How does one come to believe something?

[bhsmte]

1. People come to believe things for all kinds of reasons (rational as well as irrational)
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists for one or more particular reasons, part of the set of P1 being "all kinds of reasons", and wich are not necessarily rational reasons.

Seems like an entirely useless argument.

Agree.

If one wants to understand this topic, google; "psychology of belief" and one can understand this topic quite well.

 

[Kylie]

LOL seriously???? Your going to try and argue that the only evidence of the existence of Messiah is the bible....

You aren't able to provide any convincing support that does not come from the Bible. Let me show you...

Tacitus writings dating 64 AD specifically speaks about Christ, and his death under Pontius Pilate

Yeah, and he's writing at least 80 years after the events he's talking about (his "Annals" were written around 116CE), and he gives no sources. Tacitus wasn't even alive during the time when Jesus was around, he was born in the year 64. This is hearsay at best.

Pliny the Younger : They 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.

He wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking for advice on how to conduct legal dealings with Christians. I could do the same thing, and it would not mean that Jesus was real. And again, the letter was written in the year 112 CE, so it was long after the events you claim his letter supports. At best, it gives an account of the practices of early Christians, but it cannot be taken as a history of Jesus.

Josephus mentions both Christ and Christianity in his writings.

And yet, scholars can't agree on whether his writings are even authentic! And even if they are authentic, he would have had access to the gospels (Josephus wrote "Antiquities of the Jews" in 93-94 CE, and the Gospel of Mark had been written almost a quarter century earlier, around 70CE), so it can't be taken that his account is a reliable history of Jesus.

Lucian writes: The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Ah, yes, Lucian, who wrote this in a work called "The Passing of Peregrinus." You know the one, the satire. Are you suggesting that we take a work of SATIRE as a historical document?

And this passage is given by a character, in dialogue. It is no more proof that Jesus existed than Chris Hemsworth saying he is Thor means Asgard is real.

And also consider that he is describing Christians. I can just as easily say that Christians worship Jesus. It is true, but it does not mean that I am convinced. You can say that Hindus worship Shiva, and it doesn't mean are convinced that Hinduism is correct.

All of the people you mention lived AFTER the events you claim they support, and all of them lived in a time when at least one of the Gospels (that of Mark) was available. None of what you have presented is convincing evidence that Jesus existed. It is at best based on the Biblical accounts that already existed (and thus fail the requirement that it be a non-Biblical source), or is hearsay.

Again, among serious academia there is no question that Messiah lived and died via crucifixion. Now, they do not agree on other points because that strays into religious beliefs but no one who studies ancient manuscripts will take your ludicrous stance

I have already explained why I remain unconvinced that the ancient manuscripts provide sufficient evidence that Jesus existed. But even if what you say is true, all it proves is that there was a guy named Jesus who lived back then. It does not prove at all that he performed any of the miracles attributed to him, nor does it prove that he was a god in any sense of the word.[/QUOTE]

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yeah, and he's writing at least 80 years after the events he's talking about (his "Annals" were written around 116CE), and he gives no sources. Tacitus wasn't even alive during the time when Jesus was around, he was born in the year 64. This is hearsay at best.

Tacitus was a historian. Based on your logic, every modern history book should be disregarded as hearsay because the authors were not alive to witness the history unfold.

 

[bhsmte]

Tacitus was a historian. Based on your logic, every modern history book should be disregarded as hearsay because the authors were not alive to witness the history unfold.

The credibility of historical writings is dependent on how well the writings hold up to being examined with the historical method.

The NT specifically is a very mixed bag when it comes to holding up to this established standard.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Belief is not a choice. Focus is a choice. Not everything we focus on, do we form beliefs about or believe in. But when we are unfulfilled and looking to place our hope in something (subconsciously), whatever we focus on, we will also place our hope in/believe in.

The same people who sneer about the religious beliefs of others will believe in the idea of a "soulmate" or that the key to happiness is to "find your passion" or other common delusions.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The credibility of historical writings is dependent on how well the writings hold up to being examined with the historical method.

The NT specifically is a very mixed bag when it comes to holding up to this established standard.

Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120) Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian

So why do you claim that Tacitus was not "credible"? What evidence do you have that questions his credibility as a historian to justify dismissing his work?

 

[bhsmte]

Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120) Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian

So why do you claim that Tacitus was not "credible"? What evidence do you have that questions his credibility as a historian to justify dismissing his work?

I didnt say tactis wasnt credible, did i?

I said, the credibility of historical writings are judged by utilizing the historical method.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I didnt say tactis wasnt credible, did i?

I said, the credibility of historical writings are judged by utilizing the historical method.

Well...explain that to KTS.

 

[bhsmte]

Well...explain that to KTS.

Explain what?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Explain what?

Explain to KTS that Tacitus is a credible historian and his works should not be dismissed as "hearsay". Unless, of course, you don't think Tacitus is a credible historian. Then I would have to ask KTS and yourself for evidence to justify that claim.

 

[bhsmte]

Explain to KTS that Tacitus is a credible historian and his works should not be dismissed as "hearsay". Unless, of course, you don't think Tacitus is a credible historian. Then I would have to ask KTS and yourself for evidence to justify that claim.

I didnt say whether certain writings of tacitus were credible or not credible, stop putting words in my mouth.

All historical writings, stand on their own merits, based on proper application of the historical method.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I didnt say whether certain writings of tacitus were credible or not credible, stop putting words in my mouth.

All historical writings, stand on their own merits, based on proper application of the historical method.

Well, the historians at Britannica.com seem to speak very highly of the "historical merits" of Tacitus' work, and fits rather well with the "historical method". I defer to the judgement of Britannica.com. Do you agree with their judgement? If so, would that be sufficient extra-bliblical evidence to support the existence of Jesus?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I didnt say whether certain writings of tacitus were credible or not credible, stop putting words in my mouth.

All historical writings, stand on their own merits, based on proper application of the historical method.

"...we are enormously lucky to have Tacitus--only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving his Annals, for example, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, and by sheer luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet we still have large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31), which is probably the deliberate excision of Christian scribes who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years (the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred). There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed. The other large gap is the material between the two halves that neither institution preserved. And yet another is the end of the second half, which scribes also chose not to preserve (or lost through negligent care of the manuscript, etc.)."
Richard Carrier

"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices..."
Jeffery Jay Lowder

 

[bhsmte]

Well, the historians at Britannica.com seem to speak very highly of the "historical merits" of Tacitus' work, and fits rather well with the "historical method". I defer to the judgement of Britannica.com. Do you agree with their judgement? If so, would that be sufficient extra-bliblical evidence to support the existence of Jesus?

I would need to ivestigate it and i really dont have any desire to do so.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I would need to ivestigate it and i really dont have any desire to do so.

Very well. If you ever change your mind and find anything, you may want to bring it up to the historians at Britannica.com.

 

[bhsmte]

Very well. If you ever change your mind and find anything, you may want to bring it up to the historians at Britannica.com.

I have investigated the work of many NT historians, in regards to the historicity of the NT.

In fact, it is one of the reasons, i am no longer a christian.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

fyi: from old ? threads other resource:
Best Book On Refuting Atheist Arguments | Christian Forums
Best Book On Refuting Atheist Arguments Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics Center' started by Tnmusicman, Oct 22, 2012. ...
"Evidence That Demands a Verdict".
Great book, with a "II" following it -
I think thousands of verified? "evidence" , all handy and 'easy' to read... (in 2 or 3 years may take a long time to go through, other than for a reference)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In fact, it is one of the reasons, i am no longer a christian.

A lot depends on what you were looking for, and who you trusted.
I believe there's a LOT of people who are no longer (or never were) christians BECAUSE of other 'christians' who weren't christian. (hypocrites, actors on the stage of life, deceivers)

 

[bhsmte]

A lot depends on what you were looking for, and who you trusted.
I believe there's a LOT of people who are no longer (or never were) christians BECAUSE of other 'christians' who weren't christian. (hypocrites, actors on the stage of life, deceivers)

Yep, former christians hear that a lot.

What was i looking for? Well evidenced facts about the historicity of the NT.

 

[HitchSlap]

fyi: from old ? threads other resource:
Best Book On Refuting Atheist Arguments | Christian Forums
Best Book On Refuting Atheist Arguments Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics Center' started by Tnmusicman, Oct 22, 2012. ...
"Evidence That Demands a Verdict".
Great book, with a "II" following it -
I think thousands of verified? "evidence" , all handy and 'easy' to read... (in 2 or 3 years may take a long time to go through, other than for a reference)

I've read this book. It doesn't really contain evidence, per se.