The power of prayer

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

How about the Jesus as the son of God narrative?

No that appears soon after the ministry of Jesus if not during the ministry itself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No.

Jesus resurrection matters for who is being resurrected.........so no hole in the dogma.

Say what now? So there was a whole bunch of supernatural resurrections, but only one of them concerned the son of God so - um - it's not the (supposed) fact of the resurrection that's important but rather who God did it to ?

Really?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No that appears soon after the ministry of Jesus if not during the ministry itself.

But we've already had someone here tell us that some people didn't believe his "I'm the son of God" line so presumably the conclusion that he was just a mystic, street preacher etc was a contemporary one too. 

[BashfulAnthony]

Vlad,

But we've already had someone here tell us that some people didn't believe his "I'm the son of God" line so presumably the conclusion that he was just a mystic, street preacher etc was a contemporary one too.

To interject a moment here: A lot of people over the centuries haven't believed He was Son of God; many still don't.  But it happens to be true.

[Nearly Sane]

To interject a moment here: A lot of people over the centuries haven't believed He was Son of God; many still don't.  But it happens to be true.

it happens to be nonsensical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

To interject a moment here: A lot of people over the centuries haven't believed He was Son of God; many still don't.

As indeed is the case for many other characters from different religions.

But it happens to be true.

Why do you think that? Isn't there an "in my personal opinion" missing there?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But we've already had someone here tell us that some people didn't believe his "I'm the son of God" line so presumably the conclusion that he was just a mystic, street preacher etc was a contemporary one too.

Yes I'm sure there were but they don't seem to have left any extant literature nor even any indication that in those days one was 'just a mystic'.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

As indeed is the case for many other characters from different religions.

Why do you think that? Isn't there an "in my personal opinion" missing there?

You can say it's my opinion, but that's neither here nor there.  It's still true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes I'm sure there were but they don't seem to have left any extant literature nor even any indication that in those days one was 'just a mystic'.

Literature that says, "we met this bloke who claims to be the son of God. What a bozo eh?".

Well, um - what about that stuff someone was telling us here about the pharisees not having enough faith to believe him or some such guff. Isn't that written down somewhere?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

You can say it's my opinion, but that's neither here nor there.  It's still true.

But apart from your personal opinion on the matter, why do you think that?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

But apart from your personal opinion on the matter, why do you think that?

Because I have studied the NT over a lifetime, and I believe what it is saying to me.

[Nearly Sane]

You can say it's my opinion, but that's neither here nor there.  It's still true.

It's still nonsensical.

[Nearly Sane]

Because I have studied the NT over a lifetime, and I believe what it is saying to me.

Given your lack of understanding of the study of history being methodological naturalistic, your study is undermined

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Because I have studied the NT over a lifetime, and I believe what it is saying to me.

Focus on that "I believe" for a minute - that's the personal opinion bit. You are of course entitled to that opinion, just as others have personal opinions about the supposed truthfulness and accuracy of all sort of different religious texts, but - absent a method of any kind to test these claims - a personal opinion is all you have. 

[BashfulAnthony]

Given your lack of understanding of the study of history being methodological naturalistic, your study is undermined

Oh NS, you say the nicest things, though to be brutally honest, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh NS, you say the nicest things, though to be brutally honest, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

Then you should be able to refer to a recognised university course in this country where history is not taught as methodologically naturalistic. Can you?

[floo]

Just supposing Jesus was the offspring of god, getting a girl pregnant before she married the man to whom she was espoused, and expecting him to father the kid, is the work of a scoundrel! It is a bit rich that some condemn conception out of wedlock, but it is fine for god to get a girl up the spout!

It is strange that the people who knew Jesus best didn't regard him a god of some sort.

[BashfulAnthony]

Then you should be able to refer to a recognised university course in this country where history is not taught as methodologically naturalistic. Can you?

Come on!  I don't think I'll bother, I've still got to have a shave today.  Really, NS, let's talk sensibly.  Incidentally, do you have details of all university courses and what they entail?

[Nearly Sane]

Come on!  I don't think I'll bother, I've still got to have a shave today.  Really, NS, let's talk sensibly.  Incidentally, do you have details of all university courses and what they entail?

so that would be a 'no'.

[BashfulAnthony]

so that would be a 'no'.

Well, no, more of a,  "I don't give a...!"

[Nearly Sane]

Well, no, more of a,  "I don't give a...!"

A no followed by an evasion, underlining you cannot justify your own claim to expertise.

[Gordon]

Because I have studied the NT over a lifetime, and I believe what it is saying to me.

That would be the relativist (it's true for me) fallacy unless you can show that what you believe to be true is actually true independent of your belief that it is.

However, since you have agreed that there is the risk that the NT could contain mistakes or lies then you should be able to explain the method whereby you have rejected these risks when it comes to be core claim of Jesus being dead and then being resurrected.

[BashfulAnthony]

A no followed by an evasion, underlining you cannot justify your own claim to expertise.

No, NS, read what I said.  I said, "I don't give a..."  I've spent years doing it and I get nowhere; not with those programmed to disbelieve.  I'm too old to waste any more of my time reiterating.

[BashfulAnthony]

That would be the relativist (it's true for me) fallacy unless you can show that what you believe to be true is actually true independent of your belief that it is.

However, since you have agreed that there is the risk that the NT could contain mistakes or lies then you should be able to explain the method whereby you have rejected these risks when it comes to be core claim of Jesus being dead and then being resurrected.

Gordon, please read my last answer to NS: it's the same for your post.

[floo]

In my opinion, the gospels were just as likely to be prone to exaggeration and porkies, just like modern day journalism written for a mass audience.