Jesus Christ, Our Saviour

[Gordon]

No it's a statement that rather than seeing it as some management manual, book of rules, or heaven forbid a formulaic science book as I suspect you are insisting it should be it is a mixture of things some mundane including a mystery only opened by the illumination of God. The only way I think I can help you on that is to tell you to explore anything that strikes you personally whether positively or negatively.

I'm not insisting anything. I'm asking how you feel justified in accepting the Bible/NT as being truthful: your reply seems to be, in essence, that it feels that way to you.

You say you aren't out to falsify it but already have by impuning it's reliability IMB.

Me asking you how you've verified the Bible/NT isn't me falsifying anything. I'm simply asking you how you've verified it, such as by assessing the risks of mistakes, exaggeration and lies, and that seems like a reasonable question to ask of someone who clearly feels that the Bible/NT passes verification. 

[BeRational]

1: You seem to have faith that there have to be paths to truth.
2: You seem to be saying that the truth cannot come to you. That seems like a faith position.

I have no faith of any kind.

You seem to jumble up words a lot and never make a clear point.

Do you think using faith alone is reliable way to find truths about the world we live in? YES or NO.

Please do not do word salad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no faith of any kind.

You just keep right on believing that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not insisting anything. I'm asking how you feel justified in accepting the Bible/NT as being truthful: your reply seems to be, in essence, that it feels that way to you.

Me asking you how you've verified the Bible/NT isn't me falsifying anything. I'm simply asking you how you've verified it, such as by assessing the risks of mistakes, exaggeration and lies, and that seems like a reasonable question to ask of someone who clearly feels that the Bible/NT passes verification.

I think I've stated that the NT has closely matched my experience and whereas prior to the bible becoming illuminated to me I didn't understand it but increasingly identified with it's message of Christ and the experience of those in it.

In other words it is authoritative in it's subject matter but is also unlike any other book i've come across.

[Gordon]

I think I've stated that the NT has closely matched my experience and whereas prior to the bible becoming illuminated to me I didn't understand it but increasingly identified with it's message of Christ and the experience of those in it.

So how do I verify your experience?

In other words it is authoritative in it's subject matter but is also unlike any other book i've come across.

That sounds awfully like you are conflating authority and personal opinion.

[ippy]

Yes and?

if you have decided that a cause can only be material then that is materialism. Just as if you say that evidence can only be material.

If you then go on to say that only materialists can be reasoning you just compound the fact that there is no material evidence that materialism is correct.

Also you court the question what is the cause of material? To entertain this question must be reasonable although I think Dawkins wants thoughtful exploration of the cause of causes shut down...presumably on the grounds of unreasonability.

You're doing the materialism bit, all I do is go by evidence I'm not that easily impressed by conjecture.

I note like all religionists they all find the cupboard's bare when it comes to having access to reliable supporting evidence, we can all conjure up anything mythical we like such as Leprechauns, Unicorns or anything else you might like to think of but all of that doesn't make these ideas any more realistic or acceptable.

I accept I'm addressing my incredulity about religion when I say this but all of these various religions spill out their words about some god or another and it seems to me about trying to convince themselves about something so obviously man made. 

Regards ippy



 

[BeRational]

You just keep right on believing that.

Do you care if your beliefs are true?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're doing the materialism bit, all I do is go by evidence I'm not that easily impressed by conjecture.

I note like all religionists they all find the cupboard's bare when it comes to having access to reliable supporting evidence, we can all conjure up anything mythical we like such as Leprechauns, Unicorns or anything else you might like to think of but all of that doesn't make these ideas any more realistic or acceptable.

I accept I'm addressing my incredulity about religion when I say this but all of these various religions spill out their words about some god or another and it seems to me about trying to convince themselves about something so obviously man made. 

Regards ippy

I don't know about all religionists but Christians see the New testament as a historical document and would dispute the view that it isn't evidence of a Jesus who made certain claims and how these were backed up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you care if your beliefs are true?

What evidence do you have that I don't?

[ippy]

I don't know about all religionists but Christians see the New restaurant as a historical document and would dispute the view that it isn't evidence of a Jesus who made certain claims and how these were backed up.

No case so we go into semantics, I hear the written records about the Jesus you speak of were layed down some 100 years after he died, (the first time).

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No case so we go into semantics, I hear the written records about the Jesus you speak of were layed down some 100 years after he died, (the first time).

Regards ippy

Firstly, If it were 100 years that is considerably earlier than anything to say Jesus was not historical or contrary to the biblical accounts which i'm sure you have no problem believing.


Secondly the new testament includes the epistles the earliest which date from about 2 decades from the event. I am sure you have no trouble believing accounts or memoir of people recalling the events of 1998. The epistle also logs the established beliefs of communities so what the epistles talk about is the belief of established belief communities and these are reflected in later Gospels.

 

[BeRational]

What evidence do you have that I don't?

You use faith.

Faith is not a pathway to truth.

I ask again, do you care if your beliefs are true?

[jjohnjil]

Firstly, If it were 100 years that is considerably earlier than anything to say Jesus was not historical or contrary to the biblical accounts which i'm sure you have no problem believing.


Secondly the new testament includes the epistles the earliest which date from about 2 decades from the event. I am sure you have no trouble believing accounts or memoir of people recalling the events of 1998. The epistle also logs the established beliefs of communities so what the epistles talk about is the belief of established belief communities and these are reflected in later Gospels.

So you think if ippy read on the Net tomorrow that a gang of Palestinian fishermen have been telling stories about one of their number walking on water, curing blind people and then in 1998 dying but coming back to life two days later, he'd believe it?

Obviously you would, but I doubt if ippy would!


 

[Nearly Sane]

So you think if ippy read on the Net tomorrow that a gang of Palestinian fishermen have been telling stories about one of their number walking on water, curing blind people and then in 1998 dying but coming back to life two days later, he'd believe it?

Obviously you would, but I doubt if ippy would!


 

Would he believe it if it were supposed to have happened yesterday? I mean I agree that having reports of miracles, written by unknown authors has added problems if those reports are written years after any such claims but the prime issue is the claims themselves.

[NicholasMarks]

Gordon/NearlySane/BeRational/ippy/jjohnjil/The poster formerly known as....

Faith is a wonderful thing...it means, here, beliveing  in a wonderful source of truth that has captured the hearts and minds of millions over many generations...It has forced tyrants to embrace its teaching and is the sole source of iniquity which hides within that faith falsifying it. In the terms of a science Faith in Jesus has repeated itself over and over and the reason is that it embraces truth to a right minded person who can live by that faith, be guided by that faith, and see the future promises of that faith to be hugely beneficial to those who practice that faith...it contains a truth that passeth all understanding and by our faith we get glimpses of that truth. The most important truth is resurrection not just for Jesus but for us all if, by faith, we follow that truth...and this shows us that the entire universe obeys laws where that faith is fact...but first we have to endure God's Judgement and our faith will make it a worthwhile experience because of the many natural functions of that Judgement that include this world being seriously disturbed in a way not seen since its inception...and, for those with no faith, worse.

[BeRational]

Gordon/NearlySane/BeRational/ippy/jjohnjil/The poster formerly known as....

Faith is a wonderful thing...it means, here, beliveing  in a wonderful source of truth that has captured the hearts and minds of millions over many generations...It has forced tyrants to embrace its teaching and is the sole source of iniquity which hides within that faith falsifying it. In the terms of a science Faith in Jesus has repeated itself over and over and the reason is that it embraces truth to a right minded person who can live by that faith, be guided by that faith, and see the future promises of that faith to be hugely beneficial to those who practice that faith...it contains a truth that passeth all understanding and by our faith we get glimpses of that truth. The most important truth is resurrection not just for Jesus but for us all if, by faith, we follow that truth...and this shows us that the entire universe obeys laws where that faith is fact...but first we have to endure God's Judgement and our faith will make it a worthwhile experience because of the many natural functions of that Judgement that include this world being seriously disturbed in a way not seen since its inception...and, for those with no faith, worse.

Faith cannot reliably take you to truth, so why is it good?

[ippy]

Firstly, If it were 100 years that is considerably earlier than anything to say Jesus was not historical or contrary to the biblical accounts which i'm sure you have no problem believing.


Secondly the new testament includes the epistles the earliest which date from about 2 decades from the event. I am sure you have no trouble believing accounts or memoir of people recalling the events of 1998. The epistle also logs the established beliefs of communities so what the epistles talk about is the belief of established belief communities and these are reflected in later Gospels.

As has been established there was more than likely a chap such as the Jesus around at that time, the Mr Magic man in the sky stuff added on that's just so typical of the myth making, story telling of that time, so typical of the myth making in those days it's hardly worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

It's highly likely this Jesus bloke was a bronze age equivalent of a modern day Nelson Mandela like hero, and nothing more than that, things like coming back from the dead, feeding the 5000 etc they don't happen.

Regards ippy     

[Nearly Sane]

As has been established there was more than likely a chap such as the Jesus around at that time, the Mr Magic man in the sky stuff added on that's just so typical of the myth making, story telling of that time, so typical of the myth making in those days it's hardly worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

It's highly likely this Jesus bloke was a bronze age equivalent of a modern day Nelson Mandela like hero, and nothing more than that, things like coming back from the dead, feeding the 5000 etc they don't happen.

Regards ippy   

Applying probabilities to supernatural claims in the absence of any methodology to evaluate such claims is specious. Not that that gives any help to Vlad's claims.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon/NearlySane/BeRational/ippy/jjohnjil/The poster formerly known as....

Faith is a wonderful thing...

Nick, given that my post wasn't directed to you, and you make no reference to it in your reply either directly or indirectly, I don't see any point in including me in your first line here .

[NicholasMarks]

Faith cannot reliably take you to truth, so why is it good?

Without faith in Jesus Christ we leave ourselves exposed to another truth...That nasty minded people will gang-up behind our backs and orchestrate their own reasoning in a harmful way...without us having any defence against them...except, of course, the faith we have in Jesus Christ...and I may have mentioned it once or twice...that solid faith in Jesus Christ means we are living a science that passeth all understanding, BeRational...one of its arms being to discredit, besmirch and try to nullify the existence of Jesus Christ. I call this the antiChrist who aren't beyond the odd lie or two.

[NicholasMarks]

Nick, given that my post wasn't directed to you, and you make no reference to it in your reply either directly or indirectly, I don't see any point in including me in your first line here .

I may be mistaken, Nearly Sane, but I thought a public forum means that we can talk to everyone freely and involve those who enter into the theme of the post with their ideas on the subject...even if you would prefer they didn't...as long as we retain a measure of responsibility, which I always try to do.

.

[jjohnjil]

Gordon/NearlySane/BeRational/ippy/jjohnjil/The poster formerly known as....

Faith is a wonderful thing...it means, here, beliveing  in a wonderful source of truth that has captured the hearts and minds of millions over many generations...It has forced tyrants to embrace its teaching and is the sole source of iniquity which hides within that faith falsifying it. In the terms of a science Faith in Jesus has repeated itself over and over and the reason is that it embraces truth to a right minded person who can live by that faith, be guided by that faith, and see the future promises of that faith to be hugely beneficial to those who practice that faith...it contains a truth that passeth all understanding and by our faith we get glimpses of that truth. The most important truth is resurrection not just for Jesus but for us all if, by faith, we follow that truth...and this shows us that the entire universe obeys laws where that faith is fact...but first we have to endure God's Judgement and our faith will make it a worthwhile experience because of the many natural functions of that Judgement that include this world being seriously disturbed in a way not seen since its inception...and, for those with no faith, worse.

Sparky, you still haven't explained why such a powerful personage as God should care whether people believe in him or not.  If he really cared, it would have been simple to provide good evidence that ensured every human he created would be convinced.

Instead he sends his son to preach in a backwater part of the world - at a time when communications were almost impossible - for only three short years ... and expects everyone to take his word for it!

If I were God, the least of my worries would be whether humankind - of all the creatures I had created - believed in me ... but if it did worry me, I'd make certain of it.

Or do you think he's incapable of that?

[ippy]

Would he believe it if it were supposed to have happened yesterday? I mean I agree that having reports of miracles, written by unknown authors has added problems if those reports are written years after any such claims but the prime issue is the claims themselves.

I don't know what it would take to convince me about these presumed by many to be actual biblical happenings, sure as anything I would have to accept irrefutable proof now what that proof would have to consist of I've no idea and I very much doubt I will be giving up on my view that the religious stuff, all of it, it's man made it seems so obvious to me.

Regards ippy

[jjohnjil]

Would he believe it if it were supposed to have happened yesterday? I mean I agree that having reports of miracles, written by unknown authors has added problems if those reports are written years after any such claims but the prime issue is the claims themselves.

NS

Vlad seems to think anything written only 20 years ago should be believed. That was his point.

[NicholasMarks]

As has been established there was more than likely a chap such as the Jesus around at that time, the Mr Magic man in the sky stuff added on that's just so typical of the myth making, story telling of that time, so typical of the myth making in those days it's hardly worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

It's highly likely this Jesus bloke was a bronze age equivalent of a modern day Nelson Mandela like hero, and nothing more than that, things like coming back from the dead, feeding the 5000 etc they don't happen.

Regards ippy   

Wrong again ippy...Jesus Christ taught us about faith in a much higher authority...Almighty God, no less...The owner of the universe...and if we read his word instead of thinking out loud about what we think, we would find that Jesus is the son of God...teaching us God's 'word'...a word that has appealed to millions...You see, whilst the earlier antiChrist were cutting up God's domain, stealing its resources and otherwise turning this planet into a dung-heap...people were being injured and turning to Jesus because he offered them the only way out...Just as he is doing today....Like it or lump it.