Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2017 1:14 PM
347 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Happy Birthday: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,818 Year: 27,424/21,208 Month: 1,337/1,714 Week: 180/365 Day: 22/62 Hour: 3/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found.
Phat
Member
Posts: 10073
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 31 of 76 (797411)
01-20-2017 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tangle
01-20-2017 3:19 AM


Re: Conclusion
Yes, it did throw doubt. In my opinion, there is a motive to distract people from the truth. You call it a myth, I know. Lack of evidence, you say. I try and explain that faith comes by hearing and believing. You cite evidence to dismiss the story.

My irritation arises because people seem to want to not believe rather than to believe. You would perhaps say that you prefer reality over fantasy. I would tell you that reality is not always how it appears and that belief will be helpful.

You may ask how. I'm still thinking how to answer you.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2017 3:19 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2017 12:57 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13876
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 32 of 76 (797433)
01-20-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
01-14-2017 2:32 PM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:

Im not sure I believe any of this.


Why is it that believers are skeptical about evidence but not about unevidenced beliefs?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-14-2017 2:32 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 12:27 PM ringo has responded
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 11-04-2017 12:45 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10073
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 33 of 76 (797440)
01-20-2017 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ringo
01-20-2017 11:05 AM


Re: Conclusion
This so called evidence is far from conclusive. My beliefs, in contrast, have been talked about by billions of people for hundreds of years. If this evidence turned out to be valid, few people would give it so much as a nod.

What gets me is how much some people want to jump at evidence as if it could tell them anything that could actually help them.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 01-20-2017 11:05 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Porosity, posted 01-20-2017 1:09 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 36 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-20-2017 3:29 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 01-23-2017 10:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5159
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 34 of 76 (797441)
01-20-2017 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
01-20-2017 7:05 AM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:

My irritation arises because people seem to want to not believe rather than to believe.

I think it more likely that some people who do not believe are keen to find disproofs of religious stories so they can show that they are right. As you say, if it could be conclusively shown that Jesus's body was buried, the main plank of the Jesus story disintegrates. Of course this wouldn't bother most Christians, a linguistic work-around would be found. "It was metaphorical not real" etc.

You would perhaps say that you prefer reality over fantasy.

Indeed

I would tell you that reality is not always how it appears and that belief will be helpful.

Well you say any number of things that I find utterly meanigless Phat - and that's one of them :-).

You may ask how. I'm still thinking how to answer you.

I'm sure you'll find some language. I'm equally sure I won't have a clue what it means and that I'll be reasonably certain that it's just a pulpity mash-up. But I'm all ears.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 7:05 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 01-21-2017 4:32 AM Tangle has responded

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 155
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


(2)
Message 35 of 76 (797443)
01-20-2017 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
01-20-2017 12:27 PM


Re: Conclusion
Even if you had evidence of a Jesus ever existing, the whole story is deeply flawed and absurd.

An omnipresent god that needs his own blood to fix his own screw ups?

It's probably been posted here before but here is the best summery of the Jesus myth I has seen.

Mageth writes:

God himself created man and woman and placed them in a garden, in “his own image”, but got righteously angry at them when they ate, against his wish, and after being tempted by a talking serpent that god himself had somehow allowed to slither about in the garden, a tasty, beautiful fruit, though he himself had placed it there but neglected to instill in his creations the knowledge of good and evil so that they would know it was wrong to eat it. Being omniscient, of course, he knew all this before he started, but was apparently unable to do anything about it because he had planned it this way from the beginning, and apparently god cannot change anything he already knows, in spite of the fact that he’s omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Later, God himself impregnated a virgin so that he himself could be born a human, a ManGod. This was necessary, apparently, because only his own ManGod blood could appease himself and deliver humans, who he created, and who he knew would muck things up by eating the fruit, from his own righteous anger.

Of course, he waited several thousand years to implement this divine plan, in the meantime taking the righteous action of drowning every creature on the planet except a few he could stuff on a boat. Not to mention handing down a Law that served to further condemn every one of us, and in which Law he himself had them frequently sacrifice animals to appease himself, though he knew the blood of animals didn’t really appease himself.

Much later, god, in a garden, prayed to himself to “take this cup” away from himself, though he himself knew that he himself had planned the coming events from the beginning and knew that not even he himself could save himself, even though he was god and omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Accepting this, he said, in effect, “Not my will, but my will.”

God then sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. (or had himself sacrificed; not much of a distinction between the two, really) Before dying, he himself asked he himself why he had forsaken himself.

He himself, being dead, then raised himself from the dead less than 40 hours later, though he himself had said he’d be dead for three days and three nights, which he could do because he was still alive, and later he himself pulled himself up into heaven where he himself apparently already was, and where he himself is described as now sitting at the right hand of himself.

He himself then sent himself (or a ghost of himself, if you please) back to earth to be a comfort to us, though he himself is still sitting at the right hand of himself.

And, glory hallelujah, he himself promised that he himself will return someday, though he himself is already here, and will still be there, to snatch up those who believe the god blood sacrifice story he himself told us, and kill the rest of us who don’t believe the god blood sacrifice story, no matter how nice we were otherwise. But, since killing us isn’t enough to appease his righteousness, he himself will then judge us, though according to ManGod he himself will also not judge us, and being a god of love will cast most of us into hell for an eternity of suffering. He has to, of course, because he is a righteous, just god, and can’t figure out a way to save anyone who hasn’t been redeemed by god-blood, even though he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and loves us all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 12:27 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2017 8:53 PM Porosity has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 993
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 36 of 76 (797444)
01-20-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
01-20-2017 12:27 PM


Re: Conclusion
quote:

This so called evidence is far from conclusive. My beliefs, in contrast, have been talked about by billions of people for hundreds of years. If this evidence turned out to be valid, few people would give it so much as a nod.

But what were people talking about back then.

There were 2 (very different) Gospels called the "Gospel of the Hebrews" in early times.

The first one is one scholars call the "Gospel of the Ebionites" to avoid confusion

quote:

The Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given by scholars[n 1] to an apocryphal gospel extant only as seven brief quotations in a heresiology known as the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis;[n 2] he misidentified it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew.[1] The quotations were embedded in a polemic to point out inconsistencies in the beliefs and practices of a Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites relative to Nicene orthodoxy.[n 3]

The surviving fragments derive from a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer. Distinctive features include the absence of the virgin birth and of the genealogy of Jesus; an Adoptionist Christology,[n 4] in which Jesus is chosen to be God's Son at the time of his Baptism; the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices by Jesus; and an advocacy of vegetarianism.[n 5] It is believed to have been composed some time during the middle of the 2nd century[2] in or around the region east of the Jordan River.[n 6] Although the gospel was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church,[n 7] the identity of the group or groups that used it remains a matter of conjecture.[n 8]

The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of several Jewish–Christian gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazarenes; all survive only as fragments in quotations of the early Church Fathers. Due to their fragmentary state, the relationships, if any, between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel are uncertain and have been a subject of intensive scholarly investigation.[n 9] The Ebionite gospel has been recognized as distinct from the others,[n 10] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[n 11] It shows no dependence on the Gospel of John and is similar in nature to the harmonized gospel sayings based on the Synoptic Gospels used by Justin Martyr, although a relationship between them, if any, is uncertain.[3] There is a similarity between the gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[n 12]


The article quotes all the fragments and explains that they are a harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Harmonies of those 3 were popular before 150 AD.

But notice the divergent views.

here is text on the Wikipedia article for 'ebionites"
"Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones"), is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[1] They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, revered James the brother of Jesus (James the Just), and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law.[4] Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty"

Here is an early 2nd century Gospel called Gospel of the Hebrews by scholars and ancients alike.

quote:

The Gospel of the Hebrews (Greek: τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον, or Gospel according to the Hebrews, was a syncretic Jewish–Christian gospel, the text of which is lost; only fragments of it survive as brief quotations by the early Church Fathers and in apocryphal writings. The fragments contain traditions of Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, baptism, and probable temptation, along with some of his sayings.[2] Distinctive features include a Christology characterized by the belief that the Holy Spirit is Jesus' Divine Mother and a first resurrection appearance to James, the brother of Jesus, showing a high regard for James as the leader of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem.[3] It was probably composed in Greek in the first decades of the 2nd century, and is believed to have been used by Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Egypt during that century.[4]

It is the only Jewish–Christian gospel which the Church Fathers referred to by name, believing there was only one Hebrew Gospel, perhaps in different versions.[5] Passages from the gospel were quoted or summarized by three Alexandrian Fathers – Clement, Origen and Didymus the Blind; it was also quoted by Jerome, either directly or through the commentaries of Origen.[6][7] The gospel was used as a supplement to the canonical gospels to provide source material for their commentaries based on scripture.[8] Eusebius included it in his list of disputed writings known as the Antilegomena, noting that it was used by "Hebrews" within the Church; it fell out of use when the New Testament canon was codified at the end of the 4th century.[9] There is ancient citation evidence from historians who have stated that the original Gospel of the Hebrews did not have the virgin birth narrative which was interpolated between the 2nd and 4th centuries by Greek pre Catholic priests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews


They quote the texts available. Here is one line

quote:

2. And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever. (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4)
....
Jump up ^ Vielhauer & Strecker 1991, pp. 174–6; p. 174 – "This is also the objective of the pre-existent Redeemer who, according to the Jewish–Christian–gnostic Kerygmata Petrou, after endless change in form becomes the incarnate in Jesus: 'From the beginning of the world he runs through the ages, changing his form at the same time as his name, until in his time, anointed of God's mercy for his toil, he shall find his rest forever.' (ps.Clem. Hom. 3.20.2) To the circle of such gnostic speculations belongs the Christology of the baptism pericope of the GH."

Kerygmata Petri was quoted a lot in the 2nd centry. It has reincarnation concepts. Clement of Alexandria like the text.

Just Martyr said this

quote:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth] and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians…But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.[2]

Christians with different views in 150 AD

http://appleeye.org/...the-premillennialism-of-justin-martyr [/quote]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=justin+martyr+trypho...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 12:27 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10065
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 37 of 76 (797445)
01-20-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tangle
01-20-2017 3:19 AM


Re: Conclusion
And I answered that I thought it more likely than not

No, you did not answer the question.

What you said was that more likely than not somebody back then was named Jesus. "Historical Jesus" implies somebody both named Jesus and at least tied to the stories in the Bible. In fact, your current post implies that the question cannot be answered at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

quote:
The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods," in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')."[1] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[2][3][4]

The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate



Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2017 3:19 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2017 6:02 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5159
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 38 of 76 (797447)
01-20-2017 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
01-20-2017 3:48 PM


Re: Conclusion
NoNukes writes:

What you said was that more likely than not somebody back then was named Jesus. "Historical Jesus" implies somebody both named Jesus and at least tied to the stories in the Bible.

Ffs. What are you on?

Do you really think I might not be aware that the name Jesus is not unique to the mythical son of god? Do you really think that when I'm answering a question about Jesus(TM) I'm referring to some other random Jesus that I've deliberately not informed you of?

Pull your head out of your arse, Phat has already accepted my point - you're away with your own fairies.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2017 3:48 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2017 7:22 PM Tangle has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10065
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 39 of 76 (797448)
01-20-2017 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tangle
01-20-2017 6:02 PM


Re: Conclusion
Do you really think I might not be aware that the name Jesus is not unique to the mythical son of god?

Here is what you actually said, Tangle.

Tangle writes:

I think it is marginally more likely than not that someone called Jesus existed - but not, of course, that he was anything but human.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2017 6:02 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 01-21-2017 3:29 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5159
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 40 of 76 (797454)
01-21-2017 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
01-20-2017 7:22 PM


Re: Conclusion
NoNukes writes:

Here is what you actually said, Tangle.

So I have to repeat myself. You think that when I said....

"I think it is marginally more likely than not that someone called Jesus existed - but not, of course, that he was anything but human."

....I was referring to a random Jesus that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Jesus in the bible?

To prevent this going on any further, I'm not.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2017 7:22 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10073
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 41 of 76 (797455)
01-21-2017 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
01-20-2017 12:57 PM


Re: Conclusion
Tangle writes:

I'm sure you'll find some language. I'm equally sure I won't have a clue what it means and that I'll be reasonably certain that it's just a pulpity mash-up. But I'm all ears.

I am thinking about this topic tonight...before i retire for the evening. I originally became a believer when I attended a church and after a couple of weeks answered an "altar call". Quite honestly I was unprepared for the change that I felt. Many people report the same "born again" transformation. Is there any ready explanation for it?

Now...years have passed and I am learning a lot of how others think. (Particularly here at EvC) Few if any of my believing friends are interested in challenging or disproving their beliefs as I am. This is one red flag. The evidence that Christians, in general, are no more moral than non-believers is also of interest.

So why do I keep it up?(This belief thing) The answer is that I honestly believe that I am in a communion with God. I dont believe that evidence apart from my subjective experience influences me that much.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2017 12:57 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 01-21-2017 5:05 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5159
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 42 of 76 (797458)
01-21-2017 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
01-21-2017 4:32 AM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:

I originally became a believer when I attended a church and after a couple of weeks answered an "altar call". Quite honestly I was unprepared for the change that I felt. Many people report the same "born again" transformation. Is there any ready explanation for it?

Belief is a brain function, neuroscience says that it's a function of memory. Memory is related to learning and it's really important to understand that your belief has been learnt.

Your believe was learnt. It didn't just pop into your head from God

You can prove this to yourself by asking yourself why your belief is not in Hinduism or Janeism? There has never been anybody anywhere that independently became a Christian or a Hindu or a Janeite. They all had to have learnt of these things before it could happen. Your brain is programmed in such a way as to accept inputs if heard enough and in times of stress or anxiety some beliefs/delusions are triggered strongly. This is a bit of a starter.

https://www.theguardian.com/...un/30/psychology.neuroscience

Now...years have passed and I am learning a lot of how others think. (Particularly here at EvC) Few if any of my believing friends are interested in challenging or disproving their beliefs as I am. This is one red flag. The evidence that Christians, in general, are no more moral than non-believers is also of interest.

The way beliefs persist and propagate is by blocking inputs that question them and by constant reinforcement from those of similar minds - the echo chamber. They only change when they are exposed to different ideas over a long period. You should take it as a red flag that your believing friends won't entertain counter argument. And, by the way, and as you point out, it's a real fright that your beliefs make you superior moral beings. It should be clear that people that don't hold your beliefs are capable of at least equivalent morality and behaviour. And if you look at how fundamental belivers behave, you must recognise that their morality is at least questionable.

The answer is that I honestly believe that I am in a communion with God. I dont believe that evidence apart from my subjective experience influences me that much.

And that is the literal definition of a delusion. No different than the people in the link above.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 01-21-2017 4:32 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13876
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 43 of 76 (797514)
01-23-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
01-20-2017 12:27 PM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:

This so called evidence is far from conclusive.


Yes, that's the mantra. The evidence for evolution isn't "conclusive" either, if you insist on believing in creationism. The point is that it IS evidence, as opposed to NO evidence for your belief.

Phat writes:

What gets me is how much some people want to jump at evidence as if it could tell them anything that could actually help them.


What else could "help" them?

Seriously. Have you ever heard of disease? Have you ever heard of cures for disease? Don't you think curing diseases "helps" people? How do you think diseases are cured without "jumping at evidence"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 12:27 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 993
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 44 of 76 (798291)
02-01-2017 3:43 PM


While we are discussig a "literal definition" of "delusion" vs "subjective evidence"
It is complicated when one looks at certain issues.
Here is the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman talking about his 2015 book.

quote:

Yeah, you know, before I wrote this book and did the research on it, I was convinced, as many people are, that Jesus was given a decent burial, and on the third day the women when to the tomb, found it empty, and that started the belief in the resurrection. Apart from the fact that I don't think Jesus was given a decent burial, that he was probably thrown into a common grave of some kind, apart from that, I was struck in doing my research that the New Testament never indicates that people came to believe in the resurrection because of the empty tomb.

And this was a striking find because it's just commonly said that that's what led to the resurrection belief. But if you think about it for a second, it makes sense that the empty tomb wouldn't make anybody believe. If you put somebody in a tomb, and three days later you go back, and the body's not in the tomb, your first thought is not oh, he's been exalted to heaven and made the son of God. Your first thought is somebody stole the body, or somebody moved the body, or hey, I'm at the wrong tomb. You don't think he's been exalted to heaven.

And in the New Testament it's striking that in the Gospels the empty tomb leads to confusion, but it doesn't lead to belief. What leads to belief is that some of the followers of Jesus have visions of him afterwards.

GROSS: OK, and then you question those visions. What are your questions about the visions?

EHRMAN: We know a lot about visions from modern research. It turns out that about one out of eight people among us has had some kind of visionary experience in which we've seen something that wasn't really there and were convinced that in fact it was there. That's a vision. Now the way I write my book is that I leave open the question of what caused these visions of the disciples.

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?st...


His comments remind me of Origen of Alexandria and his response to the pagan philosopher Celsus (who used arguments from a Jew against Christianity, who scholars always refer to as "Celsus' Jew", in addition to arguments of his own pagan opinion).

The issue was raised (by Celsus but I forget if he was offering his own views or the view of his Jew) about hallucinations and he made issue of the fact that there were supposedly startled women who had the hallucinations. Origin remarked that the visions were in the daytime, where there were less likely to be false visions.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=celsus+jew+origen+ha...

http://equip.sbts.edu/...f-jesus-yesterday-today-and-forever

The issue gets interesting if you consider the issue of the Gospel of Peter and how it might relate to the Koran's view of Jesus.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=gospel+peter+koran+e...

Ehrman doesn't mention the Islamic issue though.

quote:

You write that the first 20 years after the death of Jesus is particularly significant in perceiving Christ as God. What happens during those first 20 years after his death?

EHRMAN: Those 20 years are both really important and really mysterious because we don't have any Christian writings from the period. The earliest Christian author we have is the apostle Paul, whose letters were written mainly in the 50s of the Common Era. So if Jesus died around the year 30, and Paul's first letter is around 50, and that's our earliest writing, that means that have a 20-year gap where we have no writings at all by any Christian. And so it's a complicated period to study.

What I argue in my book is that in the New Testament, including the letters of Paul and in the Book of Acts, for example, there are occasional passages that scholars have identified as what they call pre-literary traditions. What that means is that the authors are quoting materials that had been in circulation prior to the time of their writing, and so they're pre-literary, and they're traditions because they've been floating around for a while.


He just talks about the stages of how Jesus became divine. The earliest, he says, came from the visions after the resurrection.

The next earliest was the adoptionist Christology which had the divinity come just after the baptism. Like where Luke had God day "This day have I begotten you" right after the baptism in the Jordan river.

Then the Virgin birth came after that chronologically.

Ehrman doesn't mention the various gnostic views (or Islam), but there were some views that had a radical disjunction of Jesus with his body. He seems to have escaped the death on the cross via his spirit, which might have left his body, according to some interpretations of some gnostic gospels.

There are lots of possibilities really.

Paul said flesh and blood cannot inheret the kingdom.


    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 45 of 76 (798351)
02-01-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Porosity
01-20-2017 1:09 PM


Re: Conclusion
Can you please link to a source for this.
You might want to look at some great sources that deal with the academic arguments.
Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster. All three have well written, well researched and well argued books on the subject of the lack of historical evidence for a Jesus Christ.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Porosity, posted 01-20-2017 1:09 PM Porosity has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017