-->
@PGA2.0
Did your god dictate the bible?
Jesus = Fact
Posts
Total:
285
-->
@Mopac
God is responsible for giving you free will as well, which does make you responsible for your actions.You have the choice to choose good or evil. And this in no way compromises God's sovereignty.
Imagine I designed a garden, and I placed a tray of brightly colored poisoned apples in the middle of it.
And I tell the people in the garden, you can pretty much do whatever you want, but don't eat any of those apples.
In a court of law, I would be responsible for reckless endangerment and or criminal negligence if not outright premeditated murder (if it could be proven that I either knew ahead of time that they would eat the poisoned apples or if I could have reasonably predicted such a thing and was capable of preventing it).
And furthermore, those poisoned apples would not only slowly kill those who ate it, but would infect their children with "original sin" for thousands of generations to come.
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it reasonable to believe Jesus was a historical Person based on the evidence available = Yes!
Sure, people exist and have different names and say stuff.
Is it reasonable to believe God is our Creator = Yes!
Sure, there might have been some sort of Deistic being that ignited the big bang, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Is it reasonable to believe the Bible is the Word of God = Yes!
Not really. What you call "the bible" is a scrap yard of arbitrarily assembled writings, collected and codified by The Council of Niceaea in 325 CE.
Is it reasonable to believe in Jesus = Yes!
You're going to need to be slightly more specific.
Gilgamesh = A cool name.... FACT...
Tutankhamun = Egyptian pharaoh dude. Arrrrrrrrrrr, FACT. ( hang on , it doesn't feel right saying FACT. )
HOT CROSS BUNS = Fact.
Hot cross buns wouldn't exist if jesus didn't = faaaaacccc ( assumption.)
Jesus died to give all humans Hot Cross Buns = FACT.
H C B's wouldn't exist If Jesus wasn't crucified = FACT.
Thanks jesus.
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it reasonable to believe Jesus was a historical Person based on the evidence available = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe God is our Creator = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe the Bible is the Word of God = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe in Jesus = Yes!
Doesn't it depend on what is meant by 'reasonable'? It could mean 'just about possible' or it could mean 'very probable'.
The evidence for Jesus is that stories were written about Him and some people seem to have believed them. The evidence against is the lack of any physical objects, the lack of any independent written sources, the supernatural and fabulous nature of the stories and the fact that even more of the people alive in Judea at the time disbelieved the stories.
So how 'reasonable' is it to believe jesus was a historical person? Particularly if 'historical jesus' refers to an actual divinity rather than a human around which legends crystalised, such as happened with King Arthur or Robin Hood. Is an emphatic 'yes' really an adequate response?
-->
@3RU7AL
I think I have told you this before, but I don't think you really get what I mean yet.
The western Latin church developed along very legalistic lines no doubt because of the influence of Augustine and even Latin itself. This passed on to western philosophy which is descended from Latin Scholasticism and Augustinian philosophies passed on to even the protestants and the secular culture that developed from this.
You keep thinking about these things as if we were in a court house.
This way of thinking is very alien and contrary to the way Orthodoxy understands things.
Besides, you are not treating God as The Ultimate Reality or The Truth but like a man. This is a very faulty and immoral way of looking at things.
-->
@Mopac
I think I have told you this before, but I don't think you really get what I mean yet.The western Latin church developed along very legalistic lines no doubt because of the influence of Augustine and even Latin itself. This passed on to western philosophy which is descended from Latin Scholasticism and Augustinian philosophies passed on to even the protestants and the secular culture that developed from this.You keep thinking about these things as if we were in a court house.This way of thinking is very alien and contrary to the way Orthodoxy understands things.Besides, you are not treating God as The Ultimate Reality or The Truth but like a man. This is a very faulty and immoral way of looking at things.
Your entire argument is an appeal to mystery.
An appeal to mystery is a de facto appeal to ignorance.
If you want to throw logic out the window, just admit it.
-->
@3RU7AL
Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God.
Not
Blessed are those who can come up with the cleverest explanation will see God.
-->
@Mopac
Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God.NotBlessed are those who can come up with the cleverest explanation will see God.
Of course. An appeal to mystery would naturally endorse itself with an appeal to mystery.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Is it reasonable to believe Jesus was a historical Person based on the evidence available = Yes!Sure, people exist and have different names and say stuff.
The biblical Person has specific qualities ascribed to His name.
Is it reasonable to believe God is our Creator = Yes!Sure, there might have been some sort of Deistic being that ignited the big bang, either intentionally or unintentionally.Is it reasonable to believe the Bible is the Word of God = Yes!Not really. What you call "the bible" is a scrap yard of arbitrarily assembled writings, collected and codified by The Council of Niceaea in 325 CE.
Is it reasonable and logical to believe that those who received writings from those closest to Jesus would have known which writings were true and which were bogus? Paul was writing to the churches in the 50s and 60s before he was put to death. Thus, it is reasonable to believe the writings would have started to circulate soon after they were written.
Acts 28:20-22 (NIV)
20 For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.”
21 They replied, “We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of our people who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.”
21 They replied, “We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of our people who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.”
When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem;
2 Corinthians 10:9
2 Corinthians 10:9
for I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters.
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The early church fathers also mention the names of some of these author's of the gospels. They would have a better idea than we do today.
Is it reasonable to believe in Jesus = Yes!You're going to need to be slightly more specific.
That would be what is described regarding Him in the Bible.
-->
@PGA2.0
Did Paul know the Jesus?Is it reasonable and logical to believe that those who received writings from those closest to Jesus would have known which writings were true and which were bogus? Paul was writing to the churches in the 50s and 60s before he was put to death. Thus, it is reasonable to believe the writings would have started to circulate soon after they were written.
Did the Council of Niceaea know the Jesus?
-->
@3RU7AL
Please elaborate your accusation for the sake of examination.
-->
@Mopac
Please elaborate your accusation for the sake of examination.
Here you go.
Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God.
In other words, blessed are the true believers in unicorns, for only they will be able to see unicorns.
If you can't see unicorns, it's because you are not a true believer.
This is the very definition of an unfalsifiable claim.
-->
@keithprosser
Is it reasonable to believe Jesus was a historical Person based on the evidence available = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe God is our Creator = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe the Bible is the Word of God = Yes!Is it reasonable to believe in Jesus = Yes!Doesn't it depend on what is meant by 'reasonable'? It could mean 'just about possible' or it could mean 'very probable'.
1. (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible: synonyms: sensible, rational, open to reason, full of common sense, logical,
2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate: synonyms: within reason, practicable, sensible, appropriate, suitable
Reasonable
2a: having the faculty of reason
b: possessing sound judgment
The evidence for Jesus is that stories were written about Him and some people seem to have believed them. The evidence against is the lack of any physical objects, the lack of any independent written sources, the supernatural and fabulous nature of the stories and the fact that even more of the people alive in Judea at the time disbelieved the stories.
"Stories?" These people claim to be eyewitnesses.
Actually, the evidence against that squashed the movement would have been to produce the dead body. That would have ended the claims of resurrection and killed the movement. We have no good historical evidence that happened. To the contrary, we have accounts that many of these eyewitnesses and others were put to death because they would not recant their testimonies of His resurrection or their reverence of and worship of Him.
So how 'reasonable' is it to believe jesus was a historical person? Particularly if 'historical jesus' refers to an actual divinity rather than a human around which legends crystalised, such as happened with King Arthur or Robin Hood. Is an emphatic 'yes' really an adequate response?
Very reasonable and logical. I defy you to make sense of the universe without God, and I challenge you to find better testimony of an ancient historical person. There are 19 extra-biblical listings of Jesus and much information can be gleaned from these that collaborates the biblical accounts. Then you have the early church fathers who verify He is an actual person as well as 27 different NT accounts, plus many pseudo-accounts. Then you have the whole of the OT that predicts a Messiah, One anointed by God.
Then, why we are here (our existence) is explained in one of a few ways (I would argue only two are in any way reasonable to think of); we are here by chance happenstance or we were created. Those are the two main rivals. If we are here by chance happenstance, then there is no reason for this universe, yet we keep finding reasons. I would argue that chance happenstance can't make sense of anything when you pull apart what it is built upon.
If we are created, and God has revealed Himself, which religious account is most reasonable. I claim it is the biblical account.
-->
@3RU7AL
Is it reasonable and logical to believe that those who received writings from those closest to Jesus would have known which writings were true and which were bogus? Paul was writing to the churches in the 50s and 60s before he was put to death. Thus, it is reasonable to believe the writings would have started to circulate soon after they were written.Did Paul know the Jesus?
Yes, he testified many times that He had met the risen Lord. The other apostles accepted him as one of them. His accounts verify and collaborate the NT gospels as well as OT prophecies.
Did the Council of Niceaea know the Jesus?
Some would know Him by faith and through the testimony of the written accounts of others, just like we know Him today.
-->
@3RU7AL
You are saying something nonsensical.
What I am saying actually means something.
It is a mystery to you because you don't know what purifying the heart is.
-->
@PGA2.0
Did Paul know the Jesus?Yes, he testified many times that He had met the risen Lord. The other apostles accepted him as one of them. His accounts verify and collaborate the NT gospels as well as OT prophecies.
Ok, so he saw a ghost and made sure his stories didn't conflict with the other unverifiable stories.
Did the Council of Niceaea know the Jesus?Some would know Him by faith and through the testimony of the written accounts of others, just like we know Him today.
So they knew exactly as much as we do.
-->
@Mopac
You are saying something nonsensical.What I am saying actually means something.It is a mystery to you because you don't know what purifying the heart is.
The logical structure is identical.
The Ultimate Unicorn is a mystery to me because I'm not a true-pure-hearted-believer in unicorns.
-->
@3RU7AL
I said nothing about being a true believer.
What you are saying amounts to little more than self delusion.
What I am saying has to do with abandoning self delusion.
Very much the opposite.
-->
@Mopac
I said nothing about being a true believer.
My mistake, let me rephrase...
The Ultimate Unicorn is a mystery to me because I don't know what purifying the heart is.
What you are saying amounts to little more than self delusion.
What you are saying amounts to little more than self delusion.
What I am saying has to do with abandoning self delusion.
What I am saying has to do with abandoning self delusion.
Very much the opposite.
And yet, your argument is still a naked appeal to mystery.
-->
@PGA2.0
Very reasonable and logical. I defy you to make sense of the universe without God, and I challenge you to find better testimony of an ancient historical person. There are 19 extra-biblical listings of Jesus and much information can be gleaned from these that collaborates the biblical accounts. Then you have the early church fathers who verify He is an actual person as well as 27 different NT accounts, plus many pseudo-accounts. Then you have the whole of the OT that predicts a Messiah, One anointed by God.
If we accept Markan primacy everything written about Jesus can be traced back to that single source. We don't have 19 independent lines of documentary evidence - we have one solitary contemporary source and 19 people copying it and copying copies of it for the next few hundred years.
I think it almost goes without saying that I am not impressed by claims of prophecy! We have a combination of Gospel writers deliberately making stuff up to give the impression of prophecy and 2000 years of partisan Chtistian quote mining.
-->
@3RU7AL
Did Paul know the Jesus?Yes, he testified many times that He had met the risen Lord. The other apostles accepted him as one of them. His accounts verify and collaborate the NT gospels as well as OT prophecies.Ok, so he saw a ghost and made sure his stories didn't conflict with the other unverifiable stories.
He met a Person who he recognized and worshiped as God. He testifies to have seen Him and spent time with Him.
Did the Council of Niceaea know the Jesus?Some would know Him by faith and through the testimony of the written accounts of others, just like we know Him today.So they knew exactly as much as we do.
Logically speaking, they would have access to much more information than we have today.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you trying to understand or are you simply trying to make a mockery of this whole thing?
We are talking about God, not a fill in the blank.
-->
@keithprosser
Very reasonable and logical. I defy you to make sense of the universe without God, and I challenge you to find better testimony of an ancient historical person. There are 19 extra-biblical listings of Jesus and much information can be gleaned from these that collaborates the biblical accounts. Then you have the early church fathers who verify He is an actual person as well as 27 different NT accounts, plus many pseudo-accounts. Then you have the whole of the OT that predicts a Messiah, One anointed by God.If we accept Markan primacy everything written about Jesus can be traced back to that single source. We don't have 19 independent lines of documentary evidence - we have one solitary contemporary source and 19 people copying it and copying copies of it for the next few hundred years.
If you accept it, that is one possible take. What do you mean by primacy - the first, or the only source that all others are derived from?
We have 19 EXTRA-BIBLICAL accounts or mentions of Jesus available to us today. That is in addition to the biblical accounts and the accounts of the early church fathers.
I think it almost goes without saying that I am not impressed by claims of prophecy! We have a combination of Gospel writers deliberately making stuff up to give the impression of prophecy and 2000 years of partisan Chtistian quote mining.
How well do you know prophecy?
How well do you see the connection?
When you say, "We have a combination of Gospel writers deliberately making stuff up to give the impression of prophecy" what is your proof of this. Show me from early sources that this is reasonable to believe. What evidence do you have from early sources that what you claim is the case?
And, how do you explain the OT that predict this Messiah and in regards to an Old Covenant people who no longer exist in covenant as stipulated in the Torah after AD 70?
How about offering some of your explanations for these things?
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok, so he saw a ghost and made sure his stories didn't conflict with the other unverifiable stories.He met a Person who he recognized and worshiped as God. He testifies to have seen Him and spent time with Him.
So, just like Joseph Smith?
So they knew exactly as much as we do.Logically speaking, they would have access to much more information than we have today.
Like what, for example?
-->
@Mopac
Are you trying to understand or are you simply trying to make a mockery of this whole thing?
You're the one who said that "truth" does not require knowledge. I contend that "understanding" requires knowledge and knowledge requires information.
We are talking about God, not a fill in the blank.
Your argument is an appeal to mystery. If you believe an appeal to mystery is a valid argument, then all appeals to mystery are valid arguments.
-->
@3RU7AL
I know exactly what I am talking about.
You don't.
I am trying to show you how you can know.
That is not an appeal to mystery, it is an acceptance of the very real truth that giving you the right information is not going to bring you to epignosis. You have to see for yourself.
Of course, you won't get there without faith because this isn't something that can be forced.
-->
@Mopac
I know exactly what I am talking about.
I do not doubt your sincerity. I doubt your logic.
You don't.
I only know as much as you are able to communicate.
I am trying to show you how you can know.
I appreciate your effort.
That is not an appeal to mystery, it is an acceptance of the very real truth that giving you the right information is not going to bring you to epignosis. You have to see for yourself.
Sure. I have to see it for myself. The question is simply, "How do I do that?"
Of course, you won't get there without faith because this isn't something that can be forced.
There it is. Faith is prerequisite. An appeal to faith is an appeal to mystery and an appeal to mystery is an appeal to ignorance.
-->
@3RU7AL
To use a parable, it is kind of like explaining going down a waterslide to a kid. It just doesn't do the experience justice. So i bring the child to the top of the big water slide, and they are too scared to go down. I am trying to coax a child into going down a waterslide so they can experience it for themselves, but they lack the faith to go through with it. I am not going to force the child down the waterslide. They refuse, and never know what it is like to go down the waterslide.
I find your insistence to filter everything through a logical framework to be crippling and not truly rational. I am sure that in your current state of mind, such an assertion must be truly baffling.
-->
@3RU7AL
AsI said before, to quote Jesus..
"Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God."
And sure enough, the entire Orthodox discipline is about purifying the heart. Something that cannot make sense unless you accept that God is The Truth.