Fundemental Question

[Exial]

I did do a google search. I didn't say what I did before because someone I knew told me. Even if you google search you are relying on other people giving you the correct information.

True, I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere though.

You can find people saying that alot of the stuff claimed of Horus isn't even found in the writings. I honestly wouldn't be supprised it if was made up because if he was simply born of a virgin, did miracles, was killed unjustly and rose again, that would be believable. But many of these Horus storys seem to be a direct copy of the Jesus story with just a few names changed.

The Jesus stories would be a direct copy of the Horus stories, not the other way around as Horus and Egyptian mythology pre-dates Christianity & Jesus.

Did a google and got these two videos. They seem to explain the opinions of Egyptian scholars and what is actually in the Egyptian stories.

I will hopefully get around to watching them, but I am already aware that not every Egyptian scholar agrees on the mythology surrounding the Egyptians and their many various God's and stories

I wouldn't be surprised if concepts such as a resurrection, virgin birth, claimed son of god were around before.

Earlier you said you would be surprised if the resurrection was just made up on the spot.

How did the resurrection (which was made up) become one of the centeral parts of Christianity? Why make it up when Jesus failed and proved He wasn't the Messiah? Also why make it up when it would only cause persecution?

Not sure, not a expert on Biblical history. All I know is that the idea of divine resurrection was around long before Christianity which makes me doubt its truthfulness as described in the bible.

I would say the difference between Joseph Smith and Jesus is that you can gain money and power through making up a religion in the West, but the Christians only suffered from their 'made up' religion. Its easy to say someone someone made something up and some people believed for some reason. But the question of what happened has to be answered in more detail.

To what extent where they persecuted?

 

[aiki]

So how do you decide who has the correct interpretation?

There is the application of correct hermeneutics to the interpretation of Scripture.

HERMENEUTICS - A GUIDE TO BASIC BIBLE INTERPRETATION BY DARRYL

Genesis 1:25-27
(humans were created after other animals)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.


Genesis 2:18-19
(humans were created before other animals)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Give me a reasonable explanation then.

Apologetics Press - Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?

I dispute the idea that scripture is "united". I think the very fact we have a old testament and a new testament attribute to that. Can you demonstrate how scripture is united.

In fact, there is magnificent unity in the themes of the Bible that run right through from Genesis to Revelations. Essentially, the Bible answers the following questions:

Who is God?
Who is man?
Is there the possibility of a relationship between the two and if so, how?

The answers to these questions find their ultimate revelation in the person of Jesus Christ who is prefigured and prophesied of in the Old Testament and who appears incarnate in the New Testament fulfilling the prophesies made centuries earlier by God's prophets. Rather than having two seperate and opposing texts, the reader of the Bible discovers that the New and Old Testament are wonderfully complementary, the former being the culmination and fulfillment of the latter.

This proves nothing, a Muslim could give me the same argument about his holy scriptures which have had far more (if not negative) impact on society and cultures in my opinion.

As one point contributing to a cumulative body of evidence it serves very well. The Quran is not in the same class as the Bible and never has been. In terms of literary scope and quality, accuracy historically and textually, cultural impact, and survivability, the Bible far outstrips any other religious book -- including the Quran. The Muslim may argue that his religious text is the equal of the Bible, but making the claim and backing it up are two very different things.

Just give me one, your best.

I'll do better than that:

Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible | Reasons To Believe

The proven historical claims of the Bible prove nothing about the supernatural claims it makes. Once again, a Muslim could give me the exact same argument as you are.

I don't recall claiming that the historical facts the Bible accurately records prove its supernatural claims. They do suggest a certain reliability concerning the scriptural narrative, however.

This is all just anecdotal evidence. That is a poor way of discovering truth.

Again, by itself, this point is not conclusive as to the supernatural origins of the Bible. But anecdotal evidence is evidence nonetheless.

Courts do allow personal testimony but do not often rules based purely on that. They want empirical evidence before they decide on the truth, that is all that I am asking for and nobody has been able to provide it.

Eye-witness testimony is a very powerful form of evidence which has often proven the innocence or guilt of those being tried when nothing else could. And when someone says, "I saw Joe stab Billy!" this is a kind of empirical evidence, for it is obtained through direct physical observation.

We have already ascertained that people interpret the Scripture differently, so does that mean everyone has a different state of reality?

How does the one follow from the other? Does the fact that people argue over a street map mean that the map does not correspond to reality? Not necessarily.

Your analogy is ridiculous,

No, I don't think so.

I would ask to test drive or examine any car before purchasing it, much as I would for anything that is not brand new or not very expensive.

My analogy wasn't about someone trying to sell you a car, but about someone trying to tell you that their car is a good one. In this case, the experience of the owner of the car while driving it is a perfectly legitimate source of evidence in support of the owner's claim. That the evidence is subjective does not necessarily mean it is suspect or should be immediately discounted.

I would not take a man's word that the car he is selling me is good, I would like to find out for myself. I am not ignoring the evidence as you say, I am treating it with scepticism.

There's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism -- if that is what it really is. Its been my experience, however, that, as often as not, skepticism is just a cloak for recalcitrance and pride. I hope this isn't the case with you.

Selah.

 

[Exial]

There is the application of correct hermeneutics to the interpretation of Scripture.

HERMENEUTICS - A GUIDE TO BASIC BIBLE INTERPRETATION BY DARRYL

So there is a method of interpretation that is better than others?

Apologetics Press - Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?

Not interested in discussing something with a article. I showed you a contradiction, you asserted that it could be reasonable explained. If it is reasonable, it should be simple to explain so you can do it yourself (so I can further discuss it with you) rather than just pointing me to a article.

In fact, there is magnificent unity in the themes of the Bible that run right through from Genesis to Revelations. Essentially, the Bible answers the following questions:

Who is God?
Who is man?
Is there the possibility of a relationship between the two and if so, how?



The answers to these questions find their ultimate revelation in the person of Jesus Christ who is prefigured and prophesied of in the Old Testament and who appears incarnate in the New Testament fulfilling the prophesies made centuries earlier by God's prophets. Rather than having two seperate and opposing texts, the reader of the Bible discovers that the New and Old Testament are wonderfully complementary, the former being the culmination and fulfillment of the latter.

So why do many Christians no longer follow the many old testament laws?

As one point contributing to a cumulative body of evidence it serves very well. The Quran is not in the same class as the Bible and never has been. In terms of literary scope and quality, accuracy historically and textually, cultural impact, and survivability, the Bible far outstrips any other religious book -- including the Quran. The Muslim may argue that his religious text is the equal of the Bible, but making the claim and backing it up are two very different things.

You have not shown me in any reasonable sense that your religious text is any more valuable or full of truth than the Quran is.

I'll do better than that:

Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible | Reasons To Believe

I just asked for one for YOU to present.

Please abide by the conditions asked in the OP.

A specific verse, prediction and outcome please.

I don't recall claiming that the historical facts the Bible accurately records prove its supernatural claims. They do suggest a certain reliability concerning the scriptural narrative, however.

Right. I'm not interested in alleged historical accuracy of the Bible, but if there is any evidence to show if its supernatural claims are true, one of which is that the Bible is divinely inspired by God.

Again, by itself, this point is not conclusive as to the supernatural origins of the Bible. But anecdotal evidence is evidence nonetheless.

Anecdotal evidence is a type of evidence, correct.

By definition, anecdotal evidence is evidence with its veracity in doubt. Therefore, it is not reasonable to belief something based purely on anecdotal evidence like you have with the Bible. You cannot show any empirical evidence, so I must assume that this is all you have. It is not enough to convince me.

Eye-witness testimony is a very powerful form of evidence which has often proven the innocence or guilt of those being tried when nothing else could. And when someone says, "I saw Joe stab Billy!" this is a kind of empirical evidence, for it is obtained through direct physical observation.

My father is a road traffic investigator, he often has to go to court to give evidence. Often he finds that the empirical evidence he gives does not always collaborate with eye witness testimony. Do you know why? Because humans can be untrustworthy. They can lie, they can exaggerate, they can forget, they can make mistakes. Eye-witness testimony is not empirical. It cannot be repeated, it cannot be shown to someone else.

This is a selective attention test so you can see for yourself.
YouTube - selective attention test

My analogy wasn't about someone trying to sell you a car, but about someone trying to tell you that their car is a good one. In this case, the experience of the owner of the car while driving it is a perfectly legitimate source of evidence in support of the owner's claim. That the evidence is subjective does not necessarily mean it is suspect or should be immediately discounted.

Exactly, it should be taken in collaboration with empirical evidence.

There's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism -- if that is what it really is. Its been my experience, however, that, as often as not, skepticism is just a cloak for recalcitrance and pride. I hope this isn't the case with you.

It isn't. I haven't found any evidence given to me by Christians as proof of the Bible convincing.

I grow tired of this relentless back and forth with believers.

Do you have empirical evidence that the Bible is true? Yes or No?

 

[aiki]

So there is a method of interpretation that is better than others?

Yes.

Not interested in discussing something with a article. I showed you a contradiction, you asserted that it could be reasonable explained.

And as the article shows, it has been. That you aren't interested in reading it suggests that your interest in understanding the Christian perspective is not sincere. Regardless, your unwillingness to read the explanation does nothing to refute it, nor can you deny that there is an explanation.

If it is reasonable, it should be simple to explain so you can do it yourself (so I can further discuss it with you) rather than just pointing me to a article.

A reasonable explanation and a simple one are not always the same thing. Quantum Physics is a reasonable explanation of the way the universe works, but it is by no means a simple explanation! This could be said of many reasonable explanations.

So why do many Christians no longer follow the many old testament laws?

Read the Book of Hebrews. It answers this question in detail.

You have not shown me in any reasonable sense that your religious text is any more valuable or full of truth than the Quran is.

You have not demonstrated that the Quran is the literary equal of the Bible.

I just asked for one for YOU to present.

Please abide by the conditions asked in the OP.

A specific verse, prediction and outcome please.

Pick one from the list I gave you.

Right. I'm not interested in alleged historical accuracy of the Bible, but if there is any evidence to show if its supernatural claims are true, one of which is that the Bible is divinely inspired by God.

The list of fulfilled prophecies is excellent evidence in support of the supernatural origin of the Bible.

What you are or are not interested in is irrelevant to whether or not there is reasonable cause to trust that the Bible is the Word of God. I have given you six reasons. They exist regardless of your interest in them.

By definition, anecdotal evidence is evidence with its veracity in doubt. Therefore, it is not reasonable to belief something based purely on anecdotal evidence like you have with the Bible.

But I haven't. Never have I said that my faith in the BIble rests solely on anecdotal evidence. In fact, I explicitly wrote that it was not conclusive. As with each of the six reasons I gave you, they work together to provide a cumulative body of evidence that as a whole is persuasive.

You cannot show any empirical evidence, so I must assume that this is all you have. It is not enough to convince me.

But I'm not trying to persuade you. That's God's job, not mine. I am simply demonstrating that Christians have good, reasonable basis for their faith. Whether or not you are convinced by it doesn't change the fact that this reasonable basis for Christian faith exists.

My father is a road traffic investigator, he often has to go to court to give evidence. Often he finds that the empirical evidence he gives does not always collaborate with eye witness testimony. Do you know why? Because humans can be untrustworthy. They can lie, they can exaggerate, they can forget, they can make mistakes. Eye-witness testimony is not empirical. It cannot be repeated, it cannot be shown to someone else.

Which is why a cross-examine takes place. And if the eye-witness testimony holds up it serves as very powerful evidence for or against the accused.

I grow tired of this relentless back and forth with believers.

Do you have empirical evidence that the Bible is true? Yes or No?

Yes, the entire universe in which you exist proclaims the existence of God.

Selah.

 

[solarwave]

True, I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere though.

I agree.

The Jesus stories would be a direct copy of the Horus stories, not the other way around as Horus and Egyptian mythology pre-dates Christianity & Jesus.

Except that the real stories of Horus arn't anything like Jesus. The stories about Horus being like Jesus are new.

I will hopefully get around to watching them, but I am already aware that not every Egyptian scholar agrees on the mythology surrounding the Egyptians and their many various God's and stories

Unless the guy in the video is completely lying I think it gives good reason to think Horus isn't like Jesus.

Earlier you said you would be surprised if the resurrection was just made up on the spot.

In relation to Jesus and how it relates to how Christianity started and how early on the story of the resurrection started. As far as I know, the myths about Horus and most other myths are written hundreds of years after they apparently happened and when the belief system already exists. So this would be true of the creation story in the Bible and other mythical events in Genesis. But the resurrection isn't like this. The the story of the resurrection was recorded only a few decades after Jesus' death and within living memory. Also at this time the resurrection already seems to be one of the biggest foundations of the faith that everything else rests upon. The resurrection seems to be one of the made reasons why Christianity spread or even started at all. I'm really not an expert on Egypt so if you can find a good source to prove me wrong I'll except it.

Not sure, not a expert on Biblical history. All I know is that the idea of divine resurrection was around long before Christianity which makes me doubt its truthfulness as described in the bible.

I understand why you say this, but for me to be convinced that the resurrection didn't happen I need a good explaination for how Christianity started and grew if the resurrection didn't happen.

To what extent where they persecuted?

The Christians? Paul for example: "I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea" - 2 Corinthians 11: 23-25

Paul was also finally killed for his beliefs. Christians in general were also hunted by the Romans and killing in various way.

 

[Exial]

Except that the real stories of Horus arn't anything like Jesus. The stories about Horus being like Jesus are new.

Do you have evidence of this not in video form?

As I stated earlier, Horus is not the only mythological figure that shares uncanny similarities with your saviour.

Lord' Raglan's Hero Pattern

What do you think?

Unless the guy in the video is completely lying I think it gives good reason to think Horus isn't like Jesus.

But Jesus is like Horus*, there are undeniable similarities and their is no good evidence to suggest these similarities were simply made up by atheists just to discredit Christianity.

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God

In relation to Jesus and how it relates to how Christianity started and how early on the story of the resurrection started. As far as I know, the myths about Horus and most other myths are written hundreds of years after they apparently happened and when the belief system already exists. So this would be true of the creation story in the Bible and other mythical events in Genesis. But the resurrection isn't like this. The the story of the resurrection was recorded only a few decades after Jesus' death and within living memory. Also at this time the resurrection already seems to be one of the biggest foundations of the faith that everything else rests upon. The resurrection seems to be one of the made reasons why Christianity spread or even started at all. I'm really not an expert on Egypt so if you can find a good source to prove me wrong I'll except it.

Source is above ^^

It is strange how you consider this (bolded) to be help your argument. Only a few decades? How is that in your favour? Why would the authors decide to wait a few decades before mentioning or documenting the resurrection? It makes no logical sense. If you had witnessed a man rising from the dead would you wait decades to tell anybody or write it down?

You do seem to value scepticism and reason. So I have another question to ask you.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you were present and witnessed Jesus supposed resurrection, him appearing after everyone said he was dead. Afterword when you are in deliberating about what it is you actually witnessed you'd be thinking of a number of options. Now, out of these two, what would be a more probable and rational choice in your opinion?

A) The laws of physics have temporarily suspended themselves and I have witnessed a man rise from the dead.

or

B) I have been deceived by my own eyes into thinking this man was dead.

I understand why you say this, but for me to be convinced that the resurrection didn't happen I need a good explaination for how Christianity started and grew if the resurrection didn't happen.

This is nonsensical, do you also need an explanation for how Islam started if Allah did not choose Muhammed to be his messenger? I assume that you do not believe in the validity of Muhammed and the Quran and these events did not happen as you are a Christian. Do you need to explain how all religions formed if not for the reasons they claim?

The Christians? Paul for example: "I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea" - 2 Corinthians 11: 23-25

Paul was also finally killed for his beliefs. Christians in general were also hunted by the Romans and killing in various way.

So Christians were persecuted. Persecution does not mean your beliefs are valid, Galileo was persecuted by Christians but the persecution did not make his beliefs about heliocentrism valid, evidence did.