Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Polymath257]

At the time when the New Testament was compiled there was already a long standing tradition about what was authentic and what wasn't.

many were accepted, but there was still a LOT of debate about some. For example, the Arian Christians used different texts which also had an equally long history and pedigree. The Nestorian Christians rejected the council of Nicea, used yet a different selection of books, and were an integral part of the preservation of Greek and Roman knowledge.

And, of course, this doesn't even address the Gnostics, who again had a different collection of texts, had very different beliefs about the humanity of Jesus, and whose texts were just as old and supported as those for the Orthodox Christians.

Each group of Christians considered the other groups to be heretical. They had their own councils, their own texts, their own bishops, etc.

it wasn't until the emperor Constantine put his support with those from the council of Nicea that the Orthodox became the dominant sect. But even after that, the Arians continued in many areas, even being persecuted by the Orthodox. For a while the area of modern Spain was Arian Christian.

 

[PruePhillip]

many were accepted, but there was still a LOT of debate about some. For example, the Arian Christians used different texts which also had an equally long history and pedigree. The Nestorian Christians rejected the council of Nicea, used yet a different selection of books, and were an integral part of the preservation of Greek and Roman knowledge.

And, of course, this doesn't even address the Gnostics, who again had a different collection of texts, had very different beliefs about the humanity of Jesus, and whose texts were just as old and supported as those for the Orthodox Christians.

Each group of Christians considered the other groups to be heretical. They had their own councils, their own texts, their own bishops, etc.

it wasn't until the emperor Constantine put his support with those from the council of Nicea that the Orthodox became the dominant sect. But even after that, the Arians continued in many areas, even being persecuted by the Orthodox. For a while the area of modern Spain was Arian Christian.

Sure, but this overplays the general concensus on the books we have today. We might argue about the Infant Narrative of Jesus
but we all agree on Matthew's Gospel, for instance. There's still the Apocrypha.

 

[PruePhillip]

I was not talking about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. That is yet a different book. The one I am talking about falls more under 'wisdom literature' than anything else and is clearly based on the same ideas as Matthew and Mark.

And, since you brought it up, there is more than one Infancy Gospel. There are also Infancy gospels of James, and one attributed to Matthew.

There are also numerous other gospels, like those attributed to Bartholemew and Nicodemus, a secret gospel of Mark, a gospel of the Hebrews, and one of the Ebionites.

There are also multiple books of Acts, like those of John, of Peter, and of Andrew.

And of course, various Apocalypses in addition to the one of John in the Bible.

The point is that the Bible was selected from a LOT of available books, often with quite good history (the gospel of Thomas is one of the earliest gospels we have--certainly before that of John). And the contents were chosen for *political* reasons hundreds of years after the actual events. Most of the early church father used a different selection of sacred writings than what we now have (Origen, for example, but also Eusebius), clearly had other books they considered to be valid).

You have the Gospel according to Matthew, and then there's the Gospel sayings of Thomas
Reads like some Islamic text. Completely out of character to Jesus. Reads like someone smoking pot...

VERY FIRST VERSE I READ:
(1) “The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.
(2) And when he finds, he will be dismayed.
(3) And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished.
(4) And he will be king over the All.”

I can see why the early church gave THAT collection the flip.

FOURTH OF FOUR STUPID VERSES
(4) Jesus says:
(1) “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live.

No, I doubt Jesus said anything of the kind.

 

[PruePhillip]

There was not. Elaine Pagels has a book - The Lost Gospels. She goes over the letters of Ignatius as well as the found Gospels and other information from the 2nd century. Ignatius wanted only bloodline to be able to read, interpret and teach scripture. He wanted power and a hiearchary. There were as many Gnostic sects and they all considered each other heretics. There was no tradition about what was authentic. It was at least 50% Gnostic so what was actually authentic (probably none of it) will never be known.

Yes there was an understanding of core Christian beliefs. Just reading Mathew, Mark and Luke gave you a good
sense of who Jesus was and how he spoke. So when you encounter the Infancy narrative and Thomas' Gospel
with this '(4) Jesus says: “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place
of life, and he will live." it's clear you are reading a wise man's text versus some dope head.

 

[joelr]

Yes there was an understanding of core Christian beliefs. Just reading Mathew, Mark and Luke gave you a good
.

That's because they all copied Mark and added whatever changes they saw fit?
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

"Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. "

Too many air-tight arguments that Mark is the source. Mark was an excellent story writer. Those core beliefs were Jewish Hillelite beliefs.
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

He is popularly known as the author of two sayings: (1) "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And being only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"[4] and (2) the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow." That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; now go and learn."[5] This rule is also known to be considered as Leviticus 19:18: וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ "Love your fellow as you love yourself."

Born c. 110 BCE
Babylon, Parthian Empire
Died 10 CE

 

[Polymath257]

You have the Gospel according to Matthew, and then there's the Gospel sayings of Thomas
Reads like some Islamic text. Completely out of character to Jesus. Reads like someone smoking pot...

VERY FIRST VERSE I READ:
(1) “The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.
(2) And when he finds, he will be dismayed.
(3) And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished.
(4) And he will be king over the All.”

I can see why the early church gave THAT collection the flip.

FOURTH OF FOUR STUPID VERSES
(4) Jesus says:
(1) “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live.

No, I doubt Jesus said anything of the kind.

Completely out of the character as desired by the Orthodox sect. But much more in character with those following the gnostic tradition.

The verses are not more stupid than those in the accepted gospels, but they do represent a different tradition. We've also had a good 1700 years of exegesis on the ones in the Orthodox selection.

 

[Polymath257]

That's because they all copied Mark and added whatever changes they saw fit?
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

"Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. "

Too many air-tight arguments that Mark is the source. Mark was an excellent story writer. Those core beliefs were Jewish Hillelite beliefs.
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

He is popularly known as the author of two sayings: (1) "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And being only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"[4] and (2) the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow." That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; now go and learn."[5] This rule is also known to be considered as Leviticus 19:18: וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ "Love your fellow as you love yourself."

Born c. 110 BCE
Babylon, Parthian Empire
Died 10 CE

More likely that all three were based on a sayings gospel similar to that of Thomas. The usual designation of that text is 'Q'.

 

[KWED]

Well that points right back at you also.

Indeed.
However, I am not making any claims about having met a god. But if I claimed that the ghost of Christopher Hitchens was telling me what to write, you would rightly be sceptical.

 

[PruePhillip]

Completely out of the character as desired by the Orthodox sect. But much more in character with those following the gnostic tradition.

The verses are not more stupid than those in the accepted gospels, but they do represent a different tradition. We've also had a good 1700 years of exegesis on the ones in the Orthodox selection.

Quote - " “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live."
CLASSIC example of someone trying to sound profound (Jewis scribes did this too - and it's common in Islam as well) yet
being completely stupid. The measure of the true Jesus is found in Matthew 5,6 and 7 - the Sermon on the Mount - profound
and full of authority and transcendance. People in Rome, First and Second Century, who often died for their belief, were not
easily fooled with alternate Christs and revisionist history.

 

[KWED]

That certainly is contrapositive. It is interesting how one person believes it isn't true and yet others do. Why the difference? Don't know.

People usually believe in gods because they have been brought up to believe in them. As Aristotle said "Give me the boy until he is seven, and I will show you the man".

Maybe you are wrong?

Don't think so. Most people's prayers are not answered so how could they believe that they are answered?

But, in answer, you are correct. You believe what you want to believe

Not so. "Belief" is an unconscious response to a variety of elements. We do not "choose" what we believe. I could not believe in the god of the Bible. I could pretend I did, but I would know that it was a pretence.

and can't believe two opposites at the same time.

People do believe in contradictory positions simultaneously. The issue of a predeterministic god and free will is a classic example. Many religionists have no problem accepting both, despite them being mutually exclusive.

In essence, everybody including yourself and for everything. Of course, forgiveness doesn't mean be a rug mat to be stepped on again.

Why should everyone be forgiven for everything? Do you think all criminals should be forgiven? How can people be punished for something if they have been forgiven for it?

Think of it this way. If you have a promise that there is $1,000 at Truist Bank, you can't go to PNC Bank to take it out.

In other words, you can't ask for something where you have no authority to ask for it.

Unlike a contract (though it is much more than a contract) - you can't go beyond what is written.

No idea what you are trying to say there.

Depends on what you are believing for. The first and foremost is a relationship that God wants with mankind.
And God, the Creator of all that is seen and unseen

Nope, lost me again.

 

[KWED]

that is obvious

So why did you make the argument in the first place if it is obvious that it is wrong?

 

[Polymath257]

Quote - " “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live."
CLASSIC example of someone trying to sound profound (Jewis scribes did this too - and it's common in Islam as well) yet
being completely stupid. The measure of the true Jesus is found in Matthew 5,6 and 7 - the Sermon on the Mount - profound
and full of authority and transcendance. People in Rome, First and Second Century, who often died for their belief, were not
easily fooled with alternate Christs and revisionist history.

Which is clearly a symbolic quote. The universe is a child that was created in 7 days.

 

[KWED]

That's not what I said, so quit pretending and deflecting.

You said that you only accept that your god experience could have been an illusion "to the extent that everything we experience could be an illusion".

I suppose you have someway to experience reality that doesn't rely on your senses? You know the ones that can't be trusted?

I didn't say they can't be trusted. But one should seek independent verification for important or unlikely experiences and observations.

 

[KWED]

Is there logic here?
Who said God won't answer those problems?

Whuh? God doesn't answer them. That is clearly demonstrable.
Devoutly religious parents pray for god to save their child, but the child dies in agony anyway.

Or is it that you won't pray for those issues?

What are you on about? I don't pray (because there is no god, and even if there is he doesn't seem keen on answering prayers).

Who said it wasn't my responsibility also?

So it is your responsibility, but god also answers your prayers? You're not making any sense (not that you were before).

That is why we have people who God has delivered from all types of problems including cancer. Cancer, diabetes, tumors, and a bunch of other things.

Why do you think that? Most people who pray for cures for illness do not have their prayers answered. Many people claim to have been "miraculously cured" despite undergoing intensive medical treatment.

But the question is, "Are you doing your part?" or are you letting people die in their difficulties?
If you don't believe in prayer, are you giving toward the hunger needs of this world? Are you giving to the poor? Are you giving to the efforts to eradicate cancer?

Still refusing to say what prayers god has answered for you. You are clearly troubled by the whole issue, and I'm not surprised. Imagine the arrogance of believing your trivial issues are important enough to warrant god's intervention, but millions of dying children and be just waved away with a shrug.

And yes, I do my bit by donating money and time - you know, stuff that actually makes a difference, unlike "thoughts and prayers" which do nothing but salve the conscience of those doing the thinking and praying.

 

[KWED]

Man's theories will continue to change forever.

So you don't use computers or cars or antibiotics because they will all stop working when the "theories change".

Only a higher authority can reveal the truth.

What inventions and practical discoveries have been arrived at through faith?

Humankind is too corrupted to discover the truth on its own.

What an odd thing to believe.

 

[KWED]

But not the starving kids or the amputees. Just some cancer patients, some of the time. Like, at the rate of chance, basically.

A study into cancer cures at Lourdes found that the rate of approved miraculous cure was slightly lower that the rate of spontaneous remission in the general population. Which suggests that god is actively killing people who go to Lourdes to cure their cancer!

 

[F1fan]

From Wikipedia.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a biographical gospel about the childhood of Jesus, believed to date at the latest to the second century.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was thought to be Gnostic in origin because of references (by Hippolytus of Rome and Origen of Alexandria)
to a "Gospel of Thomas", but those works are not referencing this Infancy Gospel, as many scholars had thought, but rather to the wholly
different Gospel of Thomas.
Proto-orthodox Christians regarded the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as inauthentic and heretical. Eusebius rejected it as a heretical "fiction"
in the third book of his fourth-century Church History, and Pope Gelasius I included it in his list of heretical books in the fifth century.

At the time when the New Testament was compiled there was already a long standing tradition about what was authentic and what wasn't.

Makes us wonder why God inspired so many writers to invent false narratives in the first place. It just adds to the confusion that is already rampant in Christianity. Can we trust any of it? No.

 

[KWED]

Lol, obviously you don't see the news. We're doing a terrible job. How far we've come? I don't see peace on earth, do you? I see higher crime and less consequences as we get further away from the truth.

The last few decades have been the safest, most peaceful in human history. Fewer wars and proportionally fewer people being killed. Those are the facts. Your perception of it from watching the news is irrelevant. (Worth remembering that news programmes do not report on nothing happening, wars not breaking out, people not being killed.)

 

[KWED]

Only 90 some percent of the population do feel God exists. Most humans seem to know this from something inherent in human nature.

1. Most people reject your version of god, so presumably you accept that your god is not real?
2. Most people believe in gods because they have been Brough ups to believe in them. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of religionists follow the faith of their family/community.

 

[PruePhillip]

Makes us wonder why God inspired so many writers to invent false narratives in the first place. It just adds to the confusion that is already rampant in Christianity. Can we trust any of it? No.

It's a bit like science, or democracy --- there are many imitations. It's up to you to figure out which is which.
For religion it's designed like this.
But saying everything is fake because some or many are fake isn't good logic.