I believe there is God, I believe Christ was God, persuade me of the benefits of renouncing this belief

[Vonsalza]

C’mon guys.

 

[PRmerger]

C’mon guys.

My apologies! :tiphat:

 

[inocente]

None to this means what they say is true, but it suggests they truly believe what they wrote to their audience. Let us not discount their audience - first century Roman citizens - as gullible fools. We can heap as much criticism on the Gospels, but this criticism does not explain why they wrote what they did and why so many people accepted it.

It can be argued the time for such a belief was right. The ground was sufficiently fertile to receive the belief, but I am not persuaded the authors of the Gospels would risk their lives - which they did - for something they knew was a lie. In other words, they believed what they wrote. It can be argued they were mistaken, but that does not change the fact they believed what they wrote. Why did they believe it? They witnessed events that endorsed the belief, and a belief not previously held and handed down.

This line of reasoning does not prove God exists, but I think it is a sound argument. I am course open to criticism as a persuasive argument is not an argument that convinces oneself, but rather one that persuades others who disagree as to the soundness of your reasoning.

It’s a bit problematic given things like Heaven’s Gate. In 1997, 39 members of the cult died in a mass suicide believing that the apocalypse was coming.

They had decided that the appearance of Comet Hale–Bopp was a sign that Earth was about to be “recycled” and wiped clean, but they could avoid death as their bodies were mere “vehicles” from which their souls must depart to reach the “Next Level” where they would live in bliss. To prepare for this journey, they needed to leave their mother and father and give up all worldly things. The first to do so was Jesus, at the instruction of his “Father” (older member). They were opposed in this by “Luciferians”, a race of evil space aliens.

And so on. Sounds like an over the top script for a straight-to-DVD movie, something no one could possibly believe, but somehow they convinced themselves.

 

[Vonsalza]

My apologies! :tiphat:

Let’s be perfectly clear here:

I’m the one that gets to be combative.
:slapfight::knight2:

The rest of you need to maintain your reputations as measured, objective arbiters of truth.

 

[minkymurph]

It’s a bit problematic given things like Heaven’s Gate. In 1997, 39 members of the cult died in a mass suicide believing that the apocalypse was coming.

They had decided that the appearance of Comet Hale–Bopp was a sign that Earth was about to be “recycled” and wiped clean, but they could avoid death as their bodies were mere “vehicles” from which their souls must depart to reach the “Next Level” where they would live in bliss. To prepare for this journey, they needed to leave their mother and father and give up all worldly things. The first to do so was Jesus, at the instruction of his “Father” (older member). They were opposed in this by “Luciferians”, a race of evil space aliens.

And so on. Sounds like an over the top script for a straight-to-DVD movie, something no one could possibly believe, but somehow they convinced themselves.

One can convince oneself of anything if one wants to.

Fortunately the majority are not extremists.

 

[minkymurph]

Let’s be perfectly clear here:

I’m the one that gets to be combative.
:slapfight::knight2:

The rest of you need to maintain your reputations as measured, objective arbiters of truth.

I consider myself told.
:harp:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That depends on your point of view and what you want to prove. What can be said is it is unlikely the authors of Scripture wrote what they did without reason or purpose.

That they had their reason and purpose is not doubted. The historicity of their writs is doubted.

Prior to the printing press there was little need for interpretation as no one had a Bible. Once the Bible was in circulation and disputes arose interpretation became necessary.

Are you aware of the Chinese whispering game? Even if everyone is honest and tries their best to pass on the information they received, it is inevitable that the message eventually will be distorted. And up until a few hundred years ago every chapter and verse was considered a literally correct description of what allegedly transpired, from the talking serpent all the way until the resurrection.

If you walk into a Catholic library you will find a hoard of books on Scripture, and from the advent of the internet there is a hoard of authoritative sources that can be accessed online. For this reason I fail to see how it can be said the Church should spend time sorting the wheat from the chaff.

**So where is the book which enumerates the historically correct texts and separates them from the allegorical ones and the fairy tales? **

If you say there is no evidence for the miracles Jesus performed outside the Bible, I would say your out of touch with contemporary developments. Recently there have been quite a number of authoritative documentaries on topics such as the miracles of the Bible.

I watched one recently about Jesus. Much evidence was presented outside the Bible by experts in - among other things - history and and archaeology.

It was you who said that there is no evidence outside the scriptures. Your words were: “Concerning Jesus walking on water - we have no evidence outside Scripture.” What kind of historical and archeological evidence could be used as evidence for feeding a crowd with a few small fish?

 

[PRmerger]

It is not the case Jesus must be God because he walked on water.

The authors of the Gospels go to considerable lengths to establish Jesus credentials in terms of they claim he is. There’s a lot more to being God than walking on water.

Indeed.

In the first century there were lots of beliefs in circulation as to who Christ was. These beliefs are documented outside the Bible. If my memory serves me right what Catholics now believe concerning Christ was decided at the Council of Nicaea AD 325 after much deliberation.

Not exactly. It was always believed and professed, from the beginning, by the Apostles and their successors.

The fact that it was definitively defined at the CofN does not mean that this was the beginning of the belief in the divinity of Christ.

 

[minkymurph]

Are you aware of the Chinese whispering game? Even if everyone is honest and tries their best to pass on the information they received, it is inevitable that the message eventually will be distorted. And up until a few hundred years ago every chapter and verse was considered a literally correct description of what allegedly transpired, from the talking serpent all the way until the resurrection.

Of course - I wasn’t arguing stories don’t become embellished nor some of the details may change.

**So where is the book which enumerates the historically correct texts and separates them from the allegorical ones and the fairy tales? **

Seek and you shall find - I don’t do research on other peoples behalf. That said, I don’t think there is any mention of fairies in the Bible so you may find it difficult to find an authoritative source that identifies any parts of the Bible as fairy stories.

More seriously, scholars would not categorize the literary genre of Biblical texts as fairy stories. Myth narratives yes. Myth narratives are not categorized by fairy stories by the academic world.

It was you who said that there is no evidence outside the scriptures. Your words were: “Concerning Jesus walking on water - we have no evidence outside Scripture.” What kind of historical and archeological evidence could be used as evidence for feeding a crowd with a few small fish?

I did say that.

If you want to know what kind of historical and archaeological evidence could be used as evidence for feeding a crowd with a few small fish, watch the documentary. You are every bit as capable of sourcing the information online as I am. I don’t do research for others. I used to, only for the poster who requested it not to read it, reject as authoritative irrespective of what is was.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If my memory serves me right what Catholics now believe concerning Christ was decided at the Council of Nicaea AD 325 after much deliberation.

Correct. And the books which were included in the Bible (or excluded as apocryphal) were decided by a majority vote.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Seek and you shall find - I don’t do research on other peoples behalf. That said, I don’t think there is any mention of fairies in the Bible so you may find it difficult to find an authoritative source that identifies any parts of the Bible as fairy stories.

Ah, but I used it allegorically.

 

[Kaninchen]

The ground was sufficiently fertile to receive the belief, but I am not persuaded the authors of the Gospels would risk their lives - which they did - for something they knew was a lie.

Just a nudge to point out that this line of argument depends on tradition rather than anything else.

 

[PRmerger]

Seek and you shall find - I don’t do research on other peoples behalf. That said, I don’t think there is any mention of fairies in the Bible so you may find it difficult to find an authoritative source that identifies any parts of the Bible as fairy stories.

More seriously, scholars would not categorize the literary genre of Biblical texts as fairy stories. Myth narratives yes. Myth narratives are not categorized by fairy stories by the academic world…

The Church gives us the guidelines, as I already cited on the Scratch an Atheist Find a (Fundamentalist) thread:

We discern Scripture this way:

1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”;
2. Read the Scripture within “the living tradition of the whole Church”; and,
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Just a nudge to point out that this line of argument depends on tradition rather than anything else.

Not sure what you mean? Can you elucidate, please?

 

[Kaninchen]

Not sure what you mean? Can you elucidate, please?

Well, that’s sort of the problem - the idea that the apostles/early disciples were prone to martyrdom is often raised but establishing that it was the case is rather more difficult - from experience here, it turns out to rather depend on whether one accepts the word of an ‘Early Church Father’ (but far later) or two.

You’re welcome to try, obviously, but, over the years, it’s turned out not to be as easy as people think.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s sort of the problem - the idea that the apostles/early disciples were prone to martyrdom is often raised but establishing that it was the case is rather more difficult - from experience here, it turns out to rather depend on whether one accepts the word of an ‘Early Church Father’ (but far later) or two.

You’re welcome to try, obviously, but, over the years, it’s turned out not to be as easy as people think.

There’s as much proof for these events as there is for any other event of antiquity.

If you doubt the martyrdom of the early Christians, you’ll have to doubt the existence of the Roman empire, the Peloponnesian Wars, any of these events up to modern times…

 

[Kaninchen]

There’s as much proof for these events as there is for any other event of antiquity.

If you doubt the martyrdom of the early Christians, you’ll have to doubt the existence of the Roman empire, the Peloponnesian Wars, any of these events up to modern times…

Nope, I don’t have to do anything of the sort and you know it.

Why not just accept that it’s a matter of tradition? Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[Vonsalza]

There’s some merit to PR’s point.

We all believe in a dude named Socrates. But if it weren’t for the journal of one Greek mercenary, we’d know next to nothing about him.

Another “goody” is the debate over the existence of Homer’s Troy. We’re pretty sure it’s a “yes”, but that was decided in your lifetimes and there are still doubters.

 

[inocente]

One can convince oneself of anything if one wants to.

Fortunately the majority are not extremists.

Not so fast. Extremism is only extreme relative to what the majority believe. If no one believed in self-sacrifice, the first person to believe in it would by definition be an extremist.

 

[ANV]

Wouldn’t it be far better to have no obligations whatsoever and be absolutely free to do what we like?

That never happens lol.