Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Trailblazer]

How many Baha'i reject "Baháʼu'lláh is a Messenger of God?

The belief that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is not a doctrine, it is a belief. It is not a doctrine because it is not the teachings of a school, religion, or political group. It is a claim of Baha'u'llah which Baha'is believe.

What is a doctrine in simple terms?

A doctrine is a set of beliefs. The word comes from the Latin doctor for “teacher,” so think of a doctrine is the teachings of a school, religion, or political group.

Doctrine - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com​

 

[ppp]

but since they are saved and forgiven they are not going to burn in hell fire.
You need to learn your Christian doctrines.

Heh. You aren't wrong.

 

[ppp]

The belief that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is not a doctrine, it is a belief.

Incorrect.

 

[bchalloner]

Maybe Elvis did live on in spirit.

 

[Trailblazer]

Incorrect.

Call it a doctrine if you want to, it doesn't change anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe Elvis did live on in spirit.

I'm sure of it, since I believe all of us live on in spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know. What else can you say?

 

[Trailblazer]

I know. What else can you say?

Nothing else needs to be said and that is why I did not say anything.

 

[ppp]

Call it a doctrine if you want to, it doesn't change anything.

That sentence makes no sense in this context.

 

[lukethethird]

That sentence makes no sense in this context.

Nothing ever does.

 

[Trailblazer]

That sentence makes no sense in this context.

I said: The belief that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is not a doctrine, it is a belief.

You said: Incorrect

I thought you meant that I am incorrect in saying "it is not a doctrine, it is a belief."
Did you mean that the belief that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is incorrect?

 

[ppp]

I thought you meant that I am incorrect in saying "it is not a doctrine, it is a belief."

Meet Isaac.
Is this a cat or a mammal?

 

[danieldemol]

I guess I'll leave you with this.

I guess I had a mistaken understanding of what a biography is, I thought it meant a retelling of a life story which is intended to be factual.
According to Ehrman it seems even modern Biographies are not necessarily that (text bolded by me);

'Thus modern biographies tend not only to inform but also to explain. They also are meant to entertain, of course, and often propagandize as well, especially when they concern political or religious figures.'

Source: The Gospels as Biographies | The Bart Ehrman Blog

So once we are aware that the genre of biography may contain propaganda, we can no longer simply take it at its word in my view.

 

[leroy]

Fiction is most likely correct. That judgment is based in a lifetime of experience and learning which things occur commonly and which are rare. People fabricate stories continuously. The other options either are less likely because they occur less commonly or because they are not know to occur at all.

What exactly do you mean by fiction? You mean that the 3 alleged facts from the OP are fiction?

Naturalistic hypotheses are preferred because they are more parsimonious. They only require that nature exists, whereas supernatural explanations require the existence of both nature and the supernatural. Nature is known to exist, but not the supernatural.

Are you holding the claim that naturalistic hypothesis are *always* better than supernatural ones ?



Or are you simply saying that supernatural hypotheses are intrinsically less likelly ?

I would agree on that if you have 2 hypothesis that are equally good in explaining the events one should go for the more parsimonious hypothesis.


But I would say that that we shouldn't always prefer the more parsimonious hypothesis. Paraimony is not the only nor the most important criteria.


Do we disagree on this point ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What exactly do you mean by fiction? You mean that the 3 alleged facts from the OP are fiction?


#2 does not appear to have been a fact. Especially if one meant even a majority of the disciples. Actual history one most of them is almost nonexistent after the crucifixion.

Are you holding the claim that naturalistic hypothesis are *always* better than supernatural ones ?

I see that you you still can't get that one right. That is not the argument. That is the result of the argument being correct.

Or are you simply saying that supernatural hypotheses are intrinsically less likelly ?

I would agree on that if you have 2 hypothesis that are equally good in explaining the events one should go for the more parsimonious hypothesis.

Then you reject the miracle stories. Somehow I doubt that you will go with the explanation that is more parsimonious.

But I would say that that we shouldn't always prefer the more parsimonious hypothesis. Paraimony is not the only nor the most important criteria.

Oh okay you are not.

Do we disagree on this point ?

It may not be the most important point. That is true. But his argument fails almost all of his standards.

 

[Trailblazer]

Meet Isaac.
Is this a cat or a mammal?
View attachment 79825

Please be direct in your communication or don't expect me to know what you mean.
As I just told two different men from two different dating sites, I do not like indirect communication or evasiveness.
I finally pinned one man down and the other is TBD.

 

[ppp]

Please be direct in your communication or don't expect me to know what you mean.

I asked you a question about the embeded piicture,.that was both direct and literal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please be direct in your communication or don't expect me to know what you mean.
As I just told two different men from two different dating sites, I do not like indirect communication or evasiveness.
I finally pinned one man down and the other is TBD.

He was trying to illustrate how you were wrong in your definitions. A doctrine is still a belief, it is gives the beliefs of a religion. Where a belief may be a small part of a doctrine. A singular belief is not all doctrine. Mammal is a larger overarching group. It is akin to a doctrine. A cat is a mammal, but it is not the entire overarching group.

 

[Trailblazer]

I asked you a question about the embeded piicture,.that was both direct and literal.

Okay, I think I understand what you were getting at. A cat is a subset of mammal just as a belief is subset of doctrine.

 

[ppp]

Okay, I think I understand what you were getting at. A cat is a subset of mammal just as a belief is subset of doctrine.

Other way around. A doctrine is a type of belief.. I believe that my keys are on the dining room table. But that's not a doctrine.

Or more accurately, a doctrin is usually a list of beliefs that define the system of beliefs of a group.