Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Boston tiger]

But the point is, Christians say all this stuff is literally a matter of life and death, but the moment they get quizzed on the absurdity and contradiction of a lot of it, they go all “ah that bit doesn’t matter”.

Which in and of itself is not a problem. The problem is that Christians themselves don’t agree on which bits matter and which bits don’t, resulting in much misery and death. Witness “though shalt not kill” or the horrific persecution of homosexuality.

And yet they have the gall to tell us their book offers everyone a clear moral code, and have been known to viciously persecute people who don’t agree.

I tell people not to read the Bible. Especially stay away from the Old Testament. Look how the likes of you get it all twisted up.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

What a funny thing to be waiting for .

So, care to hazard a guess what happened to Christ’s foreskin when he ascended to heaven?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I tell people not to read the Bible.

Well you’re at odds with the overwhelming majority of Christians and I won’t trouble to read your opinions on Christianity here anymore.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You think about. If you believe in God. What’s the problem .

You’re right. People are free to believe whatever horseshitte they choose. The problem arises because, say, they then start insisting that that horseshitte should be a foundation of a society’s laws, or be taught to children in state-funded schools.

 

[Boston tiger]

Hey christians: The world is only 6000 years old

Literal or Non Literal?

I don’t know Jack. You decide for yourself Apparently you have to add stuff up to get the 6000 years. It’s not written anywhere .

 

[Boston tiger]

You’re right. People are free to believe whatever horseshitte they choose. The problem arises because, say, they then start insisting that that horseshitte should be a foundation of a society’s laws, or be taught to children in state-funded schools.

It’s worked out pretty well. Church and State. Gay marriage. Everything is hunky dory . Thank you Christianity

 

[Boston tiger]

Well you’re at odds with the overwhelming majority of Christians and I won’t trouble to read your opinions on Christianity here anymore.

I billion Christians don’t see the Bible as the authority on Christian matters. But feel free to listen to only Christians who have read the Bible and are having a crack on their own.
Or have a stab your self.

Anti Bible but only listen to sola scriptura Christians.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I billion Christians don’t see the Bible as the authority on Christian matters. But feel free to listen to only Christians who have read the Bible and are having a crack on their own.
Or have a stab your self.

Anti Bible but only listen to sola scriptura Christians.

Any document that has as many interpretations as it has readers is useless. It has no message at all, in that case.

Like I say, people are free to do that, but once they insist on imposing those intellectually worthless views on others (amd insisting they know better and its for our own good) I kick back.

 

[Boston tiger]

Any document that has as many interpretations as it has readers is useless. It has no message at all, in that case.

Like I say, people are free to do that, but once they insist on imposing those intellectually worthless views on others (amd insisting they know better and its for our own good) I kick back.

Don’t get too carried away. It’s Church and State. We are in a Democracy ( thank you Jesus) and have Gay marriage and late abortions. Falou has been sent to Coventry. All is good.

The Bible isn’t useless . It’s just very difficult to read . You’ve got to know what is going on behind the scenes in society and language use and translations . The list goes on on.

Give it go if you are in prison. God may come shining through for you . But otherwise get you info from the paid professionals.

 

[Boston tiger]

So, care to hazard a guess what happened to Christ’s foreskin when he ascended to heaven?

Not one bit interested. Google foreskins Jewish traditions etc . It might give you some idea where it is .
But put it this way .. if God wants his foreskin back God gets his foreskin back.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Don’t get too carried away. It’s Church and State.

Increasingly less so, and the Christians (and others) are working round the clock to destroy that separation.

We are in a Democracy ( thank you Jesus)

Extremely long bow.

The Bible isn’t useless . It’s just very difficult to read . You’ve got to know what is going on behind the scenes in society and language use and translations . The list goes on on.

But my point is that a good many Christians will tell you that it is crystal clear.

It can't easily be both.

Or if it is both, which bits are which?

And until they sort that question out, they should * off with imposing it on the rest of us. Maybe a bit of humility from people who have chosen to devote their life to something they cheerfully admit is rationally unsupportable wouldn't go astray?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Not one bit interested. Google foreskins Jewish traditions etc . It might give you some idea where it is .
But put it this way .. if God wants his foreskin back God gets his foreskin back.

Yeah, it probably just decomposed, right?

 

[Roylion]

He means the stuff that confirms 'christianity'. He doesn't mean the supernatural stuff that confirms Hinduism or Islam!

The Gary Habermas school of thought. Gary Habermas, Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy argues the absolute reliability of the stories of the gospels. He basically takes the view that the events in the gospels are self-evidently true including the resurrection. He stated in 2012 that he believes in the veracity of miracles and that the evidence for such is strong. In 1997 he edited "In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History." In it, Habermas argues that "after his death Jesus appeared alive to his followers" and this apparently constitutes proof of a miracle.

Habermas however provides no external verification for his claims that the resurrection is an actual historical event and indeed appears to be an "anti-supernaturalist" when it comes to other religions. Just not his own.

In June 1989 he stated "So to conclude briefly, non-Christian resurrection claims have not been proved by the evidence. Any of several naturalistic hypotheses is certainly possible and, in some cases, one or more can specifically be postulated as a probable cause. Simply to report a miracle is not sufficient to establish it, especially if that miracle is then going to be used to support a religious system. And to answer a question posed at the outset of this essay, non-Christian religions cannot use their resurrection claims to provide evidence for the system in question if these claims are themselves unsubstantiated." (June 1989)

But Christianity can it appears.

 

[Boston tiger]

Increasingly less so, and the Christians (and others) are working round the clock to destroy that separation.


Extremely long bow.
But my point is that a good many Christians will tell you that it is crystal clear.

It can't easily be both.

Or if it is both, which bits are which?

And until they sort that question out, they should * off with imposing it on the rest of us. Maybe a bit of humility from people who have chosen to devote their life to something they cheerfully admit is rationally unsupportable wouldn't go astray?

Are you Roylion ?

 

[Boston tiger]

Yeah, it probably just decomposed, right?

Probably . Fingernails .. hair etc .

 

[Boston tiger]

Do you read anything?

For example, the "Gospel according to Mark" is dated to have been written somewhere between AD 70 - 135. 30-40 years after the events it purports to writr about.

The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Mark" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340).

And why possibly as as late AD 135? The majority of recent scholars believe Chapter 16 Verse 8 to be the original ending of the Gospel and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome. But that means Mark's Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. That's it. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20, (a later ending of Mark) with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.

I’m interested In when you think the fantasy began . Did it start with Mark in 60AD and those Christian before hand who weren’t living the fantasy just quietly didn’t say anything and died.

Or the fantasy began in 33 AD and Mark was just telling it how it was and all Christians were already living the fantasy?

 

[Roylion]

I’m interested In when you think the fantasy began . Did it start with Mark in 60AD and those Christian before hand who weren’t living the fantasy just quietly didn’t say anything and died.

Here is Bart Ehrman's view (which I've already presented)

The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense of it. They had believed Jesus was the Messiah, but then he was crucified, and so he couldn’t be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who’s squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal?

Christians turned to their scriptures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God’s suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him.

And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures. How can he be Jesus the Messiah though, if he’s been exalted to heaven? Well, Jesus must be coming back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn’t an earthly Messiah; he’s a spiritual Messiah.

That’s why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in their own lifetime. That’s why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection. But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection.

It wasn’t three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn’t know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to check; the body had decomposed. Believers who knew he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him. Others told stories about these visions of him, including Paul who even claimed to have experienced one himself to add weight to his story. Stories of these visions circulated. Some of them were actual visions like Paul, others of them were stories of visions like the five hundred group of people who saw him. On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually we the Gospels of the New Testament appeared, written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later."


In an essay titled, "When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists” social psychologist Lorne L. Dawson explains the various ways in which religious groups deal with prophetic failure.

If the group is large enough and willing to retain a sense of community, there is a great chance of stemming off disappointment. If the leaders act quickly to provide some rationalization or explanation of the failure, labeling it as a "test of faith", elaborating that the event really did happen on a spiritual and unseen level, or chalking it up to human error, there is an even stronger chance that the group will survive. Quoting two other social psychologists, Dawson writes that, "Beliefs may withstand the pressure of disconfirming events not because of the effectiveness of dissonance-reducing strategies, but because disconfirming evidence may simply go unacknowledged". In other words, deeply invested believers may be known to count the hits and just ignore the misses.

Or the fantasy began in 33 AD and Mark was just telling it how it was and all Christians were already living the fantasy?

35-40 years later.

 

[Total Power]

I’m interested In when you think the fantasy began . Did it start with Mark in 60AD and those Christian before hand who weren’t living the fantasy just quietly didn’t say anything and died.

Or the fantasy began in 33 AD and Mark was just telling it how it was and all Christians were already living the fantasy?

Mythicizing heroes or cult leaders were quite common back in those days. Mark have been heavily fabricated to suit the narrative of later John. Scholars know this to be true because we have several early Greek copies of Mark, and none of them have versus 16:9-20 in it. The versus don’t show up until after the fifth century. This is just one example.

 

[Boston tiger]

Here is Bart Ehrman's view (which I've already presented)

The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense of it. They had believed Jesus was the Messiah, but then he was crucified, and so he couldn’t be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who’s squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal?

Christians turned to their scriptures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God’s suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him.

And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures. How can he be Jesus the Messiah though, if he’s been exalted to heaven? Well, Jesus must be coming back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn’t an earthly Messiah; he’s a spiritual Messiah.

That’s why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in their own lifetime. That’s why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection. But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection.

It wasn’t three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn’t know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to check; the body had decomposed. Believers who knew he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him. Others told stories about these visions of him, including Paul who even claimed to have experienced one himself to add weight to his story. Stories of these visions circulated. Some of them were actual visions like Paul, others of them were stories of visions like the five hundred group of people who saw him. On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually we the Gospels of the New Testament appeared, written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later."


In an essay titled, "When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists” social psychologist Lorne L. Dawson explains the various ways in which religious groups deal with prophetic failure.

If the group is large enough and willing to retain a sense of community, there is a great chance of stemming off disappointment. If the leaders act quickly to provide some rationalization or explanation of the failure, labeling it as a "test of faith", elaborating that the event really did happen on a spiritual and unseen level, or chalking it up to human error, there is an even stronger chance that the group will survive. Quoting two other social psychologists, Dawson writes that, "Beliefs may withstand the pressure of disconfirming events not because of the effectiveness of dissonance-reducing strategies, but because disconfirming evidence may simply go unacknowledged". In other words, deeply invested believers may be known to count the hits and just ignore the misses.



35-40 years later.

So the Christians from 33AD to 65AD were playing it straight ? In your view .

 

[Roylion]

So the Christians from 33AD to 65AD were playing it straight ? In your view .

Circulating a story to gain converts or to explain a setback does not make that story true, even with 'eyewitnesses'.

Tens of thousands claimed to have 'experienced' the Miracle of the Sun in October 1917, but it never actually occurred.

Joseph Smith said he was visited by an angel named Moroni while praying one night in 1823. Smith said that this angel revealed the location of a buried book made of golden plates, (the golden plates were engraved by two pre-Columbian prophet-historians from around the year AD 400 - Mormon and his son Moroni) as well as other artifacts, including a breastplate and a set of interpreters composed of two seer stones set in a frame.

Eyewitnesses said Smith translated the plates, not by looking at them, but by looking at a seer stone in the bottom of his hat. Three men later signed a statement stating that they had been shown the golden plates by an angel, and that the voice of God had confirmed the truth of their translation. Later, a further group of 'eight witnesses' — composed of male members of the Whitmer and Smith families — issued a statement that they had been shown the golden plates by Smith.

This must have happened, right? Because Joseph Smith said it did. He had 'eyewitnesses' to his story.

 

[Boston tiger]

Circulating a story to gain converts or to explain a setback does not make that story true, even with 'eyewitnesses'.

Tens of thousands claimed to have 'experienced' the Miracle of the Sun in October 1917, but it never actually occurred.

Joseph Smith said he was visited by an angel named Moroni while praying one night in 1823. Smith said that this angel revealed the location of a buried book made of golden plates, (the golden plates were engraved by two pre-Columbian prophet-historians from around the year AD 400 - Mormon and his son Moroni) as well as other artifacts, including a breastplate and a set of interpreters composed of two seer stones set in a frame.

Eyewitnesses said Smith translated the plates, not by looking at them, but by looking at a seer stone in the bottom of his hat. Three men later signed a statement stating that they had been shown the golden plates by an angel, and that the voice of God had confirmed the truth of their translation. Later, a further group of 'eight witnesses' — composed of male members of the Whitmer and Smith families — issued a statement that they had been shown the golden plates by Smith.

This must have happened, right? Because Joseph Smith said it did. He had 'eyewitnesses' to his story.

So the Christians from 33 AD to 65 AD were living the fantasy and Mark reported this in his Gospels accordingly . In your opinion

 

[Roylion]

So the Christians from 33 AD to 65 AD were living the fantasy and Mark reported this in his Gospels accordingly . In your opinion

i see no reason to disagree with Bart Ehrman's summation.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Are you Roylion ?

No. Roylion’s knowledge of ancient history is encyclopaedic, as you would have seen.

 

[Total Power]

No. Roylion’s knowledge of ancient history is encyclopaedic, as you would have seen.

I don't even know why he bothers with BT really, he barely adds anything to the conversation outside of cheap insults and one liners.

 

[Roylion]

I don't even know why he bothers with BT really, he barely adds anything to the conversation outside of cheap insults and one liners.

Just like some of my students.