How Christians Believe in Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

and there are many good arguments the New Testament was written during the Apostles lifetime's largely before 70AD

By consensus of new testament scholars who actually study this stuff (both theists and non-theists, christians and non-christians), that is simply not true.

I'ld add to that that even if the gospels were written down immediatly after the supposed events, we're still dealing with religious claims from biased authors and no contemporay independend confirmation thereof whatsoever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well there were apparent eye witnesses who transmitted the events orally. As per Luke's admission, he used various eye witnesses as sources.

Claims are a dime a dozen.

Also loads of Christians died for these beliefs so it is most likely that they honestly believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

Sure. Plenty of people sincerely believe it. So sincerely that they willingly died for it. There are martyrs in pretty much ALL religions. So this is evidence that there were people that sincerely believed. It's not evidence that what they believed is actually correct.

Vikings willingly engaged in fights they couldn't win, not caring if they would die. Their beliefs told them that dieing in battle was honorable and the way to get into whalhalla.

So them walking unto a battlefield into certain death, is only evidence of them sincerely believing it.

The same goes for the islamic suicide bomber.

Clearly people are very willing to die for their beliefs. So to me, this doesn't register as anything particularly special or out of the ordinary. In fact, looking at the history of martyrdom accross religions, I'ld even say it's quite common and ordinary.

So with the combination of people dying for the belief, the pretty quick growth of Christianity

The exact same can be said about Islam.

, the fact that there are so many copies of the books which is highly unusual for literature at the time (which shows zeal),

"at the time"?
There were no copies at that time. The first writings only show up decades and centuries later. The "mass copying" came even later, when the religion already had quite a big following - big enough for many scribes to start doing that work. And this also only shows that people believed and cared enough about those beliefs to do that work. It doesn't demonstrate the beliefs themselves by any means.

persecution

Every minority cult at some point suffered persecution, especially in ancient times. These days we call new cults wackjobs. Back then it was blasphemous in light of the "ruling" religions and distancing yourself from the "ruling" cultures instantly puts you at the bottom of society and thus an easy target.

So yes, there could have been fibbing, but emphasis of "could". There could "not" have been fibbing too.

But more then likely, it's the same as all other religions / religious scripture. The quran, the bagavad gita, greek mythology, roman mythology, egyptian mythology, viking lore, scientology, mormonism, etc etc etc.

Clearly, this is something humans did (and still do).
Why would christianity be the odd one of the series that is actually true as opposed to the countless others which you don't believe either?

Also, history isn't set in stone. With almost any proof we have of history, we could say there "could" have been something else happening, but we need proof of such to change our minds. History works on "what is most likely" based on evidence as we might not have all the information.

Yes. And what is most likely, is that christianity and its scriptures is just like all other religions and their scriptures.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but the point is in that all three of the scriptures mention Jesus

The OT doesn't mention "Jesus" at all.
And Islam merely builds on abrahamic tradition while adding its own arabic sauce on top, much like mormonism builds on christian tradition.

That's a lot of old books, each gathered at different places by different people on different ways

And all of which had knowledge of the others and were able to read them and / or learn about them.
It's not like the quran or the new testament was written in a vacuum with no knowledge of the OT.

Just like the book of mormons wasn't written in a vacuum.

Now if the quran or the new testament were for example written in latin america by the mayans... now THAT would have been impressive, as they wouldn't have had any access to the older works and therefor couldn't have known about it.

But that wasn't the case, now was it?
So the simplest and most likely explanation, is that their culture was heavily influenced by those older cultures and that they matched / based their writings and beliefs on those that came before them.

Just like how the Roman pantheon builds upon the older greek pantheon...

and both Christians and Muslims believe in Jesus as a messenger.

Which doesn't mean anything in terms of accuracy of beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, if I write down what happened to me when my father sent the family off in a boat over 40 years ago from Venezuela to Spain and didn't let us know he wasn't going... I can't write it down and if I do, it is fibbing?

Hmmm... how short is your memory span?

That's not an extraordinary claims and likely it is also independently verifiable to some degree.

Now, if you would write that he send you to Spain on a flying magical horse.........

Also note that the average lifespan in those days was about 30 for the common folk, whereas today it is closer to 80.

If the first gospel was written 40 years after the facts by a supposed eyewitness, then that person would have to be around 50-60 years in order to properly remember everything. And if the claim is that it was one of the apostles, then likely his age would be closer to 60-70 as I assume the apostles weren't 8-year old children, right?

It's not "impossible", but it is very unlikely that this was written by eyewitnesses. The rest of the gospels are written decades later, so for them we can be quite certain that they weren't eyewitnesses.

So the idea that they were eyewitnesses is very problematic, if not impossible.

Having said that, even if they were written contemporary to the actual events, within a week after the events, then still we'ld still be dealing with extremely extra-ordinary claims of the supernatural, written down by biased believers. And such claims have a credibility below zero right out the gates.



PS: and happy birthday!

 

[Kenny]

That's not an extraordinary claims and likely it is also independently verifiable to some degree.

Now, if you would write that he send you to Spain on a flying magical horse.........

Love your story telling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Magic is the alternation of reality independently of the rules of reality.

There is not a single authenticated case of magic in the records.

A miracle is an act of magic attributed to an agent who has no real definition.

I think the level of cred of any miracle report is extremely ─ and I mean extremely ─ low. It's a claim of the kind that requires an extremely ─ and again I mean extremely ─ high quality of demonstration.

And we're still waiting for the ice to be broken.

I'm still waiting for someone to even only point out where the ice is. I can't even begin to try breaking the ice, because the ice is nowhere to be seen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Love your story telling.

At least my stories don't include magic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So no one actually wrote down the miracles that they saw Jesus perform. It was written down years later, which could have led to a bit of fibbing. So I'll ask how do Christians believe in Jesus? Is it faith alone?

Are you saying you ONLY believe in major events that were immediately documented? Who documented the creation of the universe? Did it happen?

 

[Kenny]

At least my stories don't include magic.

LOL... our stories don't either

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Actually you are articulating a hyper liberal position. The conservative consensus is the apostles were eyewitnesses, held to their confession of truth even until death and there are many good arguments the New Testament was written during the Apostles lifetime's largely before 70AD

The funny part of this "held to their confession of truth even until death" thing is that Peter denies Jesus three times before he's even dead and they all run away and break out of jail, etc. They didn't seem all that interested in dying for their beliefs, just as Jesus didn't. Also, it's not like the Romans gave them much of an option.

Also loads of Christians died for these beliefs so it is most likely that they honestly believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

That's less likely than they said it was.

So with the combination of people dying for the belief, the pretty quick growth of Christianity, the fact that there are so many copies of the books which is highly unusual for literature at the time (which shows zeal), persecution and many other things, I can understand why Christians believe what they do. But mainly there is an individuals personal experiences that are a basis of their faith.

Islam can claim something similar.

Well, according to the Bible Jesus said kind of bad things to those who do miracles in the name of Jesus.

When was this? When he said whoever isn't against him is for him?

Yes, but the point is in that all three of the scriptures mention Jesus.

Not the Hebrew ones, unless you argue that every Joshua is a mention of Jesus.

That's a lot of old books, each gathered at different places by different people on different ways and both Christians and Muslims believe in Jesus as a messenger.

It'd be more impressive if he were in the Hindu scriptures. Or some caveman paintings.

I believe Jesus, because I think he is correct/right about what he says.

I used to think so too. Now I find him the "milk" when I'm old enough for "meat." He's like a Cliff Notes for Kindergarten in terms of ethical thought.

And because of that, I want to be loyal (faithful) to God and Jesus.

I wanted to be loyal to God and Jesus too, which is why I stopped considering myself a Christian, but a "post-Christian". I came to realize none of the Abrahamic traditions care much for what God or Jesus want.

The author of Mark almost certainly did witness most of that gospel, less the later additions.

Do the authors witness the parts where Jesus is alone or where the authors are clearly not present in the story?

Hmmm... how short is your memory span?

I have to check to see if I've washed my body in the shower already right after I do it. My brain must be fried.

The reality that all they had to do is produce the body of Jesus Christ

Why would that matter? They could've dug up anyone's corpse. It's not like anyone RECOGNIZED Jesus when he supposedly returned right away. The people who had been with him for months if not years suddenly don't know what he looks like?

Christ taught love. That’s sufficient for me. His greatest miracle is He transformed the inner being of people to do good. Those who obey Him by serving humanity are a blessing to mankind.

I just got to the point where I realized that if I, a gentile modern American woman, went back in time, he'd call me a dog.

They believe because of changed lives.
-Peter was a fisherman
-Matthew was a tax collector
-Paul was a Jew charged with hunting Christians
-Constantine was a Roman ruler

Notice that all were having some PR issues, either being public nobodies or being someone who wasn't winning PR wars. It's amazing what people will claim to get their ratings up. See current US administration.

The message that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and the preaching of His name

So did Elvis?

I was born in Memphis. Couldn't go ten minutes without sightings.

After a healing meeting realized she wasn't in pain. Got ex-rays and it was completely healed and two babies later...
their report: "We can only say that it was a miracle"

I'd love to see the medical file.

I worked at a rehab hospital (the physical therapy kind, not the drug kind). Saw a quadriplegic man walk out on discharge day ... after months of intense physical and occupational therapy. Also saw people get worse and die.

 

[Kenny]

Why would that matter? They could've dug up anyone's corpse. It's not like anyone RECOGNIZED Jesus when he supposedly returned right away. The people who had been with him for months if not years suddenly don't know what he looks like?

You might want to reread the narrative in the Gospels.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you saying you ONLY believe in major events that were immediately documented? Who documented the creation of the universe? Did it happen?

Try events that were independently documented and corroborated by other independend documentation and / or objective evidence that doesn't rely on mere words and anecdotes of men.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL... our stories don't either

We both know that that isn't true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You might want to reread the narrative in the Gospels.

..And watch how they don't match up in their accounts of this supposed event.

 

[blü 2]

Since my friend, from decades ago, has it written down on her report from John Hopkins hospital having broken her spine, then we can call that miracles are for today.

Broke her back in a skying accident. Hospital tried to bridge it three time and failed and gave her the edict that she shouldn't life anything heavier than five pounds and have no children.

After a healing meeting realized she wasn't in pain. Got ex-rays and it was completely healed and two babies later...
their report: "We can only say that it was a miracle"

I'm delighted that this story has a happy ending, however surprising. And people are free to believe what they please.

But to the onlooker, that's just God-of-the-Gaps ─

We don't know = God did it
​

no?

And it raises the question, which God? Chemosh? Wu Tao? Asklepios? Krishna?

Or, John Hopkins is in Baltimore, so maybe a Susquehannok medicine man gets the credit?

Is the hospital built on ley lines, as a matter of interest?

I assume one of the reputable journals of medicine has published a report or letter about this case?

 

[rational experiences]

The cross + change of the seasons of 4 is real.

Scientific relativity of life on Earth, that once never owned sea sons. Not until ICE enforced it.

So quotes a science theme......return of ICE each December, newly formed allows Earth to own a STABLE genetic life state with animals close to our own biology, as a holy scientific Healer biological advice.

Not an occult nuclear UFO scientologist advice...elite history, elite reasoning, returned teaching have a look at self today, you acted this same way in the past in higher radiation atmospheric states...…..religious science males as a community.

To be taught lessons, have a look at yourself and see yourself and how you all once behaved in the human social community.

Therefore if humans said the Nature of life on Earth in Easter ……...East changes the sea of the son, one part of the Garden Nature in its eviction of life loses its spirit...it leaves (leaves begin to fall), the other part of the Garden Nature springs forth.

Exactly how it was taught, relativity of life existing in its nature of 4 seasonal balances.

Now if a human was to teach natural spiritual life and human health on Planet Earth as a biological healer advice.....not occult nuclear maths or physics lying sciences, technology and machination, then they did.

They advised the lying occult community of males, that if you alter the natural balances then life changes, we get sacrificed and we die....and named that DATA referred history to Adam 0 Adam that had changed into Adam 0 Jesus, that proved the Earth balances changed, the SION ground state had changed...the face of God upon which we live and life was being DNA genetic mutated.

Newly born babies were dying from early age death, Law of mass/mountain had changed 40....why Jesus was stated to die at the Age of 33.

40 Law broken fusion......7 is the coat of multi gas colours wavelength of gases so 33 was that proof.

Humans on the ground in the veil of the spirits of the Heavens, held in the spatial womb...Holy Mother theme, Mother Nature and life continuance had fallen out......veil became evil and burnt our life. MATHS being female inferred, nothing at all to do with a human female, but everything to do with human male baby self realisation.

If my Human Mother gets life self o ovary attacked in her body....life cell giver to my holy baby male life returned GENETICS, then I will get sacrificed, as my Mother saved my life...in 2 conditions.

A holy cold spatial gas womb history, natural Heavens.

Keeping of the Holy body of the Nature as that Mother life support for we need the Holy Garden Tree of life to remain healthy and living.

And the Holy human Mother self of the little male baby who grows up into being an evil minded adult occult male...who defies all life existing, just because he and his brothers claim it is their right.

That theme and story telling history against Temple/pyramid like a nuclear power plant usage in the past....doing exactly the same attack on life today, liars.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There is a lot of evidence to suggest the scripture is not true however like all the ways in which scripture contradicts itself and messes up the facts in the bible . The fact that there are lots of lost scriptures which many believe were the true scriptures. The Gnostic Gospels infact.

Nobody really signed the Gospels so we don't know whow rote them. How about the fact that they date back to 70 to 100 AD? There is no proof any person Jesus os Nazareth existed.

With regards with proof that Jesus existed, the Gospels and the influence of the Jesus character do provide a case for Jesus existence. The contradictions and ommission in the Gospels make sense if they are written by independent people. As with all history we deal with what might have been the most likely scenario as opposed to conclusive evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

Do the authors witness the parts where Jesus is alone or where the authors are clearly not present in the story?.

No..... ! Not those....! That's a wobbly idea.
The one gospel that I think was witnessed and many anecdotes found in the others were witnessed by the witnesses when present.

In other words, much of the account, it just does not end up quite like Christianity needs it to.

But there are plenty of warnings for any who might question the story. I love the one that dishonours Thomas just because he asked sensible questions:-
John {20:29} Jesus saith unto him, Thomas,
because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

See? Don't you want to be Blessed? You gotta just accept it all blindly if you wanna be a blessed Christian. You don't wanna be like wicked old Thomas, eh?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Claims are a dime a dozen.



Sure. Plenty of people sincerely believe it. So sincerely that they willingly died for it. There are martyrs in pretty much ALL religions. So this is evidence that there were people that sincerely believed. It's not evidence that what they believed is actually correct.

Vikings willingly engaged in fights they couldn't win, not caring if they would die. Their beliefs told them that dieing in battle was honorable and the way to get into whalhalla.

So them walking unto a battlefield into certain death, is only evidence of them sincerely believing it.

The same goes for the islamic suicide bomber.

Clearly people are very willing to die for their beliefs. So to me, this doesn't register as anything particularly special or out of the ordinary. In fact, looking at the history of martyrdom accross religions, I'ld even say it's quite common and ordinary.



The exact same can be said about Islam.



"at the time"?
There were no copies at that time. The first writings only show up decades and centuries later. The "mass copying" came even later, when the religion already had quite a big following - big enough for many scribes to start doing that work. And this also only shows that people believed and cared enough about those beliefs to do that work. It doesn't demonstrate the beliefs themselves by any means.



Every minority cult at some point suffered persecution, especially in ancient times. These days we call new cults wackjobs. Back then it was blasphemous in light of the "ruling" religions and distancing yourself from the "ruling" cultures instantly puts you at the bottom of society and thus an easy target.



But more then likely, it's the same as all other religions / religious scripture. The quran, the bagavad gita, greek mythology, roman mythology, egyptian mythology, viking lore, scientology, mormonism, etc etc etc.

Clearly, this is something humans did (and still do).
Why would christianity be the odd one of the series that is actually true as opposed to the countless others which you don't believe either?



Yes. And what is most likely, is that christianity and its scriptures is just like all other religions and their scriptures.

You are preaching to the converted here.

My response was with regards to whether christians believe based on faith alone. As per my first response, no they don't. Whether Christianity is unique in its claims or not is not the point.

Also, saying that Christians scriptures are the same as all other scriptures is a gross generalisation. It would be like saying that the Book of the Dead is the same as all other scriptures. The Bible is different to the Book of Mormon, which is different to the Quran, which is different to the Bagavad Gita, etc in both structure and content.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's less likely than they said it was.


Islam can claim something similar.

Not in the same way though. Muhammed went to war. Christians didn't and died anyway. But that isn't the point. The point is that they don't believe on faith alone.