aChristian

Let me clarify. We are all made in the image of God and that is something great. We are however fallen. How much of the image of God is left is what I am talking about and whether there is enough left to be honest about the things we are discussing. I see remnants of the image of God in people everywhere. In fact, I believe Hitler had good qualities, but he turned far enough away from God that he covered most of them over. I think we could still see those qualities in him if we talked with him for a while (assuming he didn't send us to the gas chambers first). I see a lot of good in people, but we are sinners as well.

aChristian

Good bye all. I hope that you all have a happy new year.

Dean Anderson

I have no wish to derail this thread, but this statement about Dante's "Divine Comedy" intrigues me.

Could you elaborate on it?

Vorkosigan

http://www.geocities.com/DanteStudies/miraj.html

Diogenes the Cynic

Go ahead and establish that truth then, dude. We're still waiting.
Space monkeys could have told them the same thing too. What makes "God" any more likely a hypothesis than space monkeys?
Which is exactly what we have done and what you have not done.
There is no assertion or belief that the writers "got together."
It is if you're trying to argue that any of the gospels were eyewitnesses accounts. If it can be unequivocally proven (and it can) that an "eyewitness" copied his book from prior written sources- and secondary sources at that- then that blows a big hole in your "eyewitness" theory. A theory for which you have no positive evidence whatever and a theory that virtually all contemporary scholarship has abandoned.
WHAT historical record. I'm getting a little tired of these kinds of frankly childish assertions. If you can't back up your claims then I don't think there's going to be much point in trying to carry on a dialogue
We don't know what he told us, dude, and you han't "established" anything remotely hisrical about the resuurection.
We know nothing either of his character or about what he said. We don't even know that he existed.
Micah was talking about David and Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.
Isaiah says no such thing.
A mistranslation since the context of the passage plainly indicates a woman who was not a virgin and a baby who was not the Messiah.
Almah was used in the Hebrew because it was never intended to refer to anything more than a specific, non-virginal woman within the context of a specific story. It is not a Messianic prophecy, I repeat it is not a Messianic prophecy. Read it in context. Read it again. Understand it. Please do not tax us with these kind of uninformed canards. I don't enjoy having to post remedial lessons in basic Biblical studies. If you want to be taken seriously you can't go around citing Isaiah 7:14 as Messianic prophecy. You paint yourself as a rube when you do so.
After the fact.
Agabus is a character in Acts. Acts was written at least 50 years after the famine. No much of a prediction.
Was 1948 the last days?
Examples?
That's a lazy way to cite an authority. I am familiar with the apologies. They do not hold water.
With all that, Montgomery is still not a historian but a Christian hack apologist who doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to historical Biblical criticism.
Would you please tell us what this evidence is instead of just spouting that it exists?
Yeah...ok... I don't suppose you have any...you know....[i[]evidence[/i] for any of that?
You got scammed.
Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE. Most of its "prophecies" were history relative to the date of composition. None of Daniel's genuine attempts at predictive prophecy ever panned out.

Mr. Aardvark

I'd be interested in reading about that. In fact, if there is a source about Biblical prophecies in general that never came about, I'd love to read it. Can you point me to something?

Diogenes the Cynic

There aren't a lot of Biblical prophecies which specify a date but Daniel does so when it states that the Messiah will come and the world will end three years after Antiochus placed a statue of Zeus in the Temple. Daniel also misses on how and where Antiochus will die.

Amaleq13

You clearly are and you even did it again in this same post:

If you need God's help to be honest, you are defining an "honest evaluation" as requiring God's help. You can claim that you also define "honest" in the same way I do but, unless you acknowledge that an honest evaluation can take place without God's help, your protest seems more than a little confusing. You either aren't saying what you really mean or you don't understand the implications of your assertions.

I'm not saying he cannot. I'm suggesting that it makes such an examination all the more difficult. I am suggesting that your faith, rather than the evidence, appears to be the most significant factor leading to your conclusion. I am also suggesting that, given the fact that you have only considered the evidence with faith, you cannot say with any degree of certainty how convincing that evidence appears when considered without faith.

I would hope so as well but, by relying on your faith (i.e. God's help) in your consideration, that hardly seems likely, does it? Your approach makes it very difficult to be honest (in "my" use of the term) since there is an obvious, inherent tendency to confirm your beliefs regardless of the nature of the evidence.

Likewise, anyone starting out their consideration of the evidence firmly convinced that God does not exist and that Jesus is a myth is making it difficult to conduct an honest examination of the evidence and is equally unlikely to disconfirm their prior-held beliefs.

Skeptical

aChristian,

A few points:

1) I noticed you did not reply to my post regarding the large amount of collected evidence showing that delusions and hallucinations are prevelant throught all cultures and history, especially concerning religious matters. I assume this is probably because you ignored it or at the least would have to admit that you have not researched the topic and are simply making assumptions. However, I will be a supreme optimist and assume that you took my suggestion to heart and are now going to diligently research the area to see if your a priori assumptions are correct.

2) I have to give you some points for honesty in admitting that you came to your faith _before_ you knew the evidence. What I cannot understand is how you can now say that you have "honestly" examined the evidence. This is like being on a jury and deciding before the trial that the person is guilty, and then listening to the evidence and saying that you now believe the person is guilty after "honestly" listening to the evidence. In fact, honesty is the wrong term, the correct term would be "openly" or "unbiasedly". True, no one can make a claim to _no_ bias, but if you have already made up your mind before you see the evidence, it is supremely disenguous to say you "honestly" think the evidence is there, when obviously you cannot eliminate your a priori bias. You are far too emotionally committed to the result.

3) One thing you said I thought was especially interesting:

I thought one of your principal arguments was that the NT authors were "eyewitnesses". Why would God need to "give three people the same words" if they were "eyewitnesses"? Wouldn't it be more logical to just let the 3 tell their story as they actually saw it? If God needs to give them the words, that certainly sounds like they might not have actually seen the events in the first place, wouldn't it?

This is exactly what I am talking about as far as "honestly" (or "openly") considering the evidence. You continually try to give weight to arguments that are very weak and you discount arguments and evidence from scholars who are much more qualified than you to assess the _evidence_. (not necessarily people on this list, I'm talking about Biblical scholars). Nearly no reputable scholar of any stripe doubts literary dependence between the synoptic gospels. Yet, here you are doubting it because God tells you.

The point is that you might even be right, although I don't think so, but you don't have good logical reasons for your decision. You keep claiming that you decided based on "logic" and "evidence", but it is clear with everything you say that you decided based on faith and feeling. The very fact that you admit that you decided your position prior to knowing the evidence is proof of this.

Is it so hard to admit it to yourself?

You may find this hard to believe, but I can assure you, again, that as a prime example your argument that if the "eyewitness" writers of the NT were honest then their stories must be objectively true is horribly flawed. It is typical of apolgetic arguments that people think their arguments are good, without realizing they are making massive unwarranted assumptions. They, like you, simply do not have the emotional ability or desire to critically assess the arguments they make. The only way the evidence can be properly evaluated is with a critical eye, and starting from a point of emotionally committed faith you simply do not have such a perspective.

Mr. Aardvark

I could be wrong, but I believe aChristian is not returning.