more texts validating the historicity of biblical Christianity.

Komodo

Well-known member
I read what you said.
I'm stating that he chose the manner he did because he had a specific purpose in mind. So, if you're going to malign the manner he did it because you don't like it, it would appear to me that you're just throwing a temper tantrum.
Recap:

1) Steve recommends a book which makes the claim that any reasonable person can see at a glance that the Christian system is the product of supernatural wisdom.
2) I note this claim, and disagree, saying there are aspects of the Christian system which make no sense to me, and explaining why I think so.
3) Steve offers for a few hundred words to argue that my position is wrong because there are actually good reasons for saying that the Christian system makes perfect sense. (So far, so good! In principle, at least.)
4) When this doesn't seem to be working out so well for him -- for example, Steve just entirely ignores an actual syllogism I'd offered in support of my position -- Steve decides to stop pretending that reasoning and making sense have anything to do with the question and falls back on "you have no right to ask questions of God! God knows everything! I'm not having a tantrum, you're having a tantrum."

Remember that all this starts with Steve's recommendation of a book which offered to show, using nothing but human reasoning, that Christianity was true. That gets completely lost in a hurry, obviously.

Steve then tosses off a few dumb insults. For example, when I said I didn't see the point of him asking whether my car failed the first time I used it, he "answers":

Of course you don't. This however doesn't mean that just because you lack understanding, it's not a valid question.
If you don't want to try to understand, then say so. I'll leave you alone, and you can continue on in your ignorance and blindness.
Needless to say, Steve does not offer to help me understand what the purpose and validity of that question was; he just "translates" my "I don't understand" into a confession that "I don't want to try to understand because I want to continue on in my ignorance and blindness." That's how things always work out, strange to say, when Steve acts as translator. His interlocutor always ends up "saying" the most bizarre, perverse, self-accusatory things! Curious.

I changed my screen name from the old one in the hope that maybe, if there wasn't such a constant reminder of all the previous antagonism, we (not just Steve and me, but me and anybody else I had a history with) might both be a little less prone to start in with gratuitous insults. The experiment obviously is a failure in this case.
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Ah, well, that's the problem..... what is history, but doesn't fit the 21st century bias
It is nothing to do with "21st century bias". It is about rational, dispassionate, and critical inquiry.

they feed people in schools today isn't my concern. It fits the definition of history provided throughout history, all the way up to my time in university, in 2002.
Well I finished all my academic training in the mid 1980s and I can assure you we were not taught to uncritically accept our sources.
Quite frankly, I find it amusing, and think that they've stolen education from you
I would suspect that age wise you and I are not that far apart.
According to you.... using a 21st century definition, which counters all the previously held views of requisite criterion.
That definition has been around for a lot longer than the last twenty years. Does the name David Strauss mean anything to you? One could opine that he got the ball rolling as it were in the 1830s with his Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet [The Life of Jesus Critically Examined]. Although there are other theologians who took a more critical position that pre-date him.
Not my concern.
Not insofar as your belief is concerned. However, if you are attempting to "validate the historicity of the bible" it is of direct import and relevance.
Rather curious that all those old-timers, who once had a consensus
Who are these "old timers" and what precisely was this "consensus"?
, are now being told by a bunch of punks in diapers that it's not valid, because they don't agree.
Once again many of the biblical academics you are disparaging in a rather school-boy attempt to give your own subjective and preconceived views of these texts greater import, are long dead.
Wow..... don't we call this fallacy by consensus?
As I have pointed there is no consensus in academia about the historical figure of Jesus.
Actually, I did my history studies in a college, and by reading history books for pleasure. You see.... there are periods of history I actually enjoy.
I would also remind you of the logical fallacy that longevity of tenure does not automatically prove competence.
So..... stop embarrassing yourself. Especially when you have no idea of my background, or experiences.
Nor you of mine yet it does not prevent you making your puerile remarks.


If you really understood the nature of history, and its documentationing process, you'd never make such a claim.
What claim? That Marcan priority is generally accepted? It is, but not by everyone.
[/QUOTE]

the very best we can hope for today is a handful of documents, and resources which are slim.
We have no original copies of any New Testament texts. Which leads to the question, if those originals were indeed "divinely inspired" as so many Christians tell me, why did those early Christian communities not take better care of them?

The Qumran community managed it as did those who hid the Nag Hammadi library.
I simply am acquainted with the authors' brother, and having known him for 43 years
So what?
I know he knows better than what academia claims to know,
Does he possess some arcane or occult knowledge known only to the initiated?
.
It's not arrogance, that's for sure.
I would compare it to childlike naivety, but of course belief rests on trust not facts and rational evidence.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
It is nothing to do with "21st century bias". It is about rational, dispassionate, and critical inquiry.
Oh, excuse me... YOUR version of rational, dispassionate, and critical inquiry, which just so happens to be based on 21st century bias.



Well I finished all my academic training in the mid 1980s and I can assure you we were not taught to uncritically accept our sources.
Yet somehow, Jesus has survived close to two millennia, knowing full well you'd come along, and try to disprove him.
Curious how that works.... You'll be dead and gone, and he will live on.

I would suspect that age wise you and I are not that far apart.
If you finished your academic training in the mid eighties, then yes. I'm 60. I finished high school in 1978.

That definition has been around for a lot longer than the last twenty years. Does the name David Strauss mean anything to you? One could opine that he got the ball rolling as it were in the 1830s with his Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet [The Life of Jesus Critically Examined]. Although there are other theologians who took a more critical position that pre-date him.
I have downloaded this from Archive.org, in my kindle. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but I do have it.
The curious thing I find about his statement,

Wherever a religion, resting upon written records, prolongs and extends the​
sphere of its dominion, accompanying its votaries through the varied and​
progressive stages of mental cultivation, a discrepancy between the repre¬​
sentations of those ancient records, referred to as sacred, and the notions of​
more advanced periods of mental development, will inevitably sooner or later​
arise. In the first instance this disagreement is felt in reference only to the​
unessential—the external form : the expressions and delineations are seen to​
be inappropriate; but by degrees it manifests itself also in regard to that​
which is essential: the fundamental ideas and opinions in these early writings​
fail to be commensurate with a more advanced civilisation. As long as this​
discrepancy is either not in itself so considerable, or else is not so universally​
discerned and acknowledged, as to lead to a complete renunciation of these​
Scriptures as of sacred authority, so long will a system of reconciliation by​
means of interpretation be adopted and pursued by those who have a more or​
less distinct consciousness of the existing incongruity.​

The curious thing I find myself considering here is that there arises the issue, not of the historical accuracy of the documentation. Rather, it's the call, command, or demand, if you will, Jesus' teachings place on us, as individuals, and on our lives. Indeed, the entirety of the biblical narrative, calls to us, to make us aware that there's a history, beyond our awareness.
The bible doesn't put forth an argument to convince us. It simply states--- I AM, and this is what I expect of you. If you don't want it, you are indeed free to live as you please. You will not however escape responsibility, and culpability for your actions. Indeed, when we die, we will indeed give an account of our lives, our choices, our words, and our thoughts.
Jesus says in the gospels that what was done, and said in secret, will be shouted from the rooftops.
So, that people seek to discount the narrative... I've long appreciated, and understood this.
I get that nobody wants their secrets exposed for all to see.
As the bible says that 100% of the human race are sinners, and therefore guilty, with only Jesus satisfying, and 100% fulfilling the Righteous, Just, and Moral law of God, we all will give an account before God, regardless of what we believe.
Jesus made some serious claims, which, while they could indeed be dismissed offhand, simply because we don't like them, we will one day be forced to face those claims. IF not in this life, we will in the next.
We read in both Isaiah 45:23, and again in Romans 14, and in Philippians 2:10-11,
EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, AND EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.

In Daniel 12, we read that some will do so to their joy, and others to their everlasting shame, and contempt.
Jesus has offered himself to become our court-appointed defense attorney.
Those who come to Jesus, and follow him, will have him to stand to answer to God, with us.
As Jesus takes our case, he also takes our sin, wiping our sin debt out, entirely.
We read in Jeremiah

from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

In Psalm 32
1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit.
3 When I kept silent, my bones grew old Through my groaning all the day long.
4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; My vitality was turned into the drought of summer. Selah
5 I acknowledged my sin to You, And my iniquity I have not hidden.
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” And You forgave the iniquity of my sin.

In Psalm 103
God casts our sin as far as the east is from the west, and chooses to remember it no more.

Not insofar as your belief is concerned. However, if you are attempting to "validate the historicity of the bible" it is of direct import and relevance.

Who are these "old timers" and what precisely was this "consensus"?

Once again many of the biblical academics you are disparaging in a rather school-boy attempt to give your own subjective and preconceived views of these texts greater import, are long dead.

As I have pointed there is no consensus in academia about the historical figure of Jesus.

I would also remind you of the logical fallacy that longevity of tenure does not automatically prove competence.

Nor you of mine yet it does not prevent you making your puerile remarks.



What claim? That Marcan priority is generally accepted? It is, but not by everyone.
We have no original copies of any New Testament texts. Which leads to the question, if those originals were indeed "divinely inspired" as so many Christians tell me, why did those early Christian communities not take better care of them?

The Qumran community managed it as did those who hid the Nag Hammadi library.

So what?

Does he possess some arcane or occult knowledge known only to the initiated?

I would compare it to childlike naivety, but of course belief rests on trust not facts and rational evidence.

To folks who believe as you do, this makes perfect sense.
But to those who know, we have more rational evidence than you are willing to consider.
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Oh, excuse me... YOUR version of rational, dispassionate, and critical inquiry, which just so happens to be based on 21st century bias.
No. Accepted historical inquiry over the past century.
Yet somehow, Jesus has survived close to two millennia, knowing full well you'd come along, and try to disprove him.
Were it not for imperial patronage in the early fourth century the ensuing history of your religion may have been quite different.
Curious how that works.... You'll be dead and gone, and he will live on.
That is theology.
If you finished your academic training in the mid eighties, then yes. I'm 60. I finished high school in 1978.
That makes me your senior.
But to those who know, we have more rational evidence than you are willing to consider.
Could you provide this "rational evidence"?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
No. Accepted historical inquiry over the past century.
Well, there you have it. Biased worldviews which reject previously accepted history.

Were it not for imperial patronage in the early fourth century the ensuing history of your religion may have been quite different.
Perhaps. I don't know, as I wasn't there. Nor, I'm guessing were you.
The irony is that God used a pagan emperor around 5 BCE to achieve the goal of getting Jesus' parents to Bethlehem, so ensure His Messiah was born in Bethlehem, as foretold centuries before in Micah 5:2.
So.... what you see as a Roman emperor's meddling, we who follow Jesus see as God's Sovereignty.

That is theology.
Ironic. Theology is simply the study of God.
So..... if your impending death and the eternality of God is theology, it seems to me that it'd be worth your taking the time to actually study God, and get to know him.

That makes me your senior.
Congratulations.
Could you provide this "rational evidence"?
It's been all around you for your entire life, and then some.
Have you never enjoyed the beauty of the world in which you live?

19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

It's sad that you've missed it.

If you ever get the hankering to give thanks for it all, his name is YHVH. He said he responds to those who call on the name of Jesus.

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,​
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
I was introduced to a Yale religious professor from the late 1800's a little bit ago.
HIs name is George Park Fisher.

George Park Fisher (August 10, 1827 – December 20, 1909) taught theology at Yale and was a noted historian. He was president of the American Historical Association while he also served as a pastor at the College Church at Yale.

He's written a number of books that deal with the bible, and christianity.

The first,
Manual on Christian Evidences

From the preface




Next is:
The Grounds for Theistic and Christian Belief

From the preface.





And

Faith and Rationalism.
From the preface






Then,

Discussions in History and Theology.

From the preface



As these books were published in the 1870's through the 1890's, they are over 120 years old.

Because they're outside the copyright period, they're freely available books, in all digital formats.
Why should I trust anyone who uses the word 'Evidences'?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Why should I trust anyone who uses the word 'Evidences'?
More importantly, why aren't you taking the time to do your own research, investigation, reading, learning, applying, testing, etc.... to actually find out?

We who follow Jesus don't "trust" anything because someone tells us to! that you think otherwise speaks more to your lack of understanding that it does the word, and idea of trust.
We who follow Jesus Trust because we've taken the time to do what God has said--- read, learn, apply, test, etc...--- and have found that God is real. Not because we think so, but because he's demonstrated himself to us, as real, and knowable.

So..... why on earth would you not take the time to read, learning, apply, test, etc.....?
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
We who follow Jesus Trust because we've taken the time to do what God has said--- read, learn, apply, test, etc...--- and have found that God is real. Not because we think so, but because he's demonstrated himself to us, as real, and knowable.
But you're never able to explain how this worked in any kind of detail. It's just faith dressed up as knowledge. No real testing. No real demonstration.

So..... why on earth would you not take the time to read, learning, apply, test, etc.....?
We do. We just don't get same the results you claim, and as a result you refuse to believe we've done it. But that's your failure, not ours. Frankly, given your most recent blunder (and that apology is coming soon, right?) I'm not exactly impressed with your ability to read and learn.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
But you're never able to explain how this worked in any kind of detail. It's just faith dressed up as knowledge. No real testing. No real demonstration.


We do. We just don't get same the results you claim, and as a result you refuse to believe we've done it. But that's your failure, not ours. Frankly, given your most recent blunder (and that apology is coming soon, right?) I'm not exactly impressed with your ability to read and learn.
It's no different than learning how to code, do math, dig a trench, build a fence, build a brick wall, nail a couple of pieces of wood together, insert a key into a lock and turn the key, to unlock the door, use a fork, knife, spoon to eat a meal.
Are you really going to tell me that you don't know how to learn by following the given instructions, and doing what's prescribed?
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
It's no different than learning how to code, do math, dig a trench, build a fence, build a brick wall, nail a couple of pieces of wood together, insert a key into a lock and turn the key, to unlock the door, use a fork, knife, spoon to eat a meal.
That's what you need to show by comparing specifics, but you never do. Only by keeping things vague can you pretend that the analogy hold up.

Are you really going to tell me that you don't know how to learn by following the given instructions, and doing what's prescribed?
No, I'm telling you the opposite, but as usual you're not listening. Just as you don't apologize for your blunders or even admit your mistakes.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
That's what you need to show by comparing specifics, but you never do. Only by keeping things vague can you pretend that the analogy hold up.
All you need to do is to read, and start doing what Jesus, and the apostles say can, and needs to be done.

No, I'm telling you the opposite, but as usual you're not listening. Just as you don't apologize for your blunders or even admit your mistakes.
I'm not the one who keeps claiming they've already done it, and got nothing.

What does Paul say is necessary to know God in Romans 10?
What did Jesus say you MUST have to enter, and see God's Kingdom? Matthew 5:18, 18:3, John 3:3-5
What did he say was a requirement to be his follower? Luke 9:23-26
What did Jesus say is the problem with us, that we are not able to see, and know God?
I've been explaining these things since 2012.
As have numerous other Jesus followers who've been here, including those who've since left and moved on with their lives.

Your excuse of claiming you haven't been told, is losing you time, and ground.

You've been told hundreds, if not thousands of times.
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
All you need to do is to read, and start doing what Jesus, and the apostles say can, and needs to be done.
You prove my point. You are being vague again because that is the only way you can pretend that your analogy holds up.

I'm not the one who keeps claiming they've already done it, and got nothing.
And yet you are. Like us, you've got nothing verifiable out of your method.

What does Paul say is necessary to know God in Romans 10?
What did Jesus say you MUST have to enter, and see God's Kingdom? Matthew 5:18, 18:3, John 3:3-5
What did he say was a requirement to be his follower? Luke 9:23-26
What did Jesus say is the problem with us, that we are not able to see, and know God?
Answer your own questions, and then show that they are things you did before getting God to reveal himself to you. Otherwise this is all irrelevant.

Your excuse of claiming you haven't been told, is losing you time, and ground.
Why can't you ever apologize or even admit you made a mistake?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You prove my point. You are being vague again because that is the only way you can pretend that your analogy holds up.
Then you have nothing to worry about.
Keep going with your life as it is,and when you die, you'll find out for yourself.

And yet you are. Like us, you've got nothing verifiable out of your method.
Well, considering you keep saying this, but offer nothing by which I'm supposed to take you seriously, I'll take this with a grain of salt.

Answer your own questions, and then show that they are things you did before getting God to reveal himself to you. Otherwise this is all irrelevant.
I've answered them repeatedly, for the past 8 years.
Are you really going to tell me

Why can't you ever apologize or even admit you made a mistake?
Oh, you mean that vaguely stated statement you claim is an answer?
Something about--- apparently I'm not able to do something Steve is.
I saw that shortly after you posted it. Never looked like an answer to me.
When I ask a question, I actually view an answer (in that case) as a statement---
No. I've never built a fence.

Because unless you lack the mental or physical faculty to do so, you actually can build a fence. It's not a complicated task.

So, since you selected the choice of words to be--- something I cannot do that Steve can--- that leads me to believe that you lack the mental and/or physical faculty to do so.
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
Oh, you mean that vaguely stated statement you claim is an answer?
Something about--- apparently I'm not able to do something Steve is.
I saw that shortly after you posted it. Never looked like an answer to me.
When I ask a question, I actually view an answer (in that case) as a statement---
No. I've never built a fence.
How dishonest can you possibly get? Just man up, admit your mistake, and apologize. It's not that hard.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
How dishonest can you possibly get? Just man up, admit your mistake, and apologize. It's not that hard.
how sad.
You know what I'm sorry for.
That you think comparing your lack of experience, to my experience is an answer.
You made a statement that was so vague as to be missed by all your fellow atheists too.
So, my apologies for your unwillingness to just make a simple--- nope. never built a fence before.
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
how sad.
You know what I'm sorry for.
That you think comparing your lack of experience, to my experience is an answer.
You made a statement that was so vague as to be missed by all your fellow atheists too.
So, my apologies for your unwillingness to just make a simple--- nope. never built a fence before.
Nope, it was not at all vague. And no, no-one else missed it but you.

Is it your ego or colossal narcissism that prevents you from ever owning up to your own mistakes, even when confronted with them?

You owe me an apology. A real one.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Nope, it was not at all vague. And no, no-one else missed it but you.

Is it your ego or colossal narcissism that prevents you from ever owning up to your own mistakes, even when confronted with them?
Whatever makes you feel superior.
I think you should enjoy that while you can.
As Maximus told the emperor in Gladiator--- your time for honoring yourself is soon coming to an end.
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
Whatever makes you feel superior.
I think you should enjoy that while you can.
As Maximus told the emperor in Gladiator--- your time for honoring yourself is soon coming to an end.
Why can't you admit to a mistake and apologize?

What happened to that supposedly Christian trait of humility?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Why can't you admit to a mistake and apologize?

What happened to that supposedly Christian trait of humility?
Considering you can't even answer simple questions without going into a tirade about perceived slights, I'm curious if you know what humility is.
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
Considering you can't even answer simple questions without going into a tirade about perceived slights, I'm curious if you know what humility is.
You made a mistake. Own it and stop making excuses. Apologize like a normal civilized adult.
 
Top