What is Christianity support?

[BilliardsBall]

Are you, like Paul, asking the question, or are you being rhetorical? I don’t judge my brother or sister in regards to eating or not eating or observing a day above others (both cited in this Romans chapter) and other points of the Mosaic Law.

You are a little bit too literal here. These can and should be taken as simply examples of how we judge each other over trivial matters, not matters of the heart - which was the very point of these examples of Paul. You think because it's not about meat or days, then it's OK to judge other Christians? I think you are still on the milk here....

How do you know I’m being too literal? What hermeneutics do you employ here?

**

I am and you are to judge/discern et al when a brother is immoral or has bad doctrine.

Which if you apply that to what Paul was saying about judging meat, that is in fact a moral judgement. I'm sorry you don't see the point of Paul here, but that also explains a lot.

Paul’s point was that trivial matters, particularly disputations over fine points of Mosaic Law, were silly things to judge brothers on.

You can observe a special day as holy unto the Lord or eat a dish giving thanks to the Lord without me judging you, but I reserve judgment for persons who say the Bible isn’t to be taken as the literal Word of God.

**

Judge it is time to change churches. A brother is immoral and claiming to be born again, saying adultery against his spouse is okay as a Christian? It’s time for judgment and church discipline.

That's really tragic to hear you seat yourself in the position of their judge. You know so little, yet presume so much. This is what Jesus warned against.

The brother expelled from a church in 1 Corinthians was sleeping with his stepmother. The church applauded this behavior. Not to distress them but to bless them, Paul guided them in church judgment. If I encountered the same situation in your life or that of a church I attend, you’d like me to look the other way or step in to judge and help?

**

All human beings need the saving gospel of Jesus? Then why are you annoyed that I share the saving gospel with people?

I'm annoyed by those who mistake getting people to accept doctrinal beliefs with truly reaching out through a heart of love. It makes me feel bad for those "believers" who think this is truly loving.

So you are saying I CAN share the gospel that Jesus saves from Hell if I truly do so with a heart of love? Because it sounded previously like you condemned this approach.

**

Are you aware it is not a single voice but the claim of several dozen writers and scribes, each saying they were transmitting God’s Word to man?

I'm quite aware. There were a lot more than just them! Yet those texts don't appear in your bible because.... why?

Okay, please share with me those apocryphal passages or quotations you know of, kept from the 66 books of the Bible, which defame one or more of the 66 books of the Bible as not being the Word of God.

**

Can you or I present modern scholarship evidence that conclusively proves the Bible writers were not understanding what they wrote or falsified what they wrote?

Well, I think there is more that sufficient reason and evidence to support this is not miracle supernatural stuff, but rather normal mythmaking processes you see in all cultures. Nothing extraordinary in that regards.

But you are making an extraordinary claim:

Resolved: The Bible is mythmaking as seen in all other cultures, despite its thousands of fulfilled prophecies, unique moral teachings, verification via archaeology, etc.

Either defend your resolution with facts or cease and desist.

A conservative scholar would date Luke’s writing before Josephus.

Sure, but that doesn't mean anything. That's why modern scholarship is necessary to check those assumptions. I believe modern scholarship has a much sharper edge that traditionalist, or conservative ideas.

Modern scholars, even the more liberal ones like the Jesus Seminar, date Luke earlier than Josephus. The YouTube video source is gilding the lily.

**

Not only does this vice versa the claim (Josephus cribbed Luke)

That's not valid at all. The evidence shows it the other way around, quite clearly. Josephus most certainly did NOT crib Luke. He never cites him. What's more the evidence shows how and why it was Luke trying to bolster his fiction by citing the history from Josephus. Carrier goes into that quite a bit in that video, you did not watch.

I call baloney, the more so since conservative and liberal scholars would all have a field day and hold 500 conferences around the world immediately if the scholar you cite put Luke that late in authorship.

I noted also that I’ve asked you to cite facts and you’re citing YouTube videos.

**

but Luke claims to have spoken to eyewitnesses and to have made an orderly account and to have been in the know from the beginning of his narrative

Again, addressed at some length in that Carrier video you chose not to watch. You really should so we can talk specifics here.

I’ve asked you for facts, not an hour-long video to waste time. Feel free to post the hours:minutes of the video so I can address the facts and not the fluff. I would appreciate it.

**

Consider the folly of what you’re implying, for example, “Jesus chose to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill that prophecy, and chose to be taken to Egypt as a toddler to fulfill that prophecy, and chose to rise from the dead to fulfill those prophecies.”

Oh my. I'm sorry, I need to take a step back here. These were stories, narrative written long after the fact of whatever it was that really happened to make it fit into these "prophecies" as some sort of indication Jesus "fulfilled" them. The stories are fabrications, woven around their particular reading of Jewish scriptures, making Jesus born of a "virgin", and the like based on what they believed the scriptures were saying.

This is not a miracle. This is mythmaking. Not that the myths are meaningless, as they aren't. But don't mistake them as history or proofs of magic or the supernatural. I actually suspect you know this already.

You used the word “fabrication” which I would equate with “lying”. Yet you claim to be a Christian and feel it’s inappropriate for me to judge not you, but your doctrine, when a primary doctrine you hold is the virgin birth is a “fabrication” and Jesus’s rising from the dead is a “fabrication”. I know many Christians who claim expressly to NOT be born again or fundamentalists who believe in a virgin birth and a literal resurrection. Please tell me why I should consider you a Christian rather than an apostate or an infidel.

**

It is not modernity’s imposition but a biblical frame of reference to pursue evidence. If you like, I can refer you to Bible passages about how to receive evidence from God, God’s view toward the evidence method, what and whom should be tested, how to test, etc.

All of this is an interpretation through a quasi-modernist lens. It most certainly is not an injunction for an empiricist framework.

Again, empiricism breaks down when one considers whether to drink sulphuric acid or to, as Jesus specifically described, trust Him for eternal life when one has never seen Him but can only hear the testimony of the scriptures.

I will have both eternal life and my intellectual integrity when I refuse to drink sulphuric acid based on non-empirical knowledge. All empiricists become hypocrites when trusting their parents’ statements, that of their professors, and those of Jesus Christ. I urge you to become a hypocrite! J

**

I have from you a bunch of (please excuse my frankness) hippy-dippy nonsense regarding spirituality and man. You don’t seem to understand your self-contradictory commentary.

No, actually, you don't understand what I'm saying and see it as self-contradictory.

BTW, do you know what "paradox" means? Wouldn't you say the Eternal is paradoxical? If not, why not?

The eternal seems a paradox when the assessor is flawed, sinful. It’s hard to see the love of Christ when we can still hate our neighbor and so on.

**

For example, you want me to be “open” to new ways of understanding things I claim to already understand BUT in your last post you write:

“It’s a problem to ask for evidence to test my assumptions”

Where in the F* did I say this? Please show me the exact quote in the exact post number. It is not there. This is nothing I ever said, nor would ever say! Where did you get this from? Ask away! I have tons of evidence, and I've linked you to them. Have you read them? No? Why not?

I have read each piece offered to me except I did not watch the entire YouTube video. My experience is that when people are unable to cite evidence from memory and say, “It’s all in the video (or book)” they heard false claims and accepted them.

That it’s a problem for you to offer evidence of your assertions upon request is evident. You can look at, say, the last ten posts you’ve made, in which you respond to requests for evidence with “you aren’t open to what I’m saying,” aka hippy-dippy nonsense I can get at my local New Age bookstore or cult meeting.

I guess the difference is college professors at least try to formulate textual or other evidence for what they say when they tell me Jesus never fulfilled prophecies.

You claim to use an empiricist’s framework, so how is it that not having ever personally interviewed the Bible writers, you have come to understand they made glorious fabrications about my Lord? What special knowledge do you possess since you possess no evidence?

**

. . Neither of which contradictions bode well for 1) understanding God 2) defining terms on anything so we both comprehend one another 3) ever receiving proof or evidence of anything concrete.

Concrete. Yes, that's a problem with you and your literalist expectations. Nothing is concrete in any of human experience.

A family member went skydiving this week and a parachute was used so that they would not strike concrete, and rather concretely.

Again, I try to live in the world, not on Cloud 9, when your theorizing resides.

I’ve read your references. I never said Richard Carrier is hippy dippy, I said your come-from, your subjective worldview, is.

Did I point you to this list of over 100 conservative and liberal scholars who patently deny Carrier’s ahistoricity of Jesus?

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

By implication, the existence of this Wikipedia page implies that scholars affirm the historicity of Jesus worldwide.

If you agree with Carrier, and say Jesus wasn’t a real person, I will reframe our conversations accordingly.

Thanks.

 

[Windwalker]

How do you know I’m being too literal? What hermeneutics do you employ here?

Common sense?

Paul’s point was that trivial matters, particularly disputations over fine points of Mosaic Law, were silly things to judge brothers on.

You think those were trivial matters in the minds of the Jews of that day? No, dietary laws and days were of very high importance to them, but he was appealing to them to get hung up on matters that are of far less importance than the Spirit of Love. Something you don't appreciate at this point yet, still arguing about the "right" interpretations, such as these Christians were doing in judging another man's servant based on how they interpreted the import of observing days and diets. It's identical to what I see here that you are doing.

You can observe a special day as holy unto the Lord or eat a dish giving thanks to the Lord without me judging you, but I reserve judgment for persons who say the Bible isn’t to be taken as the literal Word of God.

Then it's those such as yourself Paul was admonishing to not judge another man's servant, setting yourself up as the all-seeing, all-knowing one, thus exposing your own want.

The brother expelled from a church in 1 Corinthians was sleeping with his stepmother.

So you compare someone as myself who sees the Bible as a work of man with someone who sleeps with his stepmother? I'm hearing someone stretching to justify his violation of the spirit of the law in favor of the letter of it. This is really obvious to me.

So you are saying I CAN share the gospel that Jesus saves from Hell if I truly do so with a heart of love? Because it sounded previously like you condemned this approach.

I don't object to sharing love. I object to threatening someone with hell and saying that's love.

Okay, please share with me those apocryphal passages or quotations you know of, kept from the 66 books of the Bible, which defame one or more of the 66 books of the Bible as not being the Word of God.

Did I mention "defaming"? I did not. I simply said you somehow imagine just these books that the Roman Church decided were "God's Word" are inspired while the others, such as those in the Nag Hammadi texts, aren't. Do you think the RCC is inspired by God? If not, then why do you assume the books they selected to include and exclude are? Good question, no?

But you are making an extraordinary claim:

Not extraordinary at all. Reasonable and supported, yes.

Resolved: The Bible is mythmaking as seen in all other cultures, despite its thousands of fulfilled prophecies, unique moral teachings, verification via archaeology, etc.

Why do you keep trying to convince me "prophecies" prove anything? I've already said countless times I see those as a trick, a magician's slight of hand. Would you be convinced if I said something was true because the Pope said it? I think this is just you repeating "prophecies, but the prophesies!", to convince yourself, resorting essentially to citing magic to combat against modern evidences. Yes, I believe that's so.

Now, as far as "unique" goes. Yes, and no. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," while profoundly valuable, is ubiquitous in the world's religions! It did not originate with Jesus. And yet, according to Jesus, this is the core of religious faith. "The entire law and prophets", the whole bible, hangs on this. And it is NOT unique to Christianity. The core of Christian faith, is in most all the religions. But even if you cite things that are in fact unique to Christianity, that means nothing, as all religions have things unique to themselves. That's just the nature of why they are not the same religion. My hands have 10 digits on them. Each one is unique, but they are all still fingers and thumbs and perform similar functions! Same with the world's religions. Call them the fingers of God.

Either defend your resolution with facts or cease and desist.

Oh will you please just stop it with these hollow threats already. I support everything I'm saying, yet you keep saying this. Keep it up and I will desist because you aren't making an effort to actually examine what I defend with and just repeat this meaningless threat, blinding yourself to the fact I have offered support.

Modern scholars, even the more liberal ones like the Jesus Seminar, date Luke earlier than Josephus. The YouTube video source is gilding the lily. I call baloney, the more so since conservative and liberal scholars would all have a field day and hold 500 conferences around the world immediately if the scholar you cite put Luke that late in authorship.

Bull. Gospel of Luke Luke: 80 - 130 AD. Antiques: 93 AD.

I noted also that I’ve asked you to cite facts and you’re citing YouTube videos.

WTF? If I referred you to a YouTube video of Steven Hawking teaching about Black Holes, you'd dismiss it because it was on YouTube??? I gave you an actual scholar who has done the actual research and was doing a presentation of his own work from his published and reviewed scholarship! That's not good enough for you? Then go by his book and read it yourself, instead of listening to him present the material. I mean seriously, WTF?

I’ve asked you for facts, not an hour-long video to waste time.

You asked me to support it, I gave you a scholar. You call it as waste of time? I call a foul at this point in our discussion. You are not sincere. Now I am saying, step up the plate, face what I have presented. I'm turning up the heat on you now, and calling out this BS.

 

[Windwalker]

You used the word “fabrication” which I would equate with “lying”.

that's a problem. I don't equate it that way. It's mythmaking. He's trying to put onto a pedestal his beliefs by fabricating these transcendent themes. That's not lying. It's mythmaking. I don't think you understand this yet.

"In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance​

Yet you claim to be a Christian and feel it’s inappropriate for me to judge not you, but your doctrine, when a primary doctrine you hold is the virgin birth is a “fabrication” and Jesus’s rising from the dead is a “fabrication”. I know many Christians who claim expressly to NOT be born again or fundamentalists who believe in a virgin birth and a literal resurrection. Please tell me why I should consider you a Christian rather than an apostate or an infidel.

You think what defines a Christian is doctrinal views. You. Are. Wrong. You are in error.

Again, empiricism breaks down when one considers whether to drink sulphuric acid or to, as Jesus specifically described, trust Him for eternal life when one has never seen Him but can only hear the testimony of the scriptures.

No one has ever seen him, except for Paul, the 500, and me (and countless others).

The eternal seems a paradox when the assessor is flawed, sinful. It’s hard to see the love of Christ when we can still hate our neighbor and so on.

Yes, when you judge me, you can't see Christ. That's right. Keep pondering this, and hopefully the shingles on the eyes will drop off here.

I have read each piece offered to me except I did not watch the entire YouTube video. My experience is that when people are unable to cite evidence from memory and say, “It’s all in the video (or book)” they heard false claims and accepted them.

Nonsense. I could, but honestly why can't you make the effort rather than me having to spend countless hours trying to say what can be gleaned in a much shorter, to the point, honest listening to an authority on the topic here? I'm sending you to the source. Why would my translation of that be better? It's not that much time to spend 40 minutes on this.

OK, fine, here. Luke cribbed Josephus, it parallels other historical fictions of the day. By no standards is Luke a real historian. He takes Mark and Matthew and tries to create a "let's all get along" narrative, etc., etc. The proof points for all this are in the video. Short as that is. Don't make me do your work for you.

That it’s a problem for you to offer evidence of your assertions upon request is evident. You can look at, say, the last ten posts you’ve made, in which you respond to requests for evidence with “you aren’t open to what I’m saying,” aka hippy-dippy nonsense I can get at my local New Age bookstore or cult meeting.

This is stupid. You have the evidence. Do your part and look at it.

I guess the difference is college professors at least try to formulate textual or other evidence for what they say when they tell me Jesus never fulfilled prophecies.

If you honestly want to hear me demonstrate why fulfilled prophecy claims are a magician's trick, let me know. Though you will probably not want to read the source material yourself, based on this last response of yours to me.

You claim to use an empiricist’s framework, so how is it that not having ever personally interviewed the Bible writers, you have come to understand they made glorious fabrications about my Lord? What special knowledge do you possess since you possess no evidence?

It sounds like you're falling apart here. I do have a lot of evidence. Only one snippet of that is that video you refuse to look at.

Look, I most certainly love God! Absolutely. I just think you should attempt to understand that how people think about God is not limited to your understanding, and that Love is not dependent upon your beliefs in the way things should look and be understood. All of what I am typing here has been towards that aim. To open you to see into Love.

I'll finish my response shortly....

 

[Windwalker]

Again, I try to live in the world, not on Cloud 9, when your theorizing resides.

Yes, well the world is actually Cloud 9. You realize we are just a bunch of atoms hung together over empty space and assume we are a "human". Oh hell, reality is a whole lot less solid that you want to imagine. Welcome to the world or the real , Neo.

Consider me your interpreter.

I’ve read your references. I never said Richard Carrier is hippy dippy, I said your come-from, your subjective worldview, is.

Yes, other than I cite scholarship, so it's not all just a "subjective worldview". Again, you err.

Did I point you to this list of over 100 conservative and liberal scholars who patently deny Carrier’s ahistoricity of Jesus?

What does the mythicist position have to do with anything I have said so far? Nothing. I've never stated my views on that topic. Have I? No? Then why are you introducing it here?

By implication, the existence of this Wikipedia page implies that scholars affirm the historicity of Jesus worldwide.

I'm not weighing in my thoughts on that unrelated topic here, but just because the "majority" say something doesn't make it so.

If you agree with Carrier, and say Jesus wasn’t a real person, I will reframe our conversations accordingly.

So rather than dealing with the material in that short video I linked you to, you launch off into this??? How strange, and telling. I'm not going to share my thoughts here, as you can't manage the other simpler ones so far. I'll say this, I'm comfortable with either understanding of Jesus. It doesn't change what I see as valuable. Now process that and see what you come up with.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, dietary laws and days were of very high importance to them, but he was appealing to them to get hung up on matters that are of far less importance than the Spirit of Love.

Love is the most important facet in scripture, but there are no verses in either testament that says adherence to God’s Word, obedience and/or sound doctrine are to be ignored for “love”.

So you compare someone as myself who sees the Bible as a work of man with someone who sleeps with his stepmother?

I'm hearing someone stretching to justify his violation of the spirit of the law in favor of the letter of it. This is really obvious to me.

No, it’s worse. An infidel can be sexually immoral in ignorance of God’s law (or at least a dulled conscience). Spending time on forums to talk born again fundamentalists out of being born again or fundamentalist is far more heinous.

Why do you keep trying to convince me "prophecies" prove anything? I've already said countless times I see those as a trick, a magician's slight of hand. Would you be convinced if I said something was true because the Pope said it? I think this is just you repeating "prophecies, but the prophesies!", to convince yourself, resorting essentially to citing magic to combat against modern evidences. Yes, I believe that's so.

You’re correct. It would be better for us to review specific prophecies that have been fulfilled, literally. Like the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel after millennia in diaspora, which is impossible for one person’s “sleight of hand”.

**

To keep us focused, I’m limiting my response to your most recent posts.

You’ve said I’m wrong regarding:

You think what defines a Christian is doctrinal views. You. Are. Wrong. You are in error.

Therefore, you are holding a doctrine that says my doctrine is wrong. This sort of self-defeating statement is inherent in a lot of what you write. When I confront you, you refer to subjective, empiricist views, views you didn’t address in recent posts, either.

**

Therefore, rather than continuing to accuse me of presentism, I ask you to actually read Luke 1 and tell me about Luke’s views:

“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”

The statements above place Luke as a first-rate ancient historian. They are in no way subjective. There is no possibility for someone to read the above and conclude “Luke went with the truths he knew, subjectively guessed at the divine, and did what felt right.”

 

[BilliardsBall]

You may benefit from a response I placed today re: prophecies and their "vague" nature...

**
**

There are prophecies, more than once in Tanakh, that state that the Jewish people will reject a great prophet, go into diaspora in many lands and return to their homeland in Israel.

WHILE THEY ARE IN MANY LANDS, IN EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE LANDS THEY WILL BE THE CREAM, THE INTELLIGENTSIA, BLESSING THAT NATION, AND ALSO, IN EACH OF THOSE LANDS THEY WILL BE HATED, REJECTED AND PERSECUTED.

You can say all you like that we Jews will work hard to be educated, win Nobel prizes at a ratio of 48:1 (0.25% of the world, win 12% of the prizes) and etc. but if you say it was a self-fulfillment to be hated without a good reason (jealousy, perhaps?) and then persecuted, pogromed, expelled, raped and murdered in dozens of nations I will call you out as some kind of psychotic anti-Semite!

There is NO WAY Jews decided to self-fulfill Tanakh prophecies by being hated without any reason in 100 lands. NONE. The fact that we Jews since the diaspora have often said the Tanakh is man's word and not perhaps God's Word underscores how crazy, how sick, how insane it would be to say we self-fulfilled prophecy to be hated in 100 lands. Jews aren't motivated to self-fulfill prophecies they think are open to interpretation and perhaps not God's Word at all. Christians, however, noticed that the Jewish people fulfilled prophecy, again with little Jewish motivation to self-fulfill it.

The Bible is the Word of God.

It can't be self-fulfilling. If the prophecy was "fulfilled" by a wilful act by people who knew about the prophecy, then it doesn't count as foreknowledge. Examples would be the foundation of modern Israel or the story about the donkey and the colt in the Gospels ("go get me a donkey and a colt so that I can fulfil the prophecy that says the Messiah will come into the city on a donkey and a colt.
Unfortunately, Jesus self-fulfilled the prophecies regarding the Messiah's resurrection by rising from the dead, willfully, intentionally, forever. So we can eliminate THOSE prophecies . . . I can see how "rational" rationalist denials of prophecy are.

Once you come to measure, I mean, measure it with data analysis, how extraordinary it is for a people to remain culturally and ethnically distinct for two millennia and return to their homeland, you will not any longer say "a mix of unsubstantiated claims and self-fulfilling prophecies".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm forced to conclude the ahistoricity of Jesus is nonsense.

Why didn't thousands of Jewish people arise in the NT times to say Jesus never existed, never spoke out in the Temple during recurring visits over 3 1/2 years, never healed multitudes and etc.?

I'm a Jew and familiar with Jewish folklore, Talmudic and Halachic thinking et al, and there is no way the stories of Jesus are spurious. A rabbi giving a Talmudic illustration might speak of a certain allegorical man going to a certain village and having a certain discourse, but would NEVER say "this certain person has a geneaology going back to King David and ADAM" or "spoke in the Temple on the third day of the tenth month where a party of the Pharisees and a party of the Saducees" etc. ad infinitum.

I've already explained how Luke and his gospel and the Acts show many hundreds of salient facts confirming time, places, dates and PEOPLE, literal people, interacting, including direct quotations and discourses and specific people present listening to the discourse. NO Jewish parable - or even parable of the Bible writers for comparison - would ever say "after three days, King So-and-so, whom Paul knew, assembled to listen as a party of the Pharisees looked on . . . "

The overwhelming body of Bible scholars worldwide, including conservative and liberal scholars, atheist and born again scholars, certainly now disputes the resurrection and many of the miracles recorded, but almost zero scholars worldwide dispute that Jesus of Nazareth was born, baptized in water, preached in Jerusalem and died on a cross.

The ahistoricity of Jesus your source as proposed is nonsense and underscores Carrier's inability to enter into our debate with any possible credence. You simply must adhere to facts, objective facts, if you wish to assume credence on behalf of those reading our thread . . .

Thank you.

 

[Windwalker]

Love is the most important facet in scripture, but there are no verses in either testament that says adherence to God’s Word, obedience and/or sound doctrine are to be ignored for “love”.

One man's "sound doctrine" is not to another. What matters in the end is how we treat one another, not the particulars of our beliefs and doctrines. That is very biblical. One could speak in the tongues of men and angels, and still not have love, then what does all that profit when in the end it's only love which abides? Again, you should really read that passage in Romans again understanding it is about not letting differences in beliefs about what we should or should not do stand in the way of love. Standing up and proclaiming others who sincerely belief differently than you are in violation of God, is in fact you judging them and falsely calling that out of love.

No, it’s worse. An infidel can be sexually immoral in ignorance of God’s law (or at least a dulled conscience). Spending time on forums to talk born again fundamentalists out of being born again or fundamentalist is far more heinous.

First of all, I am not trying to talk you out of your beliefs. If I were, I'd take very different tact than I am in our conversation. All I am doing, and hope to do, is to demonstrate that other Christians can legitimately understanding the meaning of their faith in terms that you do not, and the rational, and scholarly basis for it, as well as the spiritual truth of it for them, for those like me.

Now, that you say a progressive form of Christianity is worse than having sex with one's mother-in-law, well now, that doesn't look very good on you at all. Perhaps that one finger pointing at me, as three more pointing back at yourself. You are the one trying to convince me I'm wrong and in danger of hell. You are describing yourself in your above comments.

Secondly, how they hell can anyone talk anyone out of being born again? Born again is not a "status", it's an experience of awakening. You either are awake, or you are not. It doesn't matter if you call yourself a Christian, or not call yourself one. You can't be "talked out" of a condition of one's being. It's not intellectually based.

You’re correct. It would be better for us to review specific prophecies that have been fulfilled, literally. Like the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel after millennia in diaspora, which is impossible for one person’s “sleight of hand”.

Interpreting that historical event as fulfilled prophecy is a slight of hand. Those same prophecies were interpreted as fulfilled in many other events throughout history. Were they wrong, and you right? Or are you simply doing what they were doing and you yourself are as wrong as them? That's what I believe to be true.

Therefore, you are holding a doctrine that says my doctrine is wrong.

That's nonsense. My saying that doctrinal beliefs is not what defines someone being a Christian is not a doctrine! It's an informed opinion based on simple observation and experience and knowledge. Actually, I'm not sure I hold any doctrinal view for that matter. I hold all of it as an open metaphor.

When I confront you, you refer to subjective, empiricist views, views you didn’t address in recent posts, either.

Subjective empiricist views? Is that like saying soft hard, or wet dry?

Therefore, rather than continuing to accuse me of presentism, I ask you to actually read Luke 1 and tell me about Luke’s views:

“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”

The statements above place Luke as a first-rate ancient historian. They are in no way subjective. There is no possibility for someone to read the above and conclude “Luke went with the truths he knew, subjectively guessed at the divine, and did what felt right.”

Carrier dissects all of that quite masterfully. I'll not spend my time typing out all the responses to that, but defer you to his work. If you'd like I could find the exact minutes in the video presentation of his lecture to save you watching all of - though honestly you should anyway. Would you like me to find the time frames in it for you? Luke is anything but a real historian. Carrier on the other hand, is a real historian.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm forced to conclude the ahistoricity of Jesus is nonsense.

I'm not making an argument either way on it. As I said before, it doesn't ultimately impact anything for me, as I find to "prove" Christianity with history is misguided and misplaced from the beginning. So it doesn't matter to me, other than just an interest in what may be possible. But have you actually listened to Carrier's arguments? If you haven't, I'll be able to tell in reading your response below.

didn't thousands of Jewish people arise in the NT times to say Jesus never existed, never spoke out in the Temple during recurring visits over 3 1/2 years, never healed multitudes and etc.?

What are you asking here? Why they didn't? Why would they for one thing? You do realize I view the stories, such as the day of Pentecost and mass conversions as a fiction?

I'm a Jew and familiar with Jewish folklore, Talmudic and Halachic thinking et al, and there is no way the stories of Jesus are spurious. A rabbi giving a Talmudic illustration might speak of a certain allegorical man going to a certain village and having a certain discourse, but would NEVER say "this certain person has a geneaology going back to King David and ADAM" or "spoke in the Temple on the third day of the tenth month where a party of the Pharisees and a party of the Saducees" etc. ad infinitum.

Yet there are examples of this sort of thing in other literature of the day. Burton Mack gets into some explanation of this, as well as Carrier. I'm comfortable with their insights and details they go into.

Again, my point is not to argue I'm right and you're wrong, to try to convince you of my beliefs. I'm only saying they have a basis in modern scholarship. If you don't want to accept that, then that's your right. But don't be deluded to think I'm just ignorant or in error, or sinning, or whatever judgment you may wish to cast at me.

I've already explained how Luke and his gospel and the Acts show many hundreds of salient facts confirming time, places, dates and PEOPLE, literal people, interacting, including direct quotations and discourses and specific people present listening to the discourse. NO Jewish parable - or even parable of the Bible writers for comparison - would ever say "after three days, King So-and-so, whom Paul knew, assembled to listen as a party of the Pharisees looked on . . . "

Again, watch the Carrier video. I'm not going to do your homework for you. It's all addressed in it.

I will say this regarding the historical Jesus, even if he in fact was a real person, he's well buried somewhere beneath all the mythmaking about him that what we have now today is the "mythological Jesus" in the narrative tales of him anyway. So as I said, even if he was nothing but a celestial being altogether than became historicized, he's already mostly mythological anyway! But what you do not understand here, is that it's the MYTH that is the symbolic vehicle of faith anyway. This is the realization of that Stage 4 and Stage 5 of Faith Fowler explains. I do not need Jesus to be historical.

The overwhelming body of Bible scholars worldwide, including conservative and liberal scholars, atheist and born again scholars, certainly now disputes the resurrection and many of the miracles recorded, but almost zero scholars worldwide dispute that Jesus of Nazareth was born, baptized in water, preached in Jerusalem and died on a cross.

Just because the "majority" believe something doesn't make it true. The majority believed the earth was the center of solar system. Once better data came along, and others examined it, a shift of understanding occurred. Would you have prefreed for a geocentric solar system? Would you have argued for it citing the "majority" view as evidence for it? That's what you are doing here.

The ahistoricity of Jesus your source as proposed is nonsense and underscores Carrier's inability to enter into our debate with any possible credence. You simply must adhere to facts, objective facts, if you wish to assume credence on behalf of those reading our thread . . .

The fact is, you probably didn't watch his presentation, just as you have and are refusing to look at the other video I offered as support for how I understand things about Luke and the Gospels. Again, not once did I bring up the mythicist position on the historicity of Christ, and I'm not offering my opinion either way as it's not relevant to me, other than an intellectual interest. Why are you bringing it up?

 

[BilliardsBall]

One man's "sound doctrine" is not to another. What matters in the end is how we treat one another, not the particulars of our beliefs and doctrines. That is very biblical. One could speak in the tongues of men and angels, and still not have love, then what does all that profit when in the end it's only love which abides? Again, you should really read that passage in Romans again understanding it is about not letting differences in beliefs about what we should or should not do stand in the way of love. Standing up and proclaiming others who sincerely belief differently than you are in violation of God, is in fact you judging them and falsely calling that out of love.

When a man comes to a public forum to say Jesus didn’t resurrect bodily, the Bible is not the Word of God (the three dozen writers who said it was over 1,500 years of authorship merely “wrote the truth they knew”) and et al, I feel led to say publicly, so others may read it in the forum, that the man has horrible, misinformed doctrine. This has less to do with my love for the man than the protection of the hundreds of readers who might otherwise be misled. God forbid a born again believer should walk away from the truth because they read your fables.

Now, that you say a progressive form of Christianity is worse than having sex with one's mother-in-law, well now, that doesn't look very good on you at all. Perhaps that one finger pointing at me, as three more pointing back at yourself. You are the one trying to convince me I'm wrong and in danger of hell. You are describing yourself in your above comments.

If you have sex with your mother-in-law, you can destroy the spirit of your father. If you’re in a liberal church and have profligate sex and abortion, you can destroy lives with human papilloma virus, AIDS and “pro-choice” lifestyles. Pretty bad stuff, that. Bad doctrine leads to bad fruit. Jesus said this.

Secondly, how they hell can anyone talk anyone out of being born again? Born again is not a "status", it's an experience of awakening. You either are awake, or you are not. It doesn't matter if you call yourself a Christian, or not call yourself one. You can't be "talked out" of a condition of one's being. It's not intellectually based.

Jesus said “born again” not “reawaken”. I know what He said but don’t know day to day how you will attempt to frame His words. The new birth is in part a reawakening, yes, and is not a status, yes, it’s a new birth. I can’t be lost or lose being born again, but I see you as someone interested deeply in getting as many fundamentalists as possible to walk in your erroneous path. Do you have better aims in life than this?

Interpreting that historical event as fulfilled prophecy is a slight of hand. Those same prophecies were interpreted as fulfilled in many other events throughout history. Were they wrong, and you right? Or are you simply doing what they were doing and you yourself are as wrong as them? That's what I believe to be true.

The prophecies that the Jewish people would be in a long diaspora and return to the land of Israel to reform as a Jewish state were “fulfilled in many other events throughout history”? Your statement is somewhere between nonsensical and plain anti-Semitic. I spend a lot of time speaking with cultists who say “they’re the true Jews of prophecy”. Please don’t add to your doctrinal issues in this way.

Subjective empiricist views? Is that like saying soft hard, or wet dry?

You are on record as an empiricist who reinterprets experience on the basis of subjective choices.

Luke is anything but a real historian. Carrier on the other hand, is a real historian.

Yet countless scholars bear witness that Luke was a careful historian and the ahistoricty of Jesus is held to, like Carrier does, by a very small minority of lunatic fringe scholars.

**

Why not watch the videos? Simple: “Luke was a lousy historian” is not a scholarly viewpoint, ancient of modern. “Jesus never existed” is just as bad. And I ask for the facts within and you say “Luke is bad”.

 

[Windwalker]

When a man comes to a public forum to say Jesus didn’t resurrect bodily, the Bible is not the Word of God (the three dozen writers who said it was over 1,500 years of authorship merely “wrote the truth they knew”) and et al, I feel led to say publicly, so others may read it in the forum, that the man has horrible, misinformed doctrine.

Again, there is no "doctrine" here. My whole point from the outset is to present what many Christians accept from the points of view of modern scholarship. You choose to call this "horrible" and "misinformed". But the reality is, it is anything but that. You fail to actually address the specifics, and resort to hollow rhetoric, empty and void of substance, to deflect and detract, rather than deal with.

This has less to do with my love for the man than the protection of the hundreds of readers who might otherwise be misled. God forbid a born again believer should walk away from the truth because they read your fables.

Honestly, this little corner of the forums and our discussion probably has maybe like two or three readers, if that. I do this for myself to explore how to attempt to communicate and reach out beyond my way of thinking to yours. This has been rewarding for me, and is helpful to me.

If you have sex with your mother-in-law, you can destroy the spirit of your father. If you’re in a liberal church and have profligate sex and abortion, you can destroy lives with human papilloma virus, AIDS and “pro-choice” lifestyles. Pretty bad stuff, that. Bad doctrine leads to bad fruit. Jesus said this.

Yes, I'm getting a picture of your political Christianity. I've always found this blend to be rather a contradiction of the nature of faith, and Christ. That's an aspect of fundamentalism I've always found vile and unworthy.

Jesus said “born again” not “reawaken”.

I did not say the word "reawaken". I said awaken. Where did you come up with this you put into my mouth? To be "born again" is to Awaken, period. No "re" in there.

The new birth is in part a reawakening, yes, and is not a status, yes, it’s a new birth.

Again, I would really like to know where you come up with this "reawakening" idea? What is that? Re-awaken to what? What do you imagine that to mean? It's nothing I think of or frankly understand. Help me out here.

I can’t be lost or lose being born again, but I see you as someone interested deeply in getting as many fundamentalists as possible to walk in your erroneous path. Do you have better aims in life than this?

This is actually quite rich for insights into your thinking. There's multiple things here. First, why do you believe you can't be "born again" and change your damn mind about how you currently believe things? I frankly don't care, nor even in my wildest dreams expect you will be able to see, understand, or appreciate what or how I believe. I honestly do not believe that is possible, because there are far too many steps to this place, unless you have some serious crises in your life that leads you to abandon all you think you know in the pursuit of Truth at all costs (something Jesus taught there). So that is certainly not my goal here. I have as much hope for others who are fundamentalist.

As far as having other aims? Certainly. In a sort of sideways way, this is part of that for me as this is on some level dealing with my own rather complex path having been part of that thinking-mode you represent here. Again, so you know, I do in fact respect a lot of what you are bringing to this. The fact I respond as I am says you have something to bring to the table and are intelligent about it. This is helpful to me to reach into my own past and the ways of thinking you are expressing from that place, to somewhat begin to try to speak to this part of myself from the past that "bought into this" as you do, with as best a voice of compassion as I can, to you and to myself. That's a bit of a stream-of-consciousness thought there, but maybe it strikes some chord somewhere.

What are my aims? To help others who are going through what I did through this struggle, to share how I processed and came to terms with these insistent and exclusivist views which disagreed with love that wells up within my heart, within our hearts. My aim now, is to speak to those who need to connect to God, but cannot buy into the version of faith you insist upon, to their detriment.

 

[Windwalker]

The prophecies that the Jewish people would be in a long diaspora and return to the land of Israel to reform as a Jewish state were “fulfilled in many other events throughout history”?

If you read theologians who have written in the past prior to 1948, the same passages you cite as being fulfilled that way, were understood to have "fulfilled" in other events historically. They made the verses "line up" with those events too. You really should explore that. It's an interesting study in how people see patterns and try to make things fit. The whole of the book of Revelation for instance, is not about something imagined to occur 2000 years in the future, with this antichrist fellow going to be born. It was about Rome of that day, imagining how it was going to fall in apocalyptic splendor with the Christians winning the day. There's lots scholarship out there on this subject, and none of this "look see, it was fulfilled" will impress me in the least. It may still impress you, but it can't me because I know the psychological tricks of how that works and the mind defends the illusion.

Your statement is somewhere between nonsensical and plain anti-Semitic.

Are you freaking serious? How is understanding how people see faces in trees, and magical fulfillments of prophecies be read into the texts of religious scriptures the world over anti-Semitic? Why in the name of God would you accuse me of that? That's seriously offensive.

Are you saying unless I become a fundi and reject modern scholarship I hate Jews? Really, you need to go do some self-reflection here and apologize to others using your heritage as a weapon against those who disagree with your beliefs about the supernatural. Using your logic, modern scholarship only says what it does because of racism. They must all hate Jews, including the Jewish scholars too, such as Finkelstein. Get serious. Don't make me lose respect for you.

I spend a lot of time speaking with cultists who say “they’re the true Jews of prophecy”.

And that completely underscores my point!!! You see how they can read scripture to make it "fulfilled" in themselves? Yet, you cannot see you doing the exact same thing? Everyone doing this is doing the same "sleight of hand" that allows them to see these things as "magical".

Please don’t add to your doctrinal issues in this way.

What in the world are you talking about? What doctrines and adding them where and how?

You are on record as an empiricist who reinterprets experience on the basis of subjective choices.

I am? Where and how did I "go on record" as this? Please, let's not make up lies about each other. You seem to do that quite a bit with me. I don't think I would consider myself an empiricist. I would say what best describes me is a post-postmodernist, or an Integralist, who ultimately sees God through as a nondualist. But that's way ahead of things here.

Now as far as "reinterpreting" experience. Again, with this magically added "re"! Where are you coming up with this from? I would only describe what we ALL do is interpret experience through the lenses of our belief systems. There is no "reinterpreting" going on, only just interpreting. We all do this.

Yet countless scholars bear witness that Luke was a careful historian and the ahistoricty of Jesus is held to, like Carrier does, by a very small minority of lunatic fringe scholars.

Richard Carrier is not a "lunatic fringe scholar", by any means. This is the best you can do, rather than deal with the actual material presented by a legitimate Ph.D.? Call them lunatics? You're beginning to really fail this discussion with me and I'll soon be done discussing things with you if this is all you can offer. If all you can do is name call, that's the end of this.

Why not watch the videos? Simple: “Luke was a lousy historian” is not a scholarly viewpoint, ancient of modern. “Jesus never existed” is just as bad. And I ask for the facts within and you say “Luke is bad”.

It was a very sholarly presentation showing why he was. Sorry the conclusion upsets you. The facts of why are in the video. Now either do the work and consider the points, or just shut your mind to it and just keep on believing what you will, burying your head in the sands of premodern theologies. That's your choice, but don't expect those who do in fact consider the material with an open mind and and open heart to be failing in their faith in God. If anything, burying your head in the sand of wilful ignorance is failing faith.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, there is no "doctrine" here. My whole point from the outset is to present what many Christians accept from the points of view of modern scholarship. You choose to call this "horrible" and "misinformed". But the reality is, it is anything but that. You fail to actually address the specifics, and resort to hollow rhetoric, empty and void of substance, to deflect and detract, rather than deal with.

I believe I’ve dealt with most if not all the specifics. To wit:

*Modern scholars say Luke was an inaccurate historian, yet he gives more facts in history, that have been verified by archaeology, then Suetonius, both Plinys, Josephus et al put together.

*Richard Carrier promotes the ahistoricity of our Lord, yet a quick look at modern research shows clearly close to 100% of even atheist scholars believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified circa 30 AD in Jerusalem.

*Etc.

Did you know I have a Bachelor’s in Religion from a secular university and not a seminary? I’m familiar with a lot of the nonsense that scholars believe today—but also many of the facts they truly do believe.

I did not say the word "reawaken". I said awaken. Where did you come up with this you put into my mouth? To be "born again" is to Awaken, period. No "re" in there.

Thank you for the correction. Jesus said to be born again is to be born again, not to “awaken”. You don’t want me to put words in your mouth but you daily put them in Jesus’s mouth. Stop.

What are my aims? To help others who are going through what I did through this struggle, to share how I processed and came to terms with these insistent and exclusivist views which disagreed with love that wells up within my heart, within our hearts. My aim now, is to speak to those who need to connect to God, but cannot buy into the version of faith you insist upon, to their detriment.

I’m not wishing you to be offended, but what you call “a heartfelt struggle” I call a descent into apostasy. I’m okay with others who believe differently than me, but it’s not a God-given struggle to come to understand Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and the Bible isn’t the actual Word of Jesus Christ, who is God.

If you read theologians who have written in the past prior to 1948, the same passages you cite as being fulfilled that way, were understood to have "fulfilled" in other events historically. They made the verses "line up" with those events too. You really should explore that. It's an interesting study in how people see patterns and try to make things fit. The whole of the book of Revelation for instance, is not about something imagined to occur 2000 years in the future, with this antichrist fellow going to be born. It was about Rome of that day, imagining how it was going to fall in apocalyptic splendor with the Christians winning the day. There's lots scholarship out there on this subject, and none of this "look see, it was fulfilled" will impress me in the least. It may still impress you, but it can't me because I know the psychological tricks of how that works and the mind defends the illusion.

Why is it that people say others know the biases and tricks of the mind but never seem to see their own biases? I’m not going to discuss Revelation with you since you insist that non-Jews fulfilled prophecies about the Jewish nation of Israel.

Are you freaking serious? How is understanding how people see faces in trees, and magical fulfillments of prophecies be read into the texts of religious scriptures the world over anti-Semitic? Why in the name of God would you accuse me of that? That's seriously offensive.

Are you saying unless I become a fundi and reject modern scholarship I hate Jews? Really, you need to go do some self-reflection here and apologize to others using your heritage as a weapon against those who disagree with your beliefs about the supernatural. Using your logic, modern scholarship only says what it does because of racism. They must all hate Jews, including the Jewish scholars too, such as Finkelstein. Get serious. Don't make me lose respect for you.

You seem unaware of the anti-Zionist sentiment that is, well, prevalent worldwide. If you are going to say the Jews in Israel are not the fulfillment of the prophecies of Israel, they may be removed as interlopers. If you prefer, I can say you are not anti-Semetic but anti-Zionist and anti-Israel, perhaps not personally, but by implication. Does that help?

And that completely underscores my point!!! You see how they can read scripture to make it "fulfilled" in themselves? Yet, you cannot see you doing the exact same thing? Everyone doing this is doing the same "sleight of hand" that allows them to see these things as "magical".

Well, I’m aware, for example, that Mormons, JWs and other cultists consider themselves the 144,000 of Revelation 7. But the passage names the tribal descent of each group of literal Jews mentioned. Where you see only “different people saying they are the prophecy”, likely because of your bias against all devout fundamentalists, be they Christian or Mormon or Witnesses, I see “in the Greek they name the tribes of Israel” where they cultists subjectively apply themselves in an exclude the Jewish people. Subjectively playing about with the literal text is the province of you, the cultists and others. Stop it, please.

Richard Carrier is not a "lunatic fringe scholar", by any means. This is the best you can do, rather than deal with the actual material presented by a legitimate Ph.D.? Call them lunatics? You're beginning to really fail this discussion with me and I'll soon be done discussing things with you if this is all you can offer. If all you can do is name call, that's the end of this.

Not at all. If I get some free time I WILL watch the presentation at length. I’m just juggling a few things now. But if you are unaware that 99% of RELIGION scholars, besides 99% of historians, archaeologists, etc. be they born again or atheist, believe in the historicity of Jesus. . . I’m sorry but 1% may not be lunatic (poor choice of words on my part) but they are a fringe minority.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe I’ve dealt with most if not all the specifics. To wit:

*Modern scholars say Luke was an inaccurate historian, yet he gives more facts in history, that have been verified by archaeology, then Suetonius, both Plinys, Josephus et al put together.

And I countered that to wit: Luke cribbed Josephus. Carrier gives many examples of this in the video. I'm convinced.

Let me come back to the example of this imaginary romance novel set in the Civil War period in America between these semi-fictitious characters Margaret and Brian. I could easily make the story sound more "real" by citing historical facts of the time, drawing from actual historians. But my book is still a fictional account, and my "historian's' hat is me just cribbing actual historians in order to set the story against a backdrop of real history to give it color. And to make it even more "believable", I could preface it by talking about the pains I went to recounting family history to write this story - just like the guy who wrote Roots claimed, but has been shown to not be real history.

Do you not see how this is more than possible with Luke? And how we know it was not the other way around, that Josephus stole from Luke (which for some reason you claim without evidence), again Carrier goes into the details of this, showing evidence why it was Luke who cribbed Josephus.

And by they way, this is NOT fringe scholarship, but a very great many modern scholars understand this. You are mistaken to believe it's like 0.001%. You cannot just dismiss modern scholars as "fringe" when they do the very painstaking and careful work of actual Ph.D. level academic scholarship. You cannot convince me to just ignore the veracity of their work because it may show some inconvenient truths that go against my beliefs. I can't do that, as seem your preferred approach.

*Richard Carrier promotes the ahistoricity of our Lord, yet a quick look at modern research shows clearly close to 100% of even atheist scholars believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified circa 30 AD in Jerusalem.

Once again, the historicity of Jesus is irrelevant, and that Carrier believes Jesus was a celestial being made into a historical person, is irrelevant to what he says about Luke! There is no point to bring that up, as it has zero effect on the scholarship about Luke. He is not the only modern scholar that sees Luke the exact same as Carrier. And BTW, you know Carrier used to discredit the mythicist position until recently? So, when he believe Jesus was historical, was he the right about Luke, but not now even though he says the same thing?

Did you know I have a Bachelor’s in Religion from a secular university and not a seminary? I’m familiar with a lot of the nonsense that scholars believe today—but also many of the facts they truly do believe.

Try getting a Ph.D., and then you can begin to take on someone like Carrier. There are those with Ph.Ds who do, and their arguments with him are actually academic. That's a whole different thing that you calling him "fringe" because you don't like what he has to say. As they say.... too bad.

Thank you for the correction. Jesus said to be born again is to be born again, not to “awaken”. You don’t want me to put words in your mouth but you daily put them in Jesus’s mouth. Stop.

There is a reason I call the "born again" experience Awakening. It is. "I was blind, but now I see!". That's an awakening experience to new life. I can use whatever words I wish to better express it. I'm not putting words into Jesus' mouth, claiming he used that word. I'm explaining what it means to me. So... you stop.

I’m not wishing you to be offended, but what you call “a heartfelt struggle” I call a descent into apostasy.

Yet, I who live this see and experience it as growth into God. Just because you can't wrap your mind around it, you should reserve such judgments. They're wrong, and you are wrong for assuming you're right. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their doctrines and theologies. By the fruits of the spirit. Paul has a list of these, and none of them are the things you put into his and Jesus' mouth.

I’m okay with others who believe differently than me, but it’s not a God-given struggle to come to understand Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and the Bible isn’t the actual Word of Jesus Christ, who is God.

It is a struggle to know how to reconcile matters of faith with facts. As I've said all along, you do it by denying modernity. I do it be growing faith to be larger than simply holding certain beliefs to be true against the face of evidence and reason. I cannot do that, and in many cases, when others cannot either it leads to a complete loss of faith for them. You aren't at that stage in your life like others are, but I do suspect if and when that happens, I think the result may be you become an atheist. I've seen this pattern more times than I can count. You hold your beliefs too tightly, they'll snap in your hand and you'll hurt yourself in the process. You'll go from being a "true believer" to being a true disbeliever. Seen it many times, as I've said.

Why is it that people say others know the biases and tricks of the mind but never seem to see their own biases?

Why do you assume I'm self-unaware? But this has nothing to do with understanding the blind spots we all can fall into with things like pattern recognition, seeing faces in clouds, or fulfilled prophecies in modern events, "They will be running to and fro in that day", says one of the minor prophets (Amos I think), and I had one preacher tell me this is a prophecy about modern cars!!! You see my point.

I’m not going to discuss Revelation with you since you insist that non-Jews fulfilled prophecies about the Jewish nation of Israel.

Wow, you have quite the imagination when it comes to me. Revelation was written by an Apocalyptic Jewish Christian, so yes he's talking in Jewish terms! No argument. This was not the author of the Gospel John, as modern scholarship exposes. If you are interested in another, I'm sure you'll call her fringe too, Elaine Pagels... here's a recent book she wrote about the book of Revelation. Some good material in there: Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation: Elaine Pagels: 9780143121633: Amazon.com: Books

In fact, speaking of Elaine Pagels, here's a really great PBS that she and a number of other modern scholars did on the early Christian movement, which is aptly titled, From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS You know, PBS loves these "fringe scholars", since they have no crediblity or desire to be taken seriously. No, these are mainstream modern scholars, and the material is quite good. Not that this is meant to convince you of anything, but only to show you that I do in fact have very strong supported foundations behind my understandings. How I take this information and integrate it with my faith, is really the only thing I am trying to talk about. I am showing it can be done, without resorting to denial and all manner of logic fallacies, such as dismissing these Ph.D.s as "fringe", or some other red herring.

You seem unaware of the anti-Zionist sentiment that is, well, prevalent worldwide. If you are going to say the Jews in Israel are not the fulfillment of the prophecies of Israel, they may be removed as interlopers. If you prefer, I can say you are not anti-Semetic but anti-Zionist and anti-Israel, perhaps not personally, but by implication. Does that help?

Yeah, I really don't know who you're having this conversation with here, but none of this has any meaning to me. That's your thing, imagining I'm thinking whatever about it. It would better serve this discussion if you have reasons to doubt, ask me my opinion rather than imagining a bunch of stuff I could in reality care less about. So here it is, none of this has any meaning nor matters to me. It never enters into my thoughtstream.

Well, I’m aware, for example, that Mormons, JWs and other cultists consider themselves the 144,000 of Revelation 7. But the passage names the tribal descent of each group of literal Jews mentioned. Where you see only “different people saying they are the prophecy”, likely because of your bias against all devout fundamentalists, be they Christian or Mormon or Witnesses, I see “in the Greek they name the tribes of Israel” where they cultists subjectively apply themselves in an exclude the Jewish people. Subjectively playing about with the literal text is the province of you, the cultists and others. Stop it, please.

Stop what? The things you imagine I'm doing but am not? As they say, no, you stop it. It doesn't matter if you think you have a "better" interpretation of the text, how you are making it fit into modern times is the same thing they're doing. It's all the same thing, regardless if it was really about bloodline Jews, or Christians. It's still the same trick of making it fit, reading back into the text, like "running to and fro" is about modern automobiles.

Not at all. If I get some free time I WILL watch the presentation at length. I’m just juggling a few things now.

Fair enough.

​

 

[Windwalker]

But if you are unaware that 99% of RELIGION scholars, besides 99% of historians, archaeologists, etc. be they born again or atheist, believe in the historicity of Jesus. . . I’m sorry but 1% may not be lunatic (poor choice of words on my part) but they are a fringe minority.

Okay, I hate to do this but I really must. The logic fallacies you are using in multiple places in your responses I could go after, but I'm just going to single out this baby as you seem to feel it's the trump card argument:

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.​

Explanation
The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answers A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.

There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held does not necessarily guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.

One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case. (See conformity.)

The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 100% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also very likely prefer that brand (but not always 100% since they could be exceptions), and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other.​

 

[Katzpur]

Well, I’m aware, for example, that Mormons, JWs and other cultists consider themselves the 144,000 of Revelation 7.

How can you be aware of something that is 100% false. Mormons do not teach anything of the sort.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And I countered that to wit: Luke cribbed Josephus. Carrier gives many examples of this in the video. I'm convinced.

Okay, as I wrote, I’ll find some time to watch the video and respond.

Do you not see how this is more than possible with Luke? And how we know it was not the other way around, that Josephus stole from Luke (which for some reason you claim without evidence), again Carrier goes into the details of this, showing evidence why it was Luke who cribbed Josephus.

The hypothesis must lead to the logical conclusion, then:

· The other three gospel accounts were likewise cribbed

· The additional eight NT writers were likewise false

· They were claiming the fulfillment of the OT, which promised the Christ would come 483 years after the decree to rebuild the Jerusalem wall. Jesus is the obvious fulfillment of this and other prophecies, and the OT dates to at least circa 250 BCE (the Septuagint) – so the two dozen writers of the OT were all deceived in their varying statements made over hundreds of years to 1,500 years or more

· Etc.

Your belief system requires more faith than mine. Mine is more Occam’s-minded but you may be more spiritually aware than me.

Yeah, I really don't know who you're having this conversation with here, but none of this has any meaning to me. That's your thing, imagining I'm thinking whatever about it. It would better serve this discussion if you have reasons to doubt, ask me my opinion rather than imagining a bunch of stuff I could in reality care less about. So here it is, none of this has any meaning nor matters to me. It never enters into my thoughtstream.

But it entered your mind when I wrote “anti-Semitic”. You are replacing literal Jews in prophecy with others. This is huge heresy and today leads to virulent anti-Israel sentiment. Seek peace for Israel and be blessed, not dissolution. Again, instead of anti-Semitic, I should have used anti-Israel. Sorry.

The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 100% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also very likely prefer that brand (but not always 100% since they could be exceptions), and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other.

But my argument has added weight. Why? Because you accuse me of being anti-modern and anti-modernity. Modern scholarship discredits Carrier’s point. Ancient scholarship discredits Carrier’s point. The bible discredits Carrier’s point(s).

I have no problem asking you why you disagree with 99%-plus of modern Bible scholars if you dare to suggest you are in step with modern scholarship and I’m not. You can’t have it both ways. Be consistent. Instead of accusing me of ad populum, it would be more correct to say you cherry pick.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How can you be aware of something that is 100% false. Mormons do not teach anything of the sort.

Please explain. The Mormons consider the 144,000 to be literal Jewish people?

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Katzpur]

Please explain. The Mormons consider the 144,000 to be literal Jewish people?

No we don't.

 

[Windwalker]

The hypothesis must lead to the logical conclusion, then:

· The other three gospel accounts were likewise cribbed

You've been claiming Luke was an actual historian. You've not made that claim of the other Gospel writers. Are you wishing to make that claim?

· The additional eight NT writers were likewise false

First of all, that is not a logical conclusion derived from examining Luke's cribbing of Josephus. Paul actually does not include any history of Jesus' earthly life narratives you find in the other Gospels, so I'm not sure how saying Luke cribbed Josephus has any bearing on Paul. As far as some of the other NT writers, as you know modern scholars recognize many of those as later pseudepigraphal works, and not authentic letters of Paul, or actual 1st century writers. This is something I accept as credible and valid.

· They were claiming the fulfillment of the OT, which promised the Christ would come 483 years after the decree to rebuild the Jerusalem wall. Jesus is the obvious fulfillment of this and other prophecies, and the OT dates to at least circa 250 BCE (the Septuagint) – so the two dozen writers of the OT were all deceived in their varying statements made over hundreds of years to 1,500 years or more

No, but those thinking that the events of their day were fulfillments of these things were likewise doing that little magic trick, which when examined critically doesn't stand up. Again, I see these "fulfilled prophecy" claims a certain cognitive slight-of-hand, whether it's you doing it, some other modern cult doing it, or even the authors of some of the NT books doing it.

But all that said, I do recognize it as a meaningful mythological construct for the valid purpose of inspiring faith for those operating at the mythic stage. It's just that that type of construct doesn't really hold well for those operating predominantly at the rational stage of faith development. (See Fowler's work). I can appreciate the "magic" fantasy element of it to inspire, but it's value is limited in the grander scheme of faith itself. You waste your time trying to inspire me claiming these are factual things. It has the opposite effect, and hence why many people simply choose to abandon faith when you insist upon these things.

Your belief system requires more faith than mine. Mine is more Occam’s-minded but you may be more spiritually aware than me.

This is clever, but in error. First, I make a strong distinction between beliefs and faith. My faith is not in my beliefs. Faith is rooted and grounded in my being itself. It is a spiritual knowledge, not an academic or cognitive construction. It has nothing to do with ideas and beliefs around those ideas. Therefore, my faith allows for my beliefs to change, while I remain rooted and grounded in God; in Spirit.

Regarding my beliefs, the things I examined cognitively using rationality, I would say mine have a far greater and more certain foundation. I have science to back it up with, as well as the tools of modern scholarship which are far more penetrating than just "trusting" the bible is right and dismissing all the rest, as is your approach.

Occam's razor requires you to examine the evidence rationally, and then based on that, choose the simplest conclusion. That is in fact what I am doing, not you. The conclusion, the simpler conclusion given all the evidence, is that the Bible is a collection of very human writers, not a magical divine-dictation, as you consider it. The simper conclusion is that evolution is in fact correct, and that the earth is not 6000 years old. You are not applying Occam's razor. I am. And I am able to because my faith grounded in God's Being itself, allows me to be open and receptive to knowledge beyond tradition, and does not require my beliefs to remain fixed in some mythic-literal reality of the past.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you of these things, but simply explaining that there are in fact valid ways to think about and understand them being held without a violation of faith itself. You are not required to think about these things as I understand them in order to have a valid faith in God. Likewise, nor am I required to hold them as you do to be in fact very much rooted and grounded in God. All this is is me explaining the basis for the validity of other's faith that differ from how you construct and hold yours. You see faith and belief as inextricably fused together. I do not. To this point, you've not shown any acceptance of the validity of others' faith when it moves outside the limits of your comfort zone. That's what this is about. Try loosening your grip and little, and see what you can begin to see. It's quite marvelous.