the right religion

[1robin]

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I accept that there is a Historical Jesus and that certain things in the Bible do corroborate with history. I don't believe any of the supernatural things attributed to Jesus in Bible because there is no evidence for them. The scholars you keep mentioning aren't presenting any evidence for what Jesus supposedly did they are only saying that the "eye witnesses" were trustworthy. That is not evidence. Until there is evidence that can be verified I'm not going to believe. I can deny what the apostles claim because there is no evidence for what they are claiming. Why aren't these miracles at least mentioned by Jewish scholars of the day?

I understand what you claim. The establishment of reliability of the testimonial authors and the historical evidence being present that we can expect to find along with things like the Apostles having witnessed something that turned them from cowards into lions for a truth they had adequate knowledge to evaluate is all that can be used to determine these types of claims. The burden of faith is not proof it is intellectual permissibility. If you claim no proof means you may have no faith I grant that but have pointed out that you are not using the same standard for other areas of knowledge and have given a few as examples. Everything that can be reasonably expected to exist as confirmations of he Bible does. There are no additional demands that are both reasonable and deficient. I thought the requirements of faith was understood and only it's burdens required.

I don't know much about dark matter but I do know there is enough evidence to show that it does exist. The same cannot be said about the claims made about Jesus in the Bible.

I believe dark matter exists because it explains it's effects. However it is only a label and does not even have a quantifiable conceptual form. In no way is the "evidence" for dark matter better or even different than for the Bible's claims.

1.What Authors have been shown to be historically accurate to a degree that is incomprehensible? The Biblical authors?

They were so accurate that the Bible is a primary secular archeological text. Museums are literally full of artifacts from civilizations that secular scholars recently said to have not even existed. Luke's civil administration terminology proved almost all secular critiques wrong. The Bible's historical record put's its critiques to shame.

2. Nothing special to Christianity. Other religious movements have faced the same thing.

I see an example is necessary. Name me one other example in history where a faith that was persecuted by one of history’s greatest empire's (Rome) converted (not conquered) the same empire. There are even existing documents from Pilot's successor where he claimed that if the policy of killing anyone that would not deny their faith and declare Caesar God was not suspended that there would soon no longer be anyone to demand it of. The general Jewish population was choosing death over compliance. God prophesied that Israel would never again be eliminated by her enemies. Their record (militarily) of the years since 1948 have been the most astonishing examples of being outnumbered and achieving lopsided victories of any comparable historical period there has ever been. There is no parallel to Jewish national history. If you wish I can give you a list of areas in which the tiny nation of Irael leads the world in the mots sigbnificant ways in spite of having to spend more money per person on defense than anyone on Earth. Bible or no Bible it is an inconcievable list of accomplishments.

3. Other religions claim these same experiences also. Once again it's not something that is unique to Christianity.

No there is not. I thought I had already demonstrated this in detail, in several ways. Compare the fact that Hindu’s (in conversations with me) have claimed that not only are only are only a select few privileged to experience God but that only a very select few even know the truth about him nor can they understand Hindu’s basic claims. To become a Muslim there is no spiritual event even mentioned. I must simply agree that Allah is one and Muhammad is his prophet. Out of the hundreds only one member of another faith has even made any claim to have experienced God, in my experience. Contrast that with Jesus description of salvation in John. Nicodemus lacked nothing man can achieve and Jesus said to even enter the kingdom he must experience God. All other religions focus on man’s effort to reach God. Christianity focuses on God’s efforts to reach man.

4. Jesus being the most influential is very debatable. He is one of the most influential but I don't know about the most influential. Muhammad achieved similar things.

Muhammad did not perform one miracle even when asked, is still in the grave where the poison from one of his victim’s wives put him, and killed hundreds of defenseless people, there is no evidence Jesus ever committed a sin. In what way are they even similar (at least as personal concepts)? The only metric where influence can be determined is by stats. Christianity is the largest and existed long before Islam did.

Because they don't present any evidence. They only make claims about testimonies. They haven't presented any evidence for what is being claimed.

That is among the only methods by which claims of this nature are evaluated. The quality of testimony is the primary determination of historical claims. The most expert of scholars in this area is completely applicable. Your demands have no connection to how historical claims are evaluated. Can you "prove" Caesar even existed? There is less textual evidence for him than Christ.

Faith as defined by the dictionary is "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Faith doesn't require proof. If there was proof it wouldn't be called faith. How can you have faith is something that there is evidence for? Honestly I'm not really sure what we are debating. If you feel your faith is reasonably justified then good for you. I don't share those same sentiments as you. You've admitted that you can't prove the Bible's supernatural claims. There's nothing more to debate about this specific topic.

The people most capable of examining the merit for placing faith in Biblical testimony agree with me. Debates must take place on common ground. If the scholars and their claims are not allowed to be common ground (which are the same scholars used in legal matters of the same types) then no common ground exists and there is no debate. I only have a burden to show the existence of the burdens of faith. I have already not only agreed that faith is not proof I have even gone farther and said it precludes proof. My only other contention is that your use faith in countless areas in your life as all do but only seem to demand proof for the Bible. Why?

I should have asked beforehand I know not all Christians share the same beliefs about hell.

Catholic's and their traditions and dogmas (being the first) have done more to damage and distortion (IMO) to Christianity than any other group in history.

 

[Philomath]

In this context it is a difference without distinction. Their common pluralistic beliefs are what eliminate them from coherency and possible legitimacy for me. Their distinctions are not the claims I am concerned with. I can't remember the context specifically enough to know if what I claimed here cleared up what I originally meant or not.

So any religion that accepts another religion as being true is false to you?

Let's say I am wrong. Is this smaller list of deities any more logical? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_deities
However I do not think you are arguing that the 300 million deities exist in reality to some Hindu's are you. I am not saying it is right I am saying some Hindus believe that. It is so commonly known I must not understand what you are saying.

What I was saying is that the number "300 million" is greatly exaggerated. The actual number is around 33. These aren't "actual" deities they are all aspects of one God.

Truth is truth regardless of it's source. If you can demonstrate that what I provided was not a part of a significant number of Hindu’s belief’s I will go along with you, however condemning information based on a bias that is undemonstrated is invalid until shown. I am not attempting to show what is teh "right" Hinduism (how could that even be known) but what is generally associated with Hinduism.

No it is not. If I quote biblical information from a Satanist website the information is true? You should quote from an actual website that is practicing Hinduism. The caste system is not a part of Hinduism it is a product of the culture.

I do not have the background or time to evaluate India's entire history but I do know quite a bit about it's colonial period. It was better off under colonial rule even with the many bad things the English did. I am not debating whether the English should have been there, only whether India was better off.

We're probably not going to get any further on this issue but I disagree with you.

If you would rather debate the suffering Messiah that would be fine but I would rather debate Tyre and only one in depth is practical. I however notice you did not give any reason for what you said here. You basically said "nope".

I said nope to what?

Tell me the truth did you write this or copy it from somewhere. Sounds like a Jewish site (not that a Jewish site is invalid). Please see the above. Both of these areas will be too much if either is to be resolved. Your choice. My suggestion is Tyre, it's "funner" and simpler than Isaiah.

I did copy it from a Jewish website that's why it was surrounded it quotation marks, maybe I should have linked the website instead.

That was not a prediction made about his first coming. The ones I am familiar with concern a time after his second coming. Until God puts an end to man's rebellion this is not something that could ever take place and that can't occur until Christ's returns obviously. However until I know which verse you are using to claim this I will not be able to show it.

I don't know what Messiah your talking about but I'm talking about the Jewish Messiah. There is only one coming of the Jewish Messiah. The Christian Messiah is clearly a different idea than the Jewish one.

To say something existed at a certain time (which by the way is a very debated claim but not one I am contesting) has no bearing what so ever on if it was available to any particular set of people. It does not appear in any of the lists of what books were considered, it appears in none of the early Church fathers writings, and is a virtual unknown before its modern discovery. My last few claims about Thomas are from memory as it takes forever to find evidence of a negative but I believe they are accurate. I have never seen it mentioned in any of the contexts I gave.

Can you show me some of these lists?

You would be better of the other way around. The overall narrative of the canonical Gospels is that we are inherently sinful and can't escape judgment by any merits of our own. That is an essential and primary core doctrine. Thomas would have us look to ourselves for salvation. They are mutually exclusive unless the greatest distortions are appealed to and It is not only that these two are inconsistent but that it is well known that this is a core teaching of the gnostic movement. I could stop there and that would be plenty but I will add more. At this site is probably the most respected modern Biblical scholar to have lived and he will elaborate on not only it's inconsistencies but also it's dubious origins and dates. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/08/Can-We-Trust-The-Gospels.aspx

I disagree with you on what the message of the Gospels are. The Gospel of Thomas only tells you to look inside yourself for understanding and as far as I know that doesn't contradict with the the Gospels.

Please pick (In my preferred order) only one and let’s get detailed.
1. The Tyre prophecy. It would be fascinating even if false.
2. GOT
3. Isaiah. This one is almost unresolvable and to do so is very involved but it is your choice.

What is GOT?

Also what is the purpose of this debate? Are you trying to convince me off Christianity's truth?

 

[1robin]

So any religion that accepts another religion as being true is false to you?

Any religion that accepts another mutually exclusive claim to truth means that one of them is wrong. It can't simultaneously be true there is only one God and that there are more than one. Someone or both are wrong. Christianity at the very least acknowledges that truth is an exclusive category. Pluralistic theology does not and there for fails a the first test well before examining it's other claims.

What I was saying is that the number "300 million" is greatly exaggerated. The actual number is around 33. These aren't "actual" deities they are all aspects of one God.

I have had Hindu's tell me there were anywhere from 1 to millions. It depends on who yu ask but to end this meaningless contention let's say there were only 2 God's in Hinduism. If there is a God he is defined in general to be a maximal being (if he was not maximal then he is not God). Another God in addition to this one maximal being would either be redundant (if maximal as well) or unnecessary (if less than a maximum and not God). Pluralism just is not rational.

No it is not. If I quote biblical information from a Satanist website the information is true?

You most certainly can quote Biblical information from a satanic site that is true. It is true or false independently of source. What you claimed is a genetic fallacy. If you reviewed my posts you would find I have virtually never dismissed anything based on the site it was from.

You should quote from an actual website that is practicing Hinduism. The caste system is not a part of Hinduism it is a product of the culture.

Until you can explain why what I quoted is wrong because of the site that it came from it stands as is. The site explained why it claimed what it did. Did you read it?

We're probably not going to get any further on this issue but I disagree with you.

Are you under the impression thing improved when they kicked the British out?

I said nope to what?

My original argument was that Christ is the only person or entity that the prophecies I gave could apply to. You basically said "nope". It is not whether you are right or wrong it was a comment on the quality of the argument.

I did copy it from a Jewish website that's why it was surrounded it quotation marks, maybe I should have linked the website instead.

Virtually all the scholars that claim that Isaiah 53 is not about Christ are Jewish. Their arguments are at times good and at times appalling but it is hard to credit Jewish scholars with objectivity given the massive preconception that colors everything. Most NT scholars (Christian or secular) believe those prophecies are about Christ not Israel.
I

don't know what Messiah your talking about but I'm talking about the Jewish Messiah. There is only one coming of the Jewish Messiah. The Christian Messiah is clearly a different idea than the Jewish one.

In this case it makes little difference. The prophecies if they concern Christ apply to his second coming so they do not disprove he was the Messiah. That is what you had claimed.

Can you show me some of these lists?

This site contains some of them. It also contains other info as well. Thomas does not make any of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Another: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-rejected-books.htm

I disagree with you on what the message of the Gospels are. The Gospel of Thomas only tells you to look inside yourself for understanding and as far as I know that doesn't contradict with the Gospels.

It is literally included and considered officially gnostic in message. I don't know what else to say. It is gnostic. You can find all the evidence you would ever need to dismiss Thomas at this site.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

What is GOT?

Gospel of Thomas. Here is a link on it's heretical gnostic message alone: http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/thomas/arnal.htm

Also what is the purpose of this debate? Are you trying to convince me off Christianity's truth?

I was all fired up for a Tyre debate. I have a few motives for debate in no particular order.

1. Killing down time at work.
2. Doing as the Bible commands by being always ready to give the reason for my faith.
3. I have found that most people have emotional commitments and presuppositions that govern what they believe. Cognitive dissonance is a truly remarkable force (in many areas) and I am not immune but I do allow for it. I mostly just state what I have discovered to be true or rational and do not concern myself what effect it has. My job is only to present it.
4. As a new Christian I knew God existed but I kept finding the Bible at odds with things I heard claimed. Once I found resolutions to these issues I set out to provide them to other new Christians and chose debate as the format to do it in.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In no way is the "evidence" for dark matter better or even different than for the Bible's claims.

Um... What? Are you high? Or being humorous? Clearly, the evidence for dark matter is both qualitatively and quantitatively more substantial than the evidence for the claim, for instance, that Christ walked on water, or rose from the dead.

That is among the only methods by which claims of this nature are evaluated. The quality of testimony is the primary determination of historical claims.

Apply this principle to the Gospel accounts- documents of unknown authorship, recounting events which are, so far as we know, physically impossible, and that are not entirely consistent with one another.

Also, lets note the absence of any other externally corroborating testimony- if indeed these unprecended and unusual events ever occured, often in front of large crowds, it is counter-intuitive that there is no mention of other documents recording these events. If people were being raised from the dead or walking on water, you'd think alot of people would've written about it.

The people most capable of examining the merit for placing faith in Biblical testimony agree with me.

Argument from authority (i.e. non-sequitur)- and who, pray tell, are these people, in your estimation anyways?

Catholic's and their traditions and dogmas (being the first) have done more to damage and distortion (IMO) to Christianity than any other group in history.

Hmm.. Let's examine some things good ol' Luther had to say-

"Lady Reason does not fear God, does not love him, does not trust him, but freely and without all embarrassment despises him"

"The devils bride, ratio, the beautiful whore, comes in and thinks she's clever"

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters... reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God"

 

[1robin]

Um... What? Are you high? Or being humorous? Clearly, the evidence for dark matter is both qualitatively and quantitatively more substantial than the evidence for the claim, for instance, that Christ walked on water, or rose from the dead.

And you demonstrated it so well by not supplying a single example. There is no direct evidence for dark matter. Only it's effects hint at its existence. It correlate’s to no natural laws we know of, it can't be detected, and has never been proven. That sounds like an exact match for the supernatural. Dark matter is only a label for something unknown. It is not a quantifiable concept. I would not make it a habit of insinuating someone is on drugs. I never report anyone but many other people do so habitually and it is agianst quite a few rules. It is also meaningless which is the greater mistake.

Apply this principle to the Gospel accounts- documents of unknown authorship, recounting events which are, so far as we know, physically impossible, and that are not entirely consistent with one another.

I never attempted to equate dark matter to a book. That's ridiculous. I said it was similar to supernatural claims.
1. We claim it exists based on its assumed effects.
2. Neither can be measured or detected.
3. Neither can be demonstrated by natural law.
Claiming the evidence for dark matter and the supernatural are similar was side not and a by-product of another discussion. It does not merit much beyond what I have said.

Also, lets note the absence of any other externally corroborating testimony- if indeed these unprecended and unusual events ever occured, often in front of large crowds, it is counter-intuitive that there is no mention of other documents recording these events. If people were being raised from the dead or walking on water, you'd think alot of people would've written about it.

Very little writing of any kind of text has survived from that period. That is not to say there were not a great many texts that were denied canonization that record supernatural acts. The Bible's criteria was designed to be very very particular, as it should include less but more reliable documents. Countless more exist. In fact the post where you got my statements had many texts in it that contain the supernatural. Jesus alone has 40 extra biblical authors that confirm many extraordinary characteristics of his existence. The textual attestation and integrity of the Bible is greater than any work of ancient history by far (I mean far when I say far) yet the other texts are taught as fact in colleges and you demand more from the Bible. On what grounds? Writing was expensive and rare in those days. Virtually everyone outside scholars, merchants, and the rich were illiterate. Most of the supernatural events in the Bible were not witnessed by thousands only very few were (and that would in no way mean we should have more than 4 or 5 written accounts). I think there are more contemporary sources for the supernatural events you named than the entire Peloponnesian wars and maybe Caesar’s Gallic wars yet they are taught as historical facts. I have no need to make more than the one argument I already have however. Some of history’s greatest experts on testimony and evidence (maybe the greatest, Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) have more knowledge on how to evaluate testimony that a hundred of us (laymen) and concluded the exact opposite from what you claim. My poor efforts to add or evaluate are unnecessary. If you review back a bit I gave many of history’s greatest historical and legal scholars estimation of the Gospels in addition to those two legends and linked to far more.

Argument from authority (i.e. non-sequitur)- and who, pray tell, are these people, in your estimation anyways?

I gave their names many times so far. One was the cofounder of Harvard law, created the very textbooks used to evaluate testimony, and taught evidence and historical method (Greenleaf). The other is the only human in history to occupy every high court legal office in the largest empire in Earth's history (Lyndhurst). Critics use fallacies like water. As I have explained twice "appeal to authority fallacies" do not apply to quality of evidence claims but only to proof claims. Fallacies are not crutches. Expert testimony is used in classrooms and courtrooms around the world every day.

Hmm.. Let's examine some things good ol' Luther had to say-

I am not a Lutheran so it will not help. Even if every word he ever said was wrong it does not have any effect on what Catholicism has done to the Bible. However I will look at what you wrote.

"Lady Reason does not fear God, does not love him, does not trust him, but freely and without all embarrassment despises him"

I have no idea what this means.

"The devils bride, ratio, the beautiful whore, comes in and thinks she's clever"

Ditto. Is that some kind of complaint against mathematical relationships.

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters... reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."

Are you claiming that he means that reason and faith are incompatible?

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God"

What do you think he is saying and why am I on the hook for whatever you think that is? His claims (unlike catholocisms) are not doctrinal they are personal and observational. Luther insisted that God (his word) not man be the sole (Sola) arbiter of doctrine. His personal comments are not important to the protestant faith.

 

[Philomath]

Any religion that accepts another mutually exclusive claim to truth means that one of them is wrong. It can't simultaneously be true there is only one God and that there are more than one. Someone or both are wrong. Christianity at the very least acknowledges that truth is an exclusive category. Pluralistic theology does not and there for fails a the first test well before examining it's other claims.

Interesting...but ok.

I have had Hindu's tell me there were anywhere from 1 to millions. It depends on who you ask but to end this meaningless contention let's say there were only 2 God's in Hinduism. If there is a God he is defined in general to be a maximal being (if he was not maximal then he is not God). Another God in addition to this one maximal being would either be redundant (if maximal as well) or unnecessary (if less than a maximum and not God). Pluralism just is not rational.

Your analogy fails because only 1 God(Brahman) exists in Hinduism the rest of the gods(Deva's) are only manifestations of him.

You most certainly can quote Biblical information from a satanic site that is true. It is true or false independently of source. What you claimed is a genetic fallacy. If you reviewed my posts you would find I have virtually never dismissed anything based on the site it was from.

I didn't dismiss the information because of the website...I dismissed it because it is not accurate.

Until you can explain why what I quoted is wrong because of the site that it came from it stands as is. The site explained why it claimed what it did. Did you read it?

I have read it. I do not have the time to debate an entire website nor do I care to. If there is a specific thing you want me to talk about, point it out and I'll try my best to answer.

Are you under the impression thing improved when they kicked the British out?

I am.

My original argument was that Christ is the only person or entity that the prophecies I gave could apply to. You basically said "nope". It is not whether you are right or wrong it was a comment on the quality of the argument.

I don't believe Jesus was the person those "prophecies" were referring to and when you look at them without bias you will see that.

Virtually all the scholars that claim that Isaiah 53 is not about Christ are Jewish. Their arguments are at times good and at times appalling but it is hard to credit Jewish scholars with objectivity given the massive preconception that colors everything. Most NT scholars (Christian or secular) believe those prophecies are about Christ not Israel.

Who are these scholars? The only scholars I know of that claim these things are Christian scholars. What preconception colors Judaism? It's ironic that you mention preconceptions when Isiah 53 is a preconception for Christians.

I In this case it makes little difference. The prophecies if they concern Christ apply to his second coming so they do not disprove he was the Messiah. That is what you had claimed.

The Jewish Messiah is not Jesus. If you want to think he is the Jewish Messiah then ok, let's wait until his supposed return, which still hasn't happened after 2,000 years of waiting.

This site contains some of them. It also contains other info as well. Thomas does not make any of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Another: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-rejected-books.htm

I wonder why that is when the GOT dates back to earlier than that time period.

It is literally included and considered officially gnostic in message. I don't know what else to say. It is gnostic. You can find all the evidence you would ever need to dismiss Thomas at this site.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html
Gospel of Thomas. Here is a link on it's heretical gnostic message alone: http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/thomas/arnal.htm

It depends on what your definition of Gnostic is

It all depends on what you mean by Gnostic. If you mean by Gnostic the belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas is Gnostic. But if you mean by Gnostic the religion upon which the Nag Hammadi texts are based, a religion that differentiates the god of this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic.

I was all fired up for a Tyre debate.

The debate can still happen lol.

I have a few motives for debate in no particular order.

1. Killing down time at work.
2. Doing as the Bible commands by being always ready to give the reason for my faith.
3. I have found that most people have emotional commitments and presuppositions that govern what they believe. Cognitive dissonance is a truly remarkable force (in many areas) and I am not immune but I do allow for it. I mostly just state what I have discovered to be true or rational and do not concern myself what effect it has. My job is only to present it.
4. As a new Christian I knew God existed but I kept finding the Bible at odds with things I heard claimed. Once I found resolutions to these issues I set out to provide them to other new Christians and chose debate as the format to do it in.

1. What kind of job do you have that allows you this much free time? lol
2. Ok, understandable.
3. You only want to present the information, your not trying to convince in one way or the other?
4. What made you become a Christian in the first place?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

1robin;3369989]
Are you under the impression thing improved when they kicked the British out?

FYI regarding India under the Christian British rule.

Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'Opium financed British rule in India'

 

[conker]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

It seems to me that there cannot be any correct religions, since most people just choose what feels right, and/or follow the religion of their families. There is no right path, in my opinion, except to be the human that you were made to be. Animals don't seem to follow religions. Why should you? We are all a part of nature, and religion seems to divide the world rather than unite it. It's like having rival gangs fighting each other just for the sake of it. There is no "right" gang. There is no "right" religion.

 

[Ingledsva]

...
I am familiar with that claim. Half the prophecies in Isaiah alone are not even possible to be fulfilled by Israel. A few examples: (it seems I am the only one that will get specific here) Did Jesus or Israel do these? 254. Isa. 53:6b God's will that He bear sin for all mankind Galatians 1:4 255. Isa. 53:7aOppressed and afflicted Matthew 27:27-31 256. Isa. 53:7b Silent before his accusers Matthew 27:12-14 257. Isa. 53:7cSacrificial lamb John 1:29, 1Peter 1:18-19 258. Isa. 53:8aConfined and persecuted Matthew 26:47-27:31 259. Isa. 53:8b He would be judged John 18:13-22 260. Isa. 53:8c Killed Matthew 27:35 261. Isa. 53:8d Dies for the sins of the world.
The applications for these few prophecies are so obvious I have no idea what to say. They are a perfect description of the acts Jesus. Not to mention many more of the 350 plus.

This is incorrect. This is known to be Judah Israel, and if you read it from Isa 1:1 you will understand that.

Isa 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
Note it concerns only Judah/Israel, and takes place during the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah - not some future date and Jesus. These verses make it very plain that the sufferer here means the ones whom stood solid and were abused while the rest of the people sinned - and ultimately Isaiah's son.

These verses of Isaiah are also where Christians mess-up and think where it talks about Isaiah's son Emmanuel, it is talking about some future Jesus.

*

 

[1robin]

Interesting...but ok.

You can't start agreeing at this point, it will only throw me off.

Your analogy fails because only 1 God(Brahman) exists in Hinduism the rest of the gods(Deva's) are only manifestations of him.

This is the very reason I said it depends on who you. This is what you may understand to be "true" Hinduism but others have claimed the opposite. It is certainly a very common belief within Hinduism that more than one God exists. Who if any are right is something I have no need to examine.

I didn't dismiss the information because of the website...I dismissed it because it is not accurate.

Until you can demonstrate this or attempt am I to withdraw claims simply because you disagree?

I have read it. I do not have the time to debate an entire website nor do I care to. If there is a specific thing you want me to talk about, point it out and I'll try my best to answer.

There is no need to debate the whole site (however the site was extremely limited). I only used two of it's claims. How were they wrong?

I am.

These are the main and immediate events that followed British withdrawal.
1. Muslims and Indians who had lived together up to this time immediately began withdrawing into segregated sections.
2. Civil war erupted and it was a very bad one.
3. A large section of the actual nation was eventually sawed off and became a belligerent Muslim state that is still causing massive problems.
4. The economy went into a downward spiral. Even Gandhi regretted the events that resulted from British withdrawal and threatened to starve himself to end the violence.
I do not see a case for "improvement". However I do acknowledge the British were not the most benevolent colonial power in history.

I don't believe Jesus was the person those "prophecies" were referring to and when you look at them without bias you will see that.

That was not the issue. You said Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Messiah reigned over a peaceful Earth. I said that does not work because they have been interpreted to apply to his second coming. It's the reason that is wrong. I was not arguing your personal conclusion.

Who are these scholars? The only scholars I know of that claim these things are Christian scholars. What preconception colors Judaism? It's ironic that you mention preconceptions when Isaiah 53 is a preconception for Christians.

The Hebrews killed Jesus or caused him to be killed. There is no greater motivation (even theoretically possible) for interpreting scripture in a way that mitigates this. The majority of NT scholars regardless of their faith or non-faith apply Is 53 to Christ.

The Jewish Messiah is not Jesus. If you want to think he is the Jewish Messiah then ok, let's wait until his supposed return, which still hasn't happened after 2,000 years of waiting.

Is there some reason to think it was to occur before 2000 years are up? Many end time prophecies have occurred but there are still many left that must take place before Christ returns. The reconstruction of the Temple is an example.

I wonder why that is when the GOT dates back to earlier than that time period.

I never suggested it did not exist at a very early date but it contradicts Paul and Paul is earlier. My claim was that there is no evidence that I can find it was ever considered for inclusion in the Bible and has always been labeled as heretical and gnostic.

It depends on what your definition of Gnostic is

Gnostic means non-divine mystical knowledge in this context but it takes the form of a certain type of claim. It's core always consists of self-discovery. I can't imagine a more non-Christian concept.

The debate can still happen lol.

I give you the first shot.

1. What kind of job do you have that allows you this much free time? lol

Good question. My job depends on the reliability of what science generates. I have a lot of down time. I work in an F-15 electronics lab but I can't risk any more detail according to a policy I was informed of a few months back.

2. Ok, understandable.

Very well.

3. You only want to present the information, you’re not trying to convince in one way or the other?

That is not really my concern. My goals are to make an argument that I feel is true and satisfactory. Once I think I have done that what happens next is not something I worry about. The vast majority of people in forums arrive there already committed.

4. What made you become a Christian in the first place?

That is a very interesting story. I was raised in the Church somewhat but my mother was the only one in my family that was born again. She got cancer and slowly passed away over 5 years. The sicker she got the madder I got at God. I did not believe he existed but if he did I hated him. I headed in the opposite direction as hard as possible. Of course that caused massive personal destruction and I slowly began to wake up. It was the personal example of a few truly faithful Christian’s under extreme circumstances that started to turn me around. One day I decided to resolve the deity issue once and for all. Immediately it seemed God helped my efforts. I was reading every moment I had and met a former drug dealer that was now a straight arrow Christian minister that could talk to me. One day everything I had been reading supernaturally became as crystal clear as anything I have ever known. That night I asked Christ to save me and no words in human language can describe the effect of what took place. For days people asked me what was different about me and I was in sort of a bewilderment and astonishment myself. I had very little Biblical doctrine filed away and I could only think of a few words to describe the way I felt. It was brand new and born again. I learned later that they are the same terms Christianity assigns to the experience. As Martin Luther said I felt as if the doors of paradise were opened to me. I have been up and down since then but God is always there when I shut up and listen, and quit looking at myself and instead look at him. Sorry for the length but it's one subject that merits a little time. There is far more to the story and I have a few supernatural experiences that you would probably not believe. However I do not claim any superior moral status but I may be ahead of the average Christian on head knowledge after years of research and debate. I will expand or contract my personal experiences consistent with your curiosity.

 

[1robin]

FYI regarding India under the Christian British rule.

Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'Opium financed British rule in India'

Before I investigate your links I have already admitted that British rule was no pick nick and there were many injustices they committed. I claim only that the immediate results of kicking them out were horrendous, bloody, and miserable. Those being said are your links still an argument against my claims?

 

[1robin]

This is incorrect. This is known to be Judah Israel, and if you read it from Isa 1:1 you will understand that.

Isa 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
Note it concerns only Judah/Israel, and takes place during the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah - not some future date and Jesus. These verses make it very plain that the sufferer here means the ones whom stood solid and were abused while the rest of the people sinned - and ultimately Isaiah's son.

These verses of Isaiah are also where Christians mess-up and think where it talks about Isaiah's son Emmanuel, it is talking about some future Jesus.

*

I regard a few arguments unresolvable (or at least resolution is impractical) and this is one of them (the Trinity being another). The case for either side is so complex and requires an almost inexhaustible amount of information to bear out that it is impractical for a forum. Sorry if that is let down but I am too lazy for this one.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There is no direct evidence for dark matter. Only it's effects hint at its existence. It correlate’s to no natural laws we know of, it can't be detected, and has never been proven. That sounds like an exact match for the supernatural.

The existence of dark matter, like other theoretical entities in physics, is inferred from a body of evidence- since you were the one who mentioned dark matter, presumably you're aware that in this case it is gravitational effects on observable matter. And what we do in fact observe is what we would expect, if something having the properties of dark matter did indeed exist- gravitational effects, fluctuations in CMBR, and so on.

Now, can we say the same thing of the supernatural? That something like the supernatural- something having at least some of the properties attributed to the supernatural- should indeed exist, given what we do observe? Doesn't look like it- what observations imply something having the properties of the supernatural? Anecdotes of ghost sightings? Mystical experiences? Looks like your "exact match" is not really a match at all.

I would not make it a habit of insinuating someone is on drugs. I never report anyone but many other people do so habitually and it is agianst quite a few rules. It is also meaningless which is the greater mistake.

Thanks for the advice, but I'll be fine. I did not flame or say anything inappropriate or even unreasonable- when someone says something as patently false as you did above, it seems charitable to assume that this was due to the influence of drugs or alcohol, rather than sloppy thinking.

I never attempted to equate dark matter to a book. That's ridiculous. I said it was similar to supernatural claims.

You need to re-read my reply, I wasn't suggesting you compared dark matter to the Gospel. You pointed out that the "quality of testimony" is a primary indicator of the reliability of historical testimony, and I asked you to apply this principle to the Gospels.

Very little writing of any kind of text has survived from that period.

Right- which is why I said that it is curious we haven't even come across any reports of such documents ever having existed- we may not have the documents themselves, but perhaps they are mentioned in writings from the first few centuries when the documents were still available. The absence of any such documents constitutes negative evidence against the factuality of the Gospel accounts.

I think there are more contemporary sources for the supernatural events you named than the entire Peloponnesian wars and maybe Caesar’s Gallic wars yet they are taught as historical facts.

For one thing, this is a dubious bare assertion, and in any case, nobody claims that Caesar sprouted wings or had magical powers, or anything comparable to the events related in scripture- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Some of history’s greatest experts on testimony and evidence (maybe the greatest, Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) have more knowledge on how to evaluate testimony that a hundred of us (laymen) and concluded the exact opposite from what you claim.

Well, but if we're just going to leave it up to the experts, we should mention the majority of Biblical scholars who have come to the same conclusion that I have, i.e. that the Gospels are likely not particularly factually accurate, were not written by the men whose names they bear, were likely constructed from the Gospel of Mark and the Q document, etc etc.

Critics use fallacies like water.

And sloppy thinkers commit fallacies as easily as most of us breath air. (and then try to justify it with hollow statements like this)

As I have explained twice "appeal to authority fallacies" do not apply to quality of evidence claims but only to proof claims. Fallacies are not crutches. Expert testimony is used in classrooms and courtrooms around the world every day.

Except, those experts actually give their testimony. The prosecution doesn't just say "oh yeah and then there's this guy, who's an expert, and he agrees with me, so there." If you want to bring expert testimony to bear on the issue- which you're right, is not itself fallacious at all- then tell us what these expert's arguments are- and their expertise will lend some additional credibility to the argument.

But if you're just going to drop names of people who supposedly agree with you, this is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy, justify it however you like.

I am not a Lutheran so it will not help. Even if every word he ever said was wrong it does not have any effect on what Catholicism has done to the Bible. However I will look at what you wrote.

The point is that the damage to the credibility of Christianity, or the tendency towards anti-intellectualism, is not limited to Catholicism.

I have no idea what this means.

Try reading it once again- it will come to you.

Ditto. Is that some kind of complaint against mathematical relationships.

As if it wasn't clear from the context, "ratio" is latin for "reason".

His personal comments are not important to the protestant faith.

I'd say the writings of Martin Luther are at least somewhat important to the protestant faith. Silly kid.

 

[Philomath]

You can't start agreeing at this point, it will only throw me off.

I can't agree with you? :sarcastic

This is the very reason I said it depends on who you. This is what you may understand to be "true" Hinduism but others have claimed the opposite. It is certainly a very common belief within Hinduism that more than one God exists. Who if any are right is something I have no need to examine.

There is no such thing as "true" Hinduism. It is not a very common belief that there are more than one God it appears that way but there is only one God(Brahman). This is generally a universally known idea.

Until you can demonstrate this or attempt am I to withdraw claims simply because you disagree?

You don't have to withdraw them.

There is no need to debate the whole site (however the site was extremely limited). I only used two of it's claims. How were they wrong?

Ok and which two claims are those?

These are the main and immediate events that followed British withdrawal.
1. Muslims and Indians who had lived together up to this time immediately began withdrawing into segregated sections.
2. Civil war erupted and it was a very bad one.
3. A large section of the actual nation was eventually sawed off and became a belligerent Muslim state that is still causing massive problems.
4. The economy went into a downward spiral. Even Gandhi regretted the events that resulted from British withdrawal and threatened to starve himself to end the violence.
I do not see a case for "improvement". However I do acknowledge the British were not the most benevolent colonial power in history.

Yes the things that happened after the British withdrawal were bad. But it was important for India to get out from under colonial rule. Colonial rule is never a good thing.

That was not the issue. You said Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Messiah reigned over a peaceful Earth. I said that does not work because they have been interpreted to apply to his second coming. It's the reason that is wrong. I was not arguing your personal conclusion.

Yes that is one of the many reasons Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. There is no second coming of the Jewish Messiah that is Christian idea. The Jewish Messiah only comes once as a normal human being.

The Hebrews killed Jesus or caused him to be killed. There is no greater motivation (even theoretically possible) for interpreting scripture in a way that mitigates this. The majority of NT scholars regardless of their faith or non-faith apply Is 53 to Christ.

I believe that was in fact the Romans. Show me that the majority of NT scholars regardless of their faith or non-faith apply apply Isiah 53 to Jesus? Can you back this claim up?

Is there some reason to think it was to occur before 2000 years are up? Many end time prophecies have occurred but there are still many left that must take place before Christ returns. The reconstruction of the Temple is an example.

Reading the Gospels is pretty clear that they thought Jesus would return during their lifetime and 2,000 years later he's still not here. I'll just keep waiting for his "inevitable" return.

Gnostic means non-divine mystical knowledge in this context but it takes the form of a certain type of claim. It's core always consists of self-discovery. I can't imagine a more non-Christian concept.

Did you ignore what I quoted?

It all depends on what you mean by Gnostic. If you mean by Gnostic the belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas is Gnostic. But if you mean by Gnostic the religion upon which the Nag Hammadi texts are based, a religion that differentiates the god of this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic.

Good question. My job depends on the reliability of what science generates. I have a lot of down time. I work in an F-15 electronics lab but I can't risk any more detail according to a policy I was informed of a few months back.

Oh...sounds like a cool job.

That is not really my concern. My goals are to make an argument that I feel is true and satisfactory. Once I think I have done that what happens next is not something I worry about. The vast majority of people in forums arrive there already committed.

Hmmm ok.

That is a very interesting story. I was raised in the Church somewhat but my mother was the only one in my family that was born again. She got cancer and slowly passed away over 5 years. The sicker she got the madder I got at God. I did not believe he existed but if he did I hated him. I headed in the opposite direction as hard as possible. Of course that caused massive personal destruction and I slowly began to wake up. It was the personal example of a few truly faithful Christian’s under extreme circumstances that started to turn me around. One day I decided to resolve the deity issue once and for all. Immediately it seemed God helped my efforts. I was reading every moment I had and met a former drug dealer that was now a straight arrow Christian minister that could talk to me. One day everything I had been reading supernaturally became as crystal clear as anything I have ever known. That night I asked Christ to save me and no words in human language can describe the effect of what took place. For days people asked me what was different about me and I was in sort of a bewilderment and astonishment myself. I had very little Biblical doctrine filed away and I could only think of a few words to describe the way I felt. It was brand new and born again. I learned later that they are the same terms Christianity assigns to the experience. As Martin Luther said I felt as if the doors of paradise were opened to me. I have been up and down since then but God is always there when I shut up and listen, and quit looking at myself and instead look at him. Sorry for the length but it's one subject that merits a little time. There is far more to the story and I have a few supernatural experiences that you would probably not believe. However I do not claim any superior moral status but I may be ahead of the average Christian on head knowledge after years of research and debate. I will expand or contract my personal experiences consistent with your curiosity.

I don't mind the length and that's quite an interesting story. Could you share these supernatural experiences.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Before I investigate your links I have already admitted that British rule was no pick nick and there were many injustices they committed. I claim only that the immediate results of kicking them out were horrendous, bloody, and miserable. Those being said are your links still an argument against my claims?

I don't care if you read it or not, i only posted in the interest of the general public.

As for the result of kicking them out well it was nothing to do with kicking them out, it was a internal political struggle, the horrendous, bloody, and miserable state that you claim was never a result of the British leaving, more the after effect of the British being there in the first place. but that is not the topic.

But if you say that India was worst off when the Christian British left, i would say that it was never better off when they were there, hence the sites i provided.

 

[Muffled]

You do not understand. The foundation is god and religion is the house!

Removing religion removes the house not the foundation. You have it entirely backwards. As A deist I accept god without religion and I rationalize and contemplate on what god could or possibly not be.

I believe you need more spiritual progression . God is not bound to religion because you have forgotten that religion is not as old as the belief in god

I believe however God is His word and every word He speaks becomes part of the foundation. I can see where one might interpret that as religion but the Muslims do not view it that way with Christianity saying that it has no religion. God uses His word to create and I view that creation as foundational and the things than men add as recreational. So in my view God has created many religious foundations and men have built on that.

From my point of view removing religion removes God for those who do not know Him personally. Also I find that God would rather not have to keep repeating what He has said previously.

I believe this is nothing more than building stubblle to cover God's beutiful foundation.

I am glad you smile when you say that. I believe that also but I will be content with God's will.

I would definitely agree with that except I believe God is true to His word which limits the latititude a bit simply due to His nature. As has been discussed by others God can do all things but there are things He won't do.

I have not forgotten, I believe it just doesn't make a difference.

 

[Muffled]

I have a question; how ever I do admit not reading all of the previous posts but, as far as Religion is concerned shouldn't this start in your heart first and not a building? Don't get me wrong IMO Religions are an "ok" way to increase certain Knowledge and to learn of how Ancient Humanity found ways in which to vitally increase their survival rate dramatically through mere observations. Most Religions look today toward a wall in which was build a very long time ago with many intricate patters. Some people are happy spending most of their lives looking at the same wall while others will turn to see another. Yet there is another kind of person who will look at the walls and pay no heed, and still one more kind of person who will appreciate each wall and it's intricacies and feels they just need to meet the Artist.

I realize there can be many other attributes constituted toward this scenario, but this is basically how I see Religions. All Religions have Facts some have Fables, but they all have both

We have in New England what we like to call "Stone cold Congregationalists" because the churches are made of stone and the belief is the hearts have hardened like stone as well and the fire of relgious enthusiasm has died. However I do not neccessarily see it that way since one way is more contemplative and the other celebratory and each has its merit.

I suppose many gothic cathedrals in Eaurope are considered to be museums. Considering that church attendance is way down in Europe, that concept may not be too far from the truth.

I believe the facts are not equivalent. The right religion has the right facts.

 

[Muffled]

It seems to me that there cannot be any correct religions, since most people just choose what feels right, and/or follow the religion of their families. There is no right path, in my opinion, except to be the human that you were made to be. Animals don't seem to follow religions. Why should you? We are all a part of nature, and religion seems to divide the world rather than unite it. It's like having rival gangs fighting each other just for the sake of it. There is no "right" gang. There is no "right" religion.

This is illogical. A religion is not right because it is believed but because it satisfies God's will and purpose. So a Hindu folowing a family heritage and feeling that it is right does not make it right. It only makes it comfortable.

I believe path to be different from religion although there are some who view paths to be religions. I wouldn't be likely to say that Himduism leads a person to be a Christian but it is possible that a grounding in godliness might be helpful in that regard. Most of the time wrong religion keeps a person from finding the right religion.

I believe animals don't have a spirit.

I believe we have a spirit.

Wrong religion divides the world and right relgion unites. So Jesus could say that a houshold would be divided because some would follow right religion and others would not.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe however God is His word and every word He speaks becomes part of the foundation. I can see where one might interpret that as religion but the Muslims do not view it that way with Christianity saying that it has no religion. God uses His word to create and I view that creation as foundational and the things than men add as recreational. So in my view God has created many religious foundations and men have built on that.

I do not accept your word though or any other. I do not believe in Divine revelation either.

From my point of view removing religion removes God for those who do not know Him personally. Also I find that God would rather not have to keep repeating what He has said previously.

I know god without religion and he is something that cannot be known in a personal matter. Truly Christianity equates god to a man and teaches that he is no different then us but if he was I then he is not god.
I would never equate a being like god to man or claim he can be known personally.

I am glad you smile when you say that. I believe that also but I will be content with God's will.

And I will be content with god's creation

I would definitely agree with that except I believe God is true to His word which limits the latititude a bit simply due to His nature. As has been discussed by others God can do all things but there are things He won't do.

I find no reason to accept god's word or any word because therehas been no proof for it.

I have not forgotten, I believe it just doesn't make a difference.

If it was done before I will do it again

 

[Sha'irullah]

I did not understand what you said here and it does not do anything to make not X the best choice for X.

Well your sentence makes no since do to poor grammar when you say "not X and"