There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[joelr]

Within Reformed circles we hold that the Canon is closed. That means that we now have all the knowledge/information needed for salvation. So, what we need to know about God is in Scripture and that will not change untill the Second Coming of Christ.
There are no new revelations from God. So if we day that God tells us something, we refer to where Scripture says that.
That implies that if there are in fact new revelations from God it should be added to Scripture which is ,in fact, the self-revelation of God. But that does not happen in reality and we reject any claims like that.
We believe God speaks to his church or individuals through the Scriptures - nothing else.

Salvation, redeemed souls and heaven are Greek myths.
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]




The 2nd coming is a Persian myth adopted by Christian authors. Also during the 2nd Temple Period.


Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

 

[joelr]

It would have been more honest to say that that you do not accept the biblical eyewitness accounts.
To say, "There are no..." is a factual statement which is simply not true.

Paul only saw visions of a ghost Jesus.
The gospels are not eye-witness and anonymous.


The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career,



So it's consensus in Christian scholarship .
BUT what I was talking about were the historical mentions of Jesus. ONCE AGAIN, you are completely wrong. There are no historical accounts of Jesus. Just mention of people who follow the gospel stories.
But lets see what a NT historian has to say.


4. “The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John (OHJ, ch. 10.7).

“The Apostle Paul’s epistles”

Bishop’s only use of these is that Paul mentions Jesus was buried (Paul actually does not specify a tomb burial, although the type of burial doesn’t matter). But people got buried in outer space (OHJ, pp. 194-97 & 563) in the Jewish cosmology Paul adopted (e.g. 2 Cor. 12). So where was this burial? Paul never says. The first time anyone ever heard of it occurring on earth, is that same one source: Mark. Written a lifetime after the fact. By authors unknown. Crafting a patently mythical hagiography (OHJ, ch. 10.4).
“Paul might have even seen and heard Jesus”

In visions (Gal. 1). Just like Mohammed claimed to have seen and heard Gabriel. That no more proves Gabriel exists than that Jesus exists. This is a dead argument.

13. “Paul was familiar with Jesus’ sayings”

By revelation (and hidden messages in the Jewish scriptures). Paul knew of no other way one could learn the teachings of Jesus (Rom. 16:25-26; OHJ, ch. 11.6-7). Just like Mohammed knew of no other way one could learn the teachings of Gabriel—which teachings the Koran is a record of. The existence of the Koran no more proves the angel Gabriel exists than Paul’s commands from the Lord prove that Jesus exists. This is a dead argument.
Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”

No, he almost certainly did not (OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.Not the Impossible Faith, ch. 18).

23. “Lucian mentions Jesus”

Lucian wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Lucian’s source was his friend Celsus, whose only sources were the Gospels. Therefore, Lucian is not an independent source. This evidence is useless.

24. “Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud”

As having been executed by Jews, through stoning, in Lydda and not Jerusalem, a hundred years before Pontius Pilate. This actually counts against historicity. Not for it (OHJ, ch. 8.1). See items 1 and 3 again.

25. “Celsus attacks Jesus’s character”

Celsus wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Celsus only used the Gospels as his source. He knew no other sources to check. Therefore, Celsus is not an independent source. Nor could he have known the truth of what really happened over a hundred years before his time. This evidence is useless.

26. “Clement of Rome writes on Jesus’s existence”

Not on earth (OHJ, ch. 8.5). Clement seems only to know of a Jesus as a revelatory being who communicates through visions and having planted hidden messages in the Jewish scriptures. Just like Paul. So Clement’s letter actually counts against historicity.

27. “Ignatius of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”

Using only Gospels as his source. And nearly a century after the fact. Therefore, useless (OHJ, ch. 8.6).

28. “Quadratus of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto (OHJ, pp. 274, n. 41).

29. “Aristides the Athenian writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto (ibid.).

30. “Justin Martyr writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto. In fact, now we are a 130 years after the fact. And Justin’s only sources are the Gospels. This is useless.
31. “Hegesippus writes on Jesus existence”

A century and a half too late, in contexts that are patently ridiculous, and wholly unsourced (OHJ, ch. 8.8).

 

[joelr]

I would agree with most of this. In fact, I referred to the crux of this matter quite explicitly in my last reply: The universe is identical to God precisely because it’s conceived as such by some people. Indeed, in my view, there are things about the Universe that do make it worthy of such a conception. The conception absolutely does make a difference, as with any kind of belief in Divinity.

What part of pantheism is theistic? So far what has been described is deism.

 

[joelr]

What makes a deity to you, if I may inquire?

Theism is a personal deity, answers prayers, is conscious and usually wants your soul to enter some afterlife. Deism is a creator who began things and doesn't interact. An afterlife is not clear with this.

 

[joelr]

90+ Biblical Scholars and the evidence who are qualified scholars by any standard including by God’s standard.
Compared to atheist scholars who don’t meet the criteria for biblical scholarship. If a person doesn’t have the Holy Spirit they cannot be considered a biblical scholar and you talk about bias, these men are biased and blind.

The author of the article explaining that Mark is the source for at least Matthew and Luke is a believer.
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org



Here is a believer explaining Genesis is a myth:
Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are



Another believer saying the same
Describing the work of the biblical authors, John Van Seters wrote that lacking many historical traditions and none from the distant past, "They had to use myths and legends for earlier periods. In order to make sense out of the variety of different and often conflicting versions of stories, and to relate the stories to each other, they fitted them into a genealogical chronology."[

In fact this is the opinion of Christian scholars (believers)
Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical.
Book of Genesis - Wikipedia




Also your criticism doesn't land. You say one needs the "holy spirit" to be able to comment on the Bible but why would a historian need the "holy spirit" to see that the myths are borrowed?
You just look at original versions of older myths?

"The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin."



Since you are not a Muslim you cannot comment on the truth of the Quran according to your logic? Logic that is true doesn't just work for one thing?
So you have to ask a Muslim scholar/believer if the Quran is the actual updates on Christianity. I guess you will have to ask a Mormon scholar if the updates from Moroni are actually real as well?
You are going to have to ask a Bahai scholar if the updates on all world religions is really messages from God as well. Only people with the Bahai holy spirit can say for sure.

How. Ridiculous. And hypocritical because I'm betting you don't agree with any of this. But it's ok for yours?

 

[MonkeyFire]

There isn’t evidence for God because mankind is in a state of corruption and guilty disobedience towards God.

 

[joelr]

These men saw and heard Jesus, and knowing HIm and what He said. changed everything about their lives.

Rabbi Hilell said all those things before Jesus. No men saw Jesus, it's a story.

Procedures formerly used to prove the New Testament, are now used by modern atheist New Testament scholars, to try and impeach the miracles of Jesus and refute the testimony of these men who wrote their testimony, of any credibility.

The NT was NEVER proven. People back then assumed some Gods and demigods were real. Rome decided to use Christianity to unify after a civil war and it was made law.
The NT was never shown to be true, same with any scriptures?

Even more stunning, people accept the opinions of men and women who never saw these events 2,000 years ago, but reject the men who were there when they took place. All of the evidence to prove any event of antiquity resides in the people who were there and recorded these events for us. No serious historian would ever place greater weight upon the opinions of someone today, over those who wrote the testimony when it took place during the first century.

First then by this logic Muhammad is more true than historians who are skeptical of the claims. Same with ALL revelations. Including non-Christian or updates to Christianity.
But, the "testimony" is shown to be stories. We can see the sources. Sometimes verbatim lines from older fiction. As well as literary myth construction. Not to mention Mark actually tells the reader the story is a parable by having the main character say he teaches in parables? This is not testimony by any means?

One of the weaknesses of atheist scholars is their disregard of the Old Testament Hebrew scriptures, which predict a Messiah with supernatural abilities to heal every sickness and disease.[7] This support from the Hebrew scriptures, predicting a Messiah exactly like Jesus, is a crucial supporting evidence for Form Criticism. The proven accuracy of the Jewish scribes in writing their texts, predicting everything that Jesus said and did—recorded in the narrative of the New Testament—is virtually identical to what the disciples of Jesus said that Jesus did. [8]

Uh.....you are not debating or listening. I think you are unable.
The predictions of a messiah were in the Persian myths FIRST. Once the Hebrews were occupied by the Persians, suddenly then they are getting one as well? Sorry, that is a borrowed myth.
The NT was written using the OT as a guide. We know this because Mark uses OT stories like Elija and re-works them. He used Psalms verbatim in the crucifixion narrative, so we know the NT was written to appear to fulfill OT prophecy. It's all a story.
Historical scholars talk about this often. So you are wrong, these are all taken into account and it's how we know it's fiction.

Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.





Belief in a world Saviour

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6

 

[joelr]

You communicate you were a Christian and the point is that you thought you were a Christian but according to God you were not. Aren’t you glad someone is telling you now? I thought I was in good standing with God while I was drinking and drugging, living that life until I actually got saved and was born again. At that point I realized how foolish I was and if I died like that I would have gone straight to hell. I wasn’t a Christian or a believer although I thought I was.
Can the existence of God be proven?

Terrible article. At least use a reputable source. Apologists often come here linking to short poorly written articles by complete amateurs.

Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. read something that actually presents the arguments and criticisms

 

[joelr]

The difference between blind faith, and biblical definition of faith that pleases God.
https://www.compellingtruth.org/God-blind-faith.html
Is God pleased by blind faith?

Funny. "Blind faith is trusting in something without any evidence." Then goes on to say "evidence" is the scriptures and Jesus (a character in the scriptures?)

Sorry, those are claims based on stories. Again, Islam does the same, the evidence is the Quran. As you probably know, that isn't proof and nor is scripture.

We, of course, also use the tools of science, archaeology, history, literary criticism, personal experience, and similar methods. l

Wait, what? So no science at all, why would they say that? But I posted plenty of history, literary criticism and archeology? This is what you are now saying isn't evidence? The history field says the gospels are a mythical narrative. Archaeology shows what is written in the OT is not what happened. Literary criticism we haven't gotten into but I've mentioned it and it shows the gospels are myth.
Now you have contradicted yourself. You wanted to hide from these fields by claiming they didn't have the "holy spirit" and now you post an article that claims you use them?? YOu have been arguing against that all along, now you post that it's valid???????

Your arguments are a complete mess.

 

[joelr]

Well, the Bible and Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Him. If anyone says otherwise they are a false prophet and teacher. Your point is irrelevant

Yes in Matthew which is a reinterpretation of Mark which is a myth. AGAIN, it's true because it says so? So then all religions are true because they say so?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Here is a believer explaining Genesis is a myth:
Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

If someone is saying Genesis is a myth, then they aren’t a believer. Sorry “Yahweh is God” as your name declares. Instead of fighting your namesake, how about you learn truth instead.
Thanks for your input and opinions.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes in Matthew which is a reinterpretation of Mark which is a myth. AGAIN, it's true because it says so? So then all religions are true because they say so?

Not sure what you mean by "Mark is a myth."
?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes in Matthew which is a reinterpretation of Mark which is a myth. AGAIN, it's true because it says so? So then all religions are true because they say so?

Says in John:
“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14:6‬ ‭CSB‬‬
The Bible is the a standard of Truth.

 

[ElishaElijah]

All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist.

Is this your view as well? Is this peer reviewed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How many sects are you made out of?

What?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you can add atheism to your list of false religions and sects.
Can the existence of God be proven?

Atheism isn't a religion in any sense of the word. It's a rejection of a claim. A lack of belief in god(s).
If it's a religion, then not believing in unicorns is also a religion.

Of course, as you already know, your question was a deflection away from your own claims.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What?

How many sects are you divided into? If just one then the rest claiming to be you are what? You have your answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How many sects are you divided into? If just one then the rest claiming to be you are what? You have your answer.

That doesn't make any sense.
Is there what we've come to? Complete obfuscation of the point?

 

[ElishaElijah]

That doesn't make any sense.
Is there what we've come to? Complete obfuscation of the point?

That is the point otherwise I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is the point otherwise I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate.

The point wasn't addressed in your body parts analogy.

The point has been explained several times, by several people.

The point is that there are thousands of sects of Christianity, all claiming to be the one true one. You yourself claim that the religion you follow is the right one. The only evidence any of you have to offer isn't evidence at all, rather it's claims from an old book. Claims that differ from sect to sect, hence the vast number of different ones. The question here is, how do we figure out which one (if any) is actually the one true Christianity? It seems all we have to go on are your words and assertions about experiences and whatnot, and the words and assertions of thousands and thousands of other peoples claiming they've got it right. You guys can't even determine amongst yourselves which is the right version of Christianity, and you don't appear to have any way to demonstrate in any clear way, which one is the right one. So how is anybody else supposed to be able to figure it out? In other words, what is the pathway to truth here?