Anti-religion internet memes

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's pointless to bring evidence from the Bible to a discussion. Cafeteria Christians will just blow it off.

 

[pluto2]

This world is way too brutal for there to be a God who gives a damn about people and their happiness in life.

Fact is that many people these days are way too selfish, way too aggressive and way too brutal in order for there to be anything even remotely close to a loving and caring God.

The fact is that we live in a might makes right society where money and authoritarian institutions rule over people's life every single day.

People think they are free but in fact we are not free at all because we are enslaved by money and the authoritarian institutions of the state.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

 

[Kittamaru]

However arguing about what JC said or meant to say rushes by addressing the claims associated with the story.
A claim that one is the Son of God is about as big a claim one could make and it could be expected that a God even in human form could have offerred more than some magician tricks to support his claim.

Flying about the place would be somewhat convincing and easily achievable if indeed one is God.

I'd say that curing leprosy, restoring the sight of blind folks, a poor lady being healed merely by touching his cloak, rising from the dead, etc should be fairly significant proof... more so than "flying about the place"

And if someone came before us today claiming to be God how would he be treated..treated being the key word as folk would consider him delusional and that he requires care.

I can understand folk imaging that a God exists but the made up stuff that follows makes the idea silly.

Believe there is a god but perhaps confine views to what is known and reliable..the good book may not qualify here.

Alex

Can you provide evidence that the "stuff that follows" is "made up" to refute/disprove the existence of God?

I suspect that you still think JC had nothing to say about the law and his determination not to change one single bit.
His words dont agree with your version so who do we follow to clear uo this matter?
Your belief or the words attributed to JC.

You got the OT, you have your God saying it is still law so why do you treat it as if it were not part of the deal?

I expect one would like to distance oneself from the endorsement of slavery, calls to kill various folk for minor things and the disgusting lack of respect for females...and such a desire is noble but you see you can not say the OT and NT are not a set and what is in the NT follows the OT.

If not then the ten commandments are out on your account.

I hope you are well, have a nice day☺
Alex

*shrug* I've given you the explanation as best and simply as I can within the body of knowledge I have - what you choose to do with it and/or decide to believe is entirely your call.

 

[Kittamaru]

This world is way too brutal for there to be a God who gives a damn about people and their happiness in life.

Fact is that many people these days are way too selfish, way too aggressive and way too brutal in order for there to be anything even remotely close to a loving and caring God.

The fact is that we live in a might makes right society where money and authoritarian institutions rule over people's life every single day.

People think they are free but in fact we are not free at all because we are enslaved by money and the authoritarian institutions of the state.

I'm... not sure why any of that would require there not be a God - our own free will means that we have the choice to ignore what is good and right and act in a selfish, brutal, aggressive, et al manner... conversely, taking that free will away is... well, I know in my perspective it'd be perhaps the single greatest punishment that could be inflicted upon me - being forced to live my life as not myself.

 

[Michael 345]

our own free will means that we have the choice to ignore what is good and right and act in a selfish, brutal, aggressive, et al manner.

I didn't know earthquakes had free will

 

[Write4U]

The difference with your example of speeding vs Christ's death is that Christ was the 'sacrificial lamb' upon whom sin was laid; His death completed the old laws insomuch as the punishment they demanded was laid on His head, so that the rest of humanity could be granted Grace; the intent, as I understand it, being that all punishment for eternity was laid upon Him.

Of course he will be resurrected and his death is just a symbolic sacrifice...a gesture. He is gonna "be baack".....

Granted, this is a debate that has been waged by biblical scholars for far longer than either of us have been around, so... yeah; ultimately, I guess, we won't know the truth of the matter until the very end

And then it won't matter.....

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'd say that curing leprosy, restoring the sight of blind folks, a poor lady being healed merely by touching his cloak, rising from the dead, etc should be fairly significant proof.

Thank you for considering the matter.

I dont see how any of the events you mention establishes a god even if one could get past a rejection based upon it all being mere magician tricks.

Clearly the Romans took no notice and had not recorded anything at all so that suggests nothing happened or such tricks were somewhat common place and they raised no interest.

Flying about would not even establish a god claim but it would have the attention of the Romans and written about.

But the problem is these matters are not proof because they are heresay.

Heresay is not treated as evidence in our courts dealing with simple worldly matters so perhaps heresay is even less useful if one is to call upon it to establish the biggest claim of all that one is a god.

Many made those wild unsupported claims back then offering a similar MO to JC and that suggests it was a somewhat popular scam.

Can you provide evidence that the "stuff that follows" is "made up" to refute/disprove the existence of God?

Absolutely☺.

Now you are confronted with the frustration of a wild unsupported claim.

On page one of the good book the account of creation is made up.

You cant get around that fact.

*shrug* I've given you the explanation as best and simply as I can within the body of knowledge I have

Yes you have and I thank you for explaining what it is that you believed.

However it would seem the body of knowledge you have is simply wrong if you read and rely upon the good book.

However it is after all heresay so we dont know what JC actually said on the matter but if you follow what is really in the good book JC strongly endorsed the old law.

Have a great day.

Alex

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

In the Bible, in the New Testament original context (Christian), it clearly referred to the Romans, the Samaritans, and the like - people of different ethnicity, country, and possibly "race", than the audience being addressed (although modern "race" had not been invented at the time).
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/who-is-your-neighbor-well-who-are-you
https://biblia.com/books/esv/Lk10.29

///
Those are about the Good Samaritan who Jesus said is a neighbor because he helped someone in need. Further, the Samaritans were Jews. There is clearly no indication of it applying to Romans.

The word which was translated to English neighbor is also translated to friend & to fellow, mostly with no indication of anything other than what we normally think of when we hear those words.

<>

 

[Kittamaru]

I didn't know earthquakes had free will

Why would the motion of tectonic plates require free will?

Of course he will be resurrected and his death is just a symbolic sacrifice...a gesture. He is gonna "be baack".....
And then it won't matter.....

Or maybe it will; only time will tell which is right and the thing is - once someone finds out, they aren't really in a position to tell the rest of us

Thank you for considering the matter.

I dont see how any of the events you mention establishes a god even if one could get past a rejection based upon it all being mere magician tricks.

Please explain to me how a magician could cure something such as leprosy, restore sight to a blind man, or bring someone back from the dead... unless your implication is that Jesus inflicted those ailments on people as part of an act?

Clearly the Romans took no notice and had not recorded anything at all so that suggests nothing happened or such tricks were somewhat common place and they raised no interest.

Except the Romans did take notice:

https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/

Let’s begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

So, a Roman Historian wrote about him.

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan’s advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

The Roman governor of Bithynia wrote about it. I'll let you read the rest.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Jesus-Christ-not-mentioned-in-Roman-records#

For starters, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of ancient works have been lost, so the evidence is always going to be heavily fragmented. That means we are going to have gaps in the historical record for pretty much everybody in the ancient world - and that’s especially true for Jesus. The Romans had little interest in strange religious movements taking place in backwater provinces so we wouldn’t expect them to have written much, if anything, about Jesus. That’s true even with Jesus’ execution - where he wasn’t a Roman citizen, there’s no reason to believe his “trial” was anything more than a brief audience with Pilate.*

Yeshua was insignificant in the eyes of Rome - they would not have cared much for some odd stories of a religious man from a backwater province - it would be like expecting the "Tales of Perry County" to be national news.

Flying about would not even establish a god claim but it would have the attention of the Romans and written about.

But the problem is these matters are not proof because they are heresay.

Heresay is not treated as evidence in our courts dealing with simple worldly matters so perhaps heresay is even less useful if one is to call upon it to establish the biggest claim of all that one is a god.

Many made those wild unsupported claims back then offering a similar MO to JC and that suggests it was a somewhat popular scam.

I would presume, then, that you would also throw out most of recorded history, since it's "all just heresay", right? After all, you can't go back and prove that ancient writings are accurate?

Also:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-Christians-effectively-answer-the-charge-that-the-Bible-is-hearsay
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

Heresay would be an account written by someone who heard it second-hand. The Gospels, for example, are written by the people who were witness to Christ's works. That isn't heresay.

Are the Gospels really hearsay? No: in general, their writers claim to be providing eyewitness accounts of the events they document. Australian barrister Ross Clifford has written a fine essay on the admissibility of the New Testament texts as evidence in a hypothetical trial. He plays devil's advocate and strictly enforces the hearsay rule. He concludes that the recorded Gospel testimonies are excellent historically and comply with general legal principles. The actual eyewitness observations of Matthew, Peter, John and Paul are the evidence a modern (including an American) court would admit.[34] Luke and Mark do not technically qualify because they do not personally claim to be eyewitnesses. But Wigmore's discussion of hearsay exceptions at Section 1580 includes matters of 'general history,' which are long recognized exceptions. Wigmore also addresses exemptions for 'unquestionable facts' of history, natural science etc. under the category of "Judicial Notice."[35] And the Manchester historian F. F. Bruce was at pains to point out that the circulation of all the Gospel materials in Jewish circles whilst hostile witnesses of the events of Jesus' life and ministry were still alive constituted the functional equivalent of modern cross-examination, thus satisfying requirements of common-law evidence.

 

[Kittamaru]

Absolutely☺.

Now you are confronted with the frustration of a wild unsupported claim.

On page one of the good book the account of creation is made up.

You cant get around that fact.

Prove it - you just said you could, so please, by all means - have at it

Yes you have and I thank you for explaining what it is that you believed.

However it would seem the body of knowledge you have is simply wrong if you read and rely upon the good book.

However it is after all heresay so we dont know what JC actually said on the matter but if you follow what is really in the good book JC strongly endorsed the old law.

Have a great day.

Alex

As I showed above - it is not, in fact, heresay, based on standards of admissible court evidence and common law; the alternative would be to throw out all of recorded history as heresay because you cannot go back and cross-examine them. I'm sure your claim is that archaeology can corroborate the stories told for historic facts... this is true, and in fact is also true for many biblical accounts:

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

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/bible-archaeology.php

The New Testament
Although the New Testament covers a much more recent time period (roughly 100 BCE to 100 CE), archaeological analysis is, if anything, more difficult, because unlike the Old Testament, the key events in the New Testament were the spread of Christianity, not kings, wars or the construction of cities. Indeed, there is no mention of Jesus himself in any contemporary non-biblical source, except for a very brief mention in the writings of Flavius Josephus that some have disputed. On the other hand, as emphasized above, one should not expect that archaeology can say anything one way or the other about persons who were relatively obscure on the world stage during their lifetimes.
However, there are numerous archaeological findings that confirm at least a few key facts of New Testament history:

1. Temple Mount platform. As is well known, the present-day "wailing wall" in Jersualem is a remnant of the second temple. Also, recent archeological evidence confirms that the Jerusalem temple mount platform was expanded by Herod the Great. The temple mount was mentioned several times in the New Testament, for example in Matt. 21:12-14, when Jesus overturned tables of money-changers [Cline2009, pg. 83].
   
   
2. Inscription mentioning Pontius Pilate. One of the most important finds is a Latin inscription, dating to 30 CE, which explicitly mentions Pontius Pilate, the governor of Palestine who sentenced Jesus to death. This was found in the theater at Caesarea during excavations by an Italian-led expedition in 1961. It reads, "Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judaea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius." [Cline2009, pg. 100].
   
   
3. Jesus' trial site. In January 2015, archaeologists exploring ruins under the floor of an abandoned building adjacent to the Tower of David Museum found what appears to be the remains of Herod's palace in the city, which is described in the New Testament as the site of Jesus' trial [Eglash2015].
   
   
4. Sea of Galilee boat. In 1986, during a severe drought in Palestine, the remains of an ancient fishing boat was discovered near the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee in Israel. Radiocarbon measurements dated the artifact to 40 BCE, plus or minus 80 years, while analyses of pottery dated the item to between 50 BCE and 50 CE. While no one fancies that this was the actual boat used by Jesus and his disciples, it is entirely similar to those mentioned in the New Testament and known to be used in the region [Sea2014].
   
   
5. Nazareth. In 2009 a house was discovered on the hills at Nazareth that contains pottery shards dated to between 100 BCE and 100 CE. The analysis concludes that "the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres ... populated by Jews of modest means." These discoveries effectively refute the claims of those who have argued that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus' childhood, and that the mention of Nazareth in the New Testament was a mythic creation of later writers and editors [Ehrman2012, pg. 216].
   
   
6. Capernaum. Several archaeological investigations have uncovered the remains of cities near the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus lived and preached, including Sepphoris, Capernaum and Magdala. These excavations have confirmed that not only were these areas inhabited during the first century CE, but they were largely Jewish rather than Greek or Roman. For example, excavations have uncovered a Jewish synagogue in Magdala (near Capernaum), dating to the first century, and a simple home in Capernaum, also dating to the first century, that appeared to have been modified to serve as a place for gatherings. [Cline2009, pg. 105].
   
   
7. Ossuary of Caiaphas. John 11:49-53; 18:14 mentions Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest who presided over the trial of Jesus. In 1990 archaeologists discovered a stone ossuary with the inscription "Yehosef bar Qafa" (Aramaic for Joseph, son of Caiaphas). According to Josephus, Caiaphas' full name was Joseph Caiaphas [Cline2009, pg. 112].
   
   
8. Christians in Suetonius. The Roman historian Suetonius briefly mentions the early Christians in his book The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. In his recounting of the reign of Emperor Claudius, who reigned 41 to 54 CE, Suetonius refers to the expulsion of Christian Jews by Claudius: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Since it is highly unlikely that a later Christian scribe or anyone else partial to Christianity would have called Jesus "Chrestus" or mistakenly described him as living in Rome in 49 CE, or called him a troublemaker, most historians agree that the passage is genuine [Suetonius2014].
   
   
9. Megiddo prison mosaic. In 2005, an inscription mentioning Jesus Christ was found on a mosaic at the Megiddo prison site in northern Israel, dated to the third century CE. This is the earliest known archaeological artifact that explicitly mentions Jesus [Cline2009, pg. 100].

Among others.

So, again, I challenge you to do as you said you can - prove to me that the Bible is falsified and that God and/or Jesus Christ do not/did not exist.

I await your reply with bated breath.

 

[Michael 345]

act in a selfish, brutal, aggressive, et al manner.

Why would the motion of tectonic plates require free will?

Just checked my posting. It was done before coffee (not a good time)
I think I was trying to make the point (badly as it turns out) that our free will is a illusion when processes act the same way (selfish, brutal, aggressive) without free will
Hence my incredulous query

Will try to flesh out such incredulous queries in future with a technique I have used at times, multiple ???????

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Please explain to me how a magician could cure something such as leprosy, restore sight to a blind man, or bring someone back from the dead... unless your implication is that Jesus inflicted those ailments on people as part of an act?

Its heresay so none of these things are facts they are stories told and retold not to be recorded for many years after.

Except the Romans did take notice:

You are kidding right?
Did you notice the date mentioned?
64 ad !!!!!
Tell me about something you saw 64 years ago.
Not evidence in any shape or form.

So, a Roman Historian wrote about him.

AD 112!!!!!
Great evidence.

The Roman governor of Bithynia wrote about it.

Thank you for going to the trouble of rounding it all up but none of it establishes the claim JC existed for sure and certainly no of it proves he was God.

I would presume, then, that you would also throw out most of recorded history, since it's "all just heresay", right?

I cant respond to such a generalisation.
But there are very few things in history we can be sure about if you really think about it.
But heresay is heresay and as I said not acceptable in our courts so why use it to determine a claim some human makes that he is God.
Heck if you only watch Judge Judy you must understand the unacceptibility of heresay...she wont accept it and that reflects the actual law.
Yet you are happy to accept heresay on the wildest claim a human can make.

The Gospels, for example, are written by the people who were witness to Christ's works.

Really...thats news to me.
Who which ones?
I thought it was not writen about for up to one hundred years after...or was that fifty...anyways you say we have eye witnesses so who are they and what did they record?

Prove it - you just said you could, so please, by all means - have at it

I was actually making a joke...
A backhander at theists approach to establishing claims...however.
Page one.
In the begining etc etc...do you know the name of the witness?
Who did god create prior to creation to witness creation.
Who makes this claim?
If that is not made up what would you call it?

based on standards of admissible court evidence and common law

I am pretty sure you are wrong.
Heresay is not addmissable I think you will find.

the alternative would be to throw out all of recorded history as heresay because you cannot go back and cross-examine them.

Heresay is not addmissable evidence ask a lawyer.

and in fact is also true for many biblical accounts:

I am far from convinced that anything you present supports the claim of one human that he was God.
If there is so much evidence in your view string it together ...that should be easy if you have the goods.

So, again, I challenge you to do as you said you can - prove to me that the Bible is falsified and that God and/or Jesus Christ do not/did not exist.

I have shown page one problem thats enough.

I can not however prove JC did not exist, but I dont need to as I am not the one claiming he existed and that he was God.

Sorry to be brief but I am busy and perhaps should have replied tomorrow.

It is really nice to have you talk openly and present what you feel supports your case.
I respect that.
But bottom line is for me.
JC was one of at least ten that I found with same or similar MO and so I feel he was just another of that type.
The heresay evidence then becomes even less convincing set on that back drop.
Add the plot...God sacrificing himself whatever for mans sins in one tiny part of the world in times where superstition ruled etc ..rusing from death in three days in parrallel to the Suns behaviour...no I can understand how it is just a made up story.
Sorry I have to go...
Alex

 

[Tiassa]

Heresay would be an account written by someone who heard it second-hand. The Gospels, for example, are written by the people who were witness to Christ's works. That isn't heresay.

They were really forward looking, then. You're aware that none of the Gospels can be dated precisely to Jesus, and start appearing thirty years after his death. There are a number of reasons why scholars argue that framework, but one of the most compelling is to compare the documents to others of the time, attending the selection and application of words.

There is also the Quelle story—Pagels' Origin of Satan is really good for explaining why Q is important—and we can easily find an incredible literary significance about the Synoptic Gospels, even while acknowledging their periods. Had you been born right after Christ died ... and let's compare it to Hollywood: When you're just passing thirty years old, a movie comes out, Jesus: The Incredible Story, produced by Mark, either a one-name artist or a working group, and maybe you remember hearing something about these hippies when you were little. It's a great film; people are stunned, struck, affected; they want to believe. When you're fifty, the studio decides to reboot the material for, Jesus: As Incredible as He Wanna Be, and this time Matt is in charge, and is so successful the studio reboots again a couple years later, with a new take: Heal: The Story of Jesus, because everyone likes a medical drama, so put the physician, Luke, in charge.

Pretty much anyone can admit it was a good run for the studio.

When you're about seventy-five years old, the studio thinks it needs another Jesus film, but a reboot is really risky, so what they're going to do, see, is reimagine the film, instead of rebooting it, and to keep it popular, John borrows a bunch of stuff from any number of knockoffs and wannabes for, Mystery Miracle: Word to the Word.

It is very interesting to me, at the Q level, how many Christians disdain the best working theses explaining the Synoptic Gospels. It is, in fact, because of pride and superstition. For instance, look around for J.M.W. Turner's Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory) — The Morning after the Deluge — Moses Writing the Book of Genesis. There is so much wrong with the painting it really seems tragic, but for our purposes we might note the now discredited proposition that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis. Similarly, more simplistic accounts of how the Gospels were written have fallen away. Remember, out of two millennia, we're all of about seventy-three years after Nag Hammadi, when our understanding of the Bible began changing radically. Also bear in mind the powerful backlash; when it comes up, Christendom in the pop culture can be seen reacting; attending their reaction, though, suggests these evangelicals aren't familiar with what they're dealing with; if Q is some sinister thesis invented by antichristians, then the fact its name comes from a Christian thesis designating Gospel authors Q, M, and L, might seem important, but if I focus on that particular evangelical retort I'm also overlooking recent scholarship returning to two- and three-source constructions conceding other questions. What other questions? Well, that's just it, the whole prospect depends on a somewhat literalist and prideful outlook: Just who needs such nitpicking validation; over time it's the same people who needed Moses to have written Genesis; the need arises for the sake of a political argument. Quite literally, that last is the difference between thanking God that someone managed to write it down, or insisting on insupportable history in order to argue that some contemporaneous dudes named Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all wrote down what they saw at the time but the only records we have emerge thirty to eighty years later, and haven't been altered. To the other, consider that literalism and pretend you and I are in the writer's room, and we're penning the cheap farce, how do we lead the scene to that anime-style summary, with the fatcat bishop haughtily correcting a fearful subordinate that something, something, must stand, blah, blah, because Matthew wrote or said this or that in his Gospel.

Understanding the Synoptic Gospels is the key to finding both the historicity and miraculous nature of Christ. It's just that the actual answers are less spectacular and satisfying than people generally expect.

†​

Similar notes on authorship, history, and the Bible: You can still find the Epistle to the Hebrews described as "traditionally attributed to Paul", which is weird in the context of whence comes that tradition. I don't dispute that To the Hebrews is included in the Pauline evangelism; for that reason, sure, "traditionally attributed to Paul" is not beyond my recognition and experience. However, it also seems important to note that Eusebius openly doubted Pauline authorship, and in doing so cites Origen, who suggests either Luke, or Clement of Rome. Setting aside the chortle about Luke, it's worth noting that other theses suggest Apollos or Priscilla, one being a working partner of Paul, and the other asserted among the Seventy Disciples of Luke 10. I like the suggestion of Barnabas, but scholarship, these days, more generally looks to an unresolved disciple of Paul.

Also, on the Epistle of James, consider the question of reading the Bible cover to cover, as a contiguous story presented according to the canon. The New Testament is out of order. True, there is a bunch of "traditionally attributed" lending to this or that, but consider the book of James and the question of sola fide.

I can't quite explain how important it actually has been in my lifetime; you might be young enough that part of the story sounds strange to you. Do you remember "Rockin' Rollen"? If I say, "Loving God theory", does that ring a bell? Do you recall evangelists telling people to "ask Jesus into your heart"? By the way, do you remember a Simpsons episode called "Faith Off" (#BABF06)? In the year 2000, Bart threw down about the deathbed confession. I don't know, how long has it been since atheists pestered about whether Hitler could go to Heaven? The problem arises from politics and pride: Sola fide—by faith alone—are we Saved.

In my youth, the issue had to do with Christians Behaving Badly. Actually, it still does; it's just not a headliner. I call it an Idiot Evangelism, because, well, okay, do you remember Flag Salute? Maybe somewhere in this country children still assemble outside, around the flag, to recite the Pledge, but living where it rains enough we mostly just performed the ritual in the classroom. Now imagine a bunch of fourteen year olds gathered at the school flag, praying loudly in public in order to be seen committing their act of piety, because they aren't allowed to pray in public so look at them here praying in public with precisely nobody trying to stop them. And imagine five years before that, a former Marine with a strong recovery and redemption story in the time 'twixt Vietnam and Iraq, with a ministry show on UHF broadcast, and a summer camp where children gather around the bonfire quite literally to throw books and vinyl records into the flames as a demonstration of religious freedom. These are, as you might imagine, parts of the evangelical right wing experience we still deal with today.

Now, if we read the New Testament in canonical order, sola fide seems a difficult question Paul steers the budding church through, and among the reasons some critics describe American evangelicalist Christendom as some manner of Paulism there is the fact that James seems to reiterate an outcome of this discussion. Here is the tricky part, though: Modern-day Paulines still tend toward a constricted libertine functional hot mess because they ignore James. If I say Paul seems to steer the budding church through a question, well, what is the answer? Sola fide.

The Idiot Evangelism could never figure this part out. It was enough to argue that you needed to have Jesus because works alone were not sufficient. What they were skipping out on was James' apparent resolution, that faith without works is ineffective, that one's acts must reflect their faith. And if we joke about no wonder they skip out on James, well, yeah, they skip out on Christ, too, so, whatever.

But the whole bit with sola fide is fouled, because the New Testament is out of order. While James appears to state a resolution to a Pauline question that modern Paulines fail to resolve, or some such, the actual chronology of the record would appear to be that James resolved the question before Paul started mucking around with it.

If we attend James, sola fide is easier answered than lived. The modern Paulines, however, would have sola fide easier lived than understood, and some days that seems like the point. Remember, to the one, that the Pauline mucking about is a response to the political challenges of organizing and maintaining a growing church community. To some degree, he answers because they ask; in another aspect, he also needs to not offend some powers that could influence or even quell church growth. A modern analogy would be Democrats compromising with everything evil under the sun because for some reason they think they must. If we read the Pauline evangelism as a political compromise, it makes a tremendous amount of sense, but also pretty much indicts itself. Imagine all of these politics centuries later, when the New Testament canon is settled, between Hippo Regius in 393 CE and Carthage in 397 and 419.

Han shot first. And James wrote first.

†​

The end of literalism doesn't invalidate faith, but, rather, changes its priorites.

 

[Kittamaru]

Its heresay so none of these things are facts they are stories told and retold not to be recorded for many years after.

Ah, now you are moving the goalposts. A shame - here, I thought you actually wanted debate.

You are kidding right?
Did you notice the date mentioned?
64 ad !!!!!
Tell me about something you saw 64 years ago.
Not evidence in any shape or form.

AD 112!!!!!
Great evidence.

So, once again, we are throwing out all of recorded history - good to know.

Thank you for going to the trouble of rounding it all up but none of it establishes the claim JC existed for sure and certainly no of it proves he was God.

I cant respond to such a generalisation.
But there are very few things in history we can be sure about if you really think about it.
But heresay is heresay and as I said not acceptable in our courts so why use it to determine a claim some human makes that he is God.
Heck if you only watch Judge Judy you must understand the unacceptibility of heresay...she wont accept it and that reflects the actual law.
Yet you are happy to accept heresay on the wildest claim a human can make.

Yep, so no more recorded history because "it's all heresay". Got it.

Really...thats news to me.
Who which ones?
I thought it was not writen about for up to one hundred years after...or was that fifty...anyways you say we have eye witnesses so who are they and what did they record?

The eye witnesses were the disciples - but it's irrelevant, since we're apparently ignoring all of history.

I was actually making a joke...
A backhander at theists approach to establishing claims...however.

And, now, backpedaling; you can't do it. Got it.

I am pretty sure you are wrong.
Heresay is not addmissable I think you will find.

Heresay is not addmissable evidence ask a lawyer.

*shrug* You go tell Cornell they are wrong, then.

I am far from convinced that anything you present supports the claim of one human that he was God.
If there is so much evidence in your view string it together ...that should be easy if you have the goods.

I have shown page one problem thats enough.

I can not however prove JC did not exist, but I dont need to as I am not the one claiming he existed and that he was God.

Sorry to be brief but I am busy and perhaps should have replied tomorrow.

It is really nice to have you talk openly and present what you feel supports your case.
I respect that.
But bottom line is for me.
JC was one of at least ten that I found with same or similar MO and so I feel he was just another of that type.
The heresay evidence then becomes even less convincing set on that back drop.
Add the plot...God sacrificing himself whatever for mans sins in one tiny part of the world in times where superstition ruled etc ..rusing from death in three days in parrallel to the Suns behaviour...no I can understand how it is just a made up story.
Sorry I have to go...
Alex

So you don't intend to debate, but rather wish to simply require ever further levels of evidnece without needing to provide any yourself. Fair enough - I don't see any reason to continue the discussion, however, since you intend to ascribe zero credibility to any historical record.

 

[Kittamaru]

...

It seems the issue presented is one of order of events, chronologically speaking - I don't purport that the disciples were walking around with a computer, typing up everything as it happened; I would think it apparent that there are going to be discrepancies and other issues, especially when taking the viewpoints of multiple people; a not-so-recent debate on the credibility of eye-witness testimony comes to mind. The general message, however, is incredibly consistent, as well as corroborated by several non-Christian authors and a smattering of known archaeological evidence.

That is, to say that none of this ever happened is to simply hand-wave away a very large body of evidence; however, that seems to be exactly what some would like to do - after all, history apparently isn't really history, and facts aren't really facts, or so I'm told these days.

 

[Write4U]

Or maybe it will; only time will tell which is right and the thing is - once someone finds out, they aren't really in a position to tell the rest of us

How convenient, .....this is how it is, but we'll never know if any of it is true...

 

[sideshowbob]

So, once again, we are throwing out all of recorded history - good to know.

Recorded history is a vast web of inter-related evidence. That hardly compares with a handful of oblique references that may or may not specify Jesus.

 

[Write4U]

Recorded history is a vast web of inter-related evidence. That hardly compares with a handful of oblique references that may or may not specify Jesus.

And mythology is recorded history, no? The difference is that we have decided to treat mythology as imaginary, while we continue to cling tightly to our bible as being truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

p.s. the bible is not factually usable as a history book. History books are.....
p.p.s. the bible is not factually usable as a science book. Science books are.....

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I remember sophomore poli sci classes too.