Do We Need Faith?

[samtonga43]

Sometimes it's important to be specific, since reading minds is not a human ability.
Using the word "who" applys to anyone who counts as someone.
I don't know if you consider God to be someone, but you probably can see how persons who know that God is, and accepts that he has personality, sees him as the greatest someone, rather than being a mere something.

You are making this much more complicated that it needs to be.
"Who determines which religion is bad and which is good?" Do you know the answer? Which religions would you say are bad, and which good?

 

[nPeace]

You are making this much more complicated that it needs to be.

Oh?
I'm sorry. What did I do wrong?

"Who determines which religion is bad and which is good?" Do you know the answer?

I answered - the true God.

Which religions would you say are bad, and which good?

The one God approves is good.
The primary things that make religion good is

• 1) it's no part of the world. John 17:16; James 1:27 (Is politically neutral)
• 2) it produces good fruit, and bears much fruit. John 15:8 (Its works are in harmony with God's will, and very evident)
• 3) It promotes love and unity. John 13:34-35; 1 Corinthians 1:10 (Its members are united, and promotes brotherly love)
• 4) It obeys Jesus, and follows his teachings. John 8:31-32 (Its teachings are based on God's word)

One must identify the true religion - the one God approves, based on the identifying marks God outlines, since they must respond to God's warning to leave bad religion.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Revelation 18:4

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Wait. One question. Were we talking about science, or the scientific method?

Probably neither, at a guess.
The word 'science' is quite new (couple of hundred years). It's original word root is much older (Latin). And word meanings/definitions are obviously living things that change over time.

And scientific method would roughly correlate to the past 400 years in a fairly strict sense, or about 4000 years in the broadest sense (and only in specific locales and situations).

 

[joelr]

You know, joel, when I read something like this, I realize why I cannot take you, or your C/Ps, seriously.

Yawn. Typical apologist tricks. Go after the person giving information. Don't debunk the information in an honest exchange, that would require actual facts and truth, just go ad-hom.

Your mind seems to be full of little boxes. Philosophers in one, apologists in another, historians in a third, and so on and so on… But I have to tell you that real-life academia just doesn’t work like this. The word apologetics itself stems from the Greek word apologia, which means simply an answer given in reply.

Talk about a box? It doesn't matter what apologist meant in ancient Greece. The fact is it's become pseudo-science, lies, denial or revisionist history (from any source) as long as it backs up what they want to be true. You say this now yet just last post I EXPOSED all the lies. Every single savior demigod used in the apologists article was NOT ORIGINAL SOURCES and from information that had been altered to make Christianity look passable. The truth was in EVERY CASE the actual original source confirms they were indeed savior demigods, even resurrecting in 3 days.
He lied about Justin Martyr, in fact JM was literally saying Jesus is just like all the older Greek demigods, in many many ways. Of course his excuse is Satan went back in a Delorian to make history look like that to fool Christians.
This is crank.The vast majority of apologetics is crank. C.S. Lewis, Jesus is either a madman/crazy or son of god. Uh, oops Mr Lewis, could he be a MYTH???
Lee Strobel, the gospels must be true because they harmonize so well? Uh, right, except all actual Christian scholars agree that the Synoptic Problem demonstrates all used Mark to create their narrative. At least in part. Hmmm, could that be it? Mr Strobel seemed to forget to mention that? Crank.

But I have to tell you that real-life academia just doesn’t work like this.

Why actually it does. You just gave 2 apologist sources and both were completely full of mis-information. Here is the thing with apologists. Do you think Islam is literally true? Do you think Hinduism is literally true? No? Me neither. Historians also do not. They know the Arabs took the OT, Arab mysticism and a lot of Greek science that the Church had been storing in basements and made a new theology. Except Islamic apologists/theologians don't say that do they? No they say Gabrielle (from the OT, a divine being) showed up to give Gods TRUE word that Christians messed up big time. They say the Quran is the true word of God and Christians are liars.
2:81; Christians and Jews (who believe in only part of the Scripture), ... 5:45; Christians will be burned in the Fire. ... But they are all liars.

So do you see any issue with the Islamic apologists and theologians method? They will swear it's the word of God. The apologists will tell you the science wasn't known at the time so it must be God. Except the science exists in Greek texts from BCE. Historians happen to know that Islam used science texts that the Church stored for safekeeping.
So who of the 3 seem the most likely to find out the truth?


Hindu apologists/theologians don't say the The Bhagavad Gita is a story about Krishna giving Prince Arjuna deep wisdom before a battle but it's just fiction and the wisdom/philosophy was obviously created by Hindu scholars and thinkers over many generations. No they say Krishna actually showed up and graced the world with moral realism and so on.
Historians say it's human wisdom and trace the philosophy from earlier cultures.

Theologians assume their theology is true. Apologists job is to make excuses for any facts that suggest the story isn't actually true. This is a fact.

Historians are looking at where the theology comes from. What do real historians of the day say? What is the literary analysis? Multiple authors? Mythical literary styles? Are the characters mentioned found in history? Are older nearby religions similar? Is the sun going out that day recorded in ALL historical records around the world? Things the religion would call "heretical". Calling knowledge heretical is crank junk science.

You cannot rescue apologists and I'm sure you would find the Islamic versions to be a giant bunch of cognitive bias, confirmation bias and a clear attempt at starting out with a belief and bending facts to justify it and make it seem true.

Christian apologetics are not one tiny bit different.

Among Moreland’s credentials are:--
Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry
Academic Excellence Award, International School of Theology
Winner of the Outstanding Professor of the Year Award, Lakin School of Religion, Liberty University.
Member of the executive committee for the Society of Christian Philosophers.

And joel’s opinion, dear reader?
Moreland is a crank.

And there we have it.

Was he writing about nuclear chemistry? No.
Writing about professoring? No.
Was he using apologetics that are literally incorrect? Yes.
CRANK.

Which is redundant because I already shredded his crank. We'll keep going I guess?

APOLOGIST
"It is the purpose of this chapter to argue that it is reasonable to accept the substantial historicity of the New Testament."

Note PhD Carrier is not offering an opinion but commenting on his field:
"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."

Yet Zero historical biblical scholars think this is anything but mythology? Wow, sounds like crank?


Hmm, let's see what a different apologist thinks?

"Thus Muslims not only believe that the Qur'an is God's word in toto, they also are confident that no error, alteration, or variation has touched it since its inception. This, then, is one of our "proofs" that the Qur'an is a "miracle" from God."
"it is inconceivable for a human being living in the seventh century A.D. to have made statements in the Qur'an on a great variety of subjects that do not belong to his period and for them to be in keeping with what was to be known only centuries later. For me, there can be no human explanation to the Qur an.8"

It's almost like apologists are using mainly cognitive bias????

 

[joelr]

APOLOGIST

I will not discuss the archaeological confirmation of the New Testament or the extra-biblical evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

But I will. There is NO archaeological proof of a resurrecting demigod from any savior religion.

Extra-Biblical evidence? From historians of the day? I have a feeling modern historians who study these people would know about this. Better than a chemist apologist, for sure.


Dr Carrier on 2nd century historians and Jesus:

"

18. “Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”


No, he almost certainly did not (OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.Not the Impossible Faith, ch. 18).


19. “Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”


Actually, he probably didn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.10). And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.Not the Impossible Faith, ch. 18).


20. “Suetonius mentions Jesus”


No, he doesn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.11).


Bishop also deceptively quote-mines Van Voorst here, a dishonest apologetic tactic, for which Bishop should be ashamed. Bishop claims:


Robert Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament studies, states that there is “near-unanimous” agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus refers to Christ (Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. pp 31-32).


Here is what Van Voorst actually said:


Who is Chrestus? The near-unanimous identification of him with Christ has made the answer to this question possibly too settled.


He then goes on to refute the certainty of this equivalence. In fact, he had already done so on page 31 (“Chrestus not only led an agitation [under Claudius, which would be a decade after Jesus was supposedly dead], but was himself an agitator”). Van Voorst goes on on page 32 to point out that “nothing in this sentence or its context explicitly indicates that Suetonius is writing about Christ or Christianity” and that “the simplest understanding of this sentence is that Chrestus is an otherwise unknown agitator present in Rome.” Van Voorst then summarizes many other experts who agree on that point.


Van Voorst himself tries (and using rather illogical arguments at that) to rescue this reference as being to Christ (pp. 32-39), but even he has to admit that it can only be a reference to Christ if Suetonius mistook a riot over the idea of Christ for a riot started by Christ, and therefore “his glaring mistakes should caution us against placing too much weight on his evidence for Jesus or his significance for early Christianity.”


In short, Van Voorst, Bishop’s own authority, concludes that this can only be at best a mistaken reference to a belief in a Christ figure—who could have then been just a revelatory being like Moroni or Gabriel—and not a direct reference to an actual historical Christ. Bishop is deceiving his readers by not communicating that, but dishonestly instead giving the impression that Van Voorst (and ‘nearly everyone else’) agrees this is evidence for a historical Jesus. It is not.disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.Not the Impossible Faith, ch. 18).


23. “Lucian mentions Jesus”


Lucian wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Lucian’s source was his friend Celsus, whose only sources were the Gospels. Therefore, Lucian is not an independent source. This evidence is useless.

41 Reasons We're, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed! • Richard Carrier


this can keep going. No extra biblical evidence at all except for Christians. We already know about those.

 

[joelr]

APOLOGIST (and chemist)

"Historiography is a branch of study which focuses on the logical, conceptual, and epistemological aspects of what historians do. Critical historiography studies, among other things, the different tests which should be applied to a document to determine whether or not it is historically reliable.[4] When many of these tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents."

Oh boy, he's sourcing historians! This time I have literally never heard anything more incorrect. Where do I start.

Bart Ehrman has a career based in this with the NT.

It took him from evangelical fundamentalist Christian to atheist.


Richard Carrier and D. Lataster, both PhD doing a historicity study on Jesus. Both found the evidence favors even Jesus as a human preacher is less likely than him being a complete myth. Many other scholars are now in this camp. Carrier has a 700 pg scholarly monograph available. That means every page has sources.


What is found specifically in historiography studies? Myth.

Jesus scores as high as King Arthur on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale.

Lord Raglan, in 1936, developed a 22-point myth-ritualist Hero archetype to account for common patterns across Indo-European cultures for Hero traditions, following myth-ritualists like James Frazer and S. H. Hooke:[2]

1. Mother is a royal virgin
2. Father is a king
3. Father often a near relative to mother
4. Unusual conception
5. Hero reputed to be son of god
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7. Hero spirited away as a child
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country
9. No details of childhood
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13. Becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully
15. He prescribes laws
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17. Driven from throne and city
18. Meets with mysterious death
19. Often at the top of a hill
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him
21. His body is not buried
22. Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

Jesus is close to 22. The scale isn't based in the Gospels either. - : Oedipus (21 or 22 points), Theseus (20 points), Romulus (18 points), Heracles (17 points), Perseus (18 points), Jason (15 points), Bellerophon (16 points), Pelops (13 points), Dionysos (19 points), Apollo (11 points), Zeus (15 points), Joseph (12 points), Moses (20 points), Elijah (9 points),


Mark is also full of non-explanations, no sources, improbable events, all markers of myth.

Re-using narratives:


"Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):


Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”


Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”


Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”


Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”


Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.


Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT,"......


It's also full of mythic literary devices, ring structure, Markan sandwiches, Chiasmuss and others. One example:

"Another way Mark develops this theme is through an elegant ring composition, another common literary device popular at the time (used in myth as well as in history). In the central part of Mark’s narrative (revolving around Jesus’ travel by sea), Mark carefully crafted nested cycles of themes specifically to convey an underlying message about faith and one’s ability (or lack thereof) to understand the gospel. Here is what the ring structure looks like:


Cycle 1:


Phase 1 (4.1-34) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (preaching from a boat)


Phase 2 (4.35-41) — Eventful crossing of the sea


Phase 3 (5.1-20) — Landing with healings/exorcisms


Interval 1: Step 1 (5.21-43) — First stop (after an uneventful boating)


Step 2 (6.1-6) — Second stop


Step 3 (6.6-29) — Going around


Cycle 2:


Phase 1 (6.30-44) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (with an uneventful boating)


Phase 2 (6.45-52) — Eventful crossing of the sea


Phase 3 (6.53-55) — Landing with healings/exorcisms


Interval 2: Step 1 (6.56-7.23) — Going around


Step 2 (7.24-30) — First stop


Step 3 (7.31-37) — Second stop


Cycle 3:


Phase 1 (8.1-12) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (with an uneventful boating)


Phase 2 (8.13-21) — Eventful crossing of the sea


Phase 3 (8.22-26) — Landing with healings/exorcisms


It’s really quite brilliantly crafted when you look at it: three triadically composed intervals, each of which contains one triadically composite minimal unit. Furthermore, every “Phase 1” in all cycles, takes place during the day and describes Jesus’ actions with crowds on one side of the sea. Every “Phase 2” occurs on the evening of that same day (though not stated explicitly in Cycle 3’s “Phase 2”, it is implied by what would have been a long sea crossing), and also describes actions between Jesus and the twelve disciples in the boat while in transit across the sea. Each “Phase 3” represents Jesus’ healing (and/or exorcising) of people who either come to him or that are brought to him following his arrival on the other side of the sea. Then there are other healings or exorcisms that are interspersed among the intervals that follow each “Phase 3”. Each cycle of this triad occupies one day, so the whole ring structure represents three days, ending with a resolution on the third day — all of which concludes by transitioning into a debate regarding who Jesus really is and what the gospel really is (Mark 8.27-9.1, which is the first time we hear Jesus speak about any of this himself).


Prior to this triad, Jesus had also journeyed to the sea and taught by the sea three times without embarking on a boat (Mark 1.16, 2.13, and 3.7), and then he embarks on a boat (Mark 4.1, and 3.9), and makes six journeys by boat, three eventful ones (each being a part of a three-phase cycle repeated three times) and three uneventful ones that constitute a looser pattern (Mark 5.21, 6.32, and 8.10). In between the three eventful sea journey cycles, we find two intervals where Jesus travels inland away from the sea of Galilee and back again, and these two journeys also share another triadic pattern: three land journeys in chiastic arrangement. The first one, from the shore to the house of Jairus (Mark 5.22), then another from the house of Jairus to the hometown of Jesus (Mark 6.1), and finally from the hometown of Jesus to circulating around the towns (Mark 6.6), thus completing “Interval 1”. Then the sequence is reversed, first circulating around the towns (Mark 6.56), followed by stopping at Tyre (Mark 7.24), and finally back to the shore (Mark 7.31), thus completing “Interval 2”. So the arrangement appears to be ABC : CBA......"


It's basically impossible that this isn't fiction. But this just scratches the surface, every section is a re-used narrative or myth or some literary device/creation taken from the OT, Paul and some other fiction.

Add to that the theology is a 100% Jewish version of Hellenistic/Persian theology.

This is all from the work of the historicity field. In other words the apologist is either lying or so far out of his depth that this is pure crank. That was just his first few statements.

The ridiculously mythic nature of Mark was explained by Carrier from peer-reviewed papers done by experts and used in this blog post:
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

This is what historical studies reveal. Not what the chemist claims. You could not have been more wrong.

 

[joelr]

PLEASE provide links.

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

APOLOGIST _ In contrast to this, the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation.[6] Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382–405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150–250; most of the copies are from the 400s). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325).

"Bishop bases this on his assertion that “there are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion.” That assertion is false. Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.
There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check."

41 Reasons We're, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed! • Richard Carrier


It's almost like apologists have a more important interest than what is actually true?

 

[joelr]

Prima facie it would seem that a strong case could be made for the fact that much of the New Testament, including the Gospels and the sources behind them, was written by eyewitnesses.

Christian scholarship (sorry chemistry apologist)

The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.

The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.



The gospels appear to be anonymous; the modern titles ("Gospel according to Matthew", etc.) do not appear to have been part of the earliest forms of the work. They were eventually ascribed to Matthew the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, and John the Apo
Gospel - Wikipedia



The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.

he gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. The fact that they share so much material verbatim and yet also exhibit important differences has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence, a phenomenon termed the Synoptic Problem. It is widely accepted that this was the first gospel (Marcan Priority) and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, who agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia



The traditional attribution to the apostle Matthew, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis (attestation dated c. 125 AD),[18] is rejected by modern scholars,[13][14] and the majority view today is that the author was an anonymous male Jew

Scholars since the 19th century have regarded Mark as the first of the gospels (called the theory of Markan priority).[Notes 3] Markan priority led to the belief that Mark must be the most reliable of the gospels, but today there is a large consensus that the author of Mark was not intending to write history

Mark is a counter-narrative to the myth of Imperial rule crafted by Vespasian.[71] In 1901 William Wrede demonstrated that Mark was not a simple historical account of the life of Jesus but a work of theology compiled by an author who was a creative artist.[72] There has been little interest in his sources until recently, but candidates include the Elijah-Elisha narrative in the Book of Kings and the Pauline letters, notably 1 Corinthians, and even Homer.[73]

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia



"
4. “The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John (OHJ, ch. 10.7)."
41 Reasons We're, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed! • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

APOLOGIST There is also good evidence that the Gospels are biographical. As G.N. Stanton has shown, the major examples of preaching in early Christianity come from Acts, and the sermons of Acts have, as an integral part, biographical details of Jesus' life.

What actual historians think about Luke/Acts "history", literally every single thing this chemistry scholar is saying is not supported by scholarship. This is pure crank.


"
Luke is not a historian. Again, Carrier

"So we know Luke is making a lot of things up in order to deliberately sell a fake history, for purposes of winning an argument against doubters (both within and without Christianity, as his opponents included, for example, Christians with very different ideas about the nature of the resurrection).

This already warns us not to trust anything he has added to the story found in Mark and Matthew: we should assume it is, like those, a convenient fabrication invented for some purpose, unless we can find sufficient evidence to believe otherwise. .....

despite his pretense at being a historian, preface and all, Luke's methods are demonstrably nonhistorical: he is not doing research, weighing facts, checking them against independent sources, and writing down what he thinks most likely happened.He is simply producing an expanded and redacted literary hybird of a couple of previous religious novels (Matthew and Mark), each itself even more obviously constructed according to literary conventions rather than historiographical.

Unlike other historians of even his own era, Luke never names his sources or explains why we are to trust them (or why he did), or how he chose what to include or exclude. In fact Luke does not even declare any critical method at all, but rather insists he slavishly followed what was handed to him - yet another claim we know to be a lie (since we have two of his sources and can confirm he freely altered then to suit his own agenda)."


Dr Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" pg.469

examples from his book

1Kings 17.10 and 17.17-24. and Luke 7.6 and 7.11-17

It happened after this / It happened afterwards

At the gate of Sarepta, Elijah meets a widow/ At the gate of Nain, Jesus meets a widow

Another widows son was dead / This widoes son was dead

That widow expresses a sense of her unworthiness on account of sin / A centurion expresses his unworthiness on account of sin

Elijah compassionately bears her son up the stairs and asks the Lord why he was allowed to die. / The Lord feels compassion for her and touches her sons bier

Elijah prays to the Lord for her sons life. / The Lord commands the boy to rise

the boy comes to life and cries out. /and he who was dead sat up to speak

and he gave him to his mother / and he gave him to his mother

the widow recognizes Elijah is a man of God and the word he speaks is the truth. / the people recognize Jesus as a great prophet of God and the word of this truth spreads everywhere




Essay on Acts as historical fiction using Brodie, McDonals and Pervoe as references:

Although it is implied in the preface of the book of Acts that it is supposed to be some kind of historical account, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, Acts has been thoroughly discredited as nothing more than a work of apologetic historical fiction, and the scholarship of Richard Pervo conclusively demonstrates this to be the case. Regarding any historical sources that Luke may have used for Acts, the only one that has been confirmed with any probability was that of Josephus (a person who never wrote about Jesus Christ nor Christianity, yet was likely used by Luke for background material), and although there may have been more historical sources than Josephus, we simply don’t have any evidence preserved from those other possible historians to make a case one way or the other. All of the other sources that we can discern within Acts are literary sources, not historical ones. Included in these literary sources is what may possibly have been a (now-lost) hagiographical fabrication, and basically a rewrite of the Elijah-Elisha narrative in some of the Old Testament (OT) texts of Kings, although placing Paul and Jesus in the main roles instead, which obviously would have been a literary source of historical fiction (not any kind of historical account).

The scholar Thomas Brodie has argued that this evident reworking of the Kings narrative starts in Luke’s Gospel and continues on until Acts chapter 15, thus indicating that Luke either integrated this literary creation into his story or he used an underlying source text, such as some previous Gospel that not only covered the acts of Jesus but also the acts of the apostles. So it appears that Luke either used this source text or his own literary idea and then inserted more stories into it, effectively expanding the whole story into two books, while also utilizing some material from Mark and Matthew during the process (and potentially other now-lost Gospels) and some material from the epistles of Paul. In any case, the unnamed source text mentioned thus far is a hypothetical one that can only be inferred to have existed from the evidence of what’s written in Acts. Luckily, the remaining literary sources that scholars can discern Luke used are indeed sources we actually have and thus can directly compare to and analyze.

As an example, the scholar Dennis MacDonald has shown that Luke also reworked fictional tales written by Homer, replacing the characters and some of the outcomes as needed to suit his literary purposes. MacDonald informs us in his The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul (New Testament Studies, 45, pp. 88-107) that:..............
The Book of Acts as Historical Fiction

 

[samtonga43]

Oh?
I'm sorry. What did I do wrong?
I answered - the true God.
The one God approves is good.
The primary things that make religion good is

• 1) it's no part of the world. John 17:16; James 1:27 (Is politically neutral)
• 2) it produces good fruit, and bears much fruit. John 15:8 (Its works are in harmony with God's will, and very evident)
• 3) It promotes love and unity. John 13:34-35; 1 Corinthians 1:10 (Its members are united, and promotes brotherly love)
• 4) It obeys Jesus, and follows his teachings. John 8:31-32 (Its teachings are based on God's word)

One must identify the true religion - the one God approves, based on the identifying marks God outlines, since they must respond to God's warning to leave bad religion.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Revelation 18:4

So the person who reads and believes these verses from the Bible are those who
can decide which religion is good and which bad. Have I understood you correctly?

 

[samtonga43]

APOLOGIST There is also good evidence that the Gospels are biographical. As G.N. Stanton has shown, the major examples of preaching in early Christianity come from Acts, and the sermons of Acts have, as an integral part, biographical details of Jesus' life.

Please show me where I said this, joel.

 

[samtonga43]

What actual historians think about Luke/Acts "history", literally every single thing this chemistry scholar is saying is not supported by scholarship. This is pure crank.


"
Luke is not a historian. Again, Carrier

"So we know Luke is making a lot of things up in order to deliberately sell a fake history, for purposes of winning an argument against doubters (both within and without Christianity, as his opponents included, for example, Christians with very different ideas about the nature of the resurrection).

This already warns us not to trust anything he has added to the story found in Mark and Matthew: we should assume it is, like those, a convenient fabrication invented for some purpose, unless we can find sufficient evidence to believe otherwise. .....

despite his pretense at being a historian, preface and all, Luke's methods are demonstrably nonhistorical: he is not doing research, weighing facts, checking them against independent sources, and writing down what he thinks most likely happened.He is simply producing an expanded and redacted literary hybird of a couple of previous religious novels (Matthew and Mark), each itself even more obviously constructed according to literary conventions rather than historiographical.
Dr Carrier "On the Historicity of Jesus" pg.469

Richard Carrier: A Fuller Reply to His Criticisms, Beliefs, and Claims about Jesus | The Bart Ehrman Blog
I like very much the idea of “intellectual charity,” and I think that it is a good idea to contact an author about problems that might be detected in her or his writing. I wish Richard Carrier had followed his own advice and contacted me, in fact, rather than publish such a negative and uncharitable review. But I do hope, at least, that fair-minded readers will be open to the arguments that I make and the evidence that I adduce in Did Jesus Exist, and realize that they are the views, in popular form, of serious scholarship. They are not only serious scholarly views, they are the views held by virtually every serious scholar in the field of early Christian studies.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2017/12/happens-review-richard-carrier.html
'What Happens When You Review Richard Carrier'

41 Reasons We’re, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed!
Being a myther is easy. No need to study any scholarship on the historical Jesus if he never existed. Lastly you get to know you are far more clever than the ” experts” who cling to outdated notions. Basically it is a nice ego trip.

None of these mentalities help with making rational decisions I fear.
***
You, joel, are beginning to sound as snide and arrogant as your hero. Your jibes at those who disagree with your hero simply demonstrate the inherent insecurity in both of you.

 

[joelr]

Please show me where I said this, joel.

All of the last several posts starting with "APOLOGIST" are using the writings you linked to, I then debunked some of it and called him crank, you tried to claim he wasn't crank by listing things he's done (like chemistry), so I am taking each sentence he says (again) and demonstrating that he is incorrect literally everywhere. He is completely unfamiliar with decades of historical information and using tired old apologetics long since shown to be incorrect.

The Historicity of the New Testament
"J. P. Moreland is an American philosopher, theologian, and apologist."

As I explained theologists are looking to find out what the "words from God" mean. Are the words just inventions by authors re-using older theology is not a question asked. The Nicene Creed states THEY ALREADY 100% BELIEVE? So does the Islamic creed. So they can NEVER get past this to investigate actual truth. It is a bubble of cognitive bias.
As such all theologians are flawed. Looking at Islamic, Hindu, Sikh and other we see they all consider their own religion to be the absolute and only truth directly from God and they have the proof. Except in all those cases you would agree, they are missing the big picture by leaning hard into cognitive bias.

So now you have to make a case as to why Christian theologians/apologists are not like all the others and this time are completely correct. Except it's already out. The information they give is consistently wrong, not original sources, not even close to what the historicity field or any similar field of study is saying. Not backed by facts and even lies and denial.

That is why this is crank.

 

[joelr]

Richard Carrier: A Fuller Reply to His Criticisms, Beliefs, and Claims about Jesus | The Bart Ehrman Blog
I like very much the idea of “intellectual charity,” and I think that it is a good idea to contact an author about problems that might be detected in her or his writing. I wish Richard Carrier had followed his own advice and contacted me, in fact, rather than publish such a negative and uncharitable review. But I do hope, at least, that fair-minded readers will be open to the arguments that I make and the evidence that I adduce in Did Jesus Exist, and realize that they are the views, in popular form, of serious scholarship. They are not only serious scholarly views, they are the views held by virtually every serious scholar in the field of early Christian studies.

First of all you are sourcing a historian (Ehrman) who believes the gospel narratives are 100% mythical re-tellings of the life of a Jewish Rabbi.
I am very familiar with Ehrman's work. So either way both scholars are fully behind the idea that Christianity is a religion based on a mythic story.

But Carrier has responded to ALL of Ehrman's posts and invited him to an in person debate, Ehrman makes the format rules and Bart has declined over and over. Ehrman will not debate with Carrier on mythicism o ranything else.

"
This is a summary of the current state of the debate after the mini blog war between myself and Bart Ehrman over his latest book, Did Jesus Exist?, which attempted to argue against various scholars (both legitimate and crank) who have concluded, or at least suspect, that Jesus never really existed, but was an invention in myth, like Moses or King Arthur or Ned Ludd. Some of this exchange involved other people, or were tangential to Ehrman’s book. But I will give a state-of-play for everything.
"Ehrman on Historicity Recap • Richard Carrier

However one can see for themselves who is telling the most likely truth if interested.

Bart Ehrman on How Jesus Became God
errors in Ehrman's new book
Bart Ehrman on How Jesus Became God • Richard Carrier

Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic
issues with Ehrman's book
Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic • Richard Carrier

Ehrman’s Dubious Replies (Round One) yes, Bart replied and Carrier listened and responded
Ehrman's Dubious Replies (Round One) • Richard Carrier

What Happens When You Review Richard Carrier
'What Happens When You Review Richard Carrier'

See unlike other people, I am aware of all this. Because I value truth I listen to reviews and then listen to counter-arguments and see who is making more sense and who has evidence and so on. If one can debunk his work I want to learn the arguments and evidence. So first your weird short pointless fundamentalist article seems only designed to ad-hom Carrier which is their agenda starts with:

" the article by Daniel Gullotta which is now available in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. It provoked the kind of response that one would expect from Richard Carrier, who depicted Gullotta as incompetent, but not as bad as me."

Well, anyone is free to read that response and decide if it was fair and justified or is it bias, denial, lies or other apologist propaganda?

"
On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review
BY RICHARD CARRIER ON DECEMBER 16, 201758 COMMENTS



Two academic reviews of On the Historicity of Jesus now exist: one positive by Raphael Lataster published in the Journal of Religious History (38.4, 2014, pp. 614-16); and one negative by Daniel Gullotta published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (15.2-3, 2017, pp. 310-46). I’ve already discussed the Lataster review. Here is my coverage of the Gullotta review. I will compose a brief summary later for submission to the same journal. (Christina Petterson’s weird review in Relegere doesn’t even address the actual content of the book so I’m not counting it here.)"

On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review • Richard Carrier


Then this:
"As it happens, Petterson is an atheist. This isn’t just a mistake on Carrier’s part, however. It shows his strong ideological bias, and his inability to evaluate those who disagree with him either clearly or honestly. As Galbraith writes:"

Well you can read the review, it doesn't mention what the evidence in the book is, it offers opinion without evidence and is just bizarre?

A Bizarre Review in Relegere
BY RICHARD CARRIER ON FEBRUARY 5, 201711 COMMENTS

A fawningly-Christian non-historian (though reportedly she’s an atheist) wrote one of the weirdest book reviews I’ve ever seen. Not just of my book On the Historicity of Jesus. But of any book, in any academic journal, anywhere. It’s six or so pages of factless whinging that doesn’t tell the reader even what the book’s argument is, and is more a bunch of flabergasted opinions backed by no relevant statements justifying them. Which is weird coming from an actual postdoc. But alas, I guess I have to reply with something substantive. It will be a challenge. But here goes it."

A Bizarre Review in Relegere • Richard Carrier


Then the "article" you posted ends with a bold-faced lie.

"Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics–but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to earth."

Not only has scholar M Lataster also written a peer-reviewed monograph favoring mythicism, many scholars have switched to supporting the theory. Because evidence. Feelings are not evidence.

"Moreover, contrary to what this tactic pretends—for example, Bart Ehrman still to this day lies to the public by claiming “no” scholars in the field take this seriously—doubting historicity is becoming mainstream: as of this writing, there are twenty experts (people with relevant PhDs, most even sitting or emeritus professors in a Biblical studies field) that have since gone on the public record agreeing that Jesus might not have existed—admitting either its plausibility, or their agnosticism, or outright doubt. As of this point in 2022 these include:

1. Thomas Brodie (Op cit.)
2. Richard Carrier (Op cit.)
3. Raphael Lataster (Op cit.)
4. Justin Meggitt (Op cit.)
5. Philip Davies (Op cit.; and personal testimony to Carrier and Lataster)
6. Robert Price (e.g. The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems)
7. Thomas Thompson (e.g. The Messiah Myth)
8. Hector Avalos (Ames Tribune 2 March 2013)
9. Zeba Crook (Facebook 30 December 2017)
10. Arthur Droge (CAESAR 2009)
11. Tom Dykstra (Journal of the OCABS 2015)
12. David Madison (public remarks to Carrier at GCRR 2021)
13. Darren Slade (Ibid.)
14. Steve Mason (remarks to Harmonic Atheist at min. 28:30)
15. Richard Miller (in Varieties of Jesus Mythicism)
16. Kurt Noll (in Is This Not the Carpenter?)
17. Emanuel Pfoh (Ibid.)
18. Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Twitter October 2016)
19. James Crossley (in Lataster 2019)
20. Carl Ruck (Mythvision interview May 2022)

That is roughly the same list I presented at Brea, but to keep up with changing developments see my ongoing List of Historians Wo Take Mythicism Seriously. This has grown from a mere handful ten years ago. So it cannot be claimed that “no” scholar takes this seriously—or even that only “fringe” scholars take it seriously. And these are only the experts who have gone on record. Of course, the negative opinions of scholars who have not read either Carrier 2014 or Lataster 2019 can carry no weight, because they don’t know what the evidence and arguments are and thus can have no informed opinion of them. But among scholars who have read them, and still even some who haven’t, quite a few are abandoning blind adherence to the dogma of historicity. Whereas those who claim to have read either book and remain opposed to this concession are almost all Christian apologists—the least reliable experts to be polling the opinion of on this."
What I Said at the Brea Conference • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

41 Reasons We’re, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed!

Being a myther is easy. No need to study any scholarship on the historical Jesus if he never existed. Lastly you get to know you are far more clever than the ” experts” who cling to outdated notions. Basically it is a nice ego trip.

And this is a new level of completely misinformed and flat out wrong. The 700pg monograph (On the Historicity of Jesus) covers all of the mainstream Jesus studies and closely examines ALL of the reasons scholars assumed Jesus was a real human. You actually think one gets a PhD in history, applies it to a Jesus historicity study and then IGNORES all of the scholarship on Jesus and just says "he's a myth, the end"????????????????

Much of the work I have presented comes from his study so you cannot be that mis-informed? The amount of (whatever this is denial? irreverence for scholars who don't share your limited views?) is insane?


Carrier and Lataster cover everything from early pre-Christian Apocrypha, early historians like Philo to nearby religions, Epistles, Gospels, Acts, all Gods from Inana to Christ, Jewish politics, historians 1st/2nd century, ALL extra-biblical evidence and more. Some of the literary analysis of Mark has been touched upon as well as Acts taken from the Acts specialists.

None of these mentalities help with making rational decisions I fear.

***

You, joel, are beginning to sound as snide and arrogant as your hero. Your jibes at those who disagree with your hero simply demonstrate the inherent insecurity in both of you.

The mentalities have nothing to do with anything. You say this while ignoring 5 or 6 posts correcting the apologist with sourced historical information.


Or, maybe I'm sounding snide because you posted an apologist telling lies and I demonstrated several. Instead of continuing the discussion as one does when they have any sort of argument you ignored it as if it didn't exist and claimed the author wasn't crank because he's also a chemistry professor???? What???


And still, you google some random reviews online which say nothing (you didn't read them), actually you found a short piece saying there are reviews on Carrier but never read them and assumed the articles said anything of value. Which they don't as anyone is free to see because I linked to the reviews and the responses by Carrier.

Since the reviews were clearly a wash and the reviewer didn't read the book your article tried to attack Carrier because he didn't know she was an atheist.


That's their best ad-hom this time around? Maybe you could have done a bit more research this time. Especially because she generally agrees with Carrier? He's just a bit too committed to actual truth, whatever that means?
So the apologist article and their ad-hom is a big fail because the reviewed DOESN'T DISAGREE.

"

Petterson says, “It is not that I disagree with some or all of his representations of the material” (Oh? You don’t disagree with any of it? So what’s wrong with the book, then? Did you not notice you forgot to ever say anything is incorrect in the book?), “it is more the lack of insight into New Testament scholarship” (Oh? What insights does it lack? What did I overlook or get wrong? Could you mention maybe at least, like, just one thing I overlooked, and why it’s relevant?), “the mathematics which replace careful argumentation” (Oh? Mathematics isn’t careful argumentation? So what is this argumentation you speak of that’s more careful but less mathematical? Do you not know all your own arguments were mathematical??), “and above all,” what she says she dislikes the most, is “the evangelical commitment to truth that I find so tremendously off-putting.”


Wait. What??"


"A Bizarre Review in Relegere • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

the inherent insecurity in both of you.

So looks like "insecurity" means - one who actually cares if a claim is true or not and discusses it and provides evidence. Move the goalpost and ad-hom all you want.

You latest source was interesting -

Atheism, Bart Ehrman
Atheism, on the other hand, (in my way of thinking) is not about knowledge but about belief. Do I *believe* that there is a God? No, I don’t. I especially do not believe in the biblical God, or in the traditional God of Jews and Christians (and Muslims and so on). I simply do not believe that there is a God who created this world (it is the result of forces beyond my comprehension, but it goes back to the Big Bang, and we are here because of evolution, and I exist only because of some pretty amazingly remote chances/circumstances…); I don’t think there is a divine being who is sovereign over this world who interacts with it and the people in it, who answers prayer, who brings good out of evil. I don’t believe it. So I’m an atheist.

On Being an Agnostic Atheist | The Bart Ehrman Blog

which means the Gospels, even though they use a (possibly) real man, ARE MYTHOLOGY

 

[samtonga43]

All of the last several posts starting with "APOLOGIST" are using the writings you linked to, I then debunked some of it and called him crank, you tried to claim he wasn't crank by listing things he's done (like chemistry), so I am taking each sentence he says (again) and demonstrating that he is incorrect literally everywhere. He is completely unfamiliar with decades of historical information and using tired old apologetics long since shown to be incorrect.

You are using verbosity to give an illusion of substance.

"J. P. Moreland is an American philosopher, theologian, and apologist."

Can I ask you, joel, in your own words, to tell me what you think the function of an apologist is? Oh, and maybe you could also explain the difference between an apologist and a theologian? (If you think there is a difference, of course).

As such all theologians are flawed. Looking at Islamic, Hindu, Sikh and other we see they all consider their own religion to be the absolute and only truth directly from God and they have the proof. Except in all those cases you would agree, they are missing the big picture by leaning hard into cognitive bias.

Wrong. For many scholars, theology is an academic discipline with no affiliation to a particular church. This is certainly the case at the University of Cambridge, where I have some experience.

The information they give is consistently wrong, not original sources, not even close to what the historicity field or any similar field of study is saying. Not backed by facts and even lies and denial.

LOL! You always sound so dogmatic, even when you're wrong! Your brush is too broad, joel.
But I do hope that you will be able to provide examples of this 'consistently wrong information'.

 

[joelr]

You are using verbosity to give an illusion of substance.

No I'm using facts and sourcing scholars in the field. Every single thing I said is backed by historical Biblical scholarship.

Can I ask you, joel, in your own words, to tell me what you think the function of an apologist is? Oh, and maybe you could also explain the difference between an apologist and a theologian? (If you think there is a difference, of course).

Now you are just stalling and wasting time. You have to show substance at SOME point. I just debunked a fair amount of his apologetics. He lied, changed history, used denial, and whatever else (it's not fresh it was last week). You can go back, read every single sentence I posted and debunked. I'll source any point I raised if I didn't already. I have shown what they do. I could continue through his entire post but there is more than enough to demonstrate he is creating a false narrative.

Wrong. For many scholars, theology is an academic discipline with no affiliation to a particular church. This is certainly the case at the University of Cambridge, where I have some experience.

Again you say things without a source, proof, citation? There may be people who study multiple theologies but they are STILL ALL WRONG? They start with the assumption that the scripture IS TRUE.
So does that make any sense to study Islamic and Christian theology? Now one may do it just to learn, I study Islam and Christian theology knowing full well it's mythology.
It still ISN"T REAL? And studying more than one doesn't change that fact one bit??

Little common sense here? From your point of view if one is studying Christian and Islamic theology, the Christian theology is true but the other IS STILL WRONG AND NOT REAL?

So why would this matter?

And the Christian theology is STILL being studied starting from the assumption that it's the true word of God. As is the Islamic theology. Which demonstrates theology can be completely wrong. You point here means nothing.

LOL! You always sound so dogmatic, even when you're wrong! Your brush is too broad, joel.
But I do hope that you will be able to provide examples of this 'consistently wrong information'.

Wrong? I gave 3-4 posts breaking down statements from chemist apologist using sources.
So, not wrong, not broad, have provided several long examples.
While you continue to only make claims, now ingnore my responses, several, act like they don't exist (troll). SO clearly you cannot handle an actual discussion.

Post 454.

James Rochford is He is an elder at Dwell Community Church, where he teaches classes in theology, apologetics, and weekly Bible studies. An apologist????????????
-Claims similarities to other pagan Gods are not that much like Jesus.

I post a comparison by Dr Carrier which shows Jesus is exactly like all the others who came before him.


then he says
"The pagan worldview despised the concept of resurrection""

I post the Persian myth (from Mary Boyce) about resurrection for all good members of the religion at the end of the world after the final battle. The myth that Christians used for Revelation. Taken during the 2nd Temple Period occupation.
also -
Wow that sounds familiar? It's also the first known use of - Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime.
Arising initially in Persian Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.[1][4][5][6][7]
Apocalypticism - Wikipedia

yes exactly, it was borrowed by Christians and put in the NT. The Church would definitely call the Zoroastrians "pagan". So, Revelation is 100% pagan and your apologist is 100% WRONG. See how apologetics just lies like crazy? "The pagan worldview despised the concept of resurrection"
Uh, no sorry the Christians learned it from the

Then expose his lie about horus and mithras ever being claimed as dying/rising gods in an academic paper.

post 455 he makes an argument using the gospels being so similar they must be true. Debunked with several links to scholarship on the Synoptic Problem, the Gospels as myth taken from Dr Carrier and other scholars.

post 458/459

contrasts what the apologist says about dying/rising demigods with what an actual historian of the period says about those demigods.
He lied or used terrible sources written by an amateur.

this goes on and on.

I could take any sentence from the links you provided and continue to show mistakes literally every sentence.
A historical theology from a chemist. Hilarious.

Why you have ignored all these posts and more, have provided no answer, counter example and now pretend like your chemist apologist has even said one correct thing seems to show you are just trolling. So interestingly this helps answer your question about apologetics even more!
Because now it's you doing the denial, revising recent history "wow I can't wait to see you provide examples..."...ha. There you go, that's one of the many things they do. Thankyou.

 

[samtonga43]

Now you are just stalling and wasting time.

Here is what I said: "Can I ask you, joel, in your own words, to tell me what you think the function of an apologist is? Oh, and maybe you could also explain the difference between an apologist and a theologian? (If you think there is a difference, of course)".
I asked this question because you do not appear to be clear in your own mind about this subject. This is not wasting time. If you are not sure about the basic terms (apologetics, historicity, theology) underlying your ‘argument’, then I cannot take you seriously. So please try to answer my question.