Because if someone doesn't believe in God, they can still do a program... not all are 12 months.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
Additionally, we help with fixing things in homes for the elderly (no program necessary), fix apartments for the homeless (religion not a requirement) - and so much more. Food pantries et al.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But can you get all of the 12 months and opt out of religion?
Absolutely! This isn't a "shove Jesus down your throat" program... it is "We love you, how can we help you, what can we do to move forward" type of help.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay. I take your word for it.
In practice for your model, when we in Denmark switched to being Protestants the state took over the role as the one helping, because the Church became a state Church and later, we stop using the religious side of it and kept doing "Love thy neighbor" through the state in a secular sense.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Muslims did not die believing in a resurrection. Some believed in an afterlife with virgins but are very much mistaken.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is not likely that they believed in a resurrection either.or more spiritually significant than that of a Baha'i?
There were also many Baha'i martyrs.
Martyrs | Bahá’í Stories
www.bahaistories.com
Muffled
Jesus in me
I think it is more indicative about how the Sadducees got a rumor started that the body was stolen.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
In your opinion, you believe that they are mistaken.
It may not have ever crossed your mind that it's quite possible that you and other Christians are mistaken about what will happen in the afterlife.
That's great.
Do you find that when the state takes over, people no longer take a real interest into helping your neighbor and then simply say "Go to the government for help"?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, I still help in some cases. In others I refer to the government, because we Danes pay taxes because the state does it and we want the state to do it.
The funny thing is that while we don't love paying taxes, we accept it, because overall it works.
In effect as a former civil servant, I sometimes help people reading a government web-site, because I can read that kind of language.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, not in a physical resurrection. It was a spiritual resurrection they believed in.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
That He dies on the cross, and after three days He rised. He resurrected other people too.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Do you mean He rose physically and resurrected other people physically?
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
The discussion goes back, why the Christians believe in Jesus. Most of them would say, because Jesus died on the cross and risen again after 3 days.
The Christians understand this a physical event. The question was asked, how do they know if what Bible says is true, since they did not see Jesus.
Spiritual Resurrection has no value to the Christians with regards to belief in Jesus.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
The problem for some of us is that we don't know that the Bible or NT is true. However, in your opinion, do the gospels claim that Jesus was physically brought back to life? I think it does, but I doubt it really happened but, if God can do anything, then maybe.
joelr
Well-Known Member
This is such a mess of error I don't know where to begin...
1) The 16th century Christian theologian is not trained in proper Hebrew and along with being bias for a Hellenistic savior demigod there isn't any evidence to think a 16th century Christian theologian is better at Hebrew than actual Hebrew experts. He also wasn't aware at all of the historical aspects of what he was looking at.
The translation he was using is probably from the Septuagint, the Septuagint’s rendering is assumed by Christians not only to be dependent on understanding the Hebrew as derived from the verb “to dig [soil]” but, in addition, to have the meaning “to pierce [the flesh].”
The verb krh, “to dig,” does not have the meaning “to pierce.” Karah refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh (cf. Genesis 26:25, Exodus 21:33; Numbers 21:18; Jeremiah 18:20, 22; Psalms 7:16, 57:7). The verb krh is also used figuratively in Psalms 40:6, with the meaning “to open,” or “to unclog” (that is, “to dig out”) the ears.
-" neither the Hebrew nor the Greek words mean or justify the later Christian interpretative rendering, “they pierced.”"
Had you bothered to look at what any of those Hebrew experts were saying this would have been clear. He hasn't ever shown that the Hebrew is what Christian apologists claim?
Your source who provides no actual evidence (again, you said I used a fallacy but focusing on a scholar, but where is Gill's evidence?)
and your source is NOT A QUALIFIED EXPERT. He;s bias towards Christianity and he's an amateur................"He continued self-study in everything from logic to Hebrew, " SELF STUDY????????? HE isn't a Hebrew scholar or an expert in Hebrew and not from modern times when historicity was allowed to be done on scripture. Unbelievable. Then to twist it around in a manipulative way and say I'm using a fallacy.......
Sourcing a 16th century theologian as if he is the last word in Hebrew scholarship is so dishonest and shady that to then turn around and pretend I'm using a fallacy is rather unethical.
Never mind how disrespectful it is to ignore the vast amount of Jewish scholarship on what the Hebrew in their own religion actually means?
I don't even know how to quantify the amount of bad rhetoric and sloppy methodology here?
2) How let's grant the Jewish writers were actually talking about a savior who would be crucified (they were not), but let's pretend that was actually true.
Mark, the first gospel and the source for the others is where this story comes from. Mark uses fictive literary styles, copies OT narratives, uses the Epistles to create earthly stories, seems to be following Greek stories rather closely as well as other fiction. His main character also scores an almost perfect score on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale, scoring hisher than King Arthur, Hercules, Krishna, Osirus and other fictional beings. He constructs a chiasmus that would never possibly happen in real life and this is from a peer-reviewed journal. -
"Mark 12:25 has Jesus say, “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” Notably, Paul had no knowledge of such a saying when he had to struggle to justify his view of the resurrection as being an abandoning of fleshly life and entering into uncorruptible celestial bodies (1 Corinthians 15:36-54; see my most thorough discussion in The Empty Tomb and its associated FAQ; Mark also lifts Paul’s distinction between bodies made by hands and those not, and puts it into the mouth of Jesus, by metaphor making exactly the same point as Paul regarding the nature of the resurrection—almost verbatim). So where did Mark get the idea that Jesus said this thing about angels and marriage? It seems quite evidently from Paul. By inventing a simple proverb for Jesus to have uttered, Mark is simplifying Paul’s discourse into a single line, as anyone who can figure out why “they will neither marry nor be given in marriage” and what it means “to be like the angels in heaven” will have sussed Paul’s entire discourse on the resurrection body. Thus illustrating again how Mark adapts Paul’s teaching by simplifying it into a story about Jesus.
But there is something even more remarkable about this parallel: it comes in the middle of a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul. This was first discovered by Michael Turton and is used to significant effect under peer review by David Oliver Smith. As I showed in OHJ (Ch. 10.4), Mark is fond of chiastic structure and uses it often. And here we have an instance that demonstrates Mark’s knowledge of Paul’s Epistles. I here adapt this model from Turton’s demonstration:
| A | Romans 8:31-38, References Psalm 118, verse 6; then warns of persecution and denounces all religious authorities but Jesus = Mark 12:10-12, Quotes Psalm 118, verses 22-23; then mentions the religious authorities want to kill Jesus. | ||
| B | Romans 13:1-7, Paul exhorts to obey your government and pay your taxes = Mark 12:13-17, Jesus declares “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” | ||
| C | 1 Corinthians 15:12-34, Paul confronts those who deny resurrection = Mark 12:18-23, Jesus confronts the Sadduccees who deny resurrection. | ||
| C’ | 1 Corinthians 15:35-50, Paul answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (15:36) = Mark 12:24-27, Jesus answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (12:24). | ||
| B’ | Romans 13:8-10, Paul explains how love fulfills the Law = Mark 12:28-34, Jesus explains how love fulfills the Law. | ||
| A’ | 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 references Psalm 110, verse 1 (in 15:25), and declares Jesus will defeat all enemies and authorities = Mark 12:35-40, Quotes the exact same verse in Psalm 110, then preaches to beware of the religious authorities. |
These coincidences and parallels are so statistically improbable as to render any other explanation effectively impossible: Mark is adapting and playing off of specific content in Romans and 1 Corinthians."
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs
Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...
www.richardcarrier.info
So the point is, even if Jesus was written about in the OT, Mark is using this to construct a fictional narrative about a Hellenistic savior God who matches the theology of ALL savior Gods from the Hellenized mystery religions, most coming before Christianity.
Meaning there is no possible way this is anything but fiction. So being prophecized in the OT is no more special than Luke suggesting he may have a family connection with the dark side in the first Star Wars and then it playing out in Return of the Jedi.
Interesting that you picked Yale? Is it a specific problem with Yale? Or is it that I mentioned the Yale Divinity lectures? So, they don't get degress from Yale? Dr Baden is a Harvard PhD grad.
But by all means, please demonstrate where Dr Baden has "no understanding". What you probably mean is he doesn't preach tired old apologetics. I am positive he knows all the apologetics as does all of the historical scholars and they find them complete crank. They all know apologists need to defend a position even when it’s false or indefensible; historians only want to know what’s true, and we see this played out time and time again. (for example, the statement above).
So here are some Yale Divinity lectures by Dr Baden, can you provide an example of why you would even make such a comment as he has "no understanding"?
Last edited:
I'm sorry, this is so biased and filled with unbelief, I think I will end with one statement...This is such a mess of error I don't know where to begin...
1) The 16th century Christian theologian is not trained in proper Hebrew and along with being bias for a Hellenistic savior demigod there isn't any evidence to think a 16th century Christian theologian is better at Hebrew than actual Hebrew experts. He also wasn't aware at all of the historical aspects of what he was looking at.
The translation he was using is probably from the Septuagint, the Septuagint’s rendering is assumed by Christians not only to be dependent on understanding the Hebrew as derived from the verb “to dig [soil]” but, in addition, to have the meaning “to pierce [the flesh].”
The verb krh, “to dig,” does not have the meaning “to pierce.” Karah refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh (cf. Genesis 26:25, Exodus 21:33; Numbers 21:18; Jeremiah 18:20, 22; Psalms 7:16, 57:7). The verb krh is also used figuratively in Psalms 40:6, with the meaning “to open,” or “to unclog” (that is, “to dig out”) the ears.
-" neither the Hebrew nor the Greek words mean or justify the later Christian interpretative rendering, “they pierced.”"
Had you bothered to look at what any of those Hebrew experts were saying this would have been clear. He hasn't ever shown that the Hebrew is what Christian apologists claim?
Your source who provides no actual evidence (again, you said I used a fallacy but focusing on a scholar, but where is Gill's evidence?)
and your source is NOT A QUALIFIED EXPERT. He;s bias towards Christianity and he's an amateur................"He continued self-study in everything from logic to Hebrew, " SELF STUDY????????? HE isn't a Hebrew scholar or an expert in Hebrew and not from modern times when historicity was allowed to be done on scripture. Unbelievable. Then to twist it around in a manipulative way and say I'm using a fallacy.......
Sourcing a 16th century theologian as if he is the last word in Hebrew scholarship is so dishonest and shady that to then turn around and pretend I'm using a fallacy is rather unethical.
Never mind how disrespectful it is to ignore the vast amount of Jewish scholarship on what the Hebrew in their own religion actually means?
I don't even know how to quantify the amount of bad rhetoric and sloppy methodology here?
2) How let's grant the Jewish writers were actually talking about a savior who would be crucified (they were not), but let's pretend that was actually true.
Mark, the first gospel and the source for the others is where this story comes from. Mark uses fictive literary styles, copies OT narratives, uses the Epistles to create earthly stories, seems to be following Greek stories rather closely as well as other fiction. His main character also scores an almost perfect score on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale, scoring hisher than King Arthur, Hercules, Krishna, Osirus and other fictional beings. He constructs a chiasmus that would never possibly happen in real life and this is from a peer-reviewed journal. -
"Mark 12:25 has Jesus say, “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” Notably, Paul had no knowledge of such a saying when he had to struggle to justify his view of the resurrection as being an abandoning of fleshly life and entering into uncorruptible celestial bodies (1 Corinthians 15:36-54; see my most thorough discussion in The Empty Tomb and its associated FAQ; Mark also lifts Paul’s distinction between bodies made by hands and those not, and puts it into the mouth of Jesus, by metaphor making exactly the same point as Paul regarding the nature of the resurrection—almost verbatim). So where did Mark get the idea that Jesus said this thing about angels and marriage? It seems quite evidently from Paul. By inventing a simple proverb for Jesus to have uttered, Mark is simplifying Paul’s discourse into a single line, as anyone who can figure out why “they will neither marry nor be given in marriage” and what it means “to be like the angels in heaven” will have sussed Paul’s entire discourse on the resurrection body. Thus illustrating again how Mark adapts Paul’s teaching by simplifying it into a story about Jesus.
But there is something even more remarkable about this parallel: it comes in the middle of a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul. This was first discovered by Michael Turton and is used to significant effect under peer review by David Oliver Smith. As I showed in OHJ (Ch. 10.4), Mark is fond of chiastic structure and uses it often. And here we have an instance that demonstrates Mark’s knowledge of Paul’s Epistles. I here adapt this model from Turton’s demonstration:
A Romans 8:31-38, References Psalm 118, verse 6; then warns of persecution and denounces all religious authorities but Jesus = Mark 12:10-12, Quotes Psalm 118, verses 22-23; then mentions the religious authorities want to kill Jesus. B Romans 13:1-7, Paul exhorts to obey your government and pay your taxes = Mark 12:13-17, Jesus declares “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” C 1 Corinthians 15:12-34, Paul confronts those who deny resurrection = Mark 12:18-23, Jesus confronts the Sadduccees who deny resurrection. C’ 1 Corinthians 15:35-50, Paul answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (15:36) = Mark 12:24-27, Jesus answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (12:24). B’ Romans 13:8-10, Paul explains how love fulfills the Law = Mark 12:28-34, Jesus explains how love fulfills the Law. A’ 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 references Psalm 110, verse 1 (in 15:25), and declares Jesus will defeat all enemies and authorities = Mark 12:35-40, Quotes the exact same verse in Psalm 110, then preaches to beware of the religious authorities.
These coincidences and parallels are so statistically improbable as to render any other explanation effectively impossible: Mark is adapting and playing off of specific content in Romans and 1 Corinthians."
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs
Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...
So the point is, even if Jesus was written about in the OT, Mark is using this to construct a fictional narrative about a Hellenistic savior God who matches the theology of ALL savior Gods from the Hellenized mystery religions, most coming before Christianity.
Meaning there is no possible way this is anything but fiction. So being prophecized in the OT is no more special than Luke suggesting he may have a family connection with the dark side in the first Star Wars and then it playing out in Return of the Jedi.
Interesting that you picked Yale? Is it a specific problem with Yale? Or is it that I mentioned the Yale Divinity lectures? So, they don't get degress from Yale? Dr Baden is a Harvard PhD grad.
But by all means, please demonstrate where Dr Baden has "no understanding". What you probably mean is he doesn't preach tired old apologetics. I am positive he knows all the apologetics as does all of the historical scholars and they find them complete crank. They all know apologists need to defend a position even when it’s false or indefensible; historians only want to know what’s true, and we see this played out time and time again. (for example, the statement above).
So here are some Yale Divinity lectures by Dr Baden, can you provide an example of why you would even make such a comment as he has "no understanding"?
1 Corinthians 14:38
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
There's lots of ways to be ignorant here. We all have what we believe is true. Religious beliefs depend on words on a page and a lot on interpretations of what those words mean. Joeir has studied this stuff way more than I ever want to. Should his opinion be ignored? This thread was started by a Baha'i. What about their beliefs and interpretations? Should they be ignored? For those that are happy and believe they have "The Truth" the answer is probably "yes". There is no need to listen to people that have other beliefs and interpretations when a person believes them to be wrong. So, in a way, that person is "ignorant" of what those other people believe and why they believe it.... and doesn't want to know and doesn't care to know.
In this case, I would have to say "yes"
For an example, his statement:
" The 16th century Christian theologian is not trained in proper Hebrew" and " He;s bias towards Christianity and he's an amateur."
No supportive documentation, no real substantive effort to qualify that statement. When his position are so full of statements and interpretations like unto these, then one has no choice but ignore his position.
His "appeal to authority" position is overused.
Now, as you said, if he is happy to believe what he believes (as I have said before) I support his right to believe it and, I may add, if it makes him happy... great.
it also might help if he/she stayed on one point and not flood a post with innumerable points.
Last edited: