There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[joelr]

The first requirement and qualification to be considered a biblical scholar is that you are born again of the Holy Spirit because Scripture is spiritually discerned.

You are making that up. There are thousands of Biblical scholars who are non-believers. You do not need to be "spiritually discerned" to understand a bunch of ancient Jewish, Greek and Persian mythology.
I was Christian and born again. There is no secret knowledge that comes to you. There are many born again apologists and they still use fallacies, denial and bad apologetics in debates. Like Islamic and Mormon scholars they believe a bunch of fiction is real.

And again, I'm sure you don't believe the Mormon updates are true, or Bahai updates or Islamic updates to Christianity. Yet you are not "spiritually discerned"? Islamic scholars could turn that right around on you and say "oh if you were a believer in Allah and spiritually discerned then you would see it's all true?!" You know full well that you don't need to become a Muslim to know it's man made stories.

You know that is nonsense. It's nonsense in all those ways, not just one.
You can whine about it all day. Dr Carrier, Ehrman, Fransesca Stravopolou and so on are all Biblical scholars.

You are spiritually discerned right? Yet still use fallacies, illogical apologetics and the insane notion that only people who already believe a story is true are the only people who can say if it's true.....? Your interest in what is actually true has been completely erased from your thoughts.

 

[joelr]

I said everyone who isn’t saved is under the influence of the kingdom of darkness, the prince and power of the air, yes. That’s Bible, JW’s are
a cult.
“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you previously walked according to the ways of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit now working in the disobedient. We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children under wrath as the others were also. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love that he had for us, made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by grace! He also raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might display the immeasurable riches of his grace through his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift —  not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time for us to do.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:1-10‬ ‭CSB‬‬

I can post quotes from Lord of the Rings but that isn't going to make Gandolf real? That is a fictional story about a Greek savior demigod.
But that post is in contradiction with others. Here it says you are saved by faith, not from works. So noone can boast. Except.......


For you render to each one according to his works. Psalm 62:12


For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:14

I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. Jeremiah 17:10

When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul. Ezekiel 18:27

I will judge you ... every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 18:30

Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:20

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Matthew 12:37

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Matthew 16:27

If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments. Matthew 19:17

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Matthew 25:41-46

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Luke 10:26-28

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:29

Who will render to each one according to his deeds.... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. Romans 2:6, 13

For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:10

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11:15

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Philippians 2:12

Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. James 1:22

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? James 2:14

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:17

Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:21-25

The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work. 1 Peter 1:17

I will give unto every one of you according to your works. Revelation 2:23

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Revelation 20:12-13

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life. Revelation 22:14

 

[paradox]

You are making that up. There are thousands of Biblical scholars who are non-believers. You do not need to be "spiritually discerned" to understand a bunch of ancient Jewish, Greek and Persian mythology.

The Bible does not agree with you 2 Peter 1:20-21

 

[joelr]

You're right. Mithras is nothing like Jesus.
OK, can you provide any example of a myth which is exactly like the ancient claims?
Thank you.

Carrier has a post from his peer-reviewed book on Jesus touching on several of the dying/rising saviors pre-Jesus.

No religion that copies others is exactly the same? Hellenistic religion was sweeping through all the religions in that region around that time. Salvation, baptism, eucharist and several other ideas are all from Greek myths.
Messianic world saviors, were also predicted first in the Persian myths.
Virgin born, of human parents and will play a part in the upcoming cosmic struggle (Revelation is also from the Persians)

Then comes Hellenism:
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.
-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, Supreme

-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.
- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.

-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.

-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)

-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)

- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries


Examples of other dying/rising demigods:

"Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth. "

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier. found here, Osirus, Diononysis, Zalmoxis, Inanna, Adonis, and more...


Which means what is important is a death, resurrection (often in 3 days) getting followers salvation. Where they were hung (as some desperate apologists cling to) is not important.

 

[samtonga43]

You can whine about it all day. Dr Carrier, Ehrman, Fransesca Stravopolou and so on are all Biblical scholars.

And Carrier and Ehrman completely disagree with each other on issues relating to the historical Jesus.

 

[Sheldon]

If I was talking about them I would have some knowledge about them otherwise I wouldn’t be talking about them as @Sheldon has been for a while now about sects of churches and still has no clue, would you like me to teach you?

You are still missing the point, the number is what is significant, and the fact they all, like you, think they have the truth, and the others are wrong. Now I will take one last stab at this, since you are relentlessly introducing red herring non-sequiturs.

Does that sound like a reliable efficacious method for arriving at the truth, when it produces 45k different answers?

It's not about which answer you personally think is right, or even why you think it is right, these subjective claims are irrelevant to that question, that was and is the point being made.

 

[Sheldon]

All right, I will just leave it at you have no idea what the Bible says but talk about it anyway. Pick up a copy and start reading is my recommendation.

Whoooosh!

One more time then, if the bible produces 45k different answers, why would I think it is an effective tool at producing the truth, as you keep claiming?

 

[joelr]

The Bible or the Word of God explains what salvation, faith, and works are. Everything is tested by the Word of God whether things are true or false.

The Bible is in contradiction about salvation through faith or works. Because it was written by men.

You have not demonstrated any God wrote these words. Just claims. Islamic people claim the Quran is the word of God. You claim it's this book. Yet no one can show any evidence. God sure enjoyed using myths from other cultures? The Greeks and Persians had salvation, saviors and so on centuries before the Hebrew religion.

 

[paradox]

More false equivocation, deliberate? Are you saying not one of the 45000 different sects regards any of the beliefs of the others as heretical?

no such thing as 45000 sects, or anything close to that number.
if that's your (poor) argument then at least get the figure right.

The only question is, are you able to learn the correct figure?

 

[joelr]

Faith without works is dead

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:18, 36

Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts 16:30-31

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God salvation to every one that believeth.... As it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:16-17

A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

For the promise ... was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13

Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 5:1

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9

A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Galatians 2:16

The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith. Galatians 3:11-12

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

 

[Sheldon]

joelr said: ↑
All negative reviews of Carriers book on Jesus came from fundamentalists who clearly didn't know any of the arguments?

I really don’t take any of your arguments seriously, it’s like talking to demons.

Well it's been clear from the start that you seem impervious to sound reasoning and argument, and even objective facts, but if you think ignoring sound arguments you don't like and have no answer to, and by invoking demons at that, is an effective argument, then this really explains a lot. How objectively strong can an argument be, if it requires one to ignore contrary arguments, or dismiss them with hand waving, because you have no credible answer.

 

[Sheldon]

no such thing as 45000 sects, or anything close to that number.
if that's your (poor) argument then at least get the figure right.

The only question is, are you able to learn the correct figure?

That figure is offered by a variety of different sources, I have seen estimates as low as 40k as well. However the difference is negligible in the context of the claim the bible contains the truth, which was why this figure was offered in the first place.

 

[joelr]

The Bible does not agree with you 2 Peter 1:20-21

That is about a prophecy?

no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Then I will ask you since you are Catholic and chimed in. Do you feel you need to become a spiritually discerned Muslim believer to judge that the Quran is not the word of God? Or do you just know it's not real?

 

[Sheldon]

joelr said: ↑
Not to mention the absurd notion of only believers can study the historical and archaeological aspects of a religion?

I also didn’t say this,

Actually you said precisely this, and dismissed biblical and historical scholars scholars as biased because they were atheists, when someone cited Dr Bart Ehrman, and Dr Richard Carrier. Which was pretty ironic tbh.

 

[paradox]

That figure is offered by a variety of different sources, I have seen estimates as low as 40k as well

What you call a "source" is in fact well known false "copy-paste" circulating on the internet.
One fact is that one denomination of in 2 countries is counted as 2 denominations for example according to bogus definition of a "denomination".

However the difference is negligible in the context of the claim the bible contains the truth, which was why this figure was offered in the first place.

The bible indeed says what is "truth", if you want to refute that "truth" then good luck because you need to answer why Jesus didn't give up and save himself from torture on the cross which lasted for days. He knew what awaits him, so he could have gave up, like anyone else would do in such situation. nobody wants to be tortured.

 

[joelr]

And Carrier and Ehrman completely disagree with each other on issues relating to the historical Jesus.

No they do not. Ehrman believes in historicity. He believes there was an actual human Rabbi teacher who the mythical demigod narrative was put on. Carrier believes there wasn't even a man but the story is made up whole cloth because like many other demigods saviors the original passion took place in the celestial realm and the story was later euhemerized or re-set on Earth, given a family and so on.

Either way, both scholars believe the Gospel narrative is a myth taken from Greek and other sources. Like souls that can return to heaven where they came from. After redemption or salvation. Greek myth.
Jesus would have been a Rabbi similar to Hillel.
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

Teaching reformed Judaism. Not Greek Hellenism?

 

[paradox]

Then I will ask you since you are Catholic and chimed in. Do you feel you need to become a spiritually discerned Muslim believer to judge that the Quran is not the word of God? Or do you just know it's not real?

I don't need Quran nor interpretation of Quran to know whether Quran is the word of God or not.

For me it is enough to look for the answer in the bible, which says that there will be false prophets in the future (ex. Matthew 7:15), and that Jesus is "first and last" and there are no others (Revelation 1:5-8 and Isaiah 48:12)
Muhamad who come to scene as a much later (in time) figure is therefore a false prophet, and looking for answer in Quran is thus superfluous.

 

[Sheldon]

Also, even Ehrman doesn’t say that Jesus never existed. Does Carrier’s peer reviews say that Jesus Christ never existed like you’re saying? Peer viewed in the halls of Satan is what it sounds like especially when I gave you almost 100 scholars who disagree with both of them.

There is a scholarly consensus for an historical Jesus, and the crucifixion, but everything else the bible claims about him is pure hearsay. Your claim that the bible contained eyewitness accounts is not true, this claim cannot be substantiated, and no credible historian would accept this claim as historically true. If those scholars you listed are calming that, then they were offering a personal belief, not an historical fact, and this has been explained to you multiple times, a scholar can also hold personal beliefs, and most biblical scholars would of course.

You seem unable to separate scholarly and historical facts, from subjective personal beliefs, even after it has been explained to you multiple times. I even linked a site showing some of the strict methods and criteria historical claims are subjected to, before they are considered valid by qualified historians. Incidentally Dr Carrier's opinion on an historical Jesus is not shared by most historians, though he presents some compelling arguments, the simple fact is no one can be sure to a high degree of certainty that Jesus existed, but there is some independent evidence for it, how trustworthy that evidence is of course is another matter. However, while an extant Jesus is obviously essential to the Christian religion, the fact he existed, if indeed he did, doesn't objectively support any of the hearsay claims about him. That'd be like finding out Hercules was a real man, and claiming the legends assigned him must therefore be true.

 

[joelr]

Richard Carrier: A Fuller Reply to His Criticisms, Beliefs, and Claims about Jesus | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Ehrman won't debate Carrier face to face and has been caught in several lies

Two Lessons Bart Ehrman Needs to Learn about Probability Theory
Two Lessons Bart Ehrman Needs to Learn about Probability Theory • Richard Carrier
"
A reader pointed something out to me that was a fantastic facepalm moment. It’s another demonstration of how Bart Ehrman doesn’t know how epistemic probability works, and not only hasn’t read On the Historicity of Jesus, he doesn’t even know what it argues. This leads me to two general lessons I hope my audience has already learned, but that he certainly needs to learn. The first is that everything that isn’t logically impossible always has a nonzero epistemic probability of being true. And recognizing this is fundamentally essential to all sciences and knowledge-seeking fields. The second is that if you want to challenge an assigned probability, you have to first understand what the claimant is measuring—what are they saying their assigned probability is a probability of? And recognizing this is fundamentally essential to all sciences and knowledge-seeking fields.

I’ll explain these two general lessons using a recent example of Bart Ehrman failing to do his job as a historian. I’ve noted recently that often enough Ehrman does not read the peer reviewed literature on the subjects he has an emotional investment in—not just mine (which is bad enough, since my book is not only the latest but the only peer reviewed book ever published on the question of the historicity of Jesus in nearly a hundred years), but even articles I cite from the peer reviewed literature that support me (likewise the peer reviewed literature that supports others he is intent on disagreeing with, from Murdock to Doherty to Goodacre). And in result he argues against things I didn’t say, and then he doesn’t argue against established peer reviewed arguments to the contrary of his position. I also noted that he plays fast and loose with the facts, but more bizarrely, he insists that history has to be about probability while declaring probability theory inapplicable to history. I’ve said before that this is because he doesn’t know how probability works. Now we have an example. (And hat tip to Josh for calling my attention to it).......




Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic
Bart Ehrman Just Can't Do Truth or Logic • Richard Carrier
Bart Ehrman was again asked what evidence there is that Jesus existed this February 18, 2016, at Fresno City College. See the video here (he begins his answer at timestamp 23:18). First he says this:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

This is not a very truthful statement.

• There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.”
• We are not “internet voices.” I have a peer reviewed academic monograph from a mainstream biblical studies press on this question.
• Ehrman even appears to be saying that we are not “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines.” Because he leaves out any mention of the fact that this isn’t just “internet voices” but also published scholarship by his expert peers and recognized by his expert peers.
• He fails to make clear that there are “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines” who have expressed their doubts. Again so far, seven of us.
• And contrary to his last sentence, we are “scholars who study this stuff.” We are his colleagues (fully his peers in respect to credentials—some of us even better trained and more qualified in the subject of history than he is; so this looks a lot like he is lying about our credentials again).
• And this question is debated by his colleagues. Not only by the seven of us so far who doubt historicity, but a lot of his colleagues have debated me. Including Zeba Crook, Trent Horn, Kenneth Waters, and (now) Craig Evans. One of those debates was even sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature. So the claim that it is “not debated” among his colleagues is false.

The evidence is not, of course, overwhelming. It’s not even whelming. But you can see that for yourself. IMO, the fact that this is what he thinks, discredits his opinion. Because there is no way in the universe any historian in any other field would call the evidence for the historicity of Jesus “overwhelming.” Maybe Ehrman just doesn’t know what overwhelming evidence looks like. But since he can’t even be honest about how many fully qualified colleagues of his doubt the historicity of Jesus, he can’t even honestly tell an audience that a mainstream peer reviewed academic monograph exists questioning historicity, and he can’t even honestly tell an audience that it is being debated by many of his colleagues, we shouldn’t expect him to honestly use the word “overwhelming” either.......



On the Gullibility of Bart Ehrman & the A@@crankery of Tim O’Neill
On the Gullibility of Bart Ehrman & the Asscrankery of Tim O'Neill • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

I don't need Quran nor interpretation of Quran to know whether Quran is the word of God or not.

For me it is enough to look for the answer in the bible, which says that there will be false prophets in the future, and that Jesus is "first and last" and there are no others.
Muhamad who come to scene as a much later (in time) figure is therefore a false prophet, and looking for answer in Quran is thus superfluous.

See some apologists here claimed you cannot know the truth of something unless you are a believer.
So Perfect. Just like any person can look at the Bible, see there were many previous dying/rising saviors who saved his followers and every other theological idea is taken from older cultures and know it's just more fiction.

Also Jesus wasn't the first anything. Your logic about Muhammad works for Jesus as well. Not the first virgin born messiah, not the first with human parents, not the first to rise in 3 days or the first to get members salvation, not the first eucharist, baptism....even his crucifixion happened before. So scripture is definitely a fictive story as well.

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives.