Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...

[viole]

You fallen asleep?

I have to admit it happens often to me when I hear arguments in the line of: either intelligenge or luck/fluke/chance/ etc.



Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

So, your argument is, if I understood correctly:

1) everything is either the product of intelligence or luck
2) luck does not exist
3) ergo, everything is the product of intelligence

Is that right?

Ciao

- viole

As you say, "if" you understand it correctly.
There is no such thing as luck but it is a term that is used by the world. If I am speaking to you, then it exists, and if I am not speaking to you, it does not exist. Thus in reality, it does not exist so your argument, I think, does not work

 

[Robert.Evans]

I have to admit it happens often to me when I hear arguments in the line of: either intelligenge or luck/fluke/chance/ etc.



Ciao

- viole

Give me another answer then

 

[viole]

As you say, "if" you understand it correctly.
There is no such thing as luck but it is a term that is used by the world. If I am speaking to you, then it exists, and if I am not speaking to you, it does not exist. Thus in reality, it does not exist so your argument, I think, does not work

So, my version of your argument is wrong.

Where?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

So, my version of your argument is wrong.

Where?

Ciao

- viole

In the statement above your comment, isn't it??

 

[JoStories]

WHAT!?!

There were two Messiahs.

One was.

I see nowhere in the Torah where a man MUST be married BY LAW. Would you care to share the verse?

Explain, whilst you ignore sacred text, the same text you same you have a PhD on.

What about my saying that Jesus may or may not have lived do you not understand?
The cultural norm for Jewish men then was to be married and procreate.
You last sentence makes no sense. The same text you same a PhD on??? I will assume here you mean what sacred text. And that would be all of them. Although my greatest interest and focus was and is on the commonalities of all faiths and mysticism.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What about my saying that Jesus may or may not have lived do you not understand?

He lived. It is testified to. I have his spirit. Do you not understand?

The cultural norm for Jewish men then was to be married and procreate.

Norm, but not law I think. I do recall asking someone to show where it said it was law in the Torah and I bet it was you.

You last sentence makes no sense. The same text you same a PhD on??? I will assume here you mean what sacred text. And that would be all of them. Although my greatest interest and focus was and is on the commonalities of all faiths and mysticism.

It should have said, The same text you SAY you have a PhD on. I assume it is on biblical theology?

 

[First Baseman]

What about my saying that Jesus may or may not have lived do you not understand?
The cultural norm for Jewish men then was to be married and procreate.
You last sentence makes no sense. The same text you same a PhD on??? I will assume here you mean what sacred text. And that would be all of them. Although my greatest interest and focus was and is on the commonalities of all faiths and mysticism.

Men had to able to support their wives. Women could not work and earn a living. So if a man was too poor he could not take a wife because he could not feed her.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Voorst book is a pro-evidence side and put forward this view .

Could you quote what you are referring to from Voorst to indicate what you mean by "this view"?

 

[Desert Snake]

I have to admit it happens often to me when I hear arguments in the line of: either intelligenge or luck/fluke/chance/ etc.



Ciao

- viole

Uhhh, why? This question seems like it would be central to your faith, yet you say it puts you to sleep. I don't see the logic there.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Uhhh, why? This question seems like it would be central to your faith, yet you say it puts you to sleep. I don't see the logic there.

Because luck is a word devoid of meaning. It's shorthand, and in the sense that most people understand it, it's entirely misleading.

 

[viole]

In the statement above your comment, isn't it??

Quid pro quo. I answered your question, now answer mine

Assuming that everything is the product if intelligence, is this intelligence also the product of intelligence?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Uhhh, why? This question seems like it would be central to your faith, yet you say it puts you to sleep. I don't see the logic there.

Why should it be central to my "faith"? The question is meaningless.

It is easy, for instance, to prove that it is not the case that everything that exists is either the product of intelligence or the product of luck/chance, etc. Especially if you insist that infinite regress is impossible

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Could you quote what you are referring to from Voorst to indicate what you mean by "this view"?

Simply put he calls the records "witnesses" of Jesus in his opening statements on Jewish texts yet acknowledges that these sources have no tradition within Jewish. So in the end the Jewish texts can not be used as evidence of Jesus by Vrooots own words. He ignores this then speculates in his conclusions with not a single one contain the these references could be solely based on Christian tradition not Jewish tradition.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Simply put he calls the records "witnesses" of Jesus in his opening statements on Jewish texts yet acknowledges that these sources have no tradition within Jewish.

So do just about all NT scholars. Josephus, for example, is practically universally regarded as a witness to Jesus yet isn't in Jewish tradition. Virtually all scholars regard the Talmud as at least possibly (if not probably) referring to Jesus, yet nobody uses these references as evidence for anything but at best evidence for the view that Jesus existed (as if all of our evidence for Jesus were akin to that for Pythagoras: no biography until ~500 years later).

So in the end the Jewish texts can not be used as evidence of Jesus by Vrooots own words.

Wrong. Because there is an obvious difference between evidence for an individual and evidence for a particular tradition about that individual. Few if any today regard Alexander the Great or Caesar as gods, yet few if any wouldn't regard those who spoke of them as such as testifying (witnesses) to their historical persons.

He ignores this then speculates in his conclusions with not a single one contain the these references could be solely based on Christian tradition not Jewish tradition.

And how would you compare his conclusions with those of the Jewish scholars Vermes and Neusner or the great Josephan scholar Feldmen or the elementary texts I gave for more information and additional citations
(Casey, M. (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life and teaching. Continuum.
Dunn, J. D. (1985). The Evidence for Jesus. Westminster Press.
Theißen, G., & Merz, A. (2011). Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.)
or more specific texts
(e.g. Schäfer, P. (2010). Jesus im Talmud. Mohr Siebeck.)?

 

[Shad]

So do just about all NT scholars. Josephus, for example, is practically universally regarded as a witness to Jesus yet isn't in Jewish tradition. Virtually all scholars regard the Talmud as at least possibly (if not probably) referring to Jesus, yet nobody uses these references as evidence for anything but at best evidence for the view that Jesus existed (as if all of our evidence for Jesus were akin to that for Pythagoras: no biography until ~500 years later).

I am not questioning the reference itself but the sources of. For example if you are talking about Baal then I make a paper talking about the Baal this does not mean I am using say atheist references or tradition. I could solely be responding to your talk about Baal using your reference only. Thus this is not evidence for Jesus but evidence that Jews knew about Christian tradition.

Pythagoras is not a central figure of a religion. Many acknowledge the reference to him are very very weak. If he was a fiction no one would care as people are not invest in a religion centered on him. Hence why many people stretch references to Jesus beyond those for Pythagoras. The treatment of both figures is different due to religion.

Wrong. Because there is an obvious difference between evidence for an individual and evidence for a particular tradition about that individual. Few if any today regard Alexander the Great or Caesar as gods, yet few if any regard those who spoke of them as such as testifying (witnesses) to their historical persons.

Yet this difference is not support by Vroots later analysis. Both Alexander and Caesar have vastly more textual and material evidence to support them. They impacted the world during their lifetime, Jesus impact a few people. Christians changed the world not Jesus directly as per your two examples

And how would you compare his conclusions with those of the Jewish scholars Vermes and Neusner or the great Josephan scholar Feldmen or the elementary texts I gave for more information and additional citations
(Casey, M. (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life and teaching. Continuum.
Dunn, J. D. (1985). The Evidence for Jesus. Westminster Press.
Theißen, G., & Merz, A. (2011). Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.)
or more specific texts
(e.g. Schäfer, P. (2010). Jesus im Talmud. Mohr Siebeck.)?

Will have to read these books, the only one I know is Maurice Casey's book

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am not questioning the reference itself but the sources of.

Have you read them and what is your experience teasing out references from texts from ancient history and evaluating the likelihood that they provide evidence for the persons they do?

For example if you are talking about Baal then I make a paper talking about the Baal this does not mean I am using say atheist references or tradition.

I don't care about whether a paper is atheist, muslim, wiccan, etc. I came into NT and Biblical studies from classics, where we dreamt of having the kind of evidence for almost anybody we wished to speak of as we do of Jesus. Christian and anti-Christian scholars basically founded the historical critical method. It's been a century since Von Riemarus zu Wrede ended the attempts to write "lives" of Jesus. There are enough biases to go around without taking these into account before evaluating the arguments.

Pythagoras is not a central figure of a religion.

So what? That just means his figure has not been subjected to several centuries of the most intense scrutiny any figure of antiquity has ever faced.

Many acknowledge the reference to him are very very weak.

They amount to less than the Jewish sources for Jesus.

If he was a fiction no one would care as people are not invest in a religion centered on him.

Haven't spent much time around those who actually WRITE the history books on ancient Greeks, Romans, etc., have you? Unlike with Jesus, basically the only ones who care are those who write history.

Hence why many people stretch references to Jesus beyond those for Pythagoras.

Ridiculous. We have almost no references for Pythagoras, and more references for Jesus than virtually anybody from antiquity. Try again.

Yet this difference is not support by Vroots later analysis. Both Alexander and Caesar have vastly more textual and material evidence to support them.

So does Zeus. So does Herakles. Naïve analysis of attestation such as that you offer renders Homer and Hera more historical than Alexander the Great.

They impacted the world during their lifetime, Jesus impact a few people.

Yet the attestation for his existence is greater than emperors and superior in numerous ways.

Christians changed the world not Jesus directly as per your two examples

Alexander and Jesus did everything they did with their own hands? It was Alexander who wrote the sources that make him a god? Same with Caesar? Caesar deified himself? Called himself "son of god" and started a civil religion based around him?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Will have to read these books, the only one I know is Maurice Casey's book

Ok. How about
Habermas, G. R. (1996). The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. College Press.
?
That's a popular book of the same kind (by "popular", I mean "non-technical", not popular in the vernacular sense).

 

[Robert.Evans]

Quid pro quo. I answered your question, now answer mine

Assuming that everything is the product if intelligence, is this intelligence also the product of intelligence?

Ciao

- viole

You answered my question? Where? Did I miss it? You just asked me again and I gave my answer. I have yet to see you answer that if intelligence is not the answer it must be luck or to give a third response.

And to answer your question, no. It comes from an Existence before consciousness that just "IS"

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why should it be central to my "faith"? The question is meaningless.

It is easy, for instance, to prove that it is not the case that everything that exists is either the product of intelligence or the product of luck/chance, etc. Especially if you insist that infinite regress is impossible

Ciao

- viole

Prove it then, before I get old and die.