The Tension of Faith

Sorry Faith but there is no anti-Christianity in pointing out that there is no evidence Jesus ever lived or the fact that there is no such thing as "The Bible" or that the Bible stories contain factual errors and contradictions or the so called "Bible Christians" deny what is actually written in the Bible stories or that all of the various Bibles and the stories included or excluded in those "Bibles" are all just the work of man.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

The Genesis creation accounts are mutually exclusive so one or both must be wrong and reality shows that the truth is that both are wrong and untrue.

So are there Biblical examples that could be considered evidence and if so, evidence of what?The works attributed to a "John" have come up several times and can start as an example. Since the style, context, content, tone and substance of the different works attributed to a "John" vary so much they can be said to represent evidence of several different writers from several different traditions writing with several different purposes to several different audiences.There has been a reference to an asserting from John's Gospel that Jesus preformed the miracles to convince people that Jesus was divine; yet the actual accounts themselves as recorded show an entirely different picture; that Jesus did not perform miracles to convince anyone he was divine and in fact often cautioned people not to talk about such things and in the case of the Wedding Party Booze Run, Jesus did not even take any credit and allowed everyone to think it was just the courtesy of the host and not a miracle at all.Based on the contradictory nature accounts I would say that the miracle stories as well as the assertion by the author of the Gospel John is evidence that the stories were at best very weak evidence and so internally contradictory that any claims as to motive for performing miracles should be disregarded.Then there are the stories of miracles themselves. First, IIRC the only miracle that appears in all four Gospels is the feeding of the multitude and even there the stories vary so greatly that they can at best be said to indicate evidence that the story of the feeding of the multitude was broadly known just as we can say today references to unicorns or My Little Pony are widely known.In the earlier writings I think it is safe to consider many of the stories as evidence of the era, of political affiliations, quasi-governmental organization, of laws and customs, of the relative value of the individual in terms of position in that society. When you move into the New Testament though even those become very very weak evidence. An example is the claimed census that runs counter to what would have been the custom and what is recorded in outside sources.Again, when we look at the written material we find recordings of what should have been a significant even vary with each retelling and become more evolved and mysterious over time just as seen in most folk tales. The Great Commission, supposedly Jesus direct communication of what the job would be, is a fantastic example of a folk tale evolving.So IMHO there can be evidence in the writings found in the Bible but none of them are evidence of Jesus divinity or even Jesus actual existence.

First, how would someone identify some event as a miracle?Second, why call something a miracle rather than calling it unexplained?

That part is pretty self-evident; the Gospel of John was meant as a marketing tool since the author felt that the issue of Jesus' deity was being replaced by Jesus' message that what you do now is what was important. It was an attempt to change the focus from somewhat odious immediate duty to attractive future benefits; the later being a far easier sell.

We would read them to determine their purpose and the concept of "a Book" itself is simply a marketing tool. But again, it is simply silly to think there was some singular purpose involved. The important point is to understand that John's Gospel is entirely different in substance and nature and emphasis than the other three Gospels. There were far more than just three or four Gospels and the Synoptic Gospels seem to be at least partly based on some earlier lost Gospel.

Again Faith, even if they did happen the author of John claims that they were only done to impress the audience.And even if they did happen how would those miracles be evidence of divinity rather than demonic?

But there again, you are just making stuff up.The Bible itself says that demons and false prophets can perform miracles and even if what you said was true it is not evidence that what happened was a miracle rather than just unexplained.And read your second sentence.John is definitely saying that Jesus' miracles were simply advertising Jesus' divinity according to you.The author of John was simply marketing the Christianity the author of John was trying to create.

It would be much the same evidence. It would be evidence that Ea-Nasir believed strongly enough in daemons to write about it. It would be evidence that Ea-Nasir was comfortable admitting that he walked around with a personal daemon. It would be evidence that the term daemon was one that was commonly known at the time. It would be evidence that someone who called himself Ea-Nasir wrote something and evidence that the name Ea-Nasir was something others could identify.It would still be good written evidence, not of the actual existence of daemons or even the actual existence of Ea-Nasir but of the fact the term was recognized and in common use; an example of evidence showing the beliefs and ethos of the period.

Too, too funny.Have you ever read anything I have posted here at EvC?It certainly seems that you have not.Edited by jar, : there is no 7 in funny.

Yes, that is a claim many folk make however the internal and external evidence is overwhelming that that could only be true if the God was utterly ignorant and dishonest.There are simply too many contradictions and factual errors right from the very beginning as well as all of the internal inconsistencies that are in the stories from the very start right though to the end.

No one doubts you believe that. The issue arises when you claim more than just your belief.Once you try to claim it as fact then you are expected to be able to provide evidence to support such a claim. Given that the Bible is inconsistent, often contradictory and factually wrong support such a position is near impossible and just an exercise in futility.

The author of John has even said that he is describing miracles as a way of marketing his version of Jesus and Faith has even referred to that very fact.The author of John has been very honest in claiming that the agenda was to market Jesus as a divine character.

In Message 797 Faith herself makes that connection so let me simply quote Faith and we can go from there. The reason the author of John recorded the things as written was to market a belief of salvation through Jesus as opposed to the message Jesus taught. If you read the accounts of the miracles often Jesus does not take any credit for the miracles OR connect the miracles with everlasting life or salvation.That is a product the disciples created and marketed not Jesus.

Too funny.Phat, we can only talk about the Gods we create, not about GOD. GOD, if GOD exists simply is whatever GOD is. It is like the universe. The universe if not authoritarian; it simply is.That's why there are so many different portrayals of God in the Bible; why the God of Genesis 1 and the God of Genesis 2&3 are so entirely different in nature and character.When humans try to build caricatures of GOD or try to talk about GOD they are simply creating the God that they are comfortable around.God is whatever a set of humans create.