Brian2
Veteran Member
Skeptics do and use history and if you don't see that the post 70AD date for the writing of the synoptic gospels is not a neutral dating by now, how is any more words going to help.
-
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!
Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
- Thread starter Apologes
- Start date
Skeptics do and use history and if you don't see that the post 70AD date for the writing of the synoptic gospels is not a neutral dating by now, how is any more words going to help.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Paul realized at that moment that he was persecuting those who followed Jesus and he was wrong...yes, I do believe that Paul had an encounter with Jesus and he recognized it as such. His mind and attitude changed at that moment.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is rather important to realize that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.
Brian2
Veteran Member
So are you saying that the Oxford historical academic standard has to be correct and what it shows us as being history is always correct?
I would say it is not neutral about the supernatural and can lead to us being told things by historians that aren't true.
Brian2
Veteran Member
But you already know the answers to the questions you ask. We do not detect a God who is undetectable to science, by science, we detect this God in the way He gave us, faith.
Ideas change in science. I seem to remember seeing where science was saying that gravity is not a force but is a bending of the space time continuum. No matter. The thing is that we have no idea about the essence of what gravity, matter, time etc etc are but you demand a definition for God.
What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center.spaceplace.nasa.gov
What is matter?
Learn how particles of all types of matter are formed and how they respond to real-world changes in conditions.www.techtarget.com
You know how we know this stuff? The scientific method.
Well we like to think we know I guess.
So you believe in things that science cannot detect but not in the supernatural or God because they are undetectable by science.
Brian2
Veteran Member
What does it tell you?
Faith.
You said that my belief in something does not make it real. I agree. I then said that your belief in something also does not make it real.
Sheesh it does not even matter now, it was so far back in the discussion that the point is lost.
I guess you have no reason in to believe it with your world view and lack of faith.
I don't think I ignored it, and I probably continued to try to show my logic in relation to the topic. But we can't keep saying the same things forever and expect a different result.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Fiction isn't an answer to historical knowledge about Matthew. Please demonstrate evidence that the Urantia Book is an actual revelation.
You have dropped an ancient myth and bought into a modern myth. What method do you use to show this is more reliable than other modern myths?
Colt
Well-Known Member
There was an “assumption” that the resurrected Jesus would soon return from heaven to fulfill the erroneous expectations of a Jewish Messiah, so there wasn’t an urgent need to write books about what he said.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Your claim that Mattew is a myth is a matter of your atheist faith. I have no scientific proof for spiritual truth.
101:2.1 (1105.5) The fact of religion consists wholly in the religious experience of rational and average human beings. And this is the only sense in which religion can ever be regarded as scientific or even psychological. The proof that revelation is revelation is this same fact of human experience: the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit.
101:2.2 (1106.1) Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion; logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. Revelation compensates for the absence of the morontia viewpoint by providing a technique for achieving unity in the comprehension of the reality and relationships of matter and spirit by the mediation of mind. And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.
101:2.3 (1106.2) Reason, through the study of science, may lead back through nature to a First Cause, but it requires religious faith to transform the First Cause of science into a God of salvation; and revelation is further required for the validation of such a faith, such spiritual insight.
101:2.4 (1106.3) There are two basic reasons for believing in a God who fosters human survival:
101:2.5 (1106.4) 1. Human experience, personal assurance, the somehow registered hope and trust initiated by the indwelling Thought Adjuster.
101:2.6 (1106.5) 2. The revelation of truth, whether by direct personal ministry of the Spirit of Truth, by the world bestowal of divine Sons, or through the revelations of the written word." UB 1955
joelr
Well-Known Member
There is no God who gave faith. That is a story that most religions and cults tell members because they lack proper evidence. But faith is a work.
Muslims have pure faith that Allah is the only true God and his word is the only true word of God. Mormons have faith that their Bible is the actual truth and they have faith that they are having a personal relationship with Jesus. Hindus have faith they are having a personal relationship with Krishna.
The claims are 100% exactly the same and equally as intense and certain.
Demonstrating that when people are told something is true and a deity is real and loves followers they will create that feeling in their mind and feel it is 100% true. Yet, it isn't. It can be demonstrated that all of those other religions are false (at least you believe so). So it's a fact faith can create a false sense of certainty.
Race supremacists, KKK members can also claim they know through faith that they are correct.
Faith is not a path to truth.
"Faith is vital for the discharge of devotional service. In Bhagavad-gita (9.3) Krishna says, “Those who are not faithful in this devotional service cannot attain Me, O conqueror of enemies. Therefore they return to the path of birth and death in this material world.” Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport that without faith we cannot attain Krishna. Faith, he says, is developed by associating with devotees. Without such association, we cannot become fully faithful.
There are three degrees of faith. The lowest type gives only enough faith to bring us into the association of devotees but is not based strongly enough on scriptural knowledge or belief in the truth of scripture to keep us there. The second type is firmer, and although we may not be conversant in scripture, we believe in the truth taught there. A devotee with the highest type of faith has firm conviction as well as firm knowledge of the scriptures.
When we as aspiring devotees consider the question of faith, we often assume we already possess it. After all, we are faithfully prosecuting our sadhana, our regulated spiritual practices. But faith is a live issue. It is not some- thing that once achieved remains vibrant without further thought. That is especially true for those of us who grew up in an environment of skepticism and were taught to challenge faith.
Simply by raising one's staunch faith in Kṛṣṇa and His instructions, one can understand reality without a doubt (asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ mām). One can understand how Kṛṣṇa's material and spiritual energies are working and how He is present everywhere although everything is not Him. This philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda, inconceivable oneness and difference, is the perfect philosophy enunciated by the Vaiṣṇavas. (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.15.58)
Read more: https://vanipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Krishna_-_an_essential_subject#ixzz8BrUDeMfW
"Anything could have happened though at last but yet she handed over her Dignity and Respect in Krishna's hands...this is real Faith and Belief…
Krishna is always with us. We need to Find him and Love him…
Faith on Krishna can do Miracles
"sound familar?
Just within your Gods "faith" he gave you you now have - "There are more than 45,000 denominations globally."
Why does Christianity have so many denominations?
There are more than 45,000 denominations globally.
"Christianity is divided between Eastern and Western theology. In these two divisions there are six branches: Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Assyrians. Restorationism is sometimes considered the seventh branch."
Each group who uses "faith" from the same God finds the others to be heretics, many believe other groups are going to hell. Everyone not a Jehovas Witness is going to hell at the rapture, coming soon. Once again, demonstrating it's completely made up and there is no real version because the contradictions cannot be resolved.
Did you study every group to see who has the least contradictions in your opinion? No? You just bought a story and decided you are in the right version? Uh huh.
Would you fly on a plane that had 45,000 different ideas about how to build it properly? Are there 45,000 periodic tables, 45,000 laws of energy conservation, 45,000 quantum mechanics, 45,000 theory of evolution?
Ideas in science do not justify a theistic God with ZERO evidence.
But science does not change in the way stated. New frontier science changes. Established science is REFINED.
Newtonian gravitational equations are STILL USED in space travel. Einstein created a math to pry deeper into what gravity is. Newton did not claim to know or say what gravity is. He called it a "force" because he didn't know what it was he just knew the mathematical laws.
General Relativity USES Newtons equations but continues to define gravity in a deeper way.
The basic laws of thermodynamics, energy conservation, are not going to change, just be refined with deeper theories.
So using a lack of knowledge in science to forward bad apologetics is spreading mis-information.
God isn't defined because there is no universal definition and it's not even a real thing.
Ridiculous theologian definitions like "the most basic substance that is non-divisible" could be a real thing. But adding consciousness to it.......nope.
There is obviously many things science has not yet detected. That doesn't mean Zeus or Thor or any Near Eastern God is going to be real. Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern deity, which you can read about in Hebrew Bible professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou's new book, God: An Anatomy
The supernatural does not need be part of any new science not yet detectable. The supernatural, if detected, does not need to contain any of the man-made Gods like Yahweh, Thor, Osirus or Krishna.
The modern Yahweh is completely different than the original and influenced by the Hellenistic NT and then
Tertullian, Origen, Agustine, Boethius, Anslem, Aquinas,.....all based on older Greek philosophy.
Don't think so? A historian/Pastor goes over all of the evidence here:
Plato and Christianity
and ends with
"In some sense Christianity is taking Greco-Roman moral philosophy and theology and delivering it to the masses, even though they are unaware"
Total fiction.
Also this is a fallacy, you manipulated his words and argued a strawman.
We all know that science is going to detect new things. We DO NOT know what they will be and if anything supernatural will be part of those discoveries.
Are you tired at all of twisting words, using fallacies, reliance on non-evidence and flawed methods of knowing what is true, all to force a narrative to be real?
joelr
Well-Known Member
No it's a matter of the real world evidence, internal to the Gospels and external.
Evidence compiled here by a scholar:
Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels » Internet Infidels
The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee—are not held to be the Gospels' actual authors by the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. Christian apologists nevertheless...
infidels.org
And includes quotes from the well established Oxford Annotated Bible
(a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years)
"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings."
"Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities.
As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels). I have discussed elsewhere some of the reasons why scholars recognize that the Gospels are not historical in their genre, purpose, or character in my article “Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament.” However, I will now also lay out a resource here explaining why many scholars likewise doubt the traditional authorial attributions of the Gospels."
Faith is not needed because in the real world there is evidence. The same evidence you may use to determine Zeus or Osirus is fiction.
If you choose to ignore it and continue to uninformed that is a personal choice.
That is not an answer. Unless you are comfortable leaving at you just believe something someone else claims?
-Spiritual truth definition: Spiritual means relating to people's thoughts and beliefs
Spiritual truth is subjective. But the source isn't. Provide evidence your spiritual truth is from a deity rather than a person who wrote a book and claimed to be getting revelations.
Like Mormonism, JW, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jesus in Australia right now, Conversations With God, Abraham, Bashar (channeling advanced spiritual aliens), Cargo cults, and many more, wow, looks like a trending situation. Therefore it probably is and you need a method to demonstrate this one isn't.
By what method do you demonstrate your thing is actually revelations and all others or some other are not. If you have none you have probably been taken in by a cult.
Again, quoting fiction isn't going to help. Please demonstrate this writing is from a deity and not made up by a person.
Reading it.....yeah, that's made up by a person. WAY below the level of someone like Kant.
In fact it's a buch of crankity, crank.
"the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit."
right. And he does this where? Please show me the co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion. Then show how the how the Infinite works out his will.
"faith is the method of religion"
Not really. In the entire Bible everyone gets all sorts of supernatural demonstrations. From Yahweh in a cloud/fire chariot with a booming voice to Jesus flying away into space and Saints raising.
""And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical."
It also never says anything a human couldn't come up with based on current knowledge, no exception here
"and revelation is further required for the validation of such a faith, such spiritual insight."
No, that just convinces people who already want to be convinced. Some demonstration of God powers and knowledge far beyond ours would work (none of that to be found here)
"There are two basic reasons for believing in a God who fosters human survival:
101:2.5 (1106.4) 1. Human experience, personal assurance, the somehow registered hope and trust initiated by the indwelling Thought Adjuster."
Great, people have only known this since the Ancient Greeks and surely far before? Except "indwelling thought adjuster" ...when they start using words in a weird way they are trying too hard.
" The revelation of truth, whether by direct personal ministry of the Spirit of Truth, by the world bestowal of divine Sons, or through the revelations of the written word."
Oh brother. Wow, a new trinity. Personal Ministry, Spirit of Truth, written Revelations. More claims, no evidence.
Colt
Well-Known Member
LoL! You put soooooo much effort into your atheist faith! You are only convincing yourself of your own doubts!No it's a matter of the real world evidence, internal to the Gospels and external.
Evidence compiled here by a scholar:
Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels » Internet Infidels
The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee—are not held to be the Gospels' actual authors by the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. Christian apologists nevertheless...
And includes quotes from the well established Oxford Annotated Bible
(a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years)
"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings."
"Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities.
As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels). I have discussed elsewhere some of the reasons why scholars recognize that the Gospels are not historical in their genre, purpose, or character in my article “Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament.” However, I will now also lay out a resource here explaining why many scholars likewise doubt the traditional authorial attributions of the Gospels."
Faith is not needed because in the real world there is evidence. The same evidence you may use to determine Zeus or Osirus is fiction.
If you choose to ignore it and continue to uninformed that is a personal choice.
That is not an answer. Unless you are comfortable leaving at you just believe something someone else claims?
-Spiritual truth definition: Spiritual means relating to people's thoughts and beliefs
Spiritual truth is subjective. But the source isn't. Provide evidence your spiritual truth is from a deity rather than a person who wrote a book and claimed to be getting revelations.
Like Mormonism, JW, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jesus in Australia right now, Conversations With God, Abraham, Bashar (channeling advanced spiritual aliens), Cargo cults, and many more, wow, looks like a trending situation. Therefore it probably is and you need a method to demonstrate this one isn't.
By what method do you demonstrate your thing is actually revelations and all others or some other are not. If you have none you have probably been taken in by a cult.
Again, quoting fiction isn't going to help. Please demonstrate this writing is from a deity and not made up by a person.
Reading it.....yeah, that's made up by a person. WAY below the level of someone like Kant.
In fact it's a buch of crankity, crank.
"the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit."
right. And he does this where? Please show me the co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion. Then show how the how the Infinite works out his will.
"faith is the method of religion"
Not really. In the entire Bible everyone gets all sorts of supernatural demonstrations. From Yahweh in a cloud/fire chariot with a booming voice to Jesus flying away into space and Saints raising.
""And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical."
It also never says anything a human couldn't come up with based on current knowledge, no exception here
"and revelation is further required for the validation of such a faith, such spiritual insight."
No, that just convinces people who already want to be convinced. Some demonstration of God powers and knowledge far beyond ours would work (none of that to be found here)
"There are two basic reasons for believing in a God who fosters human survival:
101:2.5 (1106.4) 1. Human experience, personal assurance, the somehow registered hope and trust initiated by the indwelling Thought Adjuster."
Great, people have only known this since the Ancient Greeks and surely far before? Except "indwelling thought adjuster" ...when they start using words in a weird way they are trying too hard.
" The revelation of truth, whether by direct personal ministry of the Spirit of Truth, by the world bestowal of divine Sons, or through the revelations of the written word."
Oh brother. Wow, a new trinity. Personal Ministry, Spirit of Truth, written Revelations. More claims, no evidence.
"A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective. Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality. All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition."
rocala
Well-Known Member
The thread is about the physical resurrection of Jesus. I am not saying that Paul did not have this experience, I am saying that it is not evidence of a physical resurrection.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And out comes the conspiracy nuttyness.
Are you trying to drag down scientific knowledge to the religious status of make-belief?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
There's no such thing.
Brian2
Veteran Member
The urgency was to spread the gospel, true. Then the true gospel had to be preserved in writing.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Scientific knowledge is fine, but it is not all knowledge even though it is believed religiously by people.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Citation required.
Which "religious" belief is masquerading as "science" in your opinion?
Don't forget to also add supporting evidence in your answer.
Brian2
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
By sheer accident, sure.
Like a broken clock, which is also correct twice a day.
Here's the thing though.... if the thing is believed on faith, how could you even find out if it's true?
You would require verifiable evidence for that... and if you have that, then you would have no need for faith....
So yea... Thanks for playing.
Well..... Stop doing them