The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[BilliardsBall]

And how is the writing of Einstein etc a relationship?

Educational, yes - brilliant, often - inspiring, to some - personally connected, no way.

I think you need to look up the meaning of relationship or place it in quotes and capitalised like christian "Truth" so it can easily be distinguished as a religious fantasy as opposed the having the real meaning of the word

P.s there is another word for a relationship with the dead, necrophilia

Please note, there is no 1st hand account of jc ever saying anything. No gospel according to jesus, no papyrus minutes of his claimed speeches. No documents of his words penned in his presence. All you have is third party claims written after the event and compiled some 350 years after his death.

Wait just a second, there. If by "compiled" you mean, "made canon by a church," I can almost agree, but scholars agree the New Testament is so early that writers were constantly quoting in the first and second century...

 

[ChristineM]

Wait just a second, there. If by "compiled" you mean, "made canon by a church," I can almost agree, but scholars agree the New Testament is so early that writers were constantly quoting in the first and second century...

Yet it was not a "new testament" until "selectively" compiled in the late 300s

Also note, the 1st century is at least 4 generations after jc and the end of the second is about 12 generations.

Now remembering that very few people could write and those few that could wrote everything by hand, with the inherent errors that implies.

In such cases i like to quote the ww2 funny (or not so funny).
Colonel: take a message to runner (a), who is to carry it to runner (b) who will hand it to runner (c) to carry to headquarters and recite, the message is "send reinforcement's, we are going to advance"

Some 35 minutes later hq received the message which was recited as "send three and four pence, we are going to a dance"

That's a few minutes and 3 people, imagine what a couple of hundred years and many, many people would do.

 

[columbus]

Wait just a second, there. If by "compiled" you mean, "made canon by a church," I can almost agree, but scholars agree the New Testament is so early that writers were constantly quoting in the first and second century...

However, it's only what the very fallible humans decided to write down and only the way that they remembered it. And lots of stuff people wrote down, for whatever reason, was specifically excluded by the bishops of the 4th century. Who were enlisted by a warlord, Constantine, to craft a cohesive religion for his purposes. One that was easily syncretized with the pagan rituals and beliefs that were still dominant in the Roman Empire.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

It is not the definition, which requires people. People are alive.

Necrophilia is a closer comparison according to the definition.

However i have become aware that religious people in particular tend to boost (pervert) certain words because they sound comfortable.

If he wants to call his imagined association with dead people a relationship, that's up to him, just don't expect me to bend over and agree to the perversion of the English language

People who have died are no longer considered people? What exactly are you trying to say. If I say I am related to my grandfather, it is generally accepted as a true statement. You want to say it is not true? I am not sure how you are organizing this in your head, but I am pretty sure it is being done in a way that is not in line with how the words are defined.

 

[ChristineM]

People who have died are no longer considered people? What exactly are you trying to say. If I say I am related to my grandfather, it is generally accepted as a true statement. You want to say it is not true? I am not sure how you are organizing this in your head, but I am pretty sure it is being done in a way that is not in line with how the words are defined.

I am saying they are inanimate corpses or ashes. Perhaps even dead people, you want a relationship with dead corpses well....

If your grandfather is still alive then chances are rust you could have a relationship with him. If not then most you can say is you were related to him.


Or Perth a P's you consider a family/bloody relationship same as reading about a guy who possibly lived 2000 years ago. To whom it is very unlikely you have a blood relationship considering Christianity teaches he was not intimate with woman but did have 12 good buddies.

Be sure of what's you want, i am sure you are guessing, i am using the precise definition(s) of the word relationship

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yet it was not a "new testament" until "selectively" compiled in the late 300s

Also note, the 1st century is at least 4 generations after jc and the end of the second is about 12 generations.

Now remembering that very few people could write and those few that could wrote everything by hand, with the inherent errors that implies.

In such cases i like to quote the ww2 funny (or not so funny).
Colonel: take a message to runner (a), who is to carry it to runner (b) who will hand it to runner (c) to carry to headquarters and recite, the message is "send reinforcement's, we are going to advance"

Some 35 minutes later hq received the message which was recited as "send three and four pence, we are going to a dance"

That's a few minutes and 3 people, imagine what a couple of hundred years and many, many people would do.

I can certainly understand how messages and oral stories degrade over time.

But if I spent three years traveling and living with Jesus, saw Him crucified, perform miracles than rise from the dead, I would do sort-of what I do now, which is continually talk and think and speak to others about Him. I can cite hundreds of Bible verses from memory and tell you things about encounters with Jesus Christ I had decades ago, crisply, clearly, accurately.

I have considered at length your thoughts here but conclude the eyewitnesses of Jesus wrote the New Testament from strong memory bases.

 

[BilliardsBall]

However, it's only what the very fallible humans decided to write down and only the way that they remembered it. And lots of stuff people wrote down, for whatever reason, was specifically excluded by the bishops of the 4th century. Who were enlisted by a warlord, Constantine, to craft a cohesive religion for his purposes. One that was easily syncretized with the pagan rituals and beliefs that were still dominant in the Roman Empire.
Tom

I don't wish to get into a lengthy argument as to how men met to defend the Bible they had rather than remove (awful, degenerate) apocrypha they "knew" was as pure as God's Word.

Rather, let's say this, if Jesus resurrected and appeared to you, would you write His words down very carefully and get them right or not?

 

[ChristineM]

I can certainly understand how messages and oral stories degrade over time.

But if I spent three years traveling and living with Jesus, saw Him crucified, perform miracles than rise from the dead, I would do sort-of what I do now, which is continually talk and think and speak to others about Him. I can cite hundreds of Bible verses from memory and tell you things about encounters with Jesus Christ I had decades ago, crisply, clearly, accurately.

I have considered at length your thoughts here but conclude the eyewitnesses of Jesus wrote the New Testament from strong memory bases.

Did you see these things? No, you are relying on claimed eyewitness testimony which is known to be unreliable. See What are the standards for evidence? for further discussion on this subject

And no, generations after the claimed events no verbally retold story is going to be accurate.

If however you had verified first hand accounts of said events then i would of course check the verification and if proven accurate would have no choice but to accept it.

All you can say is you have faith

 

[columbus]

I don't wish to get into a lengthy argument as to how men met to defend the Bible they had rather than remove (awful, degenerate) apocrypha they "knew" was as pure as God's Word.

I can well see why you wouldn't since it happened many centuries ago. But my facts stand.

Rather, let's say this, if Jesus resurrected and appeared to you, would you write His words down very carefully and get them right or not?

Yes I absolutely would. Immediately! In detail, including as much background as possible. In language that was immune to later ttranslation/interpretation/change. The miraculous nature of this language would be solid evidence that Jesus Himself is the source.

I certainly wouldn't wait around for a pagan warlord to tell me to do it.
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did you see these things? No, you are relying on claimed eyewitness testimony which is known to be unreliable. See What are the standards for evidence? for further discussion on this subject

And no, generations after the claimed events no verbally retold story is going to be accurate.

If however you had verified first hand accounts of said events then i would of course check the verification and if proven accurate would have no choice but to accept it.

All you can say is you have faith

The standards for judgment in a courtroom include:

* jurors are disqualified if they were present at the events--jurors at a distance are expected to weight evidence

* eyewitness testimony carries weight to we who are judge or jury, particularly if those testifying are of known good character and swear an oath before God to be faithful witnesses

* documentary evidence (contracts, covenants, agreements) carries weight

* it would be particularly weighty to have 12 writers provide 27 written eyewitness accounts

* it would carry extra weight if they were claiming events that occurred in the local jurisdiction and no witnesses were found who contradicted their accounts

I have faith (trust) in Jesus Christ. I don't think it's radical faith, unreasonable faith, unreasoned faith or unjustified faith.

I understand how a skeptic could scoff at miracle events recorded in the Bible, yet the 12 eyewitness New Testament writers, in the documents they authored with their team of scribes, were univocal in declaring that some miracles occurred.

All persons have faith (trust) in some things, some persons. I have faith in a person who responds to needs, performs healing, provides intimate divine knowledge, and whose books provide outstanding guides for living, including money advice, raising good families, healthy marriages, healthy lifestyles.

Wouldn't it be more correct for you to say, "All you have is faith and thousands of pages of ancient documents" because that's what I actually have?

 

[ChristineM]

The standards for judgment in a courtroom include:

* jurors are disqualified if they were present at the events--jurors at a distance are expected to weight evidence

* eyewitness testimony carries weight to we who are judge or jury, particularly if those testifying are of known good character and swear an oath before God to be faithful witnesses

* documentary evidence (contracts, covenants, agreements) carries weight

* it would be particularly weighty to have 12 writers provide 27 written eyewitness accounts

* it would carry extra weight if they were claiming events that occurred in the local jurisdiction and no witnesses were found who contradicted their accounts

I have faith (trust) in Jesus Christ. I don't think it's radical faith, unreasonable faith, unreasoned faith or unjustified faith.

I understand how a skeptic could scoff at miracle events recorded in the Bible, yet the 12 eyewitness New Testament writers, in the documents they authored with their team of scribes, were univocal in declaring that some miracles occurred.

All persons have faith (trust) in some things, some persons. I have faith in a person who responds to needs, performs healing, provides intimate divine knowledge, and whose books provide outstanding guides for living, including money advice, raising good families, healthy marriages, healthy lifestyles.

Wouldn't it be more correct for you to say, "All you have is faith and thousands of pages of ancient documents" because that's what I actually have?

Yet convictions made on eye witness testimony are being reviewed and repealed wholesale.

Those documents are not evidence, or perhaps you would also consider giving equal weight to Jewish scripture and the gravestone of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera to be evidence that jc was not the son of god but rather, as Jewish scripture states, the son of a Roman soldier.

Documents taken selectivity are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can well see why you wouldn't since it happened many centuries ago. But my facts stand.


Yes I absolutely would. Immediately! In detail, including as much background as possible. In language that was immune to later ttranslation/interpretation/change. The miraculous nature of this language would be solid evidence that Jesus Himself is the source.

I certainly wouldn't wait around for a pagan warlord to tell me to do it.
Tom

Then I have good news. In a Judaic/Greek culture where oral storytelling was key but scriptures were things that written down with great care and circumspection, the followers of Jesus IMMEDIATELY preached upon His command, and for decades, then many of the key players wrote down their stories before they died, contemporaneous to the events. John wrote five NT books and was also the last writer circa 90 AD.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

Perhaps because Atheists feel morally superior, that's triggering folks.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Rather, let's say this, if Jesus resurrected and appeared to you, would you write His words down very carefully and get them right or not?

I probably would wonder why Jesus didn't write them himself before he died including the prediction of the upcoming crucifixion and resurrection, and I probably wouldn't wait forty years to write.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yet convictions made on eye witness testimony are being reviewed and repealed wholesale.

Those documents are not evidence, or perhaps you would also consider giving equal weight to Jewish scripture and the gravestone of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera to be evidence that jc was not the son of god but rather, as Jewish scripture states, the son of a Roman soldier.

Documents taken selectivity are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

There are two issues. First, convictions made on eyewitness testimony may be repealed later on new forensic evidence, although this is a rare occurrence. Fortunately, there is not mere eyewitness testimony only regarding Jesus. Also, what you're really saying is "Sometimes eyewitnesses lie" which puts us in the position of having to review 27 NT documents by 12 teams of writers, who write to a Jewish people who lived during the times they are writing . . .

. . . Jewish scripture does NOT say Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. The Talmud, which is NOT part of the Hebrew Bible (scripture) says Jesus is the son of a Roman soldier. It also says He died on Passover time of crucifixion, did miracle works, was 33 1/2 when He died, etc. It is, since Talmud is certainly not a pro-Christian set of documents (quite the opposite, actually), one of the very best proofs possible that the NT Jesus was known as a miracle worker and a real Jewish teacher and leader.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I probably would wonder why Jesus didn't write them himself before he died including the prediction of the upcoming crucifixion and resurrection, and I probably wouldn't wait forty years to write.

It is more, not less powerful, that Jesus felt no need to write His deeds. He has changed history, nations and individuals.

You might not wait forty years to write, sure. I've seen books like Paul's dated to circa much less than forty years, however, the apostles were preaching to living people before writing to future generations. They didn't wait long to preach, did they, because you and I know their stories and preaching!

 

[ChristineM]

There are two issues. First, convictions made on eyewitness testimony may be repealed later on new forensic evidence, although this is a rare occurrence. Fortunately, there is not mere eyewitness testimony only regarding Jesus. Also, what you're really saying is "Sometimes eyewitnesses lie" which puts us in the position of having to review 27 NT documents by 12 teams of writers, who write to a Jewish people who lived during the times they are writing . . .

. . . Jewish scripture does NOT say Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. The Talmud, which is NOT part of the Hebrew Bible (scripture) says Jesus is the son of a Roman soldier. It also says He died on Passover time of crucifixion, did miracle works, was 33 1/2 when He died, etc. It is, since Talmud is certainly not a pro-Christian set of documents (quite the opposite, actually), one of the very best proofs possible that the NT Jesus was known as a miracle worker and a real Jewish teacher and leader.

Not rare and becoming more and more the norm

Please elucidate your claim of "more than eyewitness testimony"

Yes, precisely, question each and every one on the validity of their claims, including conspiracy theories.

"The Talmud has two components; the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), a written compendium of Rabbinic Judaism's Oral Torah; and the Gemara ( c. 500 CE), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Hebrew Bible."

See also Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

Sorry, you need pro christian documents to validate Christianity?

 

[Mister Silver]

He has changed history, nations and individuals.

Lots of fictional characters do that. It does not make them any less fictional.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not rare and becoming more and more the norm

Please elucidate your claim of "more than eyewitness testimony"

Yes, precisely, question each and every one on the validity of their claims, including conspiracy theories.

"The Talmud has two components; the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), a written compendium of Rabbinic Judaism's Oral Torah; and the Gemara ( c. 500 CE), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Hebrew Bible."

See also Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

Sorry, you need pro christian documents to validate Christianity?

What? Huh? I don't understand:

1. The Talmud is Jewish writings that are NOT Jewish scriptures. They are mainly commentary on Jewish scriptures.

2. The Talmud is a book that warns Jewish people to not trust Jesus for salvation/worship Jesus, etc. (paraphrasing).

3. The Talmud has EXCELLENT evidence that Jesus is exactly who I say He is.

Why are you switching the topics around? Is it because you don't know the Bible contains documentary evidence for Christ that is beyond mere eyewitness testimony?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Lots of fictional characters do that. It does not make them any less fictional.

Far more of the persons who change history are real persons.

Tell you what--prove you exist and I'll prove Jesus is real, not a fiction.