Why Do Unbelievers Come Here?

[InterestedAtheist]

Have you even read the New Testament in full, at the least?

Most of it, but in bits and pieces over the years. I've certainly never sat down and read the whole thing from start to end. And the same for the Old.

If you think there is a God, then knowledge of the Bible becomes a pressing necessity. If you don't, then the Bible is nothing but a set of tedious, and occasionally interesting...well, to continue would be to use a term not allowed on CF.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Most of it, but in bits and pieces over the years. I've certainly never sat down and read the whole thing from start to end. And the same for the Old.

If you think there is a God, then knowledge of the Bible becomes a pressing necessity. If you don't, then the Bible is nothing but a set of tedious, and occasionally interesting...well, to continue would be to use a term not allowed on CF.

The thing is, there is this little thing in the world called "the Church of Christ," and it stands alongside the Bible and expresses the Gospel of Christ and has been doing so in chain-link fashion, however imperfectly, stretching back all the way to Peter and Paul (and thereby, Jesus). So, no. One such as yourself just needs to bump into a Christian and hear about 60 seconds worth of 'News,' which may or may not be considered to be 'good' by the person so hearing it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The thing is, there is this little thing in the world called "the Church of Christ," and it stand alongside the Bible and expresses the Gospel of Christ and has been doing so in chain-link fashion, however imperfectly, stretching back all the way to Peter and Paul (and thereby, Jesus). So, no. One such as yourself just needs to bump into a Christian and hear about 60 seconds worth of 'News,' which may or may not be considered to be 'good' by the person so hearing it.

Philo, with no wish to be offensive, I am not catching your meaning. Can I suggest you phrase yourself a little more directly?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philo, with no wish to be offensive, I am not catching your meaning. Can I suggest you phrase yourself a little more directly?

Christians exist and began existing without the prior existence of the New Testament. The New Testament is important as a foundational expression of the Christian Faith, but it isn't in all necessity needed for a person to come to hear about Christ and later come to faith in Christ.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Christians exist and began existing without the prior existence of the New Testament. The New Testament is important as a foundational expression of the Christian Faith, but it isn't in all necessity needed for a person to come to hear about Christ and later come to faith in Christ.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thank, Philo! I'm going to bed now.
Have a nice day!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank, Philo! I'm going to bed now.
Have a nice day!

Alright. Get some rest!

 

[klutedavid]

"Not academic"? So what?
"Not accurate"? Perhaps you would like to back up your claim by showing its mistakes.

Your first point is irrelevant. What Paul experienced was still a vision. All that we now know is that a story in the Bible says that other people beside Paul can vouch for his experience. But this doesn't address the point. When Paul says Jesus "appeared" to five hundred people, does it mean he walked up to them and shook their hands, or that a glowing light "appeared" in the sky and spoke to them, or a voice in their heads, or even a dream? We have no way of knowing.

Your thoughts on the other eight criticisms? Please do make sure you read the article before responding to them. I have trouble believing that you did on the first occasion.

Your lack of belief in the idea that I have not read the article in Patheos, is erroneous.

The second reason raised by the author in the article. (500 eyewitnesses to the risen Christ? 9 reasons why it's not likely)

2. Who are these 500 eyewitnesses? Names and addresses, please? To find out, someone would need to send a letter back to Paul, at that moment 200 miles across the Aegean Sea in Ephesus. If a church member had the money, time, and guts to write this letter, why would Paul have deigned to reply? Even if Paul had witnessed Jesus in front of the 500 (he hadn’t), it’s possible he wouldn’t have known a single person in that crowd. And even if Paul thought the number were accurate, “500 eyewitnesses” might be all he had heard, and he wouldn’t have been able to back it up with any evidence.

We know that Paul knew at least some of the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ, as Paul had visited Jerusalem a number of times. At the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) for example, Paul met with not only the apostles and elders but the church in Jerusalem also.

It is highly likely that Paul also knew and met a considerable number of those 500 people to whom Jesus had appeared, both in Jerusalem and outside Jerusalem.

What some people seem to miss in the letter to the Galatians, and the book of Acts, is that the subject of the resurrection of the Christ, is not what was being debated. The resurrection of the Christ was a fact and supported by observation according to the apostles. The debate in Acts and Galatians were over law and authority in the wider church world.

Think about this point.

If the resurrection of the Christ was fiction and the apostles were trying to convince others of that impossible resurrection event. Why would both the letter to the Galatians and the book of Acts, be discussing topics such as law and authority, and not be defending the impossible event of the resurrection.

This is a dead give away that the resurrection had, in fact, taken place and the text inadvertently is supporting this accepted fact of the resurrection.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Your lack of belief in the idea that I have not read the article in Patheos, is erroneous.

Considering that you appear not to understand anything the article says, my earlier assumption that you had not read it is entirely understandable, and the admission that you had in fact read it before responding as you did is something I would have thought you'd want to keep quiet about.

We know that Paul knew at least some of the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ, as Paul had visited Jerusalem a number of times. At the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) for example, Paul met with not only the apostles and elders but the church in Jerusalem also.
It is highly likely that Paul also knew and met a considerable number of those 500 people to whom Jesus had appeared, both in Jerusalem and outside Jerusalem.

"Highly likely"? This isn't the first time you have papered over a crack in your arguments by saying it is likely or probable.

What some people seem to miss in the letter to the Galatians, and the book of Acts, is that the subject of the resurrection of the Christ, is not what was being debated. The resurrection of the Christ was a fact and supported by observation according to the apostles. The debate in Acts and Galatians were over law and authority in the wider church world.
Think about this point.
If the resurrection of the Christ was fiction and the apostles were trying to convince others of that impossible resurrection event. Why would both the letter to the Galatians and the book of Acts, be discussing topics such as law and authority, and not be defending the impossible event of the resurrection.
This is a dead give away that the resurrection had, in fact, taken place and the text inadvertently is supporting this accepted fact of the resurrection.

Not at all. At best, all this shows is that people believed the resurrection had taken place. Why should that be remarkable? Why should it concern us? In that day and age, stories of all sorts of miracles, very much including resurrections, were commonplace. The fact that the early Christians believed that Jesus came back to life does not mean that he did.
But in today's world, five hundred witnesses would indeed be a powerful argument, and that is the argument that Christians make - just as you did to me in this thread. "Of course Jesus came back from the dead!" they say. "We have five hundred witnesses. Paul said so!"

And the sensible response is: who are these "five hundred people"? Just as we would today if someone said: "Of course I was kidnapped by aliens! Why, five hundred people saw me taken and can vouch for it!"

Really? Names and addresses, please?

 

[klutedavid]

Considering that you appear not to understand anything the article says, my earlier assumption that you had not read it is entirely understandable, and the admission that you had in fact read it before responding as you did is something I would have thought you'd want to keep quiet about.

I do understand that asking for the names and addresses of the over five hundred observers, is such a silly response.

I read the article before I responded and that is not subject to you lack of belief, in my personal integrity.

"Highly likely"? This isn't the first time you have papered over a crack in your arguments by saying it is likely or probable.

That is not a flaw in my argument. Paul visited churches both in Jerusalem, near Jerusalem, and churches far from Jerusalem.

Where do you think the than five hundred observers of the risen Christ are going to be found? In these many churches that Paul visited of course. Your argument, that Paul never met any of these five hundred observers of the risen Christ is bordering on ludicrous.

Not at all. At best, all this shows is that people believed the resurrection had taken place. Why should that be remarkable? Why should it concern us? In that day and age, stories of all sorts of miracles, very much including resurrections, were commonplace.

Except in this case there were over five hundred witnesses of the risen Christ. Has anyone seen Zeus, Jupiter, or even Allah?

A resurrection from death was not common place and especially from a sophist.

The fact that the early Christians believed that Jesus came back to life does not mean that he did.

A resurrection that is witnessed by over five hundred people is fairly convincing.

But in today's world, five hundred witnesses would indeed be a powerful argument

Of course it would.

and that is the argument that Christians make - just as you did to me in this thread. "Of course Jesus came back from the dead!" they say. "We have five hundred witnesses. Paul said so!"

The apostles and Paul were not included in that over 500 witnesses. Paul was not the only person making that claim. This argument does not reduce to just Paul's claim.

And the sensible response is: who are these "five hundred people"? Just as we would today if someone said: "Of course I was kidnapped by aliens! Why, five hundred people saw me taken and can vouch for it!"

Really? Names and addresses, please?

That is my response when I hear that 97% percent of scientists believe in climate change. Well I want their names and addresses thank you, before I would believe that ridiculous nonsense.

A case of fake news.

 

[cvanwey]

I have already stated that the New Testament itself, is the first part of the evidence for the resurrection.

I have answered your question both strongly and directly.

The onus is on you to provide the evidence, that the New Testament cannot be used as evidence to support the resurrection account.

Actually, you hadn't yet :/ I stated that 1 Corinthians 15:14 is what it seems to always boil down to... For which you merely reiterated what I already eluded to...(i.e):

"The fact that the Christ rose was the reason that the New Testament exists. Without the resurrection; Christianity itself would not exist.

You can bet on the resurrection and win."

But okay, you now state the NT itself... And you now also state that the onus is (somehow) immediately on me to demonstrate that the NT cannot be used as evidence to support a claimed resurrection.

************

I trust my response may hopefully eliminate the need for many exchanged, and we can then cut straight to the chase...

I accept the NT writings to demonstrate the following, as 'evidence':

1. Jesus lived.
2. Jesus preached stuff.
3. Jesus was killed, via crucifixion.
4. I really have a hard time accepting any anecdotal evidence for the supernatural, aliens sightings, etc...

Why do I happily accept the first (3) above from the Bible? Because these are ordinary mundane claims, and warrant no further inquiry, verses any other existing claims and works; offered from antiquity.

However, when we then speak about the supernatural; and in this case, Jesus, it appears that the Bible itself, in regards to a resurrection claim, is really almost ALL we have? Thus, I can see your concern with WHY we must allow 'evidence' from this publication alone. Is that right?

Moving forward, what gives the Bible such veracity, when it comes to a resurrection claim?

 

[Silmarien]

Silmarien, I've said this before: If you think that what people on these forums (or Richard Dawkins) says about religion is "vicious mockery", then you have obviously never been viciously mocked.
You seem to think that people telling you you are wrong is a form of abuse. It's not.

Telling people they're automatically wrong, engaging in mockery, and treating them like they're crazy is gaslighting, and is absolutely a form of abuse.

I don't know, I wouldn't want to spoil the memory for you. I can see, Silmarien, that this conversation is really getting to you. You're complaining of being viciously mocked when offered mild criticism, and although you say that:

To smarmily insist that a conversation is getting to someone after they tell you that it isn't is mockery. To tell them to get psychological help is vicious. Neither of these things has anything to do with mild criticism.

It's pretty clear that you do actually have some serious problems with atheism and atheists, probably going back a long time, from what you've said of your psychological history. I think it might help you to consider some form of psychological assistance.

I don't see how low-grade depression would make one suddenly develop serious problems with one's own social circle. That said, it's kind of staggering that you would leverage mental health issues against someone in a discussion like this, since that is really the epitome of abusive behavior.

 

[klutedavid]

Actually, you hadn't yet :/ I stated that 1 Corinthians 15:14 is what it seems to always boil down to... For which you merely reiterated what I already eluded to...(i.e):

"The fact that the Christ rose was the reason that the New Testament exists. Without the resurrection; Christianity itself would not exist.

You can bet on the resurrection and win."

But okay, you now state the NT itself... And you now also state that the onus is (somehow) immediately on me to demonstrate that the NT cannot be used as evidence to support a claimed resurrection.

Correct.

I trust my response may hopefully eliminate the need for many exchanged, and we can then cut straight to the chase...

This is the chase.

I accept the NT writings to demonstrate the following, as 'evidence'
1. Jesus lived.
2. Jesus preached stuff.
3. Jesus was killed, via crucifixion.
4. I really have a hard time accepting any anecdotal evidence for the supernatural, aliens sightings, etc...

Hope you do not mind if I correct you on these points that you listed.

1 Jesus arrived from above to save humanity from itself.
2 Jesus performed miracles and spoke like no other.
3 Jesus was crucified for you and I.
4 I am not surprised that you have a hard time accepting what is written. But what is written comes from many authors and many were eyewitnesses, and if they weren't eyewitnesses their simply telling you what they were told.
5 The Bible is a tough, tough, very black book, that does not pull any punches. That ends with a love story of profound depth, a love story of God for His people, an eternal love that cannot be fully understood.

Why do I happily accept the first (3) above from the Bible? Because these are ordinary mundane claims, and warrant no further inquiry, verses any other existing claims and works; offered from antiquity.

The scripture from start to finish is all a narration of the supernatural intervention of God in human history. It is never ordinary or mundane and was never intended to be.

Surely the life and death of Jesus Christ and then the resurrection, is far beyond any story I have ever read. It is not just death defying (pun) it is also absolutely true.

However, when we then speak about the supernatural; and in this case, Jesus, it appears that the Bible itself, in regards to a resurrection claim, is really almost ALL we have? Thus, I can see your concern with WHY we must allow 'evidence' from this publication alone. Is that right?

You must admit that the New Testament letters on there own is evidence that must be considered. What happens if it was really God at work and the miracles really did happen? What happens if your wrong?

Moving forward, what gives the Bible such veracity, when it comes to a resurrection claim?

Multiple authors proclaiming something that they suffered for. These authors did not escape the sentence of death for what they believed. They suffered all the way through their lives, constant church problems, constant people problems, no money, persecution, ridicule, e.t.c. They told the truth and they paid the price for that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Telling people they're automatically wrong, engaging in mockery, and treating them like they're crazy is gaslighting, and is absolutely a form of abuse.

Silmarien, I am deleting the rather restrained reply I gave to your post. I think that this topic is clearly upsetting you, and no good will be served by us continuing our conversation. We should, I think, disengage for a while. No sense in having hurt feelings. Take care.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

1 Jesus arrived from above to save humanity from itself.
2 Jesus performed miracles and spoke like no other.
3 Jesus was crucified for you and I.

All three of these are simply unbacked assertions. As Christopher Hitchens put it, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

4 I am not surprised that you have a hard time accepting what is written. But what is written comes from many authors and many were eyewitnesses, and if they weren't eyewitnesses their simply telling you what they were told.

That is an extremely charitable interpretation of the stew of various stories and ideas that eventually coalesced into the four surviving gospels. Most of them were not eyewitnesses, maybe none of them were, and they were writing many years after the events described.

5 The Bible is a tough, tough, very black book, that does not pull any punches. That ends with a love story of profound depth, a love story of God for His people, an eternal love that cannot be fully understood.

Most of that is just how you feel about the Bible. If we remove the subjective emotional interpretations present in those sentences, what we end up with is:
"The Bible is a book that ends with a story, a story of God for His people."

Surely the life and death of Jesus Christ and then the resurrection, is far beyond any story I have ever read. It is not just death defying (pun) it is also absolutely true.

Again, just because you feel this way, does not make it true.
As H.L. Mencken put it: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

You must admit that the New Testament letters on there own is evidence that must be considered. What happens if it was really God at work and the miracles really did happen? What happens if your wrong?

The key word there is "if".
IF the streets were paved with custard, we'd all need wellington boots. Lucky they're not, eh?
And IF you want us to believe that the events of the New Testament actually happened, then you'll need to do more than tell us how convincing you find them.

Multiple authors proclaiming something that they suffered for. These authors did not escape the sentence of death for what they believed. They suffered all the way through their lives, constant church problems, constant people problems, no money, persecution, ridicule, e.t.c. They told the truth and they paid the price for that.

This is a very simplistic understanding of the religious mentality. To a certain type of person, martyrdom can have a huge attraction. What better way of proving your faith in God?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I do understand that asking for the names and addresses of the over five hundred observers, is such a silly response.

No, I don't think you do. Because five hundred anonymous witnesses in a far-off

I read the article before I responded and that is not subject to you lack of belief, in my personal integrity.

But you seem not to have understood the article. This is why I at first assumed you hadn't read it, because the content of the article disproved the points you made.

That is not a flaw in my argument. Paul visited churches both in Jerusalem, near Jerusalem, and churches far from Jerusalem.

"Highly" likely is your own subjective interpretation. What you may call highly likely, another person may call barely possible, and certainly not grounds for jumping to conclusions.

Where do you think the than five hundred observers of the risen Christ are going to be found? In these many churches that Paul visited of course. Your argument, that Paul never met any of these five hundred observers of the risen Christ is bordering on ludicrous.

Good. So who are these people you are referring to, then? Because until they are more than a number, they mean nothing.

Except in this case there were over five hundred witnesses of the risen Christ. Has anyone seen Zeus, Jupiter, or even Allah?

Lots of people have said they saw Zeus, Jupiter, Allah and many other gods and religious figures. Paul said that five hundred people have seen Jesus. None of these claims carry any weight at all.

A resurrection from death was not common place and especially from a sophist.

I agree with you! A resurrection was not commonplace. Indeed, I very much doubt that a resurrection has ever occurred anywhere.
Stories of resurrections, however, were extremely commonplace and widely believed. Nobody would be particularly surprised to hear that Paul's God had died and come back to life as a sign of his power. Par for the course in the Roman Empire.

A resurrection that is witnessed by over five hundred people is fairly convincing.

Sigh. Yes, it certainly would be. If we had five hundred witnesses, instead of Paul and you assuring us that yes, they really do exist.

Of course it would.

Yes, of course five hundred witnesses for a miracle would be a powerful argument. If we had them. Which we don't.

The apostles and Paul were not included in that over 500 witnesses. Paul was not the only person making that claim. This argument does not reduce to just Paul's claim.

Who else said that five hundred people saw Jesus after he died? And did they say who these people were? Or is it just another empty claim?

That is my response when I hear that 97% percent of scientists believe in climate change. Well I want their names and addresses thank you, before I would believe that ridiculous nonsense.
A case of fake news.

While I don't have the names and addresses of the vast majority of scientists, I'd be happy to track them down for you, if you'd like to pay my expenses. It would be easy to determine the proportion of scientists who believe in climate change. More trouble to find their actual names and addresses, but certainly not impossible. Probably the best way would be to find the representatives of science, and check their stance on this.
Anyway, perfectly possible. In contrast, there is no way of checking whether Paul's claim, that you have used as an argument in defence of the Bible, was simply made up or not.

 

[cvanwey]

Hope you do not mind if I correct you on these points that you listed.

Not so fast. "Correct" is the operative word here As you already stated, the 'resurrection' is debatable. Hence, by default, a resurrection did not happen. As nothing happens by default. Hence, the onus is actually on you to 'correct' me on this claim/assumption.

1 Jesus arrived from above to save humanity from itself.

I will concede this is the claim. But before we go concluding this (is) the case, we need to evaluate the evidence.

2 Jesus performed miracles and spoke like no other.

I agree the book states He performed miracles. We will address this later. And speaking like 'no other' does not necessarily warrant anything above and beyond the natural.

3 Jesus was crucified for you and I.

I will concede this is the claim. But before we go concluding this (is) the case, we need to evaluate the evidence.

4 I am not surprised that you have a hard time accepting what is written. But what is written comes from many authors and many were eyewitnesses,

Beg to differ... Aside from Sal of Tarsus, whom claimed to experience a vision, the rest was likely written from later scribes, whom merely wrote what some earlier people believed.

and if they weren't eyewitnesses their simply telling you what they were told.

Yes, as stated above. Later scribes reported what some earlier people believed.

5 The Bible is a tough, tough, very black book, that does not pull any punches. That ends with a love story of profound depth, a love story of God for His people, an eternal love that cannot be fully understood.

Thus far, simply stories, written by humans. No different that many others, prior and since. Jesus claiming love, again, does not necessarily lead to divinity.

The scripture from start to finish is all a narration of the supernatural intervention of God in human history. It is never ordinary or mundane and was never intended to be.

I agree there exists many claims to the supernatural. And again, I will accept everything written in there, which does not claim to be supernatural (i.e. people, places, events). Hence, mundane reports... But in the claims for above natural claims.... Well, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

Surely the life and death of Jesus Christ and then the resurrection, is far beyond any story I have ever read.

Even if it was the most elaborate story ever written, how does this make claimed supernatural events true?

You must admit that the New Testament letters on there own is evidence that must be considered. What happens if it was really God at work and the miracles really did happen? What happens if your wrong?

After studying the Bible, and it's claims for a few years now, I doubt that I am wrong. But if I am, then I guess Jesus might smite me for simply not believing He rose from the death.

Multiple authors proclaiming something that they suffered for. These authors did not escape the sentence of death for what they believed.

Martyrdom is a claim heard many times. And yet, we really do not have much in the way of evidence to support as such. But even if we did, people die for their beliefs all the time, and many aren't Christian. Dying for belief does not validate a claim.

And when you state 'multiple authors', we have 4 Gospel accounts, not likely written by the actual eyewitnesses themselves; or even reporting their claims to the ghost writers whom wrote as such. Furthermore, such writings were likely written by Christian scribes. Hence, they were already believers. Makes for some bias reports.

They suffered all the way through their lives, constant church problems, constant people problems, no money, persecution, ridicule, e.t.c. They told the truth and they paid the price for that.

Suffrage, etc., has no relevancy, in and of itself, to truth.

Where you going to address my other question (i.e.)

"However, when we then speak about the supernatural; and in this case, Jesus, it appears that the Bible itself, in regards to a resurrection claim, is really almost ALL we have? Thus, I can see your concern with WHY we must allow 'evidence' from this publication alone. Is that right?"

 

[mama2one]

delete-wrong thread

 

[klutedavid]

Not so fast. "Correct" is the operative word here As you already stated, the 'resurrection' is debatable. Hence, by default, a resurrection did not happen. As nothing happens by default. Hence, the onus is actually on you to 'correct' me on this claim/assumption.

No one knows, whether or not, the resurrection happened, so logically, there is no default position in that debate.

I agree the book states He performed miracles. We will address this later. And speaking like 'no other' does not necessarily warrant anything above and beyond the natural.

Once again, we do not know whether Jesus was God or not, thus Jesus could very well have spoken with a divine authority. Jesus could have indeed performed miracles also and there is no default position on the veracity of the text regarding miracles.

I will concede this is the claim. But before we go concluding this (is) the case, we need to evaluate the evidence.

Agree with you on this point.

Beg to differ... Aside from Sal of Tarsus, whom claimed to experience a vision, the rest was likely written from later scribes, whom merely wrote what some earlier people believed.

There are many opinions over the date and authorship of the four accounts of the life of Jesus. We cannot be certain regarding the date of authorship of any of the letters in the New Testament.

One cannot say that any of the gospels were written earlier or later as the date of authorship, was not recorded by the authors.

We do know for certain that since the resurrection event recorded in these four accounts, all differ from one another in specific ways. That the four accounts (gospels) are not synoptic, in other words, the four gospel accounts differ in the facts and the authors are obviously using different sources.

Yes, as stated above. Later scribes reported what some earlier people believed.

We really do not know too much about the authorship, date, sources, of Matthew and Mark, but we do know that Luke recorded eyewitness testimony. And more than likely, John was written after the earlier gospel accounts.

Thus far, simply stories, written by humans. No different that many others, prior and since. Jesus claiming love, again, does not necessarily lead to divinity.

The accounts are definitely written by men but are describing supernatural events that actually occurred. Four different accounts on the life of Jesus written by four different men, obviously these four men are using different sources.

So why do we have four different accounts all describing similar miraculous events?

I agree there exists many claims to the supernatural. And again, I will accept everything written in there, which does not claim to be supernatural (i.e. people, places, events). Hence, mundane reports... But in the claims for above natural claims.... Well, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

Your blatant bias is showing.

You do not know with any real certainty whether the miracles took place or not, as described in the text. Yet you want to assume that the miracles did not occur, you desire a default position that miracles do not occur.

Who said that the miracles were ever extraordinary?

I don't think that anyone can state with any authority whether the miracles occurred or not.

Even if it was the most elaborate story ever written, how does this make claimed supernatural events true?

I was opposing the idea of a trivial and mundane text. A powerful narration is some evidence to be considered and especially if the narration is ancient and not mundane.

After studying the Bible, and it's claims for a few years now, I doubt that I am wrong.

I have a very low opinion of mankind and usually disregard the bulk of assertions made by humanity through history.

You have no idea whether your correct or not. Ultimately your in the same boat as the rest of us, an ancient text that may be true.

But if I am, then I guess Jesus might smite me for simply not believing He rose from the death.

According to the text, unbelievers and especially unbelievers who have consciously rejected the Christ, face a grim future.

What did these folk who rejected the messiah base their opinion on in the end?

Martyrdom is a claim heard many times. And yet, we really do not have much in the way of evidence to support as such. But even if we did, people die for their beliefs all the time, and many aren't Christian. Dying for belief does not validate a claim.

If the resurrection did not happen, then the apostles are suffering needlessly for claiming something that did not happen. Why would they do that?

And when you state 'multiple authors', we have 4 Gospel accounts, not likely written by the actual eyewitnesses themselves; or even reporting their claims to the ghost writers whom wrote as such. Furthermore, such writings were likely written by Christian scribes. Hence, they were already believers. Makes for some bias reports.

Written by Christian converts, more to the point, and whether the authors were not eye witnesses, partial or even full witnesses, of the life of the Christ we do not know. In the end the debate will continue.

Where you going to address my other question (i.e.)
"However, when we then speak about the supernatural; and in this case, Jesus, it appears that the Bible itself, in regards to a resurrection claim, is really almost ALL we have? Thus, I can see your concern with WHY we must allow 'evidence' from this publication alone. Is that right?"

I am not restricted to just the text (canon) we discussed as there exists external text that is not regarded as canon.

The rapid explosion of Christianity across the world to take into account. The whole box and dice is the evidence.

 

[cvanwey]

No one knows, whether or not, the resurrection happened,

This response is in stark contrast to your responses from post #114, where you made such statements as...

"1 Jesus arrived from above to save humanity from itself.
2 Jesus performed miracles and spoke like no other.
3 Jesus was crucified for you and I."

Above are claims/assertions/conclusions.

But now its, 'no one knows'?

Well, which one is it? Is it a fact, and I am just not up to speed on basic conclusions? Or, is there a good chance your beliefs are not nearly as grounded as you might hope?

so logically, there is no default position in that debate.

Well, I kind of disagree here... When someone makes a positive claim, the onus is actually on the person making the positive claim. Not the one whom does not believe their positive claim. You are making the positive claim. And I'm stating I find the evidence lacking. Let's see what you've got.

Once again, we do not know whether Jesus was God or not, thus Jesus could very well have spoken with a divine authority. Jesus could have indeed performed miracles also and there is no default position on the veracity of the text regarding miracles.

Again, not so fast... There exists other possibilities... Such as, Jesus did not actually perform any miracles. But maybe Jesus thought He was the chosen one - like many others prior and since. And maybe later scribes wrote of the growing legendary tales, which surrounded Him. After such scribes were free, and/or encouraged, to write of such tales. (see below).

There are many opinions over the date and authorship of the four accounts of the life of Jesus. We cannot be certain regarding the date of authorship of any of the letters in the New Testament.

I would agree about the date and authorship...

However, you also stated, "But what is written comes from many authors and many were eyewitnesses".

The above contradicts what you are saying now... If we cannot verify any timelines, then it's quite possible no actual eyewitnesses were interviewed at all. Right? And we understand what an actual eyewitness is, right?

If such writers did not speak with these first hand individuals, then we instead have later Christian scribes, writing about hearsay. And since it's likely that most writings were first placed to paper many decades after the claimed event, it's quite likely we do not have any actual accounts of 'eyewitnesses.' But instead, second hand information, and hearsay; written by the people whom already believed, and were educated to write as such. (see below).

We really do not know too much about the authorship, date, sources, of Matthew and Mark,

Then such claimed 'testimony' serves of little value, for such a high level claim, doesn't it?

but we do know that Luke recorded eyewitness testimony. And more than likely, John was written after the earlier gospel accounts.

Okay, so we have Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. You have conceded that Mark and Matthew are suspect. (i.e.) "We cannot be certain regarding the date of authorship of any of the letters in the New Testament." Hence, seems logical to no longer discuss these two 'accounts.' We are down to the other two...

How do we know Luke directly recorded eyewitness testimony? How do we know whom wrote 'Luke'? How do we know when it was originally written?

And yes, I agree that John was written last. Why is the account from "John" considered credible?

The accounts are definitely written by men but are describing supernatural events that actually occurred. Four different accounts on the life of Jesus written by four different men, obviously these four men are using different sources.

Well, you self-refuted Mark and Matthew above. We are now down to two.

And I find it suspicious that you now say "supernatural events that actually occurred," when you also admit such claims are debatable? Why not just stop there... That you wish and want for it to be true, but are no more certain than I?

So why do we have four different accounts all describing similar miraculous events?
Your blatant bias is showing.

Again, you have already, on your own, discounted Mark and Matthew, due to the unknowns. So we are merely speaking about only two accounts. I would first need evidence to support your claims for Luke, that he interviewed direct (and) verified eyewitnesses and wrote about them. I would then need to understand why the gospel of John is credible? Simply asserting they are, is not quite good enough, for such a claimed event unfortunately.

And in regards to 'bias', I think fully granting all claims of existing people and events, just short of the supernatural claims, lacks real bias. My only hang up, is accepting the supernatural claims. I mean, I'm already accepting the existence of Moses, Noah, Sampson, etc, without even refuting anything. Quite frankly, that's a stretch, in and of itself... And Again, I'm accepting the claims of their existence, just short of their supernatural interactions.

You do not know with any real certainty whether the miracles took place or not, as described in the text. Yet you want to assume that the miracles did not occur, you desire a default position that miracles do not occur.

You state, 'any real certainty.' Well, neither do you. So where do we go from here? I'm trying to be consistent in my evaluations; just like I also scrutinize all other claims of the supernatural.

Is it possible you are invoking special pleading, where the Bible is concerned?

Who said that the miracles were ever extraordinary?

I find that any claim to the supernatural qualifies. Don't you?

I don't think that anyone can state with any authority whether the miracles occurred or not.

Then I can completely ignore your responses in post #114? You asserted they happened; as 'fact'.

I have a very low opinion of mankind and usually disregard the bulk of assertions made by humanity through history.

Okay, then why is (this) account so special?

You have no idea whether your correct or not. Ultimately your in the same boat as the rest of us, an ancient text that may be true.

I hardly doubt we are in the (same) boat? The onus is on you to support this very outrageous positive claim. And thus far, I don't really see anything persuasive. Maybe that will change?

According to the text, unbelievers and especially unbelievers who have consciously rejected the Christ, face a grim future.

I would agree. Hence my entire thread about "Christianity in a Nutshell." I find it bazaar that Jesus will eternally hold people accountable, via torture, for something in which the human cannot ultimately control. i.e. Belief

What did these folk who rejected the messiah base their opinion on in the end?

Well, I can tell you how I evaluate the claim(s). By addressing the presented evidence. I hope that you may provide some.

If the resurrection did not happen, then the apostles are suffering needlessly for claiming something that did not happen.

Correct, just like many others in history, and likely in the future.

Why would they do that?

Well, assuming they did suffer, because they believed it was true; again, just like all the others.

Written by Christian converts, more to the point, and whether the authors were not eye witnesses, partial or even full witnesses, of the life of the Christ we do not know. In the end the debate will continue.

The writings of Jesus flourished after Constantine. After this religion was legalized, many people converted, as they wanted to be like the emperor. Scribes were encouraged to write manuscripts. However, this was centuries later. Hence, there can be no 'eyewitnesses', in such a case.

But even if there is debate, I find your assertions in post #114 vexing.

I am not restricted to just the text (canon) we discussed as there exists external text that is not regarded as canon.

Such as? And why is it directly relevant?

The rapid explosion of Christianity across the world to take into account. The whole box and dice is the evidence.

Both 'true' and 'false' stories can spread very quickly. So?