Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

Jesus's talk of destruction of the temple is very strong evidence that the passage was written after the destruction of the temple. Also (this is more for Faith and her inerrancy stance), his statement that "Not one stone here will be left on another" is erroneous, since many stones were obviously left one upon another, for instance the Wailing Wall that was part of the Second Temple, see Second Temple Archeology for more examples. Again, how handy to have a martyr, especially one who defeated death, rose to heaven to sit by God.--Percy

Jesus wasn't a real person. Whoever wrote Mark is putting words in his mouth at a time when the destruction of the Temple lay in the past. Mark wasn't writing in Jerusalem and wouldn't know how complete the destruction. It's pretty obviously a reference to what Jews actually did ("head for the hills") after the destruction of Jerusalem. Yours is just one interpretation of a confusion of information gathered from conflicting sources, but more importantly, this is not a counter to, "How handy to have a martyr, especially one who defeated death, rose to heaven to sit by God." Whatever your goals, whether worldly or heavenly, if your leader is dead then claiming he defeated death and was carried bodily up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God is just making the best of a bad situation.But even more importantly, these events never happened. All the different interpreters of these Jesus stories are just arguing over fiction. Why do you think this helps your case? Obviously the idea of a resurrected Jesus resonated powerfully, something the earliest church leaders could not have failed to notice, so what better way to power as the heads of a new religious movement? Sounds like a pretty common way that new religious movements form, observed regularly today. They sacrifice material things, they isolate themselves from their former culture, and they emphasize threats from the outside. There is every motivation. Who knows how much of the Bible is accurate and how much myth? If the Bible stories about Christianity's origins are true, and if new converts needed very firm evidence, then in, say, 100 AD, what was that evidence? Even in 34 AD, the year after Jesus supposedly died on the cross, what was that evidence? Paul is the founder of Christianity. He had his beliefs, but there's nothing to indicate they formed from evidence, nothing to indicate he observed anything recounted in the gospels, nothing to indicate he was close to any of the apostles, and Acts tells us that Paul and Peter disagreed.--Percy

You're asking for evidence that something *doesn't* exist? How would that work exactly? For example, what is your evidence that leprechauns don't exist?I believe Jesus never existed because of the lack of any evidence that he ever existed. I believe the origin stories of Christianity are false because all religions are false. There is really very little difference between us - I believe all religions are false, and you believe all religions but one are false. I don't see how you there could be evidence that Jesus never existed. While there isn't any evidence that Jesus never existed, there *are* counterarguments. The main one is that he completely escapes historical mention despite (according to the Bible) being a tremendous disruption while committing miracles left and right. Lack of evidence. This is just the Bible story. Actually I'm saying that the absence of evidence puts Jesus in the same category as all other fictional characters. I think we're both doing the opposite. We're refusing, because of lack of evidence, to conclude his story real. Is persuasion about factual matters that have no evidence really persuasion? Or is it special pleading? The real debate in this thread is about how the failure of religion to pan out in the real world has no influence on faith. Even believers for whom religion is toxic remain addicted.--Percy

I didn't mean that they were all that late. When I said "by the time the gospels were written" maybe I should have said, "by the time all the gospels had been written." The last one would have been written some time between 100 and 150 AD. I think that even in the very early days of Christianity when Paul was establishing the first churches that most of the converts were gentiles. The message of Paul was very different from the message of Jesus as expressed in the gospels. Paul brought a message for all mankind, not just Jews. Rather than getting into it we could probably agree that reasonable people could disagree about which gospel writers were Jewish. Are you still talking about Mark 13, because I don't see where Jesus said anything about rebuilding the Temple? Then what you believe is coming from within yourself and has no objective reality. You're repeating the exact same arguments you made before and ignoring the rebuttal. The rebuttal is unchanged and still unaddressed, I'll repeat it. Obviously the message resonated with potential converts, evangelists would have increased their emphasis on what worked, being a leader in a religious movement does have rewards, and you're objecting to things that are true of many new religions. We observe them today all the time, like embracing persecution, encouraging an "us versus them" mentality, giving up worldly things, etc. But as Tangle keeps reminding you, the evidence isn't in your book. You're just telling yourself that there must have been evidence because otherwise Paul's conversion would make no sense. But look around you at new religions that form today. Where is their evidence? They have none, right? So why do you believe people in the Bible must have had evidence that is nowhere described in the Bible? That's for sure. This is just something you believe, not something you have any evidence for. He sure didn't go to Peter. Paul's epistles predate the gospels, and the differences indicate a period of mythmaking. There's some typos or garbled syntax in this sentence that make me uncertain what you mean, so I'll just comment that the Jesus crucifixion story is straight up martyrdom. The gospels are just stories, but you're interpreting them far differently than most of the rest of Christianity who talk of how amazing it was that after Jesus's death the apostles continued to evangelize with renewed energy and confidence. You're just repeating your original failed argument. The answer hasn't changed. Many new religions make material sacrifices for spiritual gain. We observe it in real time today. How are Christian origins any different?--Percy

Empty claims unaccompanied by evidence require no rebuttal. Accounts of Paul preaching in synagogues come from Acts, not from Paul's epistles. Luke never met Paul, let alone accompanied him anywhere. The large amount of fiction in the Bible is why predictions based upon it, like raptures, fail.--Percy

That's the Bible story, yes. Mentioning Christ in passing years later as the one Christians followed is hardly good evidence he was real. With all the disruption and difficulties that Jesus caused for the Romans, with all the miracles and the sermons to thousands, there's still nary a mention of any of it by historians, only that there was a sect of Christians who followed Christ. That's quite a semantic confusion, "more often than not" followed by "almost always." If you want to believe something like, "Since this is lore it very likely has a measure of truth," go ahead, make your decisions about what parts are true and what parts made up. I'll continue with, "If it's got sufficient evidence then I'll provisionally accept it."--Percy

Of course others say different. What's important isn't that some have a different opinion, but what they can bring to the party to support their opinion. Looking at this quote you provided: This is just a statement of opinion. There's no evidence offered, not of oral traditions, not of Jesus, not of apostles, not of synoptic gospels preceding Paul's epistles. This is from Bible Study Tools:

quote:

---

Appendix 8: CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

​

While no arrangement of these books can be made with absolute confidence, the following dates are sufficiently reliable to serve the purpose of the Bible student.

​

James - 50 A.D.
First Thessalonians - 52-53.
Second Thessalonians - 52-53.
Galatians - 55.
First Corinthians - 57.
Second Corinthians - 57.
Romans - 57-58.
Philippians - 62-63.
Colossians - 62-63.
Philemon - 62-63.
Ephesians - 62-63.
Luke - 63.
Acts - 64.
First Timothy - 65.
Titus - 65.
Second Timothy - 66.
Mark - 66.
Matthew - 67.
Hebrews - 67.
First Peter - 67-68.
Second Peter - 68.
Jude - 68.
Apocalypse - 68.
John - c. 85.
Epistles of John - 90-95.

---

Of course I don't agree with this, but it at least places Paul's epistles before the gospels. My own view of the gospel order is roughly something like this (my dates are rough approximations, not gospel):

• Mark (75-85 AD)
• Matthew (80-90 AD)
• Luke (90-110 AD)
• John (100-120 AD)

That's an unsupported opinion. I don't understand what it is with this thread that makes people keep offering their opinions as if that settled anything. First you say we should study mythmaking, then you offer a completely unsupported opinion about mythmaking. This makes no sense. Myths arise about things whether they're based on real past events or not. No one was taking notes while Jesus spoke. None of the gospel writers or Paul were eyewitnesses to anything Jesus said, that is, if he even existed and actually said anything. They are not elaborating on or interpreting any of Jesus' actual words, who was speaking ancient Aramaic anyway and not Greek. And fabrication and confabulation. Look at all the religious shenanigans that take place today. You think it was any different 2000 years ago? Independent of how the apostles' accounts were communicated to the gospel authors, or even if they ever were actually communicated to the gospel authors, or even if the apostles were real, what evidence has GDR presented that they weren't disposed toward "mythmaking nor poetic license"? We have the evidence of Paul's letters that he was real. We have no evidence of anything he said about Jesus or his exploits. The original question was whether Christian religious beliefs could serve as a basis for making predictions of things like raptures and so forth.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix badly expressed 3rd to last para.

Now imagine that they waited 40 years before writing the accounts of the Osama bin Laden murder. Oh really? Matthew 14:25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. Nothing unusual going on there, just reporting the news.--Percy

And your argument is that God *is* helping us? How do you see God helping you? You seem a prime example of someone definitely not receiving any help.This is yet another example of evidence against religious beliefs only making people double down on those beliefs. Everything in your life says, "There is no God," yet every year your belief in God deepens. Faith does the same thing - her rapture predictions fail, yet this makes her believe even more.Imagine if scientists worked this way. "The experiment not only failed to confirm the hypothesis, it showed the hypothesis to be likely false. This only strengthens our belief that the hypothesis will eventually be shown correct." You'd think them nuts, right? Why shouldn't the same logic apply to the reasoning displayed by the religious?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Experiences (which is how data is gathered) are real, all religions cannot be true, so religious belief cannot be based upon experience. There is nothing in your experience or anyone else's indicating magic or the supernatural is real. No prayers have been answered or miracles experienced, and the unexplained is just the unexplained. This I can agree with, but now you're saying something different. Before you said that belief was based on experience, now you're saying belief is based on what is hoped might happen.--Percy

So are you, while fooling yourself that what you believe is some 1st century understanding. If Christianity is based upon a real person, there is no evidence it was a 1st century person. Jesus could have been a BC person. Unless by "1st century understanding" you mean a gullible understanding, whoever wrote Mark could only know about the destruction of the Temple after it happened, not before. So you believe that Jesus warned his followers (who by 70 AD would have been Christians, not Jews) that the Jewish Temple (which by then would have nothing to do with Christians) would be destroyed because someone (Jews? Christians?) were trying to defeat evil with more evil? What a mess of interpretive nonsense. Finally, something we agree about. Huh? How is that any different from believing it's all just made up? If you truly believed that we wouldn't be having this discussion. You said this earlier in your message, and it's still crazy. Why would Jesus feel the need to inform his followers (who by then would be Christians living in small communities scattered about the Middle East and caring not a whit about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) of his "forecast" that the Romans would eventually crush the Jewish revolt of 66 AD? So in your view Jesus was just someone with a strong political intuition? Hardly seems like someone worth worshipping or building a religion around. What happened to all the other mumbo jumbo about miracles and resurrection and rising to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God and being part of the trinity and having existed since the beginning of time?--Percy

The intention isn't to get you or anyone to switch clubs but to understand that the definition of evidence doesn't change just because you're talking about religion.--Percy

They *do* include earlier material, but not of eyewitnesses since no one could witness something that could never possibly have happened. By early Christian leaders you mean the apostles? They are Jewish but fictional. Or do you mean the leaders of the churches founded by Paul? There's no evidence they were Jewish. Nothing from Paul's epistles appears in the gospels. Nothing from the gospels appears in Paul's epistles. They reflect different religious traditions. You're welcome to your subjective reality. That's the story of the gospels, not the story of Paul's epistles. Of course. Many non-Christians have gone to their deaths for their religious beliefs. Firmly believing something doesn't make one right. Having evidence is what makes one likely right, or at least more likely than the person with no evidence. There's no evidence that there's ever been a resurrection, let alone eyewitnesses to it. Acts is fiction. Paul didn't have to deal with eyewitnesses because there weren't any. You were the one who brought up persecution when you quoted Mark 13, specifically verse 9: "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death,..."You were the one who brought up giving up worldly things when you spoke about all the material sacrifices that Paul and the early Christians had to make. I believe what I'm writing to be essentially truthful. Does that mean you should accept what I say? Of course not. Then why are you asking me to accept what the gospels say just because the anonymous authors (who probably also believed snakes could talk) believed them to be essentially truthful? Even you don't believe them factual. You keep referring to your subjective beliefs, then resume arguing that the gospels are factual. The gospels are without evidence and are not consistent with one another, and theologically they differ from Paul. Perhaps the gospels and epistles represent the differing theologies of Peter and Paul. Why do you think the introduction of a new idea is an indication that it must be factually true? You're arguing that because Luke was full of self praise that it must be true? Seriously?But your response doesn't address the point: the evidence isn't in your book. You're just assuming things that aren't there. Yes, precisely, that's what I've been saying all along, that Paul and Peter did not agree, so Paul wouldn't seek out Peter for his ideas. Of course we know. Just for one example from the gospels there's walking on water. Of course there was a period of mythmaking. Of course there's disagreement, a great deal of it because Christians can't even agree among themselves, and you've admitted to picking and choosing what to believe and what not. Many Bible scholars believe the Pauline epistles to be the oldest books of the New Testament. Mark wrote later when the sacking of Jerusalem was a recent memory. The other gospel authors wrote at further distance in both time and space when Christianity was much less Jewish and the Temple no longer important. If you look at all you quoted you asked a couple different questions. About the question that has as its premise that I think the first Christians didn't consider the resurrection authentic, I never said anything like this, so I ignored the question. I don't know what I said that led you to think this.About it not improving their "quality of life" and not helping them materially and having a "cost", I already answered this argument. Many new religions make material sacrifices for spiritual gain. We observe it in real time today. How are Christian origins any different?--Percy

And how do you decide which writers wrote what their leaders wanted or what was consistent with their patriotic feelings instead of what was true? Yes, of course. In fact, everyone saying anything about the nature or actions of God is making it up. There are no accounts confirming anything like resurrections or miracles. Why do you think introducing a new idea invalidates it? Others have written many more posts about why it *is* something that could be fabricated. My view is that a messiah that the Romans tried to kill but couldn't resonated with enough people of that time to begin a new religious movement.--Percy

Personal subjective experience? All experience is subjective. If I'm the only one experiencing something then of what use is that? It is only when our personal subjective experiences are replicated and validated by the same personal subjective experiences of others that we come to believe we might have learned something true about the real world. We all live in this real world where those things about it that are true for any given individual are true for everyone else, too. Of course I've reached a conclusion, but it's an unavoidable one. All religions can't be true. At most only one can be true. Most likely none are true. Then you've got GDR making personal subjective decisions about what parts of the Bible are true and which are not, which I'm fine with, but then he can't argue that there's any objective basis for his beliefs, which he readily concedes (this doesn't explain why he argues so passionately for the truth of some parts of the Bible - if can make his own personal subjective decisions about what parts of the Bible are true, why aren't others granted the same privilege?). Our subjective perceptions can only receive some measure of validation when they coincide with the subjective perceptions of others - I'm just referring to replication again. You're standing at a pedestrian crossing at a New York City intersection. The sign says "Don't Walk" or has some equivalent symbol, and no one is crossing the street as the traffic flows by. Then the traffic stops, the sign changes to "Walk" or some equivalent symbol, and everyone begins crossing the street. Shared experience, strong evidence of everyone seeing the same thing, that the light did actually change from "Don't Walk" to "Walk", is an example of how we move from subjectivity toward objectivity.Religious experiences are an entirely different beast. You can feel that God speaks to you within your mind, but that isn't something that other people can also experience, for the same reasons that other people can't experience your feelings of happiness or sadness. All religious experiences are subjective, individual, personal, non-replicable, non-verifiable. All you can do, for example, is share how it felt to accept Jesus into your heart with other people, and they can confirm that they felt similarly when it happened to them, but there's no method that can verify in any objective way that you actually had the same experience or felt the same way. I'll accept that for which there is evidence. In addition we all carry a history of experience and knowledge of the experiences of others within our mind. We all know a woman can't survive being cut in half, and so we know that the woman was not really cut in half. If you hear an amazing new preacher speak, when you see the apparition of Jesus floating before you upon the stage will you listen to the knowledge and experience you already possess, or will you chuck it all and empty your wallet into the donation basket they pass around.In other words, get real and stop hoping for miracles that are never going to happen.--Percy