How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?
And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.
1) No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.
If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,
2) Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that? just that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true
3) And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.
Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.
So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?
You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!
4) Slaps head.
1) I was referring to the NT but the number of books is neither here nor there. It all means is the duplication of the available tittle-tattle.
1} So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers, but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus) now becomes "duplication of the available tittle-tattle". I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.
2) You only have yourself to blame for this. You can't claim they knew that the events were fact when quite clearly you don't know that.
2}Know 100%? Correct. Know enough to base my life upon it? Yes, I do know that well enough. That's my whole argument here about what you actually know to be true about what happened 2000 years ago. Oh yeah, that's right, you weren't there to see it!!!!
3} What a weird criterion. So we should only believe things we have seen ourselves? Are you serious?
3) People join religions because they have a need.
4} What was my need then?Quite obviously they were waiting for the messiah and all that and this new cult of following Jesus fitted the bill.
5} Oh, well put. It was what was predicted beforehand. Thanks for that endorsement. It's just human nature to what to be loved and all that and to feel secure and safe.
6} <snigger/>
4) Slaps head. What ever floats your boat.
The only fact you have here is that the NT was written by men. Its content is just speculation.
7} If you want to know its content, may I suggest you read it. That's what other people do.
1} I could have used the word gossip or rumours but you know how it works, ideas get multiplied by constant exchange. We see this type of thing all the time, it part of our human nature.
1] So why do you think that is relevant to the creation of the NT documents?2} And what do you really know about it? All you have are manuscripts written 2000 years ago and you don't even know why or how they came about, just guesswork. And on this you fashion the whole of your life - on pure speculation and guesswork.
2] That's incorrect. Have a bit of a read. If you are serious about this I would suggest "An Introduction to the New Testament" by Carson and Moo.
3} I didn't say believe. I would never use that term in this context. You can't say that something is a fact just because some stranger has told you it is so, and you haven't investigated it personally to see if it is true.
3] I have investigated it for nearly 40 years now.
This is my whole point of my argument! You can't fashion the fundamental aspect of your life on some "What ifs.".
4] Why do you think that is relevant to my understanding of what happened?
4} Your need? As in all these cases it is a psychological one and one which you may not be fully aware of. Again, some understanding of human nature and some self introspection of one's nature and person is needed here to fully see what is going on.
5] Are you aware of all your psychological needs? Which need was it which overruled my scientific mind when I first looked at this stuff in depth when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge?
5} Don't understand this comment. It sounds like some kind of sour grapes response?
I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.
Pass. I can't see what I was responding to.
6} Yes, well, I think you've found your level there. Is this the response you give your fellow church goers when they get all touchy-feely as you put it? Very loving indeed!!!
I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.
Pass. I can't see what this was referring to.
7} That is the whole point of my argument. Because the evidence is so weak
So you allege. and relies on pure speculation
So you allege. no firm conclusion can be acquired to justify taking it as a basis for one to live one's life by, to fashion one's fundamental framework on which one should conduct one's life.
Thus not applicable. Therefore, there is no need to read it with the view to acquiring such a position. If my logical position is correct then the details within the NT are neither here nor there with respect to this kind of aim and debating such details is pointless in acquiring this aim,
6] But is your claim that the NT is "pure speculation" correct? You would seem to be out near the loony wing with statements like this. this basis on which to carry out one's life, because the level of assuredness in assessing the truth of the NT is not sufficient for such a task and never will be - as is true for all historical documents; the older they are the more so.
N/a.
1] I assume you take it that other religions are wrong and flawed, but the fact that they exist means an explanation needs to be given to explain why they came about, yes? Things like this just don't appear by magic they have to be created by people. So the common factor here is people and this then raises the phenomenon of human nature and the like. People have psychological needs which include some thing that could be called 'spiritual' and culture creates some assumed givens, such as in this case, 2000 years ago, that God exists, that God is real and so on, no questions asked, no doubts on this even possible. Add in the Jewish idea of a saviour and that their nation was being suppressed by the Romans then in this milieu people gravitate to what they want to hear. Gossip goes round about some impressive preacher and expectations fly to the stars...There is no reason why that Christianity could not have evolved from this type of thing and is more likely to be the case. There are no new ideas in Christianity they all existed in some form or other in other religions and Greek philosophy. The catalyst 2000 years ago in Israel was this yearning to be free from the Romans and for Israel to be great again with/for the glory of their God.
2] I have read material in the past, hence my position here. It is not incorrect because no one knows how the NT material came about and they never will. Who knows what events took place to create the NT documents.
3] I was referring to actually seeing and being there at the time. With regards to this requirement 40 years of investigation 2000 years after the proposed event is worthless, especially if one is going to base their whole fundamental life and attitude on it.
4] It's the logical conclusion of my argument.
5] That's for you to find out. But my point here is a general one of what makes someone human - the human condition. I wasn't raising any issue about a particular person as it is in the nature of our psychology much of it is unconscious.
6] Yes it is correct. As I have said before it is logically and rationally consistent. If we don't know about something 100% then we don't know it to be the true case about it.
