Jesus of History and Myth

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Because I had history classes in
school and I have a questioning mind.

I base my decisions on evidence and reasonable expectations. Not on faith.
I assess levels of confidence / certainty and keep my expectations withing those limits.

There, see....
and ... as you said >

It's also why anything can be believed on "faith".
"Faith" is not a pathway to truth.
No, I don't do "faith".

Your faith is in yourself, what you accept as evidence (which can be totally wrong,btw),
"history classes in school" (which can be totally wrong, btw)
but YOUR FAITH IS THERE, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as you said , faith is "NOT A PATHWAY TO TRUTH". That is correct.
Your choice.
Your loss.



The way of a man seems right to himself, and the end of it is destruction.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE=
"DogmaHunter, post: 73552393, member: 346237"]Well, it sure would look more believable if it were actually accurate and not contradictory, wouldn't it?

But sure, there's no particular reason an all powerfull being with a "mysterious plan" would have to live upto expectations.

But as a consequence, christianity is no different from any other religion and as a direct result, there is no particular reason to consider christianity any more credible then any other religion.

Well, no... the point. It isn't internally consistent. And it most certainly isn't externally consistent.

As said previously in this thread by others, if for example thousands of people witness many resurected dead walking around, you'ld expect to find a few extra biblical mentions as well. Instead, you only find references in the source of the claims - and not even in all renditions of those supposed same events.

Just like all other religions.

I disagree. Considering what christians, especially fundamentalists, tend to claim about how all this came about, I'ld expect much more extra-biblical evidence and consistency. Much more. Instead, we find what we expect to find when we assume that christianity is just like all other religions.

I disagree.
I think these are reasonable expectations.

Kind of like the expectation that an experienced brain surgeon will have more success removing a brain tumor then a car mechanic.

When an all powerfull god goes through so much effort of coming down in human form etc, all to set the stage to communicate his all-important message - I'ld expect better results then mere human effort to invent a lore and mythology.

But that is not what I see. I see a bible that in essence isn't any different from a quran or a bagavad ghita or any other religious lore.

I'ld expect that the efforts of an all powerfull god would stand out from the crowd among mere human efforts. But it doesn't. At all.

Why would that be an unreasonable expectation?
[/QUOTE

=========================================
"Faith" , misplaced.
"Faith", CHOOSE to believe in about 24 lies.
"Faith", CHOSE to listen to men instead of God.
A choice most people make and stick to.

Faith in creatures instead of in the Creator of all things.
Faith in what you can see and hear, instead of what is invisible and immeasurable.

Faith that cannot save anyone.

Faith without hope. And without Christ in the world.

Faith that cannot comprehend being forgiven of sins,
Faith that cannot comprehend being perfectly loved and cared for.

Faith that cannot lead to the

It's also why anything can be believed on "faith".
"Faith" is not a pathway to truth.

truth.

Trusting in the flesh (God curses),

instead of in the Only One God Who Can Save.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There, see....
and ... as you said >

Your faith is in yourself, what you accept as evidence (which can be totally wrong,btw),
"history classes in school" (which can be totally wrong, btw)

No.

I don't require "faith" to know about the Roman empire, for example.
I don't require "faith" to know about Roman emperors.
Etc.

but YOUR FAITH IS THERE, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as you said , faith is "NOT A PATHWAY TO TRUTH". That is correct.
Your choice.
Your loss.

Your imagination, rather.

The way of a man seems right to himself, and the end of it is destruction.

Irony.

 

[DogmaHunter]

=========================================
"Faith" , misplaced.
"Faith", CHOOSE to believe in about 24 lies.
"Faith", CHOSE to listen to men instead of God.
A choice most people make and stick to.

Faith in creatures instead of in the Creator of all things.
Faith in what you can see and hear, instead of what is invisible and immeasurable.

Faith that cannot save anyone.

Faith without hope. And without Christ in the world.

Faith that cannot comprehend being forgiven of sins,
Faith that cannot comprehend being perfectly loved and cared for.

Faith that cannot lead to the



truth.

Trusting in the flesh (God curses),

instead of in the Only One God Who Can Save.

Now, you're just preaching.

When you put your "faith" (as you call it) in science to build an airplane, it flies.

Science works.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Now, you're just preaching.

When you put your "faith" (as you call it) in science to build an airplane, it flies.

Science works.

That's right. Just showing you have faith in science, But it won't save anyone's soul, will it?
Something else is required.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't require "faith" to know about the Roman empire, for example.
I don't require "faith" to know about Roman emperors.
Etc.

Yes , not no. There is more evidence of Jesus, Who is infallible, which you don't accept,
than there is evidence of the Roman empire or emperors, which you accept by faith in historians etc (fallible as they are).

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's right. Just showing you have faith in science

Science doesn't require faith.
Science has evidence instead.

But it won't save anyone's soul, will it?
Something else is required.

That there is such a thing as "souls" in need of "saving", is inherent to your religion.
Typical snake oil salesman tactic.

Invent a problem and then conveniently offer the "only" solution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes , not no. There is more evidence of Jesus, Who is infallible, which you don't accept,
than there is evidence of the Roman empire or emperors

There is not.
For starters, we don't have to rely on only Roman sources to know about Rome.
There's contemporary independent evidence for it.

Your Jesus has neither. There's no independent evidence whatsoever. And the non-independent evidence comes from biased believers, who weren't even contemporaries, and which consists of nothing but hearsay - for which there is no independent corroborating evidence at all.

, which you accept by faith in historians etc (fallible as they are).

No.
Because of the evidence.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Science doesn't require faith.
Science has evidence instead.

So much of man-made science has been proven false, faith is required to keep on believing it is right at all.
Evidence has been proven false so often, that's likely the main reason the flat earthers think they ever have a chance to convince someone of the flat earth theory - since it is possible to show a lot of so-called accept science is wrong. Faith in 'science' one way or another, even though both may fall and not get back up again.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is not.
For starters, we don't have to rely on only Roman sources to know about Rome.
There's contemporary independent evidence for it.

There , see - first admit "Roman sources " were relied on , but don't have to have faith (rely on) ONLY Roman sources - have faith in (rely on) "contemporary independent" evidence (there's no such thing as independent evidence, but you have faith in it, so no one can change your mind.).

There's no way to change your faith from the wide path to the narrow path,

so that's all for now. If you decide you want true faith that might save you,

ask God for it. It is a gift from Him, no way to buy it or work for it.

bye.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So much of man-made science has been proven false, faith is required to keep on believing it is right at all.

If things in science are proven false by objective evidence, then those things are discarded as false.

If things in religion are proven false by objective evidence, then theists discard the evidence.

No, science doesn't require faith.
Au contraire even: faith isn't allowed in science.

If you start your science paper with "i believe...." then you're done, even before you started.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If things in science are proven false by objective evidence, then those things are discarded as false.

I have proof this is false. Some day unknown to me for now, I might let you in on it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If things in religion are proven false by objective evidence, then theists discard the evidence.

This is proven false on this and other forums and sites every day.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you start your science paper with "i believe...." then you're done, even before you started.

Not when the TRUTH is known. (and sought by the ones listening)

 

[DogmaHunter]

There , see - first admit "Roman sources " were relied on , but don't have to have faith (rely on) ONLY Roman sources - have faith in (rely on) "contemporary independent" evidence (there's no such thing as independent evidence, but you have faith in it, so no one can change your mind.).

Apparantly, you don't understand how evidence works either.

Here's an example...
Let's take the diary of Julius Ceasar.

He writes about a temple he commissioned to being build in Rome.
He writes about a battle his legions fought in some place against some tribe.

These are 2 claims that are in need of evidence.
We can go to Rome and look for and find the ruins of that temple.
We can perhaps also corroborate the claim of his diary concerning this temple with other records. The ruins of the temple itself can also give us clues on who build it, when and why.

We can go to the place where the diary claims that Ceasar's legions have done battle.
We can dig down and find remains of Roman legionaire artefacts, like shields, swords and banners.
We can corroborate this claim with the historical records of said tribe - which recount the same battle and mention Ceasar as being the enemy in that battle.

That is corroborating, contemporary, independent evidence.

There are thousands upon thousands of examples like this.
All that put together, makes it a fact that Julius Ceasar existed, was a dictator of Rome and conquered Ghaul.

Heck, when my wife's parents were building their house (in Belgium, 1500km's north of Italy) , they had to halt construction at some point because while digging they stumbled upon a Roman villa.

That's evidence that Rome's reach went way beyond Italy and that the empire streched out deeply into north europe - exactly like expected in light of the story of Ceasar's conquest of Ghaul.

That's called evidence.
No faith required.

If you decide you want true faith that might save you,
ask God for it. It is a gift from Him, no way to buy it or work for it.
bye.

I don't do faith.
Faith is gullibility.

Only bad salesmen and con-artists require "faith".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have proof this is false.

No, you don't.

Some day unknown to me for now, I might let you in on it.

If you really had something, you'ld just say it.

Having said that, I sense a false either/or here.
Even if you would be able to discredit all of science, you wouldn't advance your christian case by an inch.

It's either science or christianity.
If you disprove all of science, then you still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate christianity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is proven false on this and other forums and sites every day.

Ever spoken to a YEC?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not when the TRUTH is known. (and sought by the ones listening)

Senseless response.

I repeat: if your science paper asks the reader to "just believe", you have no science paper.

Science deals with evidence, not with beliefs.

 

[JackRT]

Faith is not the opposite of doubt, faith is the opposite of certainty.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never once said that.

I literally always said that people willing to die for their beliefs, only tells you that they think their beliefs are important, and that it has no bearing at all on how accurate (or inaccurate) those beliefs are. None at all.




Idd.

How important a belief is to somebody, tells you nothing about how (in)accurate that belief is.

No, but it is an indicator that 'we' should be mindful that there might be something in the nature of their beliefs that could reflect reality and we're missing...since most people don't just voluntarily die for religious beliefs on a whim, especially if it's not by suicide but through forced martyrdom made upon them by an opposing party (such as when Christians are singled out by Nero or by Communist dictators, etc.).