Just Believe

[IndigoChild5559]

So it is your personal assessment? Most liberals and even atheists will agree with what jesus taught. Many conservative Christians do not. He taught basic human decency.

But what religious truth are you referring to?

Jesus tuaght a lot more than basic human decency. His teachings assume the existence of God, the idea that the Torah was given by God and should be obeyed by Jews, he claimed to be the Messiah, etc. I don't think atheists would agree to any of that.

 

[nPeace]

Speak for yourself, I haven't seen any real miracles.


I'd like proof that a sincere person praying could walk around inside a fiery furnace unharmed when tied up and tossed into a fiery furnace such as was done by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the Old Testament, and the proof would be repeatability of the miracle.
In fact we have contrary evidence because God would not even save the sincere Jehovah's Witnesses from relatively minor burns induced by electric shock of a stun gun in Russia;

'Electrocuted' for being a Jehovah's Witness

That is only true of minor miracles, major miracles such as flooding the entire surface of the earth or pulling two million slaves out of Egypt and wandering the dessert for 40 years should leave substantial evidence.

Also even if you couldn't prove that you actually ate lettuce, it falls within the realm of possibility - you could eat lettuce today to prove that it is possible to eat lettuce.


That is just the sciptures making up excuses for Jesus inability to provide a sign.

Ah. So you are taking a position like those that asked Jesus to perform a sign from heaven, because they did not want to believe what they saw. Sort of like saying, "I want you to do whatever I say".
Didn't the Devil try that with Jesus? Jesus refused. There is no need to prove anything to persons who would have an excuse not to believe, regardless.

Based on their non-repeatability, and based on the fact that the Gospel's miracle claims were written by Christian ministers, and as you so aptly put it, '"Christian" ministers lie all the time'.

Yes. I hope you noticed the difference. They are not the same.
On that note, even critics accept most of Paul's writings - including the facts about his prison bonds and trial.
The candor of the writers is evident. They were not "Christian" ministers.

But you said above that miracles can't be proven later, 'Asking someone who lived centuries after the event to provide proof is... ...ridiculous'

So I ask you again, what miracles were later proven to be true?

Why focus on miracles when there is so much more evidence for the reliability of scripture? Tell us. Why are you focused on miracles? Is it because that is something one can try to hide behind, like a strawman?

Evidently that is the case, since when persons... like yourself are shown evidence of the historical record, you go, "oh well that may be true, but the miracles have not been proven."
It's like building a strawman. Setting up a partition to hide behind.
No one needs to see a miracle to see evidence for the reliability of scripture.

Consider...
The Gospels contain a historical record of the man Jesus Christ. These writings criticized by many, contain supported facts, that were undeniable, but critics will believe what they want, regardless.
We cannot change what persons want to believe, and certainly, no one here can change what you want to believe.

I think there is a much greater degree of agreement than what you appear to be implying here.

'Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[30] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[9] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[10] and John AD 90–110.[11] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[12]'
Soource: Gospel - Wikipedia

There you go. They are free to believe, and probablicize, (is that a word? No ) what ever they want. You are free to do the same.
I do not see any basis for their claims, and opinions.
Ask yourself, why are there scholars who disagree, based on - not frivolous concocted ideas about writing style, but both internal and external evidence, regarding authorship?

New Testament
John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Others give a final date of 80 AD,or at 96 AD.
According to the Marcan priority, the first to be written was the Gospel of Mark (written AD 60–75), followed by the Gospel of Matthew (AD 65–85), the Gospel of Luke (AD 65–95), and the Gospel of John (AD 75–100).

If one does not want to believe something, they will pick at anything, to make excuses not to believe
If you want to discuss the evidence, we can look at that in isolation.

The authors of the Gospels where Christian ministers, and the authors of the Old Testament - the Jewish Scribes were not more honest than the Christian ministers as far as I can tell.

Trying to figure out what point you are making here.
Perhaps you did not take note of the difference between "Christian" ministers and Christian ministers.

Evidently. You said the Jews were wayward, a stiff necked lot, corrupt. All of that is attacking the source of the argument that Jesus was not a scriptural authority. It is ad-hominem. Even if the Jews were wayward stiffnecked corrupt people if they say the grass is green the grass is green. Likewise if they say that Jesus was not a scriptural authority it is true regardless of the source it came from.

Lol. So if the Jews say it, it is true. If the followers of Christ say it, it is false.

No it doesn't, the vastly overwhelming majority of Jews who were learned in the scriptures did not and have not accepted Jesus. Whilst one would expect those alive in Jesus day and having to relinguish their power to Jesus would have motive to deny His scriptural authority, there is excellent money to be made as a Christian minister today, and the material motives are heavily in favour of conversion to Christianity. In spite of this learned and financially prosperous Jews continue to reject Jesus, which suggests that Jesus is not a scriptural authority in terms of the Old testament.

That's not true. Just as stated in the Tanakh, very few Jews were faithful to God, and had an upright heart, The same is true today. Some Jews today do accept Jesus Christ, and are faithful to God.
That would be expected, based on the facts evident in the record.

Well those who as you so aptly put it "lie all the time." certainly have their bias for insisting Jesus was an Old Testament scriptural authority in spite of Jesus lack of success in gaining any authority from scripturally well informed financially well off Jews. But I'm open to correction, if you have a list of Jewish ministers who were well off prior to converting to the Jehovah's witnesses or any other branch of Christianity (and no messianic Jews and other non-Jews who take the name Jew incorrectly but fall under Christianity don't count)

If Jesus' followers say it, it is true. If false "disciples", false "Christians", say it, it is a lie - false.

Ok, so since the origins of life have already allegedly been created by God the design already exists, so humans do not have to create life, they can simply make it


So you are quoting a Jehovah's witness publication which claims cells etc have a "life force" and I'm presumably expected to take such circular reasoning as evidence?

You don't have to believe anything.
All you have to do, I think, is show that there are some... chemicals you say? that keeps humans breathing. What happens to the chemicals, that stops the breathing?

I don't think it is a myth. Self replicating molecules have been observed;

'‘We are able to observe behaviour in not-yet-living systems of self-replicating molecules that start to show strong similarities with what we see in biology,’ says project coordinator Sijbren Otto, Professor of Systems Chemistry at the University of Groningen'

Source: CORDIS | European Commission

Is it not logical that if there are self replicating molecules there could have been a first self replicating molecule?

In my opinion

I thought I was going to read about the first self-replicating molecules.
I did not realize you felt that discovering self-replicating molecules, meant speculating, or creating myths was okay.
It's not. it's still a myth.
If you think it's real, then we should not be having this discussion. You would be believing in miracles, as simply acts or events that are beyond your understanding, without your having to even see one.

However, let's hear it for another hypothesis, that will sit around at the table, twiddling its thumbs, like all the other hypotheses sitting at the table. Hip Hip. Hooray.
The conditions that led to the formation of the first organisms and the ways that life originates from a lifeless chemical soup are poorly understood. The recent hypothesis of “RNA-peptide coevolution” suggests that the current close relationship between amino acids and nucleobases may well have extended to the origin of life.

Some scientists support the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that the first life was self-replicating RNA. Others favor the metabolism-first hypothesis, placing metabolic networks before DNA or RNA.

Simple organic compounds might have come to early Earth on meteorites.

Life must have begun with a simple molecule that could reproduce itself

I suppose the more myths added to the table to replace God, will keep more people happy. Maybe the smile on your avatar will broaden.

 

[nPeace]

A book says he did, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that he didn't do that for you.

All you have to go on is hearsay... no?

A lot of history - actually about 99% of it is "heresay".
I'm sure you never personally met Alexander the Great.

However, we have primary sources of evidence, and secondary sources. That's what forms our histories.
We examine these facts for ourselves, and we accept or reject.
I think when we examine evidence, it's more than hearsay.
When the judge and jury considers the testimony of the witnesses, and examine the evidence, they don't reach conclusions on mere hearsay. Do they?

Why do you think it's different where scripture... particularly the Bible, is concerned?

 

[blü 2]

No sir. You are the one saying God is a designed object. So tell me please, why do you think God is designed?

As I've said all along, each person who has been told of God forms a concept "God" in her or his head. Stories, pictures, "sacred texts", cultural norms, all feed the various concepts of "god" found round the world.

Gods only exist as concepts / things imagined because there is no real god, no being out there with objective existence. Otherwise you could show me videos, tell me where and when [he]'ll make [his] next public appearance so I can go along and watch, or turn on the TV.

No. The concept is entirely yours. Here, let me prove it.

Now now! I quoted your own words to you. You said that God has knowledge and know-how that we lack, and that this enables [him] to perform what humans would call miracles.

Therefore (IFF your God has objective existence) our task is to find out what God knows that we don't about the physical universe, so that we can understand and perform "miracles" too.

Please tell us what is a scientist.

A scientist is someone with expertise in science.

Hence a super-scientist is...?

A hypothetical being with expertise in science greatly advanced beyond our own present expertise.

Gee, I was thinking you'd have figured that one out for yourself ..

Thus the concept cannot fit God, and is a wrong concept. Can you understand that?

Thus the concept neatly fits your description of how God performs what we think are miracles ─ [he] knows more about that stuff than we presently do,

 

[nPeace]

Because you brought it up.

Where?

Alright. So forget proof then (which you yourself brought up) and provide "evidence" for Jesus performing miracles.

I am just following through with your OP.

The OP is not about Jesus performing miracles. So no. You are not following through on my OP. Anything but that apparently.

 

[F1fan]

Jesus tuaght a lot more than basic human decency. His teachings assume the existence of God, the idea that the Torah was given by God and should be obeyed by Jews, he claimed to be the Messiah, etc. I don't think atheists would agree to any of that.

The Jewish idea of God is vastly different than the changes Christians made to it. The idea of salvation was changed dramatically from the jewish idea. And as today most people back in that era were religious, and they adopted the religion they were exposed to. That atheists disagree with the basic claims of there being a God is obvious. But even the way Jesus talked about God was pretty far from how Christians refer to a God.

And it's debatable that Jesus thought he was the Messiah. For one thing there is a lot in the Gospels that are likely invented, so let's not ignore that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Jewish idea of God is vastly different than the changes Christians made to it. The idea of salvation was changed dramatically from the jewish idea. And as today most people back in that era were religious, and they adopted the religion they were exposed to. That atheists disagree with the basic claims of there being a God is obvious. But even the way Jesus talked about God was pretty far from how Christians refer to a God.

And it's debatable that Jesus thought he was the Messiah. For one thing there is a lot in the Gospels that are likely invented, so let's not ignore that.

Jesus himself did not really change Judaism. Paul did, for sure. But Jesus practiced pretty typical second temple Judaism.

 

[F1fan]

Jesus himself did not really change Judaism. Paul did, for sure. But Jesus practiced pretty typical second temple Judaism.

Right. That's why Christianity is mostly about Paul and not Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Right. That's why Christianity is mostly about Paul and not Jesus.

I agree

 

[firedragon]

Where?


The OP is not about Jesus performing miracles. So no. You are not following through on my OP. Anything but that apparently.

Yeah. The OP is about believing with evidence. So what evidence do you have?

 

[danieldemol]

Ah. So you are taking a position like those that asked Jesus to perform a sign from heaven, because they did not want to believe what they saw. Sort of like saying, "I want you to do whatever I say".
Didn't the Devil try that with Jesus? Jesus refused. There is no need to prove anything to persons who would have an excuse not to believe, regardless.

What mind reading powers do you have to know that they were not prepared to believe had they been given an authentic miracle? Jesus never gave us the opportunity to doubt the doubters by taking them up on a challenge that would have been allegedly easy for Him. If Jesus simply used unknown laws of nature as you appear to describe miracles then we still could not know if they were from God or simply a technologically advanced person, but at least we could know that it was possible for genuine miracles to occur.

In John 14 Jesus says, "whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son" so I ask in Jesus name to resurrect my dead grandfather, and if my prayers are too insincere then let the sincerest Jehovah's Witnesses ask the same in Jesus name including all their governing body and even all Jehovah's Witnesses put together to do the same. That will be enough to falsify the truth of the Biblical miracles

Yes. I hope you noticed the difference. They are not the same.
On that note, even critics accept most of Paul's writings - including the facts about his prison bonds and trial.
The candor of the writers is evident. They were not "Christian" ministers.

What critics accept as facts Paul's prison bonds and trial? Can you name them and quote them specifically? And more to the point can you demonstrate how Paul's persecution demonstrates his claim of miracles to be true, after all Falun Gong practitioners claim some pretty interesting stuff and they are prepared to suffer all sorts of gruesome persecution for it, so should we accept the fancier claims people make as truthful just because they are persecuted?

Why focus on miracles when there is so much more evidence for the reliability of scripture? Tell us. Why are you focused on miracles? Is it because that is something one can try to hide behind, like a strawman?

No it's not a strawman, for the Gospels to be true miracles must be true. For the Gospels to be true Jesus must be willing and able to do, "whatever you ask" John 14:13

Evidently that is the case, since when persons... like yourself are shown evidence of the historical record, you go, "oh well that may be true, but the miracles have not been proven."
It's like building a strawman. Setting up a partition to hide behind.
No one needs to see a miracle to see evidence for the reliability of scripture.

You haven't shown evidence of the Gospel being a historical record, so far you've only made the claim that it is;
'According to Acts, Paul began his persecutions in Jerusalem, a view at odds with his assertion that he did not know any of the Jerusalem followers of Christ until well after his own conversion (Galatians 1:4–17)'

Source: Saint Paul the Apostle | Biography & Facts

'In Christian tradition, he is known as Paul of Tarsus, as this is where Luke says he was born (Acts 9:11). At the time, Tarsus was located in the province of Cilicia, now modern Turkey. However, Paul himself indicates that he was from the area of Damascus which was in Syria (see the letter to the Galatians). Luke has provided many of the standard elements in Paul's life, but most of these items stand in stark opposition to what Paul himself reveals in his letters. For instance, Luke claims that Paul grew up in Jerusalem, studying at the feet of many who would be considered the first rabbis of normative Judaism, and eventually becoming a member of the council, or the Sanhedrin. Paul himself says that he only visited Jerusalem twice, and even then his stay was a few days. What do we do about such contradictions?'

Source: Paul the Apostle

Consider...
The Gospels contain a historical record of the man Jesus Christ.

So you keep asserting, but offering no evidence of in spite of the contrary evidence.

We cannot change what persons want to believe, and certainly, no one here can change what you want to believe.

Right back at you.

Ask yourself, why are there scholars who disagree, based on - not frivolous concocted ideas about writing style, but both internal and external evidence, regarding authorship?

Sounds like a loaded question to me.

New Testament
John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Others give a final date of 80 AD,or at 96 AD.
According to the Marcan priority, the first to be written was the Gospel of Mark (written AD 60–75), followed by the Gospel of Matthew (AD 65–85), the Gospel of Luke (AD 65–95), and the Gospel of John (AD 75–100).

John A T Robinson was the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, Dan Wallace is a Baptist, William F Allbright had a methodist upbringing.
I'll try and see if I can dig up a debate between Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman, but although being one of the more interesting figures, William F Allbright and his methodology are considered outdated;

'As editor of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research between 1931 and 1968, Albright influenced both biblical scholarship and Palestinian archaeology.[28] Albright used this influence to advocate "biblical archaeology", in which the archaeologist's task, according to fellow biblical archaeologist William G. Dever, is seen as being "to illuminate, to understand, and, in their greatest excesses, to 'prove' the Bible."[32] In this Albright's American Methodist upbringing was clearly apparent...

...
In the years since his death, Albrigth's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. In a 1993 article for The Biblical Archaeologist, William G. Dever stated that:

[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology.'[33]

Biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson contends that the methods of "biblical archaeology" have also become outmoded:

[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the "balance of probability" ...[34]'

Source: William F. Albright - Wikipedia

If one does not want to believe something, they will pick at anything, to make excuses not to believe
If you want to discuss the evidence, we can look at that in isolation.

So long as you are going to provide some actual evidence, and take into consideration the evidence that dismisses belief as justifiable.

Trying to figure out what point you are making here.
Perhaps you did not take note of the difference between "Christian" ministers and Christian ministers.

There is no difference.

Lol. So if the Jews say it, it is true. If the followers of Christ say it, it is false.

Still attached to the idea of something being true or false based on it's source I see.

That's not true. Just as stated in the Tanakh, very few Jews were faithful to God, and had an upright heart, The same is true today. Some Jews today do accept Jesus Christ, and are faithful to God.
That would be expected, based on the facts evident in the record.

What Jews, be specific and indicate their financial status. I'd imagine that financially well off Jewish conversions are few and far between.

If Jesus' followers say it, it is true. If false "disciples", false "Christians", say it, it is a lie - false.

Wrong, something is true or false independant of it's source.

You don't have to believe anything.
All you have to do, I think, is show that there are some... chemicals you say? that keeps humans breathing. What happens to the chemicals, that stops the breathing?

Electrical impulse from the brain causes the lung muscles to expand and contract. If your brain ceases to function no electrical signal will be sent to the muscles to contract and carbon dioxide will build up in the lungs.

I thought I was going to read about the first self-replicating molecules.
I did not realize you felt that discovering self-replicating molecules, meant speculating, or creating myths was okay.
It's not. it's still a myth.
If you think it's real, then we should not be having this discussion. You would be believing in miracles, as simply acts or events that are beyond your understanding, without your having to even see one.

I can see self replicating molecules, the first known molecules appeared in the universe 100,000 years after the big bang1 and the first known organic molecules occurred 4 billion years ago 2
1 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/the-universe-s-first-type-of-molecule-is-found-at-last
2 5.5: First Organic Molecules.

As such it is not a myth that there had to be either a first or a group of first self replicating molecules, it is the only logical conclusion from the fact that there was a time there were none then a time there were some.

In my opinion

 

[Brian2]

Where?

There is design in the matter of the universe, the material that can form all we see about us and that we can play with to form more.
There is design in the earth and having it just right for life to be created.
There is design in every life form and and nobody even knows how DNA became a storehouse for data and a control point for the growth and functioning of the body.
If we go by what we know so far we believe in a designer, if we don't want to believe in a designer then we put our faith in the speculations of scientists who don't know.

Where?

Purpose can be see in first seeing the design and then we have a better chance of seeing the purpose for it. Even science, with no designer, sees purpose in things and attributes it to nobody.
Seeing an ultimate purpose might come from realising that the designer was not just out to fill in time and play around.
Seeing that purpose might come from believing what God has in mind for His creation even if, with death, everything seems pretty meaningless.

Those laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.
They are our way of describing how the universe operates, that we have come to undertsand via observation, measurement and analysis.

We describe the laws that we discover, which are there whether we know them or not.
Seeing the design and purpose and designer points to prescriptive laws.

 

[nPeace]

Yeah. The OP is about believing with evidence. So what evidence do you have?

No need t repeat myself.
Your question is very very vague, unlike the other responses.
When you have made up your mind on what you really would like to discuss, let me know.

@Brian2 I can tell you that trying is a good thing. With some skeptics though, no amount of reasonableness will be appreciated. You can see that from my thread Evidence for God, and check out page 18.
I've been there. done that, and i am done with that.

To some people, naturalism is the only explanation, because it bars the door shut to any consideration of God... at least in their mind.
Yet these people will claim they are "opened to the possibility", but when it boils down to it, it becomes clear that their minds are closed. It's only words they utter.

To many a scientist, with a brilliant mind intact, design is nature gives evidence of a designer. The naturalistic view however, does not allow for that in science, but to those scientists, understanding that creates no problem for them where evidence for God is concerned.
One of the World’s Most Powerful Scientists Believes in Miracles

 

[F1fan]

To some people, naturalism is the only explanation, because it bars the door shut to any consideration of God... at least in their mind.

Naturalism is all we can verify. Science has to deal with facts. Gods aren't known to exist outside of human brains.

Yet these people will claim they are "opened to the possibility", but when it boils down to it, it becomes clear that their minds are closed. It's only words they utter.

That something is possible doesn't mean it has a place in explaining reality. What you are referring to is speculation, and if that is all you care about then knock yourself out, but that a person can imagine and speculate means nothing because it's not factual.

To many a scientist, with a brilliant mind intact, design is nature gives evidence of a designer. The naturalistic view however, does not allow for that in science, but to those scientists, understanding that creates no problem for them where evidence for God is concerned.
One of the World’s Most Powerful Scientists Believes in Miracles

Not that many. And if they are good scientists they understand the whole notion of a designer is imaginary and speculation, nothing to use for work.

 

[firedragon]

No need t repeat myself.
Your question is very very vague, unlike the other responses.

Actually its pretty simple. It was addressing your OP which is about believing with evidence, unless I have got it absolutely wrong.

So in the same OP you have said "Jesus performed great signs". Thus what are the evidences you have to believe Jesus performed great signs??

 

[nPeace]

Actually its pretty simple. It was addressing your OP which is about believing with evidence, unless I have got it absolutely wrong.

So in the same OP you have said "Jesus performed great signs". Thus what are the evidences you have to believe Jesus performed great signs??

If you read the OP with its context in mind, you would not focus on one line or two, and then make that the focus of the OP.
If Jesus just wanted people to have faith without evidence, he would have simply walked around; looked people in the face; smiled, and said, "Hey. I'm the Messiah. Believe it. "

However, Jesus performed great signs, and used the scriptures to teach with authority, giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith. Is that not so?

The reason for drawing on the fact that Jesus did not require faith or belief with no evidence, does not shift the focus of the OP to Jesus, or his miracles.
Do you understand that? I hope you do.

Think of it this way, In the Spiderman movie, let's say "Dr. Oct did not want to destroy the city, because he had compassion for the little boy. Which shows that even the worst of criminals can, and do have compassion."

If the topic relates to wicked people having compassion, drawing on a reference - whether fact or fiction, does not shift the focus to whether Dr. Oct is real or not, or whether the reference is fact or fiction.
Surely you understand that.

If you want to start a thread on Jesus' Miracles - fact or fiction, please feel free to do so.
If you want to discuss whether Jesus existed or not, I think there are a number of threads, which show clearly, with credible references, that he did.

 

[nPeace]

Naturalism is all we can verify. Science has to deal with facts. Gods aren't known to exist outside of human brains.


That something is possible doesn't mean it has a place in explaining reality. What you are referring to is speculation, and if that is all you care about then knock yourself out, but that a person can imagine and speculate means nothing because it's not factual.


Not that many. And if they are good scientists they understand the whole notion of a designer is imaginary and speculation, nothing to use for work.

Does naturalism include reasoning, in coming to conclusions, on the same facts that everyone has?

 

[firedragon]

If you read the OP with its context in mind, you would not focus on one line or two, and then make that the focus of the OP.
If Jesus just wanted people to have faith without evidence, he would have simply walked around; looked people in the face; smiled, and said, "Hey. I'm the Messiah. Believe it. "

However, Jesus performed great signs,

What evidence do you have that "Jesus performed great signs"?

 

[nPeace]

What evidence do you have that "Jesus performed great signs"?

The same evidence you have that you were in your mother's womb, and came out, either one of two ways.

 

[firedragon]

The same evidence you have that you were in your mother's womb, and came out, either one of two ways.

Not evidence.