RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
I wondered. But you know me, I'm bad about humor on here sometimes.
-
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!
How can you literally believe...
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
Ehhhhh. Ask yourself what the odds are, given that we know the Bible was not written until quite a while after it was supposed to have happened?
james bond
Well-Known Member
You just proved my point of you being ignorant ha ha.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
If a WWII veteran wrote a memoir at this point in history would you doubt his account?
Different era. Most people could not read or write during the age of the Nazarene.
No.
Not at all. You just proved that you don't understand basic logic and reason. If you make a claim, you need to demonstrate that it isn't something you made up or hallucinated or otherwise expresses your human limitations.
As opposed to reflects reality.
Tom
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
Which means they remembered longer since they couldn't make actual note of things.
Yes, definitely I would. If the account included resurrections and miracles, while failing to mention things like Poland.
Tom
Got any proof of that beyond conjecture?
This, too. This is important.
Why do you think it means that, instead of making up dramatic stories based on a few true events?
Tom
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
With God all things are possible. All that is is a lack of faith.
If you couldn't read or write how would you keep track of things?
Because Jesus' story is a part of the nation of Israel's history. No one doubts the Apostle Paul's existence, but he claims to have had an experience with the risen Christ. How do you say what's real and what's not?
We aren't talking about God. We are talking about the credibility of the Gospel authors.
If, "With God all things are possible ", then one of the biggies is that human beings invented religious beliefs and they have nothing at all to do with God.
Since that is true, there is no reason to believe a human making implausible claims. Such as the Gospels make.
Tom
Obviously not, given that I'm an atheist. But even amongst Christian scholars, it would be uncommon for someone to think the Bible is directly written eyewitness testimony, as opposed to being recorded later...much later in some cases.
Evidence.
Empirical evidence. Not a story that is indistinguishable from a docudrama or a religious delusions.
Tom
Lack of faith or just rational assumption?
Due to the nature of how human memory works, the vast, vast majority of "memories" are inherently flawed. Because each time you access it, you are changing it. Each recollection is slightly more imperfect than the last.
Well, we can make some pretty safe assumptions. I don't see you giving other mythical figures the same benefit of doubt. Why aren't the Chinese and Indian myths granted the same "part of their histories, therefore real" assumption?
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
What evidence is there for Paul's existence as opposed to Christ's?
I assume nothing. Ever.
Says who?
Maybe they are. You know my opinion on that topic.
..people who study the human brain and memory? Just google "Memory change by recall" and you're going to find thousands of articles and studies on this.
From Gnostic perspective, the same can (or is) asked about anything in the past. Exploring this, for all it is worth, both philosophically and spiritually, is truly eye opening. Lest one is lazy intellectual and/or willing to just go by (truly blind) faith alone, the idea of not exploring it, is itself perplexing. Especially given the ramifications of repeating mistakes/errors, that are seemingly, or consistently, put forth as "not my doing."
The writing and telling of things from the past passes as "communication," but it truly is not. If somehow, what I'm conveying here is either easily overlooked, I'd identify that as being intellectually lazy. Or if seeing it as actual communication and easy to take for granted (that the past exists), I'd call that blind faith. Could be something that is rather simple, such as, "yesterday I went to the store." Sure seems to communicate a past exists, and that I was there. But where, really? It's actually about as informative as, "last night in my dream, you were there, and you told me you never really loved your mom." The latter is seemingly easily dismissed because of the words "in my dream" when the past account of anything/everything is not actually different. At best, it is all recollection of an interpretation. From a perspective that readily admits then (or even now) it doesn't have full awareness/understanding of "who am I?" and/or "what is life in this existence for?"
I take these things with a grain of salt, considering the messenger has words saying, "things things and more you will do." To place that person in a position of 'specialness' along lines of super human is truly missing the forest for the trees.
Given new age Gnostic understandings, of which I am routinely surprised that I'm seemingly one of a few that is aware of such understandings, it is bizarre to identify much of this as reason to believe this is what makes Jesus, Christ-like.
IOW, walking on water, resurrecting the physical dead, changing weather, etc. are not miracles. They either offer nothing to the follower, or what they convey is spectacles of wonder that distract from the spiritual. Perhaps put another way, why (rather than how) walk on water, why raise the physical life from the dead? Of what purpose is it for me to believe in such things?
Seemingly, the purpose has been to put Jesus on a pedestal, or right next to Creator God as if he alone is worthy of such a position, and none else.
In spiritual reality, we are all in that position and unless what is greatly distorting view of own self is interpretation of "history," there's very little reason (I'd say none) to suggest we have ever left that position. And still, the message seemingly falls on deaf ears, as if the (inner) guru can identify perfection, in another, and somehow is devoid of seeing that in own self. History then becomes a crutch, or way of disabling own self, and projecting onto another, separated being (i.e. Jesus) that which is the tale of both humanity (the physical) and Sonship/Creation (the spiritual) needing to do more, be more, have more to return Home, or in that position of at God's side.
Of all the things mentioned in OP, the one that stands out for me is "instantly healing the sick and disabled." Because that I do have experience with, and from perspective that found that natural to do just that, it is not wondrous. In intellectual terms, it is simply giving people back to themselves, their fully aware selves. From the other perspective that relies on doubt (and fear), it is still understood that healers are doing just this. Even medical doctors are at least attempting to give people back to their fully aware selves, and not treating their ability to do so as some magical occurrence of which only a privileged few are able to achieve.
The instant part makes it seem wondrous, I'll grant that, though do have to stipulate that it is a matter of interpretation of own self to realize it as a wonder. I would put forth that this happens far more often than the doubting self may ever care to acknowledge, and happens in ways that physical eyes simply cannot see. Thus, if changing the goal posts (instantly) to, "yeah, but can you make a physically disabled person physically able again? And do it instantly?" - that then pushes the wondrous envelope. And it is around this point where faith takes on a new, far more personal meaning. In scripture, it routinely references, "by your faith are you healed." Which seemingly has two ways of being understood. First way, by your faith in own self as God's Creation (aka Christ) and truly identifying with that, have you corrected the perception of error in what you thought you were seeing, in own self. Second way, by your faith in Jesus or outer being (i.e. medical doctor), you have opened up a magical door, by which your physical self is now physically better than it once was. Therefore, be sure to maintain faith in that outer being.
The first way makes for instantaneousness. The second way is the roundabout, long path to same destination. Either way, you will/we will get there, because in spiritual reality, you never really left.
For a lot of reasons. Many of which I've articulated on this site over some years, so summarising here doesn't really do it justice.
But for the sake of communication let's just stick with :
Many religions make truth claims. I'm not just judging the likelihood of Christianity, but rather what evidence is there of it being more factual than other religions?
Further, what evidence of God exists?
Ultimately, I see no reason to think any God exists, but if one does the chances of it being the same God described in the Old Testament, reinvented in the new, and discarded in inconvenient testimonies seems infinitely small.
Why? Have you examined the evidence? Do you really believe Luke was written at the time of the crucifixion?