The terminal decline of Christianity in New Zealand

[Sectio Aurea]

Tell me, what criteria do you use to evaluate any historical document?

John
NZ

First of all I study any other independant contemporary documents that corroborate with "said" historical document.

Secondly, I study the works of scholars who specialise with "said" historical document.

We have numerous contemporary documents of other people's lives before Jesus, yet we do not have any contemporary historical records for Jesus, people only started writing about Jesus some decades after his death. In other words, all writings we have about Jesus are from authors who never met Jesus.

If Jesus really was who Christians believe he was, why didn't anybody start recording any documents about him while he existed?

Surely an event like "the son of a creator god" existing in our midst would be an event worthy of a contemporary historical document.

Yet we have zip, nada, zero.

This is one reason why I believe Christianity is a false religion.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Just because someone is in church does not mean they are Christian:
After all Jesus said in that subject regarding that:

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

In addition:
The difference between Christianity and every other faith in the world is that all other religions are about man trying to reach up to God. Christianity is about God reaching down to man.”

In Islam, it is the works you do according to the Koran that you are saved. Yet in Christianity it is through grace only through Jesus that you can be saved.

Your point is?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

You are trying to understand the truth of God from your own heart & mind ... he's not there!
That's what it means to be "in sin", i.e. in darkness.
You will fail which will only prove God right!
You cannot know the truth of God unless you look in the right place,
i.e. meet people that have found him
by receiving the same as all the disciples, and those they were sent to - His Spirit within
evidenced by speaking in tongues, followed by all the other signs, wonders and miracles
... meet people that have been transformed, hear God showing he knows your heart
through the gifts of prophecy, see proof of things spoken of 100s of years before etc.
Most "churches" don't have these things so it is highly unlikely that you have even been
to a church that is faithful in these matters. (I say "churches" because Jesus only set up
one church, he isn't confused, he knows what he wants & what he is returning for, who
get's him in the meantime - those choosing to be faithful to the original!)

To really understand and appreciate it you will need to choose to receive
God's Spirit yourself, but at least come and see the difference it makes.

Jesus began by saying "come and see" (John 1:38-39)

He later said:
"The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this
generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the
earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here."

People that will not "come and see" this "light"are also spoken of here:
"this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates
the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." (John 3:19-20)

If you choose rather to rely on your own intellect and form opinions based on second-hand
information and other people's prejudices (because they have limited and often coloured
experience) you will never know, you will just form your own opinion to base your life on,
which is really just another religion.
God never wanted religion, Jesus rejected it. God wants relationship, that's why Jesus
gave his Life, His Spirit for us to receive, he never came to bring a religion.
Relationship means 2 active persons ... you need to get where God is active and
desire to see what he wants to do in you!

Otherwise, you are, like Adam and Eve, falling for Satan's trick idea that being without
God is just as good, if not better. I meet many self-professed "seekers", but the truth
is, they are seeking excuses and self-justification.

After extensive Bible studies specifically the OT, I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is in fact a religion rooted in evil.

I believe the NT brain-washes Christians in to believing that Christianity is actually good moral religion.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Receiver

I was in NZ not so long ago. One of the churches I visited showed it was growing personally and definitely ready for revival. I found the service very phenomenal.

I attended a service at an Anglican parish in Auckland recently 12 months after attending the same parish. Looking around at the other parishners I realised the average age would have been aprox mid 70's. I can confidently say that numbers have dwindled.

 

[Johnnz]

First of all I study any other independant contemporary documents that corroborate with "said" historical document.

Secondly, I study the works of scholars who specialise with "said" historical document.

OK. So you have absorbed, assessed and provided contrary evidence against N T Wright's 3 volumes for starters?

We have numerous contemporary documents of other people's lives before Jesus, yet we do not have any contemporary historical records for Jesus, people only started writing about Jesus some decades after his death. In other words, all writings we have about Jesus are from authors who never met Jesus.

Really? Many historical writings are made long after the events, using information that becomes available. And in oral societies prior to paper and the printing press much 'recording' was not in compiled documents initially.

If Jesus really was who Christians believe he was, why didn't anybody start recording any documents about him while he existed?

They did, and these became the basis of the Gospels and Acts. Plus thousands of eye witness accounts to draw from. Also. dont get anachronistic. At the time of His death Jesus was known within a small part of a vast Empire of around 60M people. He died as a petty criminal in a remote part of the Empire as far as the Romans were concerned.

Surely an event like "the son of a creator god" existing in our midst would be an event worthy of a contemporary historical document.

See above

Yet we have zip, nada, zero.

False, due to your lack of real research.

This is one reason why I believe Christianity is a false religion.

John
NZ

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Johnnz, please give me one contemporary historical document for Jesus?

 

[Johnnz]

You show me you have done some homework. I suggested N T Wright as a start. He has a good section in his first volume giving a basis for assessement of the biblical materials as well as his sources.

John
NZ

 

[Sectio Aurea]

You show me you have done some homework. I suggested N T Wright as a start. He has a good section in his first volume giving a basis for assessement of the biblical materials as well as his sources.

John
NZ

John please don't avoid my request, ask me for something, give excuses, or provide here-say like the four gospels for example.

Simply give me one contemporary historical document for Jesus?

 

[Alithis]

John please don't avoid my request, ask me for something, give excuses, or provide here-say like the four gospels for example.

Simply give me one contemporary historical document for Jesus?

he gave you one single source which deals with many.
you would have to debunk that alone before you proceed with further questions or assumptions.
also if you have a chosen predisposition toward unbelief ,then it is dishonest to give the impression you desire to be convinced.
you sound like you are parroting some website.
in 2000 years such arguments have raged and those that argued them are gone..but the gospel of the lord Jesus remains.
tell me,what part of "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself,love your neighbor as your self,greater love has no one but that he lay down his life for others...do you find false?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

he gave you one single source which deals with many.

OK, why dont you choose just one of those for me then?

you would have to debunk that alone before you proceed with further questions or assumptions.

Was there any contemporary historical records for Jesus in his post? Unless I had a blind moment I didn't see any. I requested a single contemporary historical document, it would be reasonable for him to satisfy that request first.

also if you have a chosen predisposition toward unbelief ,then it is dishonest to give the impression you desire to be convinced.

How on earth does one choose atheism? Its not a choice.

Do you have any desire to be convinced that Hinduism is the one and only true religion? I doubt it. So you will probably understand why I have no desire to be convinced that Christianity is the one and only true religion. But its not because I'm ignorant of Christianity. Its because I'm very familiar with it. Im being totally honest. But my ears are open so go ahead and try and convince me if you wish, just please do not preach.

you sound like you are parroting some website.

What do you mean by that?

in 2000 years such arguments have raged and those that argued them are gone.

For 2000 years there has been no evidence, so thats not surprising.

.but the gospel of the lord Jesus remains.

But gospels were written by authors who never met Jesus.

tell me,what part of "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself,love your neighbor as your self,greater love has no one but that he lay down his life for others...do you find false?

The bolded part.

 

[Johnnz]

You belong to a genre that is predisposed to disbelief.

In any honest quest for a answer on any topic the obligatory steps such as
List the questions/issues you need answers for.
Research information in support of your current views.
Research information that opposes your current views.
Analyse and assess and then decide which gives the most satisfying/comprehensive explanation.

Beginning with the Enlightenment scepticism about the bible story grew steadily. My the 19th Century dismissal of both Testaments was the accepted norm amongst scholars. Around the 1940's there was a change as the disciplines of archaeology and ancient studies found increasing evidence against the dismissive scholarship. The latter group are now a minority.

Thus, meet my challenge - rebut Wright as a starting point.

John
NZ

 

[Alithis]

OK, why dont you choose just one of those for me then?



Was there any contemporary historical records for Jesus in his post? Unless I had a blind moment I didn't see any. I requested a single contemporary historical document, it would be reasonable for him to satisfy that request first.



How on earth does one choose atheism? Its not a choice.

Do you have any desire to be convinced that Hinduism is the one and only true religion? I doubt it. So you will probably understand why I have no desire to be convinced that Christianity is the one and only true religion. But its not because I'm ignorant of Christianity. Its because I'm very familiar with it. Im being totally honest. But my ears are open so go ahead and try and convince me if you wish, just please do not preach.


What do you mean by that?



For 2000 years there has been no evidence, so thats not surprising.



But gospels were written by authors who never met Jesus.



The bolded part.

I do not believe you are being honest in what your saying .
I choose to disbelieve you .(see what I did there?)

we see this principle at work every day .
a mother has her child arrested .. all the evidence and facts display the child's guilt . the mother chooses to believe her child is innocent regardless .

belief is a choice .
it is simply dishonest to deny that .
the gospel tells us the requirements of eternal life BELIEVE in the lord Jesus and REPENT of not believing .

your presently hold to your choice . no more , no less .

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I do not believe you are being honest in what your saying .
I choose to disbelieve you .(see what I did there?)

we see this principle at work every day .
a mother has her child arrested .. all the evidence and facts display the child's guilt . the mother chooses to believe her child is innocent regardless .

belief is a choice .
it is simply dishonest to deny that .
the gospel tells us the requirements of eternal life BELIEVE in the lord Jesus and REPENT of not believing .

your presently hold to your choice . no more , no less .

Belief is a choice! you are correct and I dont deny that.

But tell me, could you just voluntarily choose NOT to believe in Jesus?

I certainly couldn't make a choice like that.

I am being sincerely honest so it is sad that you disbelieve me. My theistic position (all lack of) is a position that I came realise, not a position of voluntary choice. I cant just flick a switch one morning and decide to start believing (or disbelieving) in god(s). Maybe you can, but I can not.

I am naturally skeptical of anything "extraordinary" and believe evidence is a reasonable request for anything "extraordinary".

 

[Sectio Aurea]

You belong to a genre that is predisposed to disbelief.

To be more accurate I'm predisposed to disbelief in anthropomorphic god(s) like the Abrahamic god(s) for example but I'm open to other god concepts. Christians are predisposed to disbelief in other gods.

In any honest quest for a answer on any topic the obligatory steps such as
List the questions/issues you need answers for.
Research information in support of your current views.
Research information that opposes your current views.
Analyse and assess and then decide which gives the most satisfying/comprehensive explanation.

Beginning with the Enlightenment scepticism about the bible story grew steadily. My the 19th Century dismissal of both Testaments was the accepted norm amongst scholars. Around the 1940's there was a change as the disciplines of archaeology and ancient studies found increasing evidence against the dismissive scholarship. The latter group are now a minority.

Thus, meet my challenge - rebut Wright as a starting point.

John
NZ

I note my simple request for a single contemporary historical document for Jesus has been ignored not once but twice.

Was that not the starting point?

 

[Alithis]

Belief is a choice! you are correct and I dont deny that.

But tell me, could you just voluntarily choose NOT to believe in Jesus?

I certainly couldn't make a choice like that.

I am being sincerely honest so it is sad that you disbelieve me. My theistic position (all lack of) is a position that I came realise, not a position of voluntary choice. I cant just flick a switch one morning and decide to start believing (or disbelieving) in god(s). Maybe you can, but I can not.

I am naturally skeptical of anything "extraordinary" and believe evidence is a reasonable request for anything "extraordinary".

i do not wish to choose that.
but go to some atheist forums and you can find some who have claimed to do just that.
im not interested in whatever they say..
because they only offer me hopelessness.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

i do not wish to choose that.

Is it possible for you to choose that?

but go to some atheist forums and you can find some who have claimed to do just that.
im not interested in whatever they say..
because they only offer me hopelessness.

Why would you (a Christian) go to atheist forums to see what they could say or offer?

 

[Johnnz]

To be more accurate I'm predisposed to disbelief in anthropomorphic god(s) like the Abrahamic god(s) for example but I'm open to other god concepts. Christians are predisposed to disbelief in other gods.

You are genuinely predisposed to expressing views that Christians don't hold, as you have above.

I note my simple request for a single contemporary historical document for Jesus has been ignored not once but twice.

Was that not the starting point?

Its so easy for sceptics to simply ignore anything that they don't want to accept. I gave some makers for any genuine debate. You selectively ignored them. I have been around far too long to engage in debate where one side is doggedly ignorant of the basis upon which one's own views are based, both in terms of unexamined and therefore uncontested presuppositions, and all but total absence of evidence of genuine enquiry. This will soon be in evidence - 4 contemporary historical documents (not just 1) are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts. John too, but I omitted that book as it is a different genre, but totally reliant on historical data.

John
NZ

 

[Sectio Aurea]

This will soon be in evidence - 4 contemporary historical documents (not just 1) are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts. John too, but I omitted that book as it is a different genre, but totally reliant on historical data.

John
NZ

John.

Most scholars agree Jesus existed between 748-783AUC nowadays known as aprox 6BC-36CE.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts were written a long time after this period so these documents are NOT contemporary historical documents.

 

[Johnnz]

John.

Most scholars agree Jesus existed between 748-783AUC nowadays known as aprox 6BC-36CE.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts were written a long time after this period so these documents are NOT contemporary historical documents.

That's what I expected you to say. Hence my post 51. Until you show some appreciation of the nature of historical evidence and how that is evaluated I remain utterly sceptical of your basic stance. You will debunk and disagree with whatever doesn't fit your existing conclusions, rather than engage in genuine debate which requires quality information as I have already indicated.

John
NZ

 

[Alithis]

What do you wish to achieve?