Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aChristian · 03-23-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Interesting question. I would guess, and it is only a guess, that they may have been so astonished that he claimed to have seen Abraham, that they didn't even get to the part about his claim of divinity. Or maybe since they just dismissed his claim of divinity out of hand, they didn't bother with it but just jumped on the extraordinary claim to have seen Abraham.

The implication seems to be there alright. Jesus implying that he was with the Father before, in heaven. But just because Jesus may have believed himself a divine character doesn't mean that he really was such.

I thought about this after I answered and realized that I forgot the order of the dialogue. What I said does not make sense. They were first astonished that he claimed to have met Abraham and then after this he said, "before Abraham was, I AM". So they were first astonished about his claim to have met Abraham and then next he went even farther, claiming to be the I AM (Yahweh) of the Old Testament. They immediately understood his claim and picked up stones to stone him, no doubt for blasphemy. This was the same reason the Jews declared they were going to stone him in John 10:33, because he "a mere man claimed to be God."
Thus, their first thoughts, which was what your original question was about, were probably just astonishment that he claimed to have met Abraham and thus their question.

aChristian · 03-23-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I was merely countering his claim that Christianity is based on belief alone apart from facts. I was pointing out that in my opinion, the evidence for Christianity from any field of study (history, science, philosopy,etc.) is incontrovertible. As Paul said in Romans 1, the evidence for God's existence and divine power is so strong, that men are without excuse for not believing it. Since it is true and God is loving and wants all men to come to know him, anyone who is honestly seeking the truth will find Christianity to be true. One may be honest and be on his way to finding the truth, but if he doesn't find it, it is his own fault (lack of honesty being part of his sin), not God's. This applies to all of us.

Don't confuse historical evidence of Christianity.I doubt any historians would question an historical JC. Some of the OT locales have been found. Howeve this is not a proof of god.

Listen and think this through.

'Because it is written in an ancient text it is true..', this is the basis of your proof of god.

If you read on all the historical mainstrem religions you'll find eyewitness accounts of saints, prophets, and mircales.

Why believe only the New Testamant?

From a recent discussion with a Muslim and a Christian I work with, a Muslim is one who submits to the will of god, no different than a Christian, although the Chritian did not agree. Aside from aspects of theolgy in my opinion Muslims and Christains are spiritualy fundamentaly the same.

Remember Orson Welle's radio show on War Of The Worlds when millions of peiole though we wre under attack by Martians?

Or the fact that many republicans were convinced through rel;enless inuendo that Obama was a Muslim radical.

Peole easily believe.

Consider the sparse words of JC in the NT, what you have today is the acumulated dogma and personal interpretaions over 2000 years

I don't believe that because something was written in an ancient text that it is true. There were National Enquirer type documents back in the early years as well (the Gnostic gospels). Without going into it all now, I believe that you can show the NT documents are accurate historical documents that describe the bodily resurrection of Jesus. No other religion has the historical facts to back it up. There are no reliable eyewitness accounts to support the Koran's miraculous claims. Same thing with Joseph Smith's. However there are reliable eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

steve_bnk · 03-23-2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Don't confuse historical evidence of Christianity.I doubt any historians would question an historical JC. Some of the OT locales have been found. Howeve this is not a proof of god.

Listen and think this through.

'Because it is written in an ancient text it is true..', this is the basis of your proof of god.

If you read on all the historical mainstrem religions you'll find eyewitness accounts of saints, prophets, and mircales.

Why believe only the New Testamant?

From a recent discussion with a Muslim and a Christian I work with, a Muslim is one who submits to the will of god, no different than a Christian, although the Chritian did not agree. Aside from aspects of theolgy in my opinion Muslims and Christains are spiritualy fundamentaly the same.

Remember Orson Welle's radio show on War Of The Worlds when millions of peiole though we wre under attack by Martians?

Or the fact that many republicans were convinced through rel;enless inuendo that Obama was a Muslim radical.

Peole easily believe.

Consider the sparse words of JC in the NT, what you have today is the acumulated dogma and personal interpretaions over 2000 years

I don't believe that because something was written in an ancient text that it is true. There were National Enquirer type documents back in the early years as well (the Gnostic gospels). Without going into it all now, I believe that you can show the NT documents are accurate historical documents that describe the bodily resurrection of Jesus. No other religion has the historical facts to back it up. There are no reliable eyewitness accounts to support the Koran's miraculous claims. Same thing with Joseph Smith's. However there are reliable eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

Then I'll ask again. given a set of historical documents all claimimng miraculous events with witnesses, why the NT as autherntic?

Define reliable. The latest analysis I've seen presented is that all the gospels likley share a common set of papers that were passed around. People naturaly filled in the blankls. It is not an historical record.

The apostles and clearly Paul thought the end time was immiment, thgere would be no need for a journalistic history. The anaylsys is that the gospels were likely promotional literature wrtiien weel after the evnets, not unlike literature from various churches today with the intent of making converts.

Do you believe Job realy existed? According to my academic bible Job was likley part of a long lost set of Jewish teaching materials. If you read in detail the wisdom literature like Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiates you'll find in general the structure of teacher to student. The rest of the OT is Jewish history.

The Gnostic gospels were rejected by political consesus amoong Christians sects at odds, not by divine intervention.

IamJoseph · 03-23-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Belief in Christianity is based on historical facts that cannot be honestly denied. Belief in anything else, including your beliefs, have no foundation - they are only based in blind faith.

I see the reverse applying, and I wouldn't care if christianity was not also based on negation and villification of another. If Budhism or atheism, for example, have their own 'beliefs' that is fine - as long as its not a death-to-you advocation hiding behind that belief. This is what christianity, then Islam, are based on - otherwise good luck to them and to each their own.

There is not an iota of historical fact in the NT, and comparing this with the Hebrew is insane. Put simply, the jews were stiff necks and demanded proof - and got it [the texts!], while not a single soul in Europe asked for proof - and if they did they would see clearly there is none. Not even that Jews killed your Lord - itself an insane belief which has thus far destroyed billions of innocent lives and set humanity on a path of chaos!

aChristian · 03-23-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I don't believe that because something was written in an ancient text that it is true. There were National Enquirer type documents back in the early years as well (the Gnostic gospels). Without going into it all now, I believe that you can show the NT documents are accurate historical documents that describe the bodily resurrection of Jesus. No other religion has the historical facts to back it up. There are no reliable eyewitness accounts to support the Koran's miraculous claims. Same thing with Joseph Smith's. However there are reliable eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

Then I'll ask again. given a set of historical documents all claimimng miraculous events with witnesses, why the NT as autherntic?

Define reliable. The latest analysis I've seen presented is that all the gospels likley share a common set of papers that were passed around. People naturaly filled in the blankls. It is not an historical record.

The apostles and clearly Paul thought the end time was immiment, thgere would be no need for a journalistic history. The anaylsys is that the gospels were likely promotional literature wrtiien weel after the evnets, not unlike literature from various churches today with the intent of making converts.

Do you believe Job realy existed? According to my academic bible Job was likley part of a long lost set of Jewish teaching materials. If you read in detail the wisdom literature like Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiates you'll find in general the structure of teacher to student. The rest of the OT is Jewish history.

The Gnostic gospels were rejected by political consesus amoong Christians sects at odds, not by divine intervention.

I will try to get back to you on this when I have more time, but the short answers are:
Why NT authentic? The standard way of determining whether something is true is used. You weigh the credibility of the witnesses and NT is shown to be supported by rational honest people with an intimate knowledge of the facts.

NT is historical record and your caricature how it came about does not accord with the facts of history.

Your comments about Paul and the apostles is founded in speculation made thousands of years after the event by those with no knowledge of the events. That speculation is refuted by the historical record. The speculation is nonsense.

Job existed and your academic Bible is wrong. The contributers naively believe in the ridiculous speculation I just mentioned above.

The Gnostic gospels were rejected for the same reason anyone with any sense rejects stories in the National Enquirer.

If I get time I can elaborate on these points later.

steve_bnk · 03-23-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Then I'll ask again. given a set of historical documents all claimimng miraculous events with witnesses, why the NT as autherntic?

Define reliable. The latest analysis I've seen presented is that all the gospels likley share a common set of papers that were passed around. People naturaly filled in the blankls. It is not an historical record.

The apostles and clearly Paul thought the end time was immiment, thgere would be no need for a journalistic history. The anaylsys is that the gospels were likely promotional literature wrtiien weel after the evnets, not unlike literature from various churches today with the intent of making converts.

Do you believe Job realy existed? According to my academic bible Job was likley part of a long lost set of Jewish teaching materials. If you read in detail the wisdom literature like Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiates you'll find in general the structure of teacher to student. The rest of the OT is Jewish history.

The Gnostic gospels were rejected by political consesus amoong Christians sects at odds, not by divine intervention.

I will try to get back to you on this when I have more time, but the short answers are:
Why NT authentic? The standard way of determining whether something is true is used. You weigh the credibility of the witnesses and NT is shown to be supported by rational honest people with an intimate knowledge of the facts.

NT is historical record and your caricature how it came about does not accord with the facts of history.

Your comments about Paul and the apostles is founded in speculation made thousands of years after the event by those with no knowledge of the events. That speculation is refuted by the historical record. The speculation is nonsense.

Job existed and your academic Bible is wrong. The contributers naively believe in the ridiculous speculation I just mentioned above.

The Gnostic gospels were rejected for the same reason anyone with any sense rejects stories in the National Enquirer.

If I get time I can elaborate on these points later.

It feels good vigorously arguing in the afirmative, does it not? Colors seem brighter, feel like you can leap a mountain, can chew nails, like your fighting the good fight in the name of all rightiousness...AKA, the spirit?

May I inetrogate your biblical witnesses? Were they driving a donkey while intoxicated?

IamJoseph · 03-23-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It seems to me that all he was saying something like: "Forget about Abraham, he's dead and gone: I am here and now." Provocative enough, to be sure.

This led nowhere - except that another religion sprung up to tell christians forget about the Gospels - here comes the Quran. This is a cyclical system, proving it is the wrong path.

What is not debatable, is that only Moses can resolve the chaos fostered by chrstianity and islam - neither of their messengers can assist here: each would not accept the other's and demand their own. But none can tell Moses what Moses meant, so why even ask for anyone else?

Despite all the shouting and thumping, Moses remains the world's most believed figure - even without proof he existed, even while Israel was in exile quagmired for 2000 years in European and Arabian ghettoes, their return fastediously barred by their hosts.

2B christians, 1.2B muslims and 14M Jews believe in Moses. Do the maths - that beats both Jesus or Mohammed's adherants. Then pray that a revelation of Moses will occur again - this will also have to be abided by Israel - if Moses rejects their opinion. It does not get fairer. Otherwise, who's afraid of virginia wolf applies! :wave:

IamJoseph · 03-23-2009, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You weigh the credibility of the witnesses and NT is shown to be supported by rational honest people with an intimate knowledge of the facts.

Shall we start with how many Jews gave their lives defending their beliefs against Rome's grotesque heresy laws - its not even mentioned in the NT, constituting one of the greatest lie-by-omissions imaginable. FYI, the correct figure is 1.2 Million - including all the Preists,the Pharisees and the Saducees the NT spoke so bad about and called them conspirators and dis-believers - even revelling in their deaths as a warrented Roman holocaust - not even considering the Holocaustors! I call the NT's actions here a springtime for the ve vere not avare peoples! I call the defense of the Jews against Rome the greatest display of a faith in Geo-History. Rome lost - the Jews won. Europe failed the test before them.

Was that an error, a typo, a dementia or that knowledge of those facts are irrelevent to those believing Europeans? How can the truth set anyone free when its not even mentioned? :constern01:

Toto · 03-23-2009, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

...
I will try to get back to you on this when I have more time, but the short answers are:
Why NT authentic? The standard way of determining whether something is true is used. You weigh the credibility of the witnesses and NT is shown to be supported by rational honest people with an intimate knowledge of the facts.

This is not true. We have no way of judging the credibility of the supposed NT witnesses, except we know that some of them were mistaken.

Quote:

NT is historical record and your caricature how it came about does not accord with the facts of history.

It is not. Please do not make assertions like this without supporting evidence.

Quote:

...

Job existed and your academic Bible is wrong. The contributers naively believe in the ridiculous speculation I just mentioned above.

The Gnostic gospels were rejected for the same reason anyone with any sense rejects stories in the National Enquirer.

If I get time I can elaborate on these points later.

Job existed? Your proof?

I don't think you have anything that you could use to elaborate on these points.

No Robots · 03-24-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

They were first astonished that he claimed to have met Abraham and then after this he said, "before Abraham was, I AM". So they were first astonished about his claim to have met Abraham and then next he went even farther, claiming to be the I AM (Yahweh) of the Old Testament.

There is a good discussion of this passage here:

Yahshua was not declaring that he is the great "I AM" of Ex.3:14. There are many occurrences in the Greek, which proves that the term "I am" is a very common phrase, a verb of existence, meaning "I am He" or "I am the one." This phrase by it's self is not a 'stone-able' offense, for it is used many times. As we have already shown, there were a lot of implications in this chapter which ground into the minds and heart of the Yahudain leaders.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.