Dishonest Apologetics

[twb1621]

Are all people who develop false beliefs “mental” in your opinion? There are plenty of people who think they are on a divine mission who are otherwise pretty normal. If Jesus actually claimed everything the gospels claimed he claimed, then he would have a false belief, but he wouldn’t necessarily need to be crazy in all respects.

We’re not just talking about people with false beliefs. We are talking about someone who was introduced to extreme horrid torture and infliction of pain over many hours. This is not like the torture used during our times with the necessity for the introduction of the Geneva Convention, but far beyond that. Far beyond that. Dying by being beheaded, yes I can see someone false in their belief dying in some related way. He may have been able to put up with such extreme pain and suffering although unlikely if He were wrongly convinced of His ministry, but He certainly couldn’t have returned from the Dead if He wasn’t the Messiah. You are breaking things down and separating them as though totally separate events in order to dispute the validity but you can’t because we are referring to one event, His passion and death and resurrection which is completely interconnected. Lets consider the circumstances which are unlike any other you refer to and by far out of the norm.

I still don’t think we can assume that they would have given him a reprieve. But even if they would have, if Jesus was convinced that he was the messiah, he may have gladly accepted his fate. It’s not terribly rare for people that are condemned to die for their beliefs to willingly face death. And I don’t think we can even be sure that Jesus didn’t cry out for mercy. He supposedly said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” How do we know that he didn’t also beg for mercy? I don’t think that doing so would mean that he definitely couldn’t have been the messiah. It may have been seen as indicating how forsaken he felt at that moment. And even when a messiah claimant does something way more extreme, such as Sabbatai Zevi’s conversion to Islam, they still manage to keep some of their most loyal followers.

Common, I know you are more intelligent than you are expressing here. What is the most common request a capture has of his prisoner and do they not usually torture prisoners to obtain their desired affect? We see it on TV all the time and it is throughout history in every war and every situation dealing with the value of prisoner submission we know of. Torture the prisoner to get information and to submission to state he or those who he represents are at fault or responsible. These are the common goals in every case with prisoner conversion.

It depends on the type of source. When the source is religious literature of unknown authorship, I don’t think you should assume that it is accurate (just as you probably believe about the religious documents of other religions). Those elements of recorded history that I am confident in have far more evidence than exists for the supernatural elements of Jesus’ life. There are some historical claims that I think are more likely true than false for which there is no more evidence than exists for the miracle claims of Jesus. However, as I’ve said before, I think it’s unreasonable to be equally accepting of all claims, no matter how incredible they are. I wouldn’t need much evidence that your favorite color is red (just you saying that it is would be enough to make it more likely than not), but I would need a lot more evidence before I believed that you had a dragon in your garage.

You keep ignoring all the circumstances and events involved and making flash judgments base on your lack of acceptance of plausible information and support. Support comes from religious and non-religious sources, from sholars pro and against, form sciences that could have produced proof contrary to faith just as easily as in support of it. You need to gather and review instead of separate and jump to opinions based on the difficulty to understand what is beyond your present human capabilities which you already recognize as limited.

Remember, I don’t expect you to believe just because of what I say but reason dictates one limits his own understanding and knowledge by refusing to accept what is not proven false and seek the truth one way or another. You have received a wealth of information that you haven’t begun to research yet.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist
*
But how do I know which ones are the dogs? I’ve heard quite a lot of bad, and in some cases dishonest, arguments from Christian apologists.*

How do you know the difference between bad arguments and dishonest ones, unless you can get inside the mind of the person you think is dishonest?

BTW, how do you define a dishonest argument? When your opponent does not admit he is wrong and you are right?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The apostles attest to their knowledge or belief based on what they were familier with that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

I agree that the apostles probably did think that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The issue is why they had that belief. Did they have that belief because they had talked to people who had personally witnessed Jesus’ birth, or did they believe that he was born in Bethlehem because they thought he was the messiah and that is where the messiah was supposed to have been born? Finally, how do we know that the apostles attested to Jesus being born in Bethlehem? I have no problem with believing that they did, but I was wondering how much evidence there is of that.

That had to originate from Mary and Joseph and anyone else who may have had some knowledge which means Mary and Joseph must have lied themselves or the apostles lied and Mary and Joseph went along with it based on your opinion. Highly unlikely considering Bethlehem was a religious center for the Jews and travel there was frequent by many many people.

How do you know that Joseph outlived Jesus and would have been around to correct the apostles? Based on what I’ve read, the gospels do not say when Joseph died. As far as Mary, I think it’s quite likely that she would have gone along with it. What would she have to gain by saying that the apostles were saying things that weren’t true? As the mother of Jesus, she would have been treated with great respect by the early Christians and would have had tons of people she could rely on if she ever had trouble supporting herself.

Additionally, Mary may not have wanted to correct the traditional account of Jesus’ birth because it would raise questions of her own honor. I don’t think that the birth of Jesus was actually a virgin birth, and if she actually did disabuse people of the notion that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies, people would have likely thought that she had been unfaithful to Joseph. I don’t know what actually did happen, but the evidence I’ve seen so far points to it being more likely that Jesus was born in Nazareth.

You don’t think any of the reasons or stated are good reasons?
Then what is the good reason you refer to leaning otherwise if not just your trouble in believing?

I guess the biggest reason is that the historical evidence we do have contradicts the gospel account (with the census etc.). I also think that the evidence in favor of him being born in Bethlehem is very thin. Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem seems like something that would have been included in the story whether or not it actually happened. Because of this, I don’t consider it to be very strong evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

I have no problem with believing that they did, but I was wondering how much evidence there is of that.

Does every little fact of the New Testament have to be proven to you beyond a shadow of doubt? Does John the Baptist’s heralding of Jesus as the promised Messiah have to be proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt? Does Jesus’ revelation of himself as the promised One have to be proven to be true rather than a made-up self-fulfilling prophecy?

I think debating with you shows that you have a tendency to believe that Christians are all around dishonest.

If you “have no problem with believing that they did,” why not just leave it at that?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist
*
But how do I know which ones are the dogs? I’ve heard quite a lot of bad, and in some cases dishonest, arguments from Christian apologists.*

How do you know the difference between bad arguments and dishonest ones, unless you can get inside the mind of the person you think is dishonest?

BTW, how do you define a dishonest argument? When your opponent does not admit he is wrong and you are right?

In a broad sense, you could say that a dishonest argument is a claim someone makes in an attempt to persuading someone else of something where the person making the claim knows it is false (there’s probably a better definition, but it’s the best I could come up with at the moment). I agree with you that it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty if someone is lying. But that doesn’t mean we should never try people for perjury.

It’s hard to tell whether a false claim is due to a lack of knowledge or dishonesty. But sometimes you can tell. If someone is an expert in a field and makes a claim that someone of his expertise would know to be false, that is dishonest. For example, if someone who had extensively studied the historicity of Jesus claimed that all historians agree that every event in the gospels actually happened, that’s dishonest. If someone is shown that one of their claims is false in one debate and continues to make it, that is also dishonest (though it’s not dishonest if they adjust their argument to fix the problem). For example, if someone was making an argument for something which used the “fact” that cats are extinct and the person they were arguing with presented them with a live cat, it would be dishonest for them to claim that cats do not exist in future debates, though they could still argue for the same issue using different evidence.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

We’re not just talking about people with false beliefs. We are talking about someone who was introduced to extreme horrid torture and infliction of pain over many hours. This is not like the torture used during our times with the necessity for the introduction of the Geneva Convention, but far beyond that. Far beyond that. Dying by being beheaded, yes I can see someone false in their belief dying in some related way. He may have been able to put up with such extreme pain and suffering although unlikely if He were wrongly convinced of His ministry, but He certainly couldn’t have returned from the Dead if He wasn’t the Messiah. You are breaking things down and separating them as though totally separate events in order to dispute the validity but you can’t because we are referring to one event, His passion and death and resurrection which is completely interconnected. Lets consider the circumstances which are unlike any other you refer to and by far out of the norm.

Well if God’s all powerful, he could raise someone from the dead even if they weren’t the messiah. But I agree with you that if Jesus rose from the dead, he was the messiah. I just don’t think there’s much evidence that he did.

Common, I know you are more intelligent than you are expressing here. What is the most common request a capture has of his prisoner and do they not usually torture prisoners to obtain their desired affect? We see it on TV all the time and it is throughout history in every war and every situation dealing with the value of prisoner submission we know of. Torture the prisoner to get information and to submission to state he or those who he represents are at fault or responsible. These are the common goals in every case with prisoner conversion.

People often do torture prisoners in order to extract a confession. But I don’t think we know that the reason for executing Jesus in such a painful way was to extract a confession. Many other people have been brutally executed in humiliating ways without confession as a goal.

You keep ignoring all the circumstances and events involved and making flash judgments base on your lack of acceptance of plausible information and support. Support comes from religious and non-religious sources, from sholars pro and against, form sciences that could have produced proof contrary to faith just as easily as in support of it. You need to gather and review instead of separate and jump to opinions based on the difficulty to understand what is beyond your present human capabilities which you already recognize as limited.

Remember, I don’t expect you to believe just because of what I say but reason dictates one limits his own understanding and knowledge by refusing to accept what is not proven false and seek the truth one way or another. You have received a wealth of information that you haven’t begun to research yet.

You’re assuming that I haven’t been gathering tons of information and trying to review it in an unbiased way. I’ve been researching the various arguments and reasons for belief that people have mentioned in this thread. I don’t just jump to conclusions without considering the evidence, but I obviously do form opinions without having read everything there is to read. It wouldn’t make sense for someone to say that they have no opinion whatsoever on whether there is a God until they have read tens of thousands of pages on the subject.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

I agree with you that it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty if someone is lying. But that doesn’t mean we should never try people for perjury.

Right, but we never try someone for perjury just by reading their mind. There must be proof that the person knew he was lying under oath

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

I agree with you that it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty if someone is lying. But that doesn’t mean we should never try people for perjury.

Right, but we never try someone for perjury just by reading their mind. There must be proof that the person knew he was lying under oath

Right, there has to be good evidence that knowingly lied. It is also possible to have good evidence that someone knowingly made a dishonest argument. It’s rare that we actually have good evidence, which is why I don’t jump to the conclusion that someone is dishonest just because I disagree with them or they make a horrible or invalid argument. However, I think there are some cases where people make bad arguments and there is good reason to think that they are being a little dishonest.

 

[twb1621]

I agree that the apostles probably did think that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The issue is why they had that belief. Did they have that belief because they had talked to people who had personally witnessed Jesus’ birth, or did they believe that he was born in Bethlehem because they thought he was the messiah and that is where the messiah was supposed to have been born? Finally, how do we know that the apostles attested to Jesus being born in Bethlehem? I have no problem with believing that they did, but I was wondering how much evidence there is of that.

Good grief. Do you believe King Henry was male or would you have to see evidence of it yourself to except it? You should realize your questions are becoming ridiculous in that you would not be able to believe any recorded history based on what you ask for. You are now asking questions as to why a person would believe something to attest to it. They witnessed what they attested to and history of Bethlehem gives plenty of good reasons why the birth would have occurred there. Matthew and Luke referred to the City of David, Bethlehem in regard to the Birth Of our Lord.
Now, unless you believe all these people from the apostles to the witnesses to the faithful to those who they assigned as successors and so on were all deceitful or ignorant to anything else taking place around them, or could fool everyone they came across, You are blinding yourself to what is reasonable even for the skeptical if nothing else.
Do you know why General Patton made every choice he made during world war II or do you not accept what he was claimed to have accomplished in various battles because you don’t know what he was thinking that lead him to each decision. My Brother, Your questions anymore are reflecting nothing more than a lack of knowledge, not improbabilities.

How do you know that Joseph outlived Jesus and would have been around to correct the apostles? Based on what I’ve read, the gospels do not say when Joseph died. As far as Mary, I think it’s quite likely that she would have gone along with it. What would she have to gain by saying that the apostles were saying things that weren’t true? As the mother of Jesus, she would have been treated with great respect by the early Christians and would have had tons of people she could rely on if she ever had trouble supporting herself.

I referred to the period of time Joseph was alive regardless of who he came in contact with. Now if Joseph and Mary were together and Mary lied about anything supporting her son being the Messiah, Joseph would have had to go along with her or abandon her or refute her as a liar. On the other hand, Mary was with Jesus and the apostles throughout Jesus ministry so anything they did not know first hand from Jesus youth would have most frequently come from Mary.
Quite likely she would have gone along with a lie? To say that you think that Mary would have gone along with such a lie is far more (completely) groundless than your disbeliefs. There were events referred to Biblically that others during that day certainly would have known to be false.

What Mary would have gained by lying is absolutely nothing at all. If Mary had been lying about her Son being the Messiah or allowed the apostles to make such claims fraudulently she would have knowing allowed them to bring about His eventual torture and crucifixion. There were no Christians at that time to support her, only the apostles once Jesus was crucified and Mary was kept in seclusion most frequently for her protection and moved geographically to keep her safe, she was not honored by anyone other than those who truly knew and followed Christ’s teachings.

If Mary even tried to debunk the apostles had they been lying Mary would have saved or attempted to save the life of her Son and averted His torture and crucifixion. You are approaching this as though they didn’t live among other people. This is not a case of someone coming to a strange country far from His home and claiming as an unknown that He is the Messiah. You have to use some common sense here. Thinking or claiming every single miraculous event could be some magic trick or a compilation of coincidences that no one ever figured out is statistically unrealistic. .

Claiming that people from a town where many miracles and events supposedly had taken place would not meet with others in nearby towns and refute such things from having happened is unrealistic. Claiming hundreds or thousands of people would gather in this relatively small geographic area to witness His miracles and learn from His teachings when it never happened would have stood out as fraud very quickly considering the number of people claimed to have been involved. Your are allowing your uninformed doubts to interfere with your common sense. They took place in a relatively small area where people crossed paths frequently.

continued next post

 

[twb1621]

Additionally, Mary may not have wanted to correct the traditional account of Jesus’ birth because it would raise questions of her own honor. I don’t think that the birth of Jesus was actually a virgin birth, and if she actually did disabuse people of the notion that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies, people would have likely thought that she had been unfaithful to Joseph. I don’t know what actually did happen, but the evidence I’ve seen so far points to it being more likely that Jesus was born in Nazareth.

There were no traditional accounts at that point.

I guess the biggest reason is that the historical evidence we do have contradicts the gospel account (with the census etc.). I also think that the evidence in favor of him being born in Bethlehem is very thin. Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem seems like something that would have been included in the story whether or not it actually happened. Because of this, I don’t consider it to be very strong evidence.

Continued from previous…

see, I can not take you seriously any longer . All these sensless questions. And this wrong to make such a statement because you have nothing that can support it. You yourself admitted there is no proof against it and I have shown you many cases of historical evidence that supports it. The census issue is ridiculous. Who can say it wasn’t called or couldn’t have been called. That’s a pathetic excuse used by some who grasp for anything regardless of its lack of reasoning and offers no validity regardless.
EA, you are now at a point where you refer your doubts as being supported by evidence which you know is a poor term to use because there is no substance to support your doubts. I feel you have reached the point where you either have to gain the knowledge to make reasonable statements and questions or admit you are shooting at flies in the dark with spit balls. You have the references to begin learning, its your choice whether you want to go on sounding uneducated or learn what it is you are talking about and I say that with all sincerity.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Good grief. Do you believe King Henry was male or would you have to see evidence of it yourself to except it?

No, there is quite a lot of evidence for things like that. We have a wealth of firsthand documents relating to King Henry. We even have many letters written by King Henry himself to Anne Boleyn. Based on these documents, it’s very implausible to think that he was not male.

You should realize your questions are becoming ridiculous in that you would not be able to believe any recorded history based on what you ask for. You are now asking questions as to why a person would believe something to attest to it. They witnessed what they attested to and history of Bethlehem gives plenty of good reasons why the birth would have occurred there. Matthew and Luke referred to the City of David, Bethlehem in regard to the Birth Of our Lord.

I’m just asking questions because I’m trying to better understand it. I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable with trying to find out which parts of the Bible are true instead of just blindly accepting every part of it as historical fact. You say that they witnessed what they attested to, but I don’t think that’s true. Did they really witness Jesus’ birth? Did they witness the women visiting the tomb of Jesus? They clearly did not witness every single thing that they attested to. If they did not have firsthand knowledge of where Jesus was born, they could have clearly deduced that he must have been born in Bethlehem based on the messianic prophecy.

Now, unless you believe all these people from the apostles to the witnesses to the faithful to those who they assigned as successors and so on were all deceitful or ignorant to anything else taking place around them, or could fool everyone they came across, You are blinding yourself to what is reasonable even for the skeptical if nothing else.
Do you know why General Patton made every choice he made during world war II or do you not accept what he was claimed to have accomplished in various battles because you don’t know what he was thinking that lead him to each decision. My Brother, Your questions anymore are reflecting nothing more than a lack of knowledge, not improbabilities.

I am making no claims of deception or ignorance. I am just claiming that they were not omniscient and probably did the best they could at reconstructing the story of Jesus’ life based on what they knew. You’re making it seem as if questioning the reliability of one historical document means that you have to throw out all history. That’s just simply not so.

There were no traditional accounts at that point.

I meant the early oral tradition that developed soon after Jesus’ death.

I referred to the period of time Joseph was alive regardless of who he came in contact with. Now if Joseph and Mary were together and Mary lied about anything supporting her son being the Messiah, Joseph would have had to go along with her or abandon her or refute her as a liar. On the other hand, Mary was with Jesus and the apostles throughout Jesus ministry so anything they did not know first hand from Jesus youth would have most frequently come from Mary.

Well if Joseph died before Jesus did, he might not have been alive when people started saying that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Quite likely she would have gone along with a lie? To say that you think that Mary would have gone along with such a lie is far more (completely) groundless than your disbeliefs. There were events referred to Biblically that others during that day certainly would have known to be false.

But I don’t think the location of Jesus’ birth is one of those events. I think I gave a pretty good explanation of why Mary might not have tried to correct the apostles concerning Jesus’ birth. You’re right that my explanation is groundless in the sense that we don’t have a good record of it so we can’t tell what really happened. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad to consider natural explanations. I think I used the example of teleportation previously in this thread. If all I knew that someone claimed to have teleported themselves, I wouldn’t know what actually happened, but I wouldn’t assume it was an actual teleportation. Any natural explanations I could come up with would be mere guesses, but I think it would be very unreasonable to say that because of this, I should assume that the teleportation really took place.

What Mary would have gained by lying is absolutely nothing at all. If Mary had been lying about her Son being the Messiah or allowed the apostles to make such claims fraudulently she would have knowing allowed them to bring about His eventual torture and crucifixion. There were no Christians at that time to support her, only the apostles once Jesus was crucified and Mary was kept in seclusion most frequently for her protection and moved geographically to keep her safe, she was not honored by anyone other than those who truly knew and followed Christ’s teachings.

Well we had been talking about the apostles claiming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem after Jesus’ death. Having the apostles to keep her safe would have been far better than having nobody at all. You also brought up Mary not trying to stop Jesus from a path that would lead to his death. Why do you assume that she didn’t try to convince him to stop? She may have realized that there was not much she could do about it (people who believed in Jesus would have taken his word over that of his mother for example). Or Mary may have thought that Jesus was some form of messiah or spiritual leader. Despite Jesus not doing everything the Jews expected their messiah to do, early Christians still believed that he was the messiah. Mary may have done the same despite knowing that Jesus did not fulfill the Bethlehem prophecy.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If Mary even tried to debunk the apostles had they been lying Mary would have saved or attempted to save the life of her Son and averted His torture and crucifixion. You are approaching this as though they didn’t live among other people. This is not a case of someone coming to a strange country far from His home and claiming as an unknown that He is the Messiah. You have to use some common sense here. Thinking or claiming every single miraculous event could be some magic trick or a compilation of coincidences that no one ever figured out is statistically unrealistic.

I agree. It is unlikely that all the miracle claims in the Bible were merely magic tricks. I think it is much more likely that some of them never happened but were nevertheless added to the story.

Claiming that people from a town where many miracles and events supposedly had taken place would not meet with others in nearby towns and refute such things from having happened is unrealistic.

If I lived in a town in which people claimed that a miracle took place and I don’t remember any such miracle, I would just assume that I had missed it (if I believed in miracles). But I’m sure that in a town where tons of miracles supposedly took place, there would be some people who always hung around town and would realize that those miracle stories couldn’t all be right. But when you hear about a small religion that seems clearly false, the average person doesn’t devote themselves to disproving it. Especially back then, when there were many miracle claims floating around, I think that people likely would have just ignored false claims. It wouldn’t have been worth the trouble of traveling to where the apostles were and telling them that those miracles didn’t actually happen. Even if someone did do this, I really doubt that the apostles would have believed them. It would have merely been one man’s word against another, and I doubt anyone would have given up faith in Christ as a result.

Claiming hundreds or thousands of people would gather in this relatively small geographic area to witness His miracles and learn from His teachings when it never happened would have stood out as fraud very quickly considering the number of people claimed to have been involved. Your are allowing your uninformed doubts to interfere with your common sense. They took place in a relatively small area where people crossed paths frequently.
see, I can not take you seriously any longer . All these sensless questions. And this wrong to make such a statement because you have nothing that can support it. You yourself admitted there is no proof against it and I have shown you many cases of historical evidence that supports it. The census issue is ridiculous. Who can say it wasn’t called or couldn’t have been called. That’s a pathetic excuse used by some who grasp for anything regardless of its lack of reasoning and offers no validity regardless.

You have shown circumstantial evidence which supports it. Second or third hand accounts constitute some evidence, but are not strong evidence of supernatural claims when there are other explanations. If a group of four men showed up at my doorstep and said that they did not used to believe in any Gods, but God appeared to them in the form of a dog and told them that all the old religions are wrong and they should start a new one and they now they have no doubt that he exists, that would not be enough to convince me that God does exist. I might not have evidence that they are liars, or that they took drugs, or that they have mental problems, or that they had only experienced it in a dream or vision, but I would consider any of those explanations more likely than the explanation that God actually had appeared to them as a dog. But in the case of the gospels, we don’t know who wrote them and they were likely not written by witnesses. There are many theories of what happened, and as in the case of the dog we don’t know which one is true. In both cases, I think it would be wrong to think that God was involved merely because we don’t have evidence for any of the natural explanations.

EA, you are now at a point where you refer your doubts as being supported by evidence which you know is a poor term to use because there is no substance to support your doubts. I feel you have reached the point where you either have to gain the knowledge to make reasonable statements and questions or admit you are shooting at flies in the dark with spit balls. You have the references to begin learning, its your choice whether you want to go on sounding uneducated or learn what it is you are talking about and I say that with all sincerity.

I think my statements and questions are reasonable and I don’t think you’ve shown any significant problems with them. I also think I have spent far more time educating myself about these issues than most people have.

 

[twb1621]

No, there is quite a lot of evidence for things like that. We have a wealth of firsthand documents relating to King Henry. We even have many letters written by King Henry himself to Anne Boleyn. Based on these documents, it’s very implausible to think that he was not male.

But how do you know what you have available was not just to present King Henry in a more manly light? Or that those who wrote didn’t assume or where not threatened to write what they did? These are some of the kings of questions you are beginning to raise. These are the kind of questions you are raising lately.

I’m just asking questions because I’m trying to better understand it. I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable with trying to find out which parts of the Bible are true instead of just blindly accepting every part of it as historical fact. You say that they witnessed what they attested to, but I don’t think that’s true. Did they really witness Jesus’ birth? Did they witness the women visiting the tomb of Jesus? They clearly did not witness every single thing that they attested to. If they did not have firsthand knowledge of where Jesus was born, they could have clearly deduced that he must have been born in Bethlehem based on the messianic prophecy.

No they didn’t witness Jesus Birth but there were those who did and those who became aware of it and certain events resulted from the knowledge of His Birth. It was not a secret from everyone that the Messiah had been born and I am sure it was not forgotten over the time He grew. There is nothing wrong with asking questions is you want to learn something but if you are merely trying to raise questions to refute what you can not believe, that is non-productive. You need proof or reassurance but you have to recognize there is a degree of faith you must have and in order to find that faith you have to earnestly seek the truth. The faith comes from the Grace of God but you must be open to it. You can’t be open to all the grace He offers you unless you seek to know. If you want reassurance in His existence and in a true relationship with Him, you will have to open yourself up to non-biased learning. He is not going to come to you to prove to you “He is”. You have to seek Him out. How? Go beyond asking questions and research the information you have been given. You will have excellent resources soon to do that, don’t waste them.

I am making no claims of deception or ignorance. I am just claiming that they were not omniscient and probably did the best they could at reconstructing the story of Jesus’ life based on what they knew. You’re making it seem as if questioning the reliability of one historical document means that you have to throw out all history. That’s just simply not so.

You do not take reality into consideration. Do you recognize the fact He was never in isolation and that many people who knew Him and His family at various stages of His life crossed their own social paths also? It is not like each stage of His life was isolated to itself. Think moe deeply about it.

I meant the early oral tradition that developed soon after Jesus’ death.

The early oral tradition that developed did so as Jesus taught first hand and was continued by those He immediately taught. There is no question about that as they themselves attested that and their books were written at different times and in different places and so on.

Well if Joseph died before Jesus did, he might not have been alive when people started saying that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

He might not, He did die before Jesus died. But it is irrelevant in this case what Joseph witnessed or said because there is nothing to reference anyway. The questions were all hypothetical.

But I don’t think the location of Jesus’ birth is one of those events. I think I gave a pretty good explanation of why Mary might not have tried to correct the apostles concerning Jesus’ birth. You’re right that my explanation is groundless in the sense that we don’t have a good record of it so we can’t tell what really happened. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad to consider natural explanations. I think I used the example of teleportation previously in this thread. If all I knew that someone claimed to have teleported themselves, I wouldn’t know what actually happened, but I wouldn’t assume it was an actual teleportation. Any natural explanations I could come up with would be mere guesses, but I think it would be very unreasonable to say that because of this, I should assume that the teleportation really took place.

Well we had been talking about the apostles claiming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem after Jesus’ death. Having the apostles to keep her safe would have been far better than having nobody at all. You also brought up Mary not trying to stop Jesus from a path that would lead to his death. Why do you assume that she didn’t try to convince him to stop? She may have realized that there was not much she could do about it (people who believed in Jesus would have taken his word over that of his mother for example). Or Mary may have thought that Jesus was some form of messiah or spiritual leader. Despite Jesus not doing everything the Jews expected their messiah to do, early Christians still believed that he was the messiah. Mary may have done the same despite knowing that Jesus did not fulfill the Bethlehem prophecy.

Jesus was very visible in His adolescent years and was well known for His involvement and intelligence by those who taught in the temples.

You are talking about a young girl who accepted giving birth and raising the Son of God. The “story” didn’t just start with the Birth of Jesus. Your hypothetical do not make sense with human nature or familial bonds or survival in any of the issues we have recently discussed. You need to begin researching and thinking realistically. I am not tryng to be harsh, just point out you need to do more than just ask questions and this is a serious matter to learn about. You are also very inexperienced with life and much of what you learn in life teaches amond other things human nature and survival in many ways.

 

[twb1621]

I agree. It is unlikely that all the miracle claims in the Bible were merely magic tricks. I think it is much more likely that some of them never happened but were nevertheless added to the story.

EA, you are talking like we are only referring to one or two miracles. We are talking about several all at the hands of Jesus. Compared to those still happening today with all our more intelligent worldly and scientific wisdom, there is great similarity and pattern to many. You do not consider everything involved or you would not talk in reference to sole events.

If I lived in a town in which people claimed that a miracle took place and I don’t remember any such miracle,
again with the “a miracle” thought process.

I would just assume that I had missed it (if I believed in miracles). But I’m sure that in a town where tons of miracles supposedly took place, there would be some people who always hung around town and would realize that those miracle stories couldn’t all be right.

Your are right those who didn’t witness them more than not. But did no one see Him to say He was their? If they did see Him did they not speak of His miracles such as raising the dead or healing what they knew was incurable at that time? Would they have blown these things off that they would have been unheard of? Think about it.

But when you hear about a small religion that seems clearly false, the average person doesn’t devote themselves to disproving it. Especially back then, when there were many miracle claims floating around, I think that people likely would have just ignored false claims.

They would have. How do you make a determination like “clearly” and claim you are open minded. You do not have a thing to make such a judgment which makes it seem futile in trying to help you get anywhere. Why do you think this was the one faith that stood the test of time and belief during that period and beyond? Luck? The number of followers who were continually martyred just because they believed in Him. No matter what their adversaries did, nothing could sway them as did all other religions from self claimed prophets.

It wouldn’t have been worth the trouble of traveling to where the apostles were and telling them that those miracles didn’t actually happen. Even if someone did do this, I really doubt that the apostles would have believed them. It would have merely been one man’s word against another, and I doubt anyone would have given up faith in Christ as a result.

Again, the apostles believed them because they were present during Jesus ministry and witnessed these things. He specifically performed these things to bring the awareness to the disbelievers, it was not done in secret.

You have shown circumstantial evidence which supports it. Second or third hand accounts constitute some evidence, but are not strong evidence of supernatural claims when there are other explanations. If a group of four men showed up at my doorstep and said that they did not used to believe in any Gods, but God appeared to them in the form of a dog and told them that all the old religions are wrong and they should start a new one and they now they have no doubt that he exists, that would not be enough to convince me that God does exist. I might not have evidence that they are liars, or that they took drugs, or that they have mental problems, or that they had only experienced it in a dream or vision, but I would consider any of those explanations more likely than the explanation that God actually had appeared to them as a dog. But in the case of the gospels, we don’t know who wrote them and they were likely not written by witnesses. There are many theories of what happened, and as in the case of the dog we don’t know which one is true. In both cases, I think it would be wrong to think that God was involved merely because we don’t have evidence for any of the natural explanations.

No there are not many theories, there are many questions, many of which are of little or no value because they raise questions that either are of no value in themselves or they question things that can be questioned with any historic events these same people readily accept. Do you know why? Because they can’t accept the fact that some things we do not have the ability to control or understand about the world around us and never will and it freaks them out to have to think there is something much more powerful that we must rely on and eventually answer to. I very much aware already based on some of the issues you raised that you “chose” to take the word for agnostic and atheistic scientists who have no more proof at best that any of this is false and it is easier for you to accept those who doubt as you do. But try researching the scholars who were atheists and agnostics and who can refute the others with as much if not more credibility and sense and see what it was that caused there conversion. They were like you or even more set in their disbeliefs than you at one time.

I think my statements and questions are reasonable and I don’t think you’ve shown any significant problems with them. I also think I have spent far more time educating myself about these issues than most people have.

Some of your questions are reasonable and some are above and beyond reasonable unless you question all history as you do Christianity. You may not see problems with them but then you would not see or you would not raise them. Keep in mind the Bible is not a biography or auto biography of Jesus life, But you refer to it in that way with the disposition that it is a poor record at best. it is a partial record of His teachings and as John points out in the Bible itself, it is far from a complete record.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TWB,

You know… I have always had my doubts about King Henry … and, was he really born in England…?

There comes a point where it would just be so much easier to hear him say, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up!” and then go on to another topic.

twb1621:
Claiming that people from a town where many miracles and events supposedly had taken place would not meet with others in nearby towns and refute such things from having happened is unrealistic. Claiming hundreds or thousands of people would gather in this relatively small geographic area to witness His miracles and learn from His teachings when it never happened would have stood out as fraud very quickly considering the number of people claimed to have been involved. Your are allowing your uninformed doubts to interfere with your common sense. They took place in a relatively small area where people crossed paths frequently.

Have a great day

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But how do you know what you have available was not just to present King Henry in a more manly light? Or that those who wrote didn’t assume or where not threatened to write what they did? These are some of the kings of questions you are beginning to raise. These are the kind of questions you are raising lately.

Fair enough. The biggest difference is the incredible number of firsthand documents we have concerning King Henry. If he was only pretending to be male, it would be an unbelievably vast conspiracy, and it’s hard to imagine why so many different people would be motivated to say he was. We even have private letters from people who met King Henry in which they describe his physical appearance. Basically, there’s no reason to suspect that King Henry was female, and the evidence we do have strongly contradicts that theory. You can’t prove anything like that with 100% certainty, but his gender is so historically well evidenced that it should be treated as a historical fact.

I think the evidence for King Henry’s gender is orders of magnitude better than the evidence regarding Jesus’ divinity. In addition, the claim that Jesus actually was God is a far more incredible claim than the claim that King Henry was male and should not be as readily accepted.

No they didn’t witness Jesus Birth but there were those who did and those who became aware of it and certain events resulted from the knowledge of His Birth. It was not a secret from everyone that the Messiah had been born and I am sure it was not forgotten over the time He grew.

Is there evidence for this outside the gospels? I tend to think that things like Herod’s slaughter of the innocents did not actually happen.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions is you want to learn something but if you are merely trying to raise questions to refute what you can not believe, that is non-productive. You need proof or reassurance but you have to recognize there is a degree of faith you must have and in order to find that faith you have to earnestly seek the truth. The faith comes from the Grace of God but you must be open to it. You can’t be open to all the grace He offers you unless you seek to know. If you want reassurance in His existence and in a true relationship with Him, you will have to open yourself up to non-biased learning. He is not going to come to you to prove to you “He is”. You have to seek Him out. How? Go beyond asking questions and research the information you have been given. You will have excellent resources soon to do that, don’t waste them.

I’ve been earnestly seeking the truth, but that hasn’t led me any closer to believing or having faith.

You do not take reality into consideration. Do you recognize the fact He was never in isolation and that many people who knew Him and His family at various stages of His life crossed their own social paths also? It is not like each stage of His life was isolated to itself. Think moe deeply about it.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I hadn’t been treating each stage of his life as isolated.

The early oral tradition that developed did so as Jesus taught first hand and was continued by those He immediately taught. There is no question about that as they themselves attested that and their books were written at different times and in different places and so on.
He might not, He did die before Jesus died. But it is irrelevant in this case what Joseph witnessed or said because there is nothing to reference anyway. The questions were all hypothetical.

Ok.

Jesus was very visible in His adolescent years and was well known for His involvement and intelligence by those who taught in the temples.

You are talking about a young girl who accepted giving birth and raising the Son of God. The “story” didn’t just start with the Birth of Jesus. Your hypothetical do not make sense with human nature or familial bonds or survival in any of the issues we have recently discussed. You need to begin researching and thinking realistically. I am not tryng to be harsh, just point out you need to do more than just ask questions and this is a serious matter to learn about. You are also very inexperienced with life and much of what you learn in life teaches amond other things human nature and survival in many ways.

I do not think that my suggestions “do not make sense with human nature or familial bonds or survival”. I explained earlier why they seem perfectly compatible with those things.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

EA, you are talking like we are only referring to one or two miracles. We are talking about several all at the hands of Jesus. Compared to those still happening today with all our more intelligent worldly and scientific wisdom, there is great similarity and pattern to many. You do not consider everything involved or you would not talk in reference to sole events.
again with the “a miracle” thought process.
Your are right those who didn’t witness them more than not. But did no one see Him to say He was their? If they did see Him did they not speak of His miracles such as raising the dead or healing what they knew was incurable at that time? Would they have blown these things off that they would have been unheard of? Think about it.

I didn’t say people would blow things off. I was just saying that if miracle stories were added later, I don’t think there would be people publically correcting them.

They would have. How do you make a determination like “clearly” and claim you are open minded. You do not have a thing to make such a judgment which makes it seem futile in trying to help you get anywhere.

I wasn’t making a general statement that Christianity “seems clearly false”. I was saying that if there was someone who knew that the miracles claimed by Christianity had not taken place (because they lived where the miracles were supposed to have taken place), they probably would not have bothered with trying to persuade everyone that it was false.

Why do you think this was the one faith that stood the test of time and belief during that period and beyond? Luck? The number of followers who were continually martyred just because they believed in Him. No matter what their adversaries did, nothing could sway them as did all other religions from self claimed prophets.

No offense, but I think those are pretty poor arguments. There are lots of religions that have been around for a while, such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Islam. And Islam also has had plenty of martyrs.

Again, the apostles believed them because they were present during Jesus ministry and witnessed these things. He specifically performed these things to bring the awareness to the disbelievers, it was not done in secret.

Assuming he actually performed miracles that is.

No there are not many theories, there are many questions, many of which are of little or no value because they raise questions that either are of no value in themselves or they question things that can be questioned with any historic events these same people readily accept. Do you know why? Because they can’t accept the fact that some things we do not have the ability to control or understand about the world around us and never will and it freaks them out to have to think there is something much more powerful that we must rely on and eventually answer to.

I don’t think this is a fair generalization. It could be true of some people, but I think that a lot of atheists are atheists simply because the arguments for God’s existence don’t seem to work.

I very much aware already based on some of the issues you raised that you “chose” to take the word for agnostic and atheistic scientists who have no more proof at best that any of this is false and it is easier for you to accept those who doubt as you do. But try researching the scholars who were atheists and agnostics and who can refute the others with as much if not more credibility and sense and see what it was that caused there conversion. They were like you or even more set in their disbeliefs than you at one time.

I don’t just “take the word for agnostic and atheistic scientists”. I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to. By the way, I’ve read some stuff by ex-atheists and didn’t find any of it terribly convincing.

Some of your questions are reasonable and some are above and beyond reasonable unless you question all history as you do Christianity. You may not see problems with them but then you would not see or you would not raise them. Keep in mind the Bible is not a biography or auto biography of Jesus life, But you refer to it in that way with the disposition that it is a poor record at best. it is a partial record of His teachings and as John points out in the Bible itself, it is far from a complete record.

I wasn’t assuming that the Bible was a complete biography.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Let’s see now, it looks like your posts start off doubing, then go about hinting of a possibility, then it is back to doubting, and then it is backtracking on what you said, what you meant and how can we slip a wee-bit more doubt into the response and then start all over. It is getting harder to do this dance… isn’t it…

I didn’t say people would blow things off. I was just saying that if miracle stories were added later, I don’t think there would be people publically correcting them. This entire line of reasoning hangs on “if” - and “if” the moon were made of cheese (the scientists just haven’t broken through to the cheese layer yet!) then the next mission might bring more crackers! Imagine! The entire story of Christ is wrapped in one miracle after another. His conception, birth and flight from murdering Herod. His public ministry from changing water into wine to dying for our sins is a non-stop parade of small and great miracles that were recorded. Many miracles along with other aspects of Jesus’ life were NOT written down. Here are two things to think about:

1- Marriage Feast of Cana. Here is this little village with a wedding reception in progress. Who do you think would care 2,000 years later if the newly weds ran out of wine. Who do you think would want to launch a fraud over a small insignificant wedding with no crowd gathered to witness it (only the servats were aware of what had happened)? I think by our standards, it was a non-event - that Christ chose to elevate to the status of His First Miracle

2- Why do you think Christ always had this large following around Him - even though He had no political position, money or any source of obvious power? At a time when the Romans with money and power had large followings - they had to pay (retainers, positions, bread and circus, etc.) for this attention. Christ was able to draw crowds initially because of his miracles - and, if you just stop there - that ought to be a ‘wow’! Imagine the next peson running for US President - able to feed thousands, heal the sick, raise the dead … he would be elected in a heart beat! But, Christ was not seeking political recognition - and, just like in John 6, he walked away.

I wasn’t making a general statement that Christianity “seems clearly false”. I was saying that if there was someone who knew that the miracles claimed by Christianity had not taken place (because they lived where the miracles were supposed to have taken place), they probably would not have bothered with trying to persuade everyone that it was false.

No offense, but I think those are pretty poor arguments. There are lots of religions that have been around for a while, such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Islam. And Islam also has had plenty of martyrs. “Hold on - EA - it looks like any position you do not argee is simply poorly argued - yet, your arguments consist of nothing more then, I don’t believe in God even though there could be!” All of the patterns we see in nature are just coinsidence, the universe just happened and although you can not explain how we got here - you state there is no God to have brought this all about! And, you claim this is good argumentation?

Assuming he actually performed miracles that is. You know, today there are those that doubt Caesar crossed the Rubricon. Napoleon won at Waterloo and that the Nazi death camps never existed. These people will only believe what they choose.

From what I have read, there has been a lot of evasion, avoidence and mishandling of excellent posts. You can do better with this about to be exhausted thread. Don’t disappoint me on this.

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Let’s see now, it looks like your posts start off doubing, then go about hinting of a possibility, then it is back to doubting, and then it is backtracking on what you said, what you meant and how can we slip a wee-bit more doubt into the response and then start all over. It is getting harder to do this dance… isn’t it…

I think you’re mischaracterizing my posts.

This entire line of reasoning hangs on “if” - and “if” the moon were made of cheese (the scientists just haven’t broken through to the cheese layer yet!) then the next mission might bring more crackers! Imagine!

There’s a big difference between believing that Jesus was not the son of God and believing the moon is made of cheese. Not only would it make no sense how the cheese would have gotten there, we have done some studies which allow us to figure out what the moon is actually composed of.

The entire story of Christ is wrapped in one miracle after another. His conception, birth and flight from murdering Herod. His public ministry from changing water into wine to dying for our sins is a non-stop parade of small and great miracles that were recorded. Many miracles along with other aspects of Jesus’ life were NOT written down. Here are two things to think about:

1- Marriage Feast of Cana. Here is this little village with a wedding reception in progress. Who do you think would care 2,000 years later if the newly weds ran out of wine. Who do you think would want to launch a fraud over a small insignificant wedding with no crowd gathered to witness it (only the servats were aware of what had happened)? I think by our standards, it was a non-event - that Christ chose to elevate to the status of His First Miracle

But isn’t that the point? If it was not a real event, there would not have been people to say that the Christians were making false claims.

2- Why do you think Christ always had this large following around Him - even though He had no political position, money or any source of obvious power? At a time when the Romans with money and power had large followings - they had to pay (retainers, positions, bread and circus, etc.) for this attention. Christ was able to draw crowds initially because of his miracles - and, if you just stop there - that ought to be a ‘wow’! Imagine the next peson running for US President - able to feed thousands, heal the sick, raise the dead … he would be elected in a heart beat! But, Christ was not seeking political recognition - and, just like in John 6, he walked away.

I’m pretty sure that there were quite a few ancient “miracle workers” who were able to build groups of loyal followers. Even today, there are people who claim to be able to perform miracles and build large groups of devoted followers. And people don’t even have to be able to perform real miracles to do so. For example, I think the evidence points to Benny Hinn being a fraud and not a real miracle worker, but he has still been able to get a huge following.

“Hold on - EA - it looks like any position you do not argee is simply poorly argued - yet, your arguments consist of nothing more then, I don’t believe in God even though there could be!”

Well I don’t think that any of the arguments for Christianity that I’ve seen so far actually work or else I’d be a believer. However, that doesn’t mean that they’re all equally bad. Those two that I criticized seem especially poor and I see that you did not actually defend their soundness.

God is not the only thing that possibly could exist, but which I do not believe in. I also do not believe in Santa Claus or in Bigfoot. While it is possible that they could exist, I see absolutely no good reasons to think that they do. If you were talking with someone who believed in one of these things, all you could say is that you don’t think that any of the reasons they give for their existence are very good.

All of the patterns we see in nature are just coinsidence, the universe just happened and although you can not explain how we got here - you state there is no God to have brought this all about! And, you claim this is good argumentation?

I’m not trying to argue that God does not exist because of any of those things. If I was, that would be a pretty bad argument. By the way, we do have a pretty good understanding of how we came to be: evolution.

You know, today there are those that doubt Caesar crossed the Rubricon. Napoleon won at Waterloo and that the Nazi death camps never existed. These people will only believe what they choose.

Okay, but you don’t show that my position is similarly weak. There are people who are skeptical of things they shouldn’t be skeptical of, and people who believe things they shouldn’t believe. I could similarly mention some religions which are today seen as silly and say that all religious people will believe what they want to believe despite the evidence. But I don’t think this generalization would be any fairer.

From what I have read, there has been a lot of evasion, avoidence and mishandling of excellent posts. You can do better with this about to be exhausted thread. Don’t disappoint me on this.

God bless

I have tried to respond fully to every single point. I have not tried to evade anything, but if you think there’s a point that I missed, I’d be happy to take another look.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvalAtheist,

I do have something to share with you … while we have not seen eye to eye on much … I would like to commend you for your polite responses. Ah…and now on to business…

I think you’re mischaracterizing my posts. Now, that is what makes a horse-race!

There’s a big difference between believing that Jesus was not the son of God and believing the moon is made of cheese. Not only would it make no sense how the cheese would have gotten there, we have done some studies which allow us to figure out what the moon is actually composed of. The cheese bit is probably from having the grandkids over and having a steady diet of “Wallace and Gromet” movies! But, this was a deliberate exaggeration and not to be taken literally.

But isn’t that the point? If it was not a real event, there would not have been people to say that the Christians were making false claims. Is it that you just don’t see the flaw in this line of reasoning? While not trying to beat the moon being made of cheese to death - here we have an unreal event and we have all of these silly stories running around. Your second sentence starts off with IF - and if you base everything on this - it is not materially different from the cheesy moon story. To turn your sentence around: “If it was a real event, there would have been people to say that the Christians were making false claims.” Does that make any sense to you? It certianly does not make any sense to me. Christ was a historic Person who appeared in the writings of Josephus, a Jewish secular historian writing for the Roman Emperor. People have been following and dying for Christ since 33AD. He just can’t be dismissed as some fraud.

I’m pretty sure that there were quite a few ancient “miracle workers” who were able to build groups of loyal followers. Even today, there are people who claim to be able to perform miracles and build large groups of devoted followers. And people don’t even have to be able to perform real miracles to do so. For example, I think the evidence points to Benny Hinn being a fraud and not a real miracle worker, but he has still been able to get a huge following. Yes, there are some serious questions about Hinn ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn ) but the bottom line is look for the horses and not the zebras - look for the common-place and not the exotic. It is in the routine daily activity that the majority will show you where they stand. Flamboyant presenters are just that - and their show will continue to go on until they implode (do you recall Jimmy Swaggart? If not, here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jimmy_Swaggart ) But, stop looking for the extra-ordinary to prove your point - the ordinary is out there for all to see without the distortions of fanfare, loud music and spotlights.

Well I don’t think that any of the arguments for Christianity that I’ve seen so far actually work or else I’d be a believer. Stop right there. Do you see how you are using yourself as the ultimate criteria for knowledge and discernment? Surely, this should ring some kind of bell that says, “Wait a minute, I can learn things for others. I can be shown a way I had not thought of before.” Your sentences totally excludes the possibility of self-deception … and we all know how our senses can be fooled - repeatedly by tricks and ambiguous pictures and shapes created by psychologists meant to see how you see things. Here is an interesting link on how the eye and mind can be easily deceived: alcohol-drug.com/opt_illus.html

I have tried to respond fully to every single point. I have not tried to evade anything, but if you think there’s a point that I missed, I’d be happy to take another look.

Sorry, but I have run out of time … but you get the idea…I think. At least, I hope you do. If not, let me spell it out for you: God really does love you. And, I think a lot of folks are praying for you.

God bless