology", in the sense that it promotes both (faith and fear)?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #156]

You are mistaken (outside of me being a convinced Christian for decades), please read my words again without adding you own narrative.

Oh? So, you are saying that your geographical location had nothing to do with you being a convinced Christian? All other believers, no matter the religion are simply victims of the "odd mechanism for believing in a god concept" which involves their geographical location, but you somehow escaped this?

Your god concepts claims in Isaiah I believe that there are no other gods.

My friend, Isaiah was addressing the Jews at the time, and he may have been correct, or he may have been in error. With this being the case, I do not have to insist all other gods must and have to be false, in order to understand if there are facts evidence, and reasons to believe the claims of Christ raised from the dead.

Therefore, you are forced to make excuses for why those other gods are false.

NO! When you were a Christian, you were forced to make these excuses, but I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe Christ raised from the dead.

If they are not human inventions, then what are they?

To tell you the truth, I really do not know because I have not had any sort of reason to study these other religions, and I really do not have a desire to do so. The fact is, I really had no desire to study the Christian claims, but I had no choice in the matter.

Certainly they cannot be real and competing with your god concept since there are no others, right?

Again, I have not studied these other religions in order to determine if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these other religions, but I do not have to know a thing about these other religions in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe Christ raised from the dead. I also do not have to insist that all these other religions must, and have to be false.

Yes, my family is still very religious and goes to church. I allow my children to go to church (my parents take them from time to time).

Great! I have no problem with that. All I can tell you is, I know, and you know, how many of these Churches operate, and many, many of them are not at all attempting to engage the mind, but are rather attempting to engage the emotions, and we all know that children are very impressionable. With this being the case, I would never allow my children to attend a Church which appealed to the emotions in any way.

What's the problem with children to experiencing available religions?

The problem word with your sentence here is the word, "experiencing". I have no problem with any of my children examining, analyzing, studying, etc., other religions. I have explained to my children what it is I believe, and why I believe it, and have never insisted they believe the same. I have taught them to think critically, even about Christianity. The one thing I have never done, and in fact have steered them away from, is to have any sort of Christian "experience".

I notice that you only offer one choice to your children.

Oh really? How in the world could you have noticed such a thing from where you are at? There are thousands of religions in the world, and I could not possibly offer my children all of them, but I do not have to expose them to any of these religions in order to explain to them the facts, evidence, and reasons surrounding Christ raised from the dead.

Do you find other religions to be human inventions?

I have already answered this in that I have not studied any of these other religions, so I would have no way to know.

Don't you find being religious due to geography to be an odd mechanism for determining if a god concept is real?

Your question makes no sense. It is indeed a fact that many, if not most folks are Christian because of the way in which they were brought up, and this may indeed involve their geographical location. However, I cannot imagine anyone at all determining their god concept must be real because of my location. With that being said, I also cannot imagine anyone at some point in their life not considering the fact that the god concept they have was given to them and this would include their location and going on to examine what it is they think they believe in order to determine if there would be any real reasons to believe it.

I do, but if they are in fact just human inventions as they seem to be, religion by geography explains this.

Yes, "religion by geography" explains why many folks believe as they do, but this would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether what they believe is true.

If religions are human inventions created around the geography of where they were invented, then that would lend credence to the idea that they are untrustworthy, if not false.

My friend, if we could demonstrate beyond doubt that thousands of religions were "created around the geography of where they were invented" this would have nothing whatsoever to do with one being able to determine all religions must and have to be false. In fact, if we could demonstrate beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of Christians were so simply based upon their geographical location, this would not in any way demonstrate the falsehood of the belief.

See how I am not afraid to address your questions head on? No wall of text necessary and no spirit of fear.
Perhaps there is a God and it helps me post replies?

If there was some sort of god who helped you with these replies, then I can assure you this god is in need of help himself.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #158]


I do not know what else to do besides keep repeating myself. The overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time, who would have already believed. The authors were addressing the audiences at the time, some 2000 years ago, and they had no concern, nor any idea that anyone else besides the audience at the time would have read what they authored. They most certainly could not have fathomed that what they were writing would have been read by anyone 2000 years later. The question then becomes, who in the world were they targeting with the faith and fear? The intended audiences were already exhibiting faith, and since they were believers, what would they have to fear? It is not like the authors were writing to the unbelieving world in hopes to "hook em". The point is, in order to claim the authors used scare tactics, one would have to demonstrate the authors intended their writings for the unbeliever, and the evidence just does not bear this out.

Let's kind of go through this. The author of what has been called, Luke and The Actions of the Apostles, addressed these writings to one by the name of Theophilus, and he addresses Theophilus as a believer. All of the letters attributed to Paul, was addressed to Churches, pastors, and Philemon who was a believer. At this point, we already have the majority of the NT. Add to this the letters attributed to Peter, Jude, Revelations, and the letters attributed to John, and you do not have much left at all which could have possibly targeted the unbeliever, and what little is left may have very well been intended for believing audiences.

So let us take Paul. Paul was traveling around planting Churches, and he wrote letters to these Churches, and was addressing issues in these Churches. How can you imagine that Paul had any other concern than the Church he was addressing? Then we have the author of the two long and detailed accounts addressed to Theophilus, who is addressed as a believer, so what evidence do we have that this author had anyone else in mind other than Theophilus? Again, you are already at the majority of the NT, with the authors having no concerned to address the unbeliever in any way. Please demonstrate anywhere in the NT where you as the unbeliever is the target.