Lixy, Can You Explain This to Me?

[haney1]

[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
More evasion. The verses say “ask, and it shall be given.”

What’s so difficult about praying God to heal someone? It’s a good, selfless act that would greatly benefit someone.

I think you’re trying to avoid this because you know deep down, that it won’t work. Why? Because prayer doesn’t work. Why? Because there’s no one to hear them.
[/quote]
Because your asking me to guarantee what God will do. I can’t. No where in the Bible does it say God will give us what we want just cause we ask. Why quote mine the Bible for one verse. There are verses in front of that one as well as behind it that indicate Jesus is not talking about God giving you anything you want.

Nowhere does it say that miracles are the exclusive doings of Jesus. Many miracles happen in the OT, well before Jesus was around.

Most of the saints of the various churches have “documented” cases of miracles. It’s a requirement of the Catholic faith, for example.

Jesus himself said repeatedly that God listens to and answers prayers. You know the verses, I don’t have to list them here, do I?

No where outside of Jesus though reattatched a limb though. So an argument can be made for exclusivity.

But that brings us back to: Why did some people get to witness actual miracles and we don’t? For them, believing must’ve been much easier than it is for us. Or me at least. Why is God unfair in His dealings with us?

Who’s version of fair? yours mine? General consensus?

Sure. But his opinion is not evidence, just opinion.

No but what evidence was compelling enough for in my opinion one the better educated Atheist to change his mind?

Other than the claims, and the fact that it survived an opressive Roman Government.

If it wasn’t that religion, it would be another one. And you’d still marvel at its resilience in surviving to this day.

Not true. There were plenty of religions at the time that didn’t survive, and they were accepted by the Roman government.

The same argument can be made for Islam. Started 600 years (give or take) after Christianity, it has managed to convert 1.5 billion people in 1,400 years. Pretty resilient, I’d say.

I’m not making an argument for resiliancy alone. I am making one for those circumstances. The deck being stacked against Christianity.

As accurate journals of real events? No. Not any more than any other religion’s mythology.

That is where we divide. Until you can consider that then our common ground ends. I am willing to consider them as inaccurate. Shoot it is even reasonable to consider them that. It is however reasonable to consider them accurate as well.

Not really. Most Christians would be more interested in the Ark (not me though).

Being that the Ark is a physical impossibility (unless it’s was a 40-day long miracle), good luck in finding it.

No. Ark of the cov. The little golden box that is said to contain the tablets.

how many is a generation? If one of the gospels was written with in 20 - 40 years that is still with in a Hebrew Generation.

What was the average life expectancy then? 50 years? If most adults who witnessed Jesus were of a similar age (in their thirties), not many of them would still be around 40 years later.

Peter is said to have made it to the late 60’s, and then was martyred. That would have put him at that 40 year mark.

If your parents had been muslims, do you think you’d be a Christian?

Probably not. I barely agree on things concerning the Bible with my parents. I can’t imagine agreeing with them if we were apart of Islam.

Isn’t that what I said? The testimony of the NT is indirect. We don’t allow hearsay in our courts of law; but your religion is entirely built upon it.

We do allow eye witness testimony. Which the gospels can be considered that. The very fact that their name was on the Scroll indicates that they wrote it. Which was a common practice during that date in time.

I’ll try and find it for you… they reorganized the site a couple of times since I first read it (there’s a lot more stuff now, and a book too apparently.) I’ll get back to you on this.

Thanks

None of which mention Jesus. Yet, many mention obscure historical figures that have long since been forgotten. Odd, no?

Only one of them would have had a reason to write about him. and As stated in the post He was more concerned with other issues.

“only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject”

Again, I can’t prove a negative. I simply see no evidence that supports all the fantastic claims (miracles, resurrection, etc) made.

I was more from a personal stand point. I needed to know if it was an assertion.

Whatever makes you happy.

You don’t think that his moral teachings are the important part of his life?

compared to the resurrection?
I see it all as equally important.
It is who He “was”.

Because none of what is described in the stories has any evidence to support it. All we have is many times removed hearsay testimony written down by people we know next to nothing about and kept in custody of the church for a few thousand years.

So if it was hijacked by the Church then why can we reform almost the entire NT from just quotes of Eusebius?

No. survival does not equal truth.

Yet twice you make that argument. Christianity survived despite “the stories it used” and being opposed by the Roman Government.

What is different about Christianity’s survival that doesn’t impress you when other faiths are shown to have survived similar opposition?

It is long and complex. I would say that most of the points in this link offer up why I think Christianity stands out.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

If you want to discuss the article’s points that is fine. I think though this discussion has just about runs its course.

Anthropology

They dug up spoken words?

How can you testify to the efficiency of an oral tradition when, by definition, the initial story is forever lost?

Because we have evidence that ancient people put heavy emphasis on it, and that they trained themselves to be able to keep things accurate. Shoot one OT prophets is said to been able to quote 37 OT books word for word.

I don’t really care whether Herod was callous or not. The point is that his existence is not questioned because even what little evidence we have for his life is enough to convince most that he actually existed. Jesus has no such secular evidence. Almost everything offered as back up cannot be exempted from the suspicion of church tampering.

Yet most scholars believe the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming that He existed. Shoot even the secular quotes that you suspect have been tampered with, most scholars believe that Jesus was still referenced by the original writer. Meaning the Church only beefed up what they wrote.

[kroby]

Whew.

[pookie]

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Because your asking me to guarantee what God will do. I can’t. No where in the Bible does it say God will give us what we want just cause we ask. Why quote mine the Bible for one verse. There are verses in front of that one as well as behind it that indicate Jesus is not talking about God giving you anything you want.[/quote]

Could you post the passage, including all relevant verses before and after?

No where outside of Jesus though reattatched a limb though. So an argument can be made for exclusivity.

So some miracles are impossible?

Who’s version of fair? yours mine? General consensus?

The usual version of “fair.” Why do words become so complicated to understand when faith is discussed?

Fair means, simply, that each get to make up his mind after being presented with similar evidence.

You’re asking me to believe just as the 12 apostle did, but without the benefit of witnessing any miracles, or better, the resurrection.

No but what evidence was compelling enough for in my opinion one the better educated Atheist to change his mind?

The need for a first cause.

The “God” Anthony Flew is positing has nothing to do with the God of Christianity; his new position does not really bolster yours in any way.

His “God” is simply the originator of the universe, but does not intervene in human affairs nor does he offer salvation in an afterlife.

It’s pretty much the same god that Spinoza or Einstein believed in. It’s a hair’s width away from atheism since it’s basically calling the universe or nature by the name “God.”

My personal view on that is that if you’re simply going to use God as a synonym for “the universe,” don’t bother; just use the already existing word.

(Yes, I know Spinoza’s views were more subtle than that, but I don’t want to start another side debate…)

Not true. There were plenty of religions at the time that didn’t survive, and they were accepted by the Roman government.

Well yes, but my point is that Christianity could’ve been one of the ones that didn’t make it, and whichever other religion would have, would be supported by your same argument.

I’m not making an argument for resiliancy alone. I am making one for those circumstances. The deck being stacked against Christianity.

Islam got a free pass?

I think you overemphasize the difficulties faced by Christianity and downplay (willingly, or because you’re not as familiar with those faith) those of other faiths.

That is where we divide. Until you can consider that then our common ground ends. I am willing to consider them as inaccurate. Shoot it is even reasonable to consider them that. It is however reasonable to consider them accurate as well.

Skepticism prevents me from doing so. We have no documented case of ever witness an event where the laws of Physics didn’t apply (ie, a miracle.) It is then logical to believe that miracles never occurred, anywhere, at any time. It is much more plausible that all the miraculous events that where “witnessed” are in fact either outright invention (many appear to be borrowed from older faiths) or greatly exaggerated.

That’s why I can’t accept the Gospels as factual. I can grant that they might be inspired by real events and real people; but I’d say that maybe between 50% to 80% of the accounts are embellished or invented (or borrowed from other faiths. Trinities, virgin births, healing of the sick, etc. All those things are common in many other mythology. Very little is unique to Christianity.)

[quote]compared to the resurrection?
I see it all as equally important.
It is who He “was”.[/quote]

I think his moral message remains his important legacy, regardless of whether the resurrection actually happened or not.

Even if he was simply an exceptional “ordinary man,” his teachings are still things that more people should try to live by.

So if it was hijacked by the Church then why can we reform almost the entire NT from just quotes of Eusebius?

As one of the first church historian, weren’t his works also in custody of the church?

Or were his works only found recently?

Yet most scholars believe the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming that He existed.

By most you mean those who are themselves Christian? Not exactly disinterested parties.

And as I said previously, it’s quite likely that someone existed to inspire the myth. I think his life has simply been embellished and exaggerated.

Shoot even the secular quotes that you suspect have been tampered with, most scholars believe that Jesus was still referenced by the original writer.

Yes, but not in a way consistent with his divinity as described in the NT. Hence the need for tampering.

Meaning the Church only beefed up what they wrote.

They beefed up what someone else wrote to bring it in line with their articles of faith. Who cares about the truth, the text must reflect what we say is true.

That pretty much summarizes my whole problem with holy texts. There’s almost no way to ascertain what was actually written back then and what was added later.

[Sloth]

Pookie, are you looking at the passages directed at Jesus’s instructions to the Apostles, perhaps?

[pookie]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pookie, are you looking at the passages directed at Jesus’s instructions to the Apostles, perhaps?[/quote]

No, why?