Choosing a faith

That has to be true when you look at the people we elect. Nothing it seems is ever cut and dried. Everyone has a bias.

We just did this.Everyone has a bias, but the scientific method and peer review process that real historians use is designed to reduce that bias.A theologian is, by definition, predisposed to a supernatural viewpoint and isn't necessarily concerned with historicity. For generations they've got away with talking to themselves; finally there's a few doing more robust work.

Hi Stile
I've read your post over twice and frankly I may have lost the plot. I have no idea of how to respond so I'll pick out this one part. I suppose that I see an atheist as holding their beliefs the way I hold mine. Yes I get it. I don't think that you'll agree with this but I see atheism as being synonymous with materialism meaning that there is nothing beyond the material. Is there evidence, (beyond that there is no evidence to support theism), in support of that position.It seems, by my experience here, that most atheists do seem to allow for the possibility of a higher power but due to a lack of evidence reject the idea.
I find that our existence from a completely material source requires an outside intelligence. In the end it is all belief.

Absolutely not. We both have. ...as did Bauckham. Yes, except that in all the other cases the movement died and there was nothing like the NT written about them
​

You were replying to Phat but linked it to me.You keep promoting the few atheists that argue that Jesus was only a mythical figure. YOu never quote theists who support your views.You keep saying that it is Christians who argue for the historicity of Jesus. so, hereere is an atheist, who also mentions other atheists the goes through the arguments against the historicity of Jesus and shows how nonsensical that view is. Atheistic Historian Examines Evidence for JesusHere is one quote from that link.

quote:

---

More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives. Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (1) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (2) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity. Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.

​

In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).

---

Actually I don't discard anything in the Bible. I do however agree that it is not a God dictated library of books, but 66 books written by fallible human beings. I also read the Bible as the very human story about the progressive understanding of the nature of God. I see the narrative concluding with Jesus.Jesus was a first century Jew dealing with 1st century Jews with a couple of exceptions that we know of. As a result I contend that we can't, as the church has done for far too long, simply read the Bible in contemporary terms. We need to do it in the context of the times and the culture that it was intended for.As a result of all this, it isn't simply choosing what I want to believe, but doing my best to understand it in a way that is consistent with the message that I understand Jesus to be giving in the Gospels.So as I have said numerous times, God can't be both the genocidal character sometimes seen in the OT as well as the one who says we are to love our enemies. Firstly, the point of religion including Christianity is not about getting to "The Good Place". In my view the point of Christianity is about serving God in this world by loving other, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoners etc. It is about forming a personal nature that is in line with my signature.I see it too as being grateful for my life, the lives of my loved ones and for that matter for life in general. I find that my faith does offer me a sense of gratitude. We have a prayer that is about giving of our time and assets with the reminder that "all things come of the Lord, of thine own have we given thee".Also on a practical level the church gives us a community through which we can do things we need organization for such as fund raising for local food banks, hospitals etc. We also were instrumental on bringing 3 Syrian families out of refugee camps and setting them up locally and getting them settled and self sufficient.We also are able to support each other in those times where we need support.And yes, I do believe that the ability to love and to receive love is a gift from God and understanding the nature and source of love is a gift that I receive from my Christian faith.Actually the Bible talks vey little about the next life until we get to Paul and Paul does so in reference to the resurrection. He talks about the renewal or the resurrection of all things, not just the simple heaven/hell options. The NT is clear that our lives here will have an impact on our lives in the next, but I am quite happy to leave it to a God that is loving, merciful and just as to how that plays out.We talk about truth. I agree that I can't know the truth in the way I know 2+2=4, but I am convinced of the truth of at least the basics of Christian belief. I could be wrong - but I don't think so. ABE - I just realized that as in the post below I managed to go back to an old post thinking it was current.

It is about the priorities in your life that represent what/whom you serve.
From what you say that the priorities in your life are your creature comforts. It isn't circular. Yes, the Bible has things that I agree represent God and His nature and then use that to argue against another writer in another time in a different book. You can take pretty much and book of non-fiction and you'll agree that some of it is correct, some parts a maybe and other parts where you believe they got it wrong. ...and I keep telling you where your presuppositions are wrong and yet you keep repeating them. When you keep asking the same questions why do you expect a different answer.ABE Sorry somehow it went back to an old post when I thought I was selecting a current one. Since i have taken the time to write it I guess I'll leave it.

Hi Phat
If you re-read my post you'll see that I was talking about the past when I consider that I was essentially agnostic. Actually, I have spent a fair bit of time on this forum arguing for intelligence outside of our material world.Cheers

Not really. As I said Matthew's Gospel would be a source but hardly the only source. He travelled with Paul and spent time with the apostles in Jerusalem including Peter. He would have had input from numerous sources. Isn't that pretty nit picky? The point was that a rebellion would bring about a Roman response and so be aware so that you can get to safety before things really go south. If it helps you to pick one of the several contradictions then so be it. The Olivet Discourse is a warning about what the future will be as a result of violent revolution and Jesus is simply saying that it will be like the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple to the Babylonians except this time by the Romans. Yes He does use the apocalyptic language from Isaiah 13 with sun darkened and sky falling to help make the point. I think the Romans pulled that off all on their own. Sure, but Jesus changed the whole paradigm that didn't limit God to a specific location, but that He was in the hearts of those that love Him.

I agree. We are finally looking at things in the context of the time and era. It is becoming a very different church than it was as little as 25 years ago.

quote:

---

Not really. As I said Matthew's Gospel would be a source but hardly the only source.

---

Yes really. If the author of Luke is copying material from elsewhere then a difference is a change. Even if the author of Luke got it from some hypothetical alternate source. Moreover the fact that an event that did not happen is replaced with one that did is evidence of after-the-fact knowledge,

quote:

---

Isn't that pretty nit picky?

---

Only to someone who wants to throw it out. Obviously it is quite a significant difference - especially to anyone who tries to follow the advice, delaying the decision to flee by - in the event - years.

quote:

---

The point was that a rebellion would bring about a Roman response and so be aware so that you can get to safety before things really go south.

---

Not if you follow Luke. The revolt started in 66AD, the Roman response force arrived in 67AD and the Siege of Jerusalem began in 70AD. Do you really think people in Judea were safe right up until then?

quote:

---

The Olivet Discourse is a warning about what the future will be as a result of violent revolution and Jesus is simply saying that it will be like the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple to the Babylonians except this time by the Romans.

---

Obviously that is your opinion, but that doesn’t really answer my point that the text does not support it. Neither Daniel 9, nor your Isaiah reference have any mention of the Babylonian siege. Nor is there any explicit reference. So where do you get this idea from?

quote:

---

I think the Romans pulled that off all on their own

---

So your basis for claiming that the text means that the Romans will destroy the Temple is that the Romans did destroy the Temple. Obviously if it is neither a supernatural prediction nor written after the fact that cannot be valid.

quote:

---

Sure, but Jesus changed the whole paradigm that didn't limit God to a specific location, but that He was in the hearts of those that love Him.

---

You may believe that, but Daniel has the Temple reconsecrated (and sacrifices resuming) and there is evidence that Jesus did talk of rebuilding it, and there is nothing in the text of the Discourse that rules it out. It is only the Herodian Temple buildings that are to be destroyed.

I glad you noticed. I'm trying to show you that there are properly researched and evidenced alternative views available that form totally different but equally reasonable conclusions about the historicity of Jesus. You don't have to agree with them, I'm just trying to make the point that the historical evidence that Jesus actually existed at all is incredibly weak, it's certainly not anything like the certainty taught to the laity by their religious institutions. By definition, there can not be a theist writer that does not believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can there?
​ Richard Carrier says exactly the same - almost everything in the literature written about Jesus as a myth is nonsensical, non-scholarly garbage. He claims that his book is the first peer reviewed work written by a real historian properly examining the evidence.Whether you accept Carrier's arguments or not, if you read his books, no reasonable person could deny its scholarship.This seems to be a reasonable summary of the state of play today

quote:

---

The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory,[1][q 1] is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact".[2] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[q 2]

​

In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine, and that he was baptized and was crucified.[3][4][5][6][q 3] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith".[q 4]

---

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

That is the rub. The vast majority of biblical scholars are Christian so therefore they accept the premise of christ. Atheist scholars are the only ones that can see the facts without bias. The accepted scholarship is christ centered therefore biased.

I know Jesus as well as I know Frodo. (But I don't dismiss the dusty old book and make up my own version of Frodo.) "Look before you leap," is a good idea. The convenient excuse is that there is no evidence because God wants us to have faith. I have asked you before and you don't answer: Who WOULD want an alien overlord?

As with all propaganda, people have no trouble reading between the lines, which is definitely not what the propagandists intended. But those people aren't making up stories of God-directed genocide, stoning and slavery. They're getting them from your book. You should create a new Bible called The Word According to GDR that gathers all the portions of the Bible you adhere to. It would be less than 10% as long as the actual Bible. You and Faith are both Christians in the way that Liz Cheney and Donald Trump are both Republicans. When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy