Ask God for Me

[2PhiloVoid]

So it has been almost two months since I asked Christians to pray to God to tell them what to tell me so I would be convinced He exists. As best I can remember only three people said they would and no one has gotten a word from God. If you did pray for me, thanks, I think it shows that you care.

Does it count if I prayed for you but I didn't ask for what you asked for but instead asked for what God intends to do according to His Will within your life?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Does it count if I prayed for you but I didn't ask for what you asked for but instead asked for what God intends to do according to His Will within your life?

I do appreciate the prayers. When I was a christian I prayed because I cared about others. However, why pray this prayer? If you tell me what god told you about what his will is for my life will not convince me he exists.

 

[miknik5]

I do appreciate the prayers. When I was a christian I prayed because I cared about others. However, why pray this prayer? If you tell me what god told you about what his will is for my life will not convince me he exists.

Your thread is Ask God for me...yet in this above post to Philo you say even if God told Philo in his prayer about you, what GOD´S will is for your life, you will still not be convinced HE exists?

So, if you don´t mind, why the need for this thread?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Your thread is Ask God for me...yet in this above post to Philo you say even if God told Philo in his prayer about you, what GOD´S will is for your life, you will still not be convinced HE exists?

So, if you don´t mind, why the need for this thread?

Did you read the initial thread?

It said I asked believers to ask god for me what they could say to me to convince me he exists. Asking god what his will is for my life will not convince me.

 

[miknik5]

Did you read the initial thread?

It said I asked believers to ask god for me what they could say to me to convince me he exists. Asking god what his will is for my life will not convince me.

Really? I beg to differ...but I won´t

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are some scholars who think the entire passage is a forgery. ALso, the style is not consistent with other descriptions given by Josephus. For example, the shepherd Athronges, who Josephus describes as "...a mere shepherd, not known by anybody" gets a lot more description than Jesus does. And the beginning of the next section begins, "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ..." Unless Josephus was describing Jesus as a misfortune to the Jews, The passage was liekly inserted later.

Throw it out, I think the quotes that were within the lifetime of witnesses of Jesus are plenty without it.

Bear in mind that there had been two fires that had destroyed much of the documents Tacitus would have been working with, so it's pretty hard to believe that he would have been able to find the actual records. Also, three of the Gospels had already been written by this time, so it's very likely he was just repeating what the christians of the time were telling him.

There is no other historical confirmation that Nero persecuted Christians for the burning of Rome. Josephus and Pliny the Elder - who were both in Rome in 64 CE - didn't mention Christians at all, which seems unlikely if Nero had been blaming them for the fire. Seneca the Younger's lost On Superstition also didn't mention Christianity, according to Augustine in the 4th century. Furthermore, Neither Origen nor Tertullian use this passage despite referring to or citing Tacitus elsewhere.

Pliney the Younger did:
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians were also described in early, non-Christian history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

This early description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers met regularly to worship Jesus.

Finally, John Remsburg, who incidently DID believe in a historical Jesus, found this source to be unconvincing and provided 14 reasons why:

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

1. I will have to look into who this is and research it.

And this just proves that people believed. It does not prove that Jesus existed, just that people believed that Jesus existed - something which I clearly stated doesn't count as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:

“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)

There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this account, we know Jesus had an immediate impact on His followers: They were committed to their belief Jesus was God and withstood the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on His followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.

This was just a few of years after Christ was put to death. There are very few who make the claim that Jesus didn't exist. The historical documentation is too full to claim otherwise.

Again, this merely references the fact that there were people who believed it.

And people who mocked it.

Celsus' original work is lost, and we only know of it because of the response to it written by Origen of Alexandria in which he quoted Celsus' work. And Celsus is quoted as saying:

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus... Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.
​

So according to Celsus, Jesus was the result of an illicit liaison between Mary and a Roman soldier.

Historians believe this was just a rumor that he made up.

And in any case, this does not say that Jesus was crucified.

Bart Ehrman even claims Jesus existed and was crucified. Your opinion doesn't trump knowledgeable Historian experts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do you think that is a problem I have to deal with?

I don't care one way or the other really.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is not a response to this:

"No, all wrongdoing requires justice. And appropriate justice. No one who lies deserves to be tortured. Justice that does not fit the crime is injustice. This is why the concept of sin is much more than just moral wrongdoing, it is a crime against god that deserves death and torture. It is inhumane. If my spouse commits adultery I do not want her killed or tortured."

However, if I did believe god existed then I would ask for forgiveness because torture in hell is not something I want to go through. But unless he also convinces me somehow that his actions in the bible are moral then I will still believe I am more oral than god.

Well I hope you have a good argument when you are standing before Him.

This is not what I want. I want to know what is true. Believing something under threat is not a good reason to believe something. Like I said if the god oft he bible exists then I will ask for forgiveness because what other choice do I really have?

God wants people with Him that love Him, not people that have no other choice...free will.

So God needs man made technology to implement his plan?

He almost always uses man to accomplish His plans.

Define birth pangs.

Natural disasters, earthquakes, pestilence, wars get more intense and more often.

Can't you see you have set yourself up for belief no matter what evidence is provided for you? If I agree with you that must mean god exists. If I disagree with you then god exists because the bible says there will be "scoffers".

I'm just saying that the Bible claims that in the last days there will be scoffers.

All you have to do is demonstrate this is true.

No, all I have to do is to let you know. God takes care of the rest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I do see your point. But can't you see that is is not clear? I could just as easily say that it does not need to say you will be condemned because it says you will not be saved if you are not baptized. What does it mean to not be saved?

It doesn't say that so why would you claim otherwise?

So the contradiction does not matter? You go with what has more verses supporting it? The words literally say baptism washes away sins.

You are baptized by the Blood of Christ when you become a Christian and are filled with the Holy Spirit.

I know how this works.

It doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Kylie]

Showing you a few sources shouldn't be considered as "proof." When we're studying and evaluating the nature of any object or person from the past, in written or symbolic form, we're not going to assume that a few representations is "proof," at least not in the strictest sense of the word. Have you ever studied the Philosophy of History and Historiography, Kylie?

Seems like I'm asking for evidence and you're making excuses as to why you shouldn't have to.

Actually, I think something like the resurrection of Jesus is a DIFFERENT kind of event in its nature than is the crucifixion of Jesus. So, no. Where the resurrection of Jesus is concerned, I'm going to have to consider the basic testimonies of those who say they were relatively close to the said event...........and then go with my intuitions and my proclivities about it all since the resurrection kind of lies outside of the field of proper historical investigation. Would you like to see a little evidence for my claim?

Those who SAY.

Anyone can SAY anything, doesn't make it true.

Also, there's no evidence that the gospels were written by the people who traditionally are considered the authors.

Well, of course you would, so here's a beginning chunk via the podcast by atheist Shannon Q to consider and then we can go from there. Enjoy!

Care to give me a particular time code to have a look at? Maybe you could summarise the points they made?

 

[Kylie]

Throw it out, I think the quotes that were within the lifetime of witnesses of Jesus are plenty without it.

Then perhaps you could show me some source that we can verify was actually written by an eyewitness?

Pliney the Younger did:
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians were also described in early, non-Christian history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

This early description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers met regularly to worship Jesus.

And since I am not disputing the existence of Christians, I don't see why you would think this is relevant. This passage does not show that Jesus existed, merely that people BELIEVED he did. I specifically stated before we even began this topic of conversation that a source that talks about how people believe Jesus was crucified isn't evidence for the crucifiction of Jesus, it's evidence that people believed it happened.

Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

This expulsion took place in 49AD...

Um, this is describing the expulsion of JEWS from Rome, Not Christians.

...and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:

“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)

So he mentions Nero punishing the Christians in 26.2.

But the fire isn't mentioned until 38.1. It seems that the punishment of Christians happened BEFORE the fire you claim they were being punished for!

There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this account, we know Jesus had an immediate impact on His followers: They were committed to their belief Jesus was God and withstood the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on His followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.

Claiming that they knew it to be true proves nothing. There are countless Muslim suicide bombers who know their faith to be true as well. Doesn't actually make them right, it just means they have very strong convictions. People can be utterly convinced of a thing without that thing being real.

This was just a few of years after Christ was put to death. There are very few who make the claim that Jesus didn't exist. The historical documentation is too full to claim otherwise.

At best, Suetonius shows that there were Christians in Rome. That doesn't prove Jesus was real.

And people who mocked it.

Do you think if people mock others for having a belief, that means the belief is real?

Historians believe this was just a rumor that he made up.

Citation for this claim please?

Bart Ehrman even claims Jesus existed and was crucified. Your opinion doesn't trump knowledgeable Historian experts.

And there are any number of scholars who claim that Jesus was not historical. Why should I agree with one group just because you want me to due to them saying what you agree with?

(Also, I wish creationists would take your advice when it comes to evolution. )

 

[Kylie]

I don't care one way or the other really.

If you don't care, why did you provide all those sources to show he existed?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well I hope you have a good argument when you are standing before Him.

More threats.

God wants people with Him that love Him, not people that have no other choice...free will.

No. God wants people to love him or be tortured. That is not a choice and that is not love. The god of the bible puts justice before love.

He almost always uses man to accomplish His plans.

Then how do you know it is His plans?

Natural disasters, earthquakes, pestilence, wars get more intense and more often.

Which is not happening.

I'm just saying that the Bible claims that in the last days there will be scoffers.

Yes so if we disagree it is because god exists if we agree it is because god exists. Convienient.

No, all I have to do is to let you know. God takes care of the rest.

Ok, Muslims have let me know also. How do I know which hell I am going to?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It doesn't say that so why would you claim otherwise?

It says both. God again not being clear.

You are baptized by the Blood of Christ when you become a Christian and are filled with the Holy Spirit.

Was I when I was a Christian? I was baptized.

It doesn't seem to be the case.

You missed my point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seems like I'm asking for evidence and you're making excuses as to why you shouldn't have to.

No, I'm attempting to insinuate that where the topic of the Resurrection of Jesus is concerned, you don't yet understand how historical evidence can't really "prove" or "disprove" it either way. Yet, you're asking for evidence, leaving me to scratch my head and wonder why. I mean, if you've studied the Philosophy of History and Historiography, then I guess all you have to do to shut me down is cite your sources.

Those who SAY.

Anyone can SAY anything, doesn't make it true.

Also, there's no evidence that the gospels were written by the people who traditionally are considered the authors.

Perhaps. Or perhaps whichever sources have informed your present sense about what constitutes "historical evidence," with the accompanying hermeneutics that should be operative in understanding that evidence, would be something you want to share since you're stance on the "need for evidence" indicates that you somehow "know" what historical evidence is and should do?

Care to give me a particular time code to have a look at? Maybe you could summarise the points they made?

Yes, of course--I'll give you the time code because I want you to hear THEM talk about it, not see me all too briefly pare it down! 30:00 - 35:00. But really, the whole vid would be good for you to work through, I think.

On top of that, maybe you should grab a copy of something like the book on Historiography and the Philosophy of History (... which all has to do with the way written history works and has worked), Heritage and Challenge: The History and Theory of History, by Paul K. Conkin (Vanderbilt University) and Roland N. Stromberg (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee).

 

[Kylie]

No, I'm attempting to insinuate that where the topic of the Resurrection of Jesus is concerned, you don't yet understand how historical evidence can't really "prove" or "disprove" it either way. Yet, you're asking for evidence, leaving me to scratch my head and wonder why. I mean, if you've studied the Philosophy of History and Historiography, then I guess all you have to do to shut me down is cite your sources.

I fail to see why historical evidence can't show a historical fact.

In any case, you are moving the goalposts, since we were specifically talking about the crucifiction, not the resurrection.

Perhaps. Or perhaps whichever sources have informed your present sense about what constitutes "historical evidence," with the accompanying hermeneutics that should be operative in understanding that evidence, would be something you want to share since you're stance on the "need for evidence" indicates that you somehow "know" what historical evidence is and should do?

Are you suggesting that we should accept sources as valid when we have no way of checking their actual validity?

Yes, of course--I'll give you the time code because I want you to hear THEM talk about it, not see me all too briefly pare it down! 30:00 - 35:00. But really, the whole vid would be good for you to work through, I think.

I thought you said it was the beginning chunk of this, now you tell me it's half an hour in?

In any case, I watched it. I don't see how that supports the resurrection claims. It's Paul writing about an event a few decades after Jesus' cruciufiction and resurrection, talking about how he had a vision. In what way is this evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

On top of that, maybe you should grab a copy of something like the book on Historiography and the Philosophy of History (... which all has to do with the way written history works and has worked), Heritage and Challenge: The History and Theory of History, by Paul K. Conkin (Vanderbilt University) and Roland N. Stromberg (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee).

Feel free to send one to me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then perhaps you could show me some source that we can verify was actually written by an eyewitness?

The New Testament writers claim they were eyewitnesses.

And since I am not disputing the existence of Christians, I don't see why you would think this is relevant. This passage does not show that Jesus existed, merely that people BELIEVED he did. I specifically stated before we even began this topic of conversation that a source that talks about how people believe Jesus was crucified isn't evidence for the crucifiction of Jesus, it's evidence that people believed it happened.

Jesus Existed | HuffPost
Sorry for the long link. I don't think I've seen one that long.

Um, this is describing the expulsion of JEWS from Rome, Not Christians.

You do know that the early Christians were Jews right? Jesus was a Jew.

So he mentions Nero punishing the Christians in 26.2.

But the fire isn't mentioned until 38.1. It seems that the punishment of Christians happened BEFORE the fire you claim they were being punished for!

The 26.2 writing was in a part where he was explaining laws that Nero made. That is the reason it is where it is, it is not sequential.

Claiming that they knew it to be true proves nothing. There are countless Muslim suicide bombers who know their faith to be true as well. Doesn't actually make them right, it just means they have very strong convictions. People can be utterly convinced of a thing without that thing being real.

You are mistaken, people will believe something they don't know is absolutely true, but they won't believe something they know is false. Why would people knowing something isn't true, then claim they believe it to be true. Its not logical. Muslim suicide bombers believe it to be true, but they don't have first hand knowledge of whether or not it is.

At best, Suetonius shows that there were Christians in Rome. That doesn't prove Jesus was real.

And tell me logically why that would be? This is a time when people who had seen Jesus crucified and were at risk for the same end, yet they gathered and worshiped Him.

Do you think if people mock others for having a belief, that means the belief is real?

Why would they mock someone who didn't exist?

Citation for this claim please?

Why would it matter to you when you don't think He existed anyway?

And there are any number of scholars who claim that Jesus was not historical. Why should I agree with one group just because you want me to due to them saying what you agree with?

Could you cite three that have PhD's in a relevant field of study.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you don't care, why did you provide all those sources to show he existed?

This was in regard to His resurrection I believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Y'know, at first it seemed to me like the only reason you've even been here on CF is to stonewall people ...

... but now, I just think you've gotten a hold of some erroneous information about the nature of historical evidence, among other things. But, I can't know that for sure, of course, since I don't have any evidence that you've ever learned anything from anywhere about the nature of historical evidence, or about evidence of any kind, really. And I guess it goes without saying, and with a cue from you, that I shouldn't believe that you have learned about historical evidence simply because you say you have.

 

[Kylie]

The New Testament writers claim they were eyewitnesses.

So what? I can claim I was in mission control for the last space shuttle launch. People can claim anything.

Jesus Existed | HuffPost
Sorry for the long link. I don't think I've seen one that long.

And not a single source, and he uses logical fallacies, such as the argument from incredulity.

You do know that the early Christians were Jews right? Jesus was a Jew.

Must be very convenient for you that you can use the terms so interchangeably. Makes it easy to make the points you want.

The 26.2 writing was in a part where he was explaining laws that Nero made. That is the reason it is where it is, it is not sequential.

Yes, I often tell my husband that I've punished our daughter, and then not told him what she did wrong until much later.

You are mistaken, people will believe something they don't know is absolutely true, but they won't believe something they know is false. Why would people knowing something isn't true, then claim they believe it to be true. Its not logical. Muslim suicide bombers believe it to be true, but they don't have first hand knowledge of whether or not it is.

I think you need to read my post again. People are willing to die for something they believe is true without actually knowing for a fact. Why do you think this could not have happened with the early Christians?

And tell me logically why that would be? This is a time when people who had seen Jesus crucified and were at risk for the same end, yet they gathered and worshiped Him.

Can you show me evidence that any of these early Christians were also eyewitnesses of the crucifiction?

Why would they mock someone who didn't exist?

Are you serious? When I was in high school, I was teased for being a Star Trek fan. Does that mean that Captain Kirk and Mister Spock are real? Why would my classmates have mocked Star Trek if it wasn't real?

Why would it matter to you when you don't think He existed anyway?

I take that to mean you don't have a citation for it then.

Could you cite three that have PhD's in a relevant field of study.

Raphael Lataster, PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney, wrote his Master’s thesis on Jesus ahistoricity theories, concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the ‘Historical Jesus’.

Richard Carrier, doctorate in ancient history from Columbia University.

Robert M. Price, received a Master of Theological Studies in New Testament from Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary in 1978. At Drew University he was awarded one Ph.D. in Systematic Theology in 1981 and another in New Testament in 1991. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey. He has served as Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Center for Inquiry Institute in Amherst, New York.

Earl Doherty, bachelor's degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages.