What ONE critical piece of information made you decide to believe or disbelieve Jesus rose?

[John1.12]

You are 100% wrong. I have met and spoke with Christians from all over the world. The amount that are in the "are you saved" cult is comparatively very small. The born again, Baptist types are by far the minority.

Christians do not agree on the essential either because before the law stepped in Catholics and Protestants were burning each other alive for centuries. You might look into the history of Christianity?

My faith isn't in ' history ' . Its in Jesus .

 

[John1.12]

I have no idea what you are speaking of? Are you moving to denial of historical facts because they don't support your beliefs?
The evidence shows that heaven, resurrection and having a soul that goes to heaven is not a revelation to a Jewish prophet was was in fact taken from another culture.
You cannot admit this as true because it would demonstrate your religion is made up. I however can believe historical facts without this dilemma.
Is denial all you have? Calling decades of scholarship (Carrier's work) "wacky" and historical foundations to Christian mythology "stuff" shows you are just juping through hoops to protect your beliefs.

The debates speak for themselves. Yes there has always been Carrier types saying the same old nonsense against the bible. There's nothing new under the sun . When I compare with what they say with the biblical narrative, its laughable, quite frankly .

 

[John1.12]

I have no idea what you are speaking of? Are you moving to denial of historical facts because they don't support your beliefs?
The evidence shows that heaven, resurrection and having a soul that goes to heaven is not a revelation to a Jewish prophet was was in fact taken from another culture.
You cannot admit this as true because it would demonstrate your religion is made up. I however can believe historical facts without this dilemma.
Is denial all you have? Calling decades of scholarship (Carrier's work) "wacky" and historical foundations to Christian mythology "junk" shows you are just jumping through hoops to protect your beliefs.
This is confirming what I have been saying.

//denial of historical facts// ? I trust the bible that it is historical facts .

 

[joelr]

My faith isn't in ' history ' . Its in Jesus .

Yes and Islam has faith in Muhammed and blah blah. Faith means you don't have evidence. Because you were sold a story and told to "have faith" doesn't make it true.
Jewish folks have "faith" that the messiah is yet to come. They are all made up stories.

 

[joelr]

The debates speak for themselves. Yes there has always been Carrier types saying the same old nonsense against the bible. There's nothing new under the sun . When I compare with what they say with the biblical narrative, its laughable, quite frankly .

You are lying. You do not compare Carrier or any historians work to gospel narratives.
The debates you do not watch. This I know just by your reactions to small amounts of scholarship. You wouldn't look at evidence if someone paid you.
Why don't you explain one thing that is "laughable"?

 

[joelr]

//denial of historical facts// ? I trust the bible that it is historical facts .

One reasons why you are deluded. All historians and archeologists are clear that the Bible is not history. Not only is it a mythology, the writers themselves were not trying to write history? These were meant to be stories with inner meaning, not taken as literal stories.
Of course you won't listen to scholars telling you scripture isn't intended as history. Hence you cannot ever break the delusion.
This is what is taught to avoid members realizing what is likely true when in more evalgelical, fundamentalist groups.

 

[John1.12]

Yes and Islam has faith in Muhammed and blah blah. Faith means you don't have evidence. Because you were sold a story and told to "have faith" doesn't make it true.
Jewish folks have "faith" that the messiah is yet to come. They are all made up stories.

//Faith means you don't have evidence// Says you . Faith is because of the evidence. The assurance that Jesus existed, that he died and rose again is evident all through the scriptures. You tell someone that a electric fire is hot ,they can know that as a fact . Its when they touch the fire they ' experience ' it. Its the same with the scriptures .

 

[joelr]

Matthew 7
13¶Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Quoting the book to show the book is true? I could use that logic with Lord of the Rings.

Also there are plenty of passages that say people are redeemed by Jesus blood magic alone, many that say it's predestined by God before creation. So the Bible doesn't even know what it wants to say.

 

[joelr]

//Faith means you don't have evidence// Says you . Faith is because of the evidence. The assurance that Jesus existed, that he died and rose again is evident all through the scriptures. You tell someone that a electric fire is hot ,they can know that as a fact . Its when they touch the fire they ' experience ' it. Its the same with the scriptures .

The assurance that Froto has the one true ring is all through the Lord of the Rings.
Does that make it true?

While you may ignore Christian scholarship (free will), I do not and Christian scholarship has long since admitted that the other gospels were sourced (copied) from Mark. I would link to sources but you don't seem to like scholarly things.
So it's just claims by Paul of a vision of a resurrected Jesus then 40 years later a wildly fictive story about an earthly Jesus clearly made up from Pauls letters and OT. The other gospels are just attempting to improve the story. Matthew is writing for a Jewish audience and so on.
You can ignore that all day, I do not care. I will follow where evidence goes.

As to that ridiculous personal testimony, I have heard Hindu say they have experienced the love of Lord Krishna and know 100% that he is real and guiding them. Same for Islam and Allah.
These experiences are created in peoples minds when they encounter religious mythology regardless of if they are true. So that is not evidence at all.

 

[John1.12]

Quoting the book to show the book is true? I could use that logic with Lord of the Rings.

Also there are plenty of passages that say people are redeemed by Jesus blood magic alone, many that say it's predestined by God before creation. So the Bible doesn't even know what it wants to say.

Are you suggesting an academic debate on the truth of the Lord of the rings ? I've never seen such a debate . But in all serious debates I've seen with Christianity.

 

[John1.12]

The assurance that Froto has the one true ring is all through the Lord of the Rings.
Does that make it true?

While you may ignore Christian scholarship (free will), I do not and Christian scholarship has long since admitted that the other gospels were sourced (copied) from Mark. I would link to sources but you don't seem to like scholarly things.
So it's just claims by Paul of a vision of a resurrected Jesus then 40 years later a wildly fictive story about an earthly Jesus clearly made up from Pauls letters and OT. The other gospels are just attempting to improve the story. Matthew is writing for a Jewish audience and so on.
You can ignore that all day, I do not care. I will follow where evidence goes.

As to that ridiculous personal testimony, I have heard Hindu say they have experienced the love of Lord Krishna and know 100% that he is real and guiding them. Same for Islam and Allah.
These experiences are created in peoples minds when they encounter religious mythology regardless of if they are true. So that is not evidence at all.

Yes you quote almost verbatim these ' scholars ' rarely do i discuss the text with Avatars of these 'authorities ' that people trust and give up their sense making to .

 

[John1.12]

The assurance that Froto has the one true ring is all through the Lord of the Rings.
Does that make it true?

While you may ignore Christian scholarship (free will), I do not and Christian scholarship has long since admitted that the other gospels were sourced (copied) from Mark. I would link to sources but you don't seem to like scholarly things.
So it's just claims by Paul of a vision of a resurrected Jesus then 40 years later a wildly fictive story about an earthly Jesus clearly made up from Pauls letters and OT. The other gospels are just attempting to improve the story. Matthew is writing for a Jewish audience and so on.
You can ignore that all day, I do not care. I will follow where evidence goes.

As to that ridiculous personal testimony, I have heard Hindu say they have experienced the love of Lord Krishna and know 100% that he is real and guiding them. Same for Islam and Allah.
These experiences are created in peoples minds when they encounter religious mythology regardless of if they are true. So that is not evidence at all.

Yes you quote almost verbatim these ' scholars ' rarely do i discuss the text with Avatars of these 'authorities ' that people trust and give up their sense making to .

 

[joelr]

Are you suggesting an academic debate on the truth of the Lord of the rings ? I've never seen such a debate . But in all serious debates I've seen with Christianity.

No I'm pointing out your circular logic can be used to argue for any book. See now you are talking all "scholarly debate" as if that's what you were doing.
But you were not doing that. You were saying because the resurrection is all over the gospels that is your evidence that it's true.
That is NOT a scholarly debate. How dare you even say the word "scholarly debate" at this juncture?

All you have done is call scholarship "junk" and use circular logic (it's true because it says so) and now you ask about a scholarly debate? What I am pointing out is one could use all of your tactics in a debate on LOTR.
"well it says it's the one true ring all over the book"
"all scholarship that says it's a myth is "junk"
"anyone who says LOTR isn't true is "wacky"
"I have faith in Tolken he was telling a true story"
" I don't have faith in history I have faith in Middle Earth"

 

[joelr]

Yes you quote almost verbatim these ' scholars ' rarely do i discuss the text with Avatars of these 'authorities ' that people trust and give up their sense making to .

Cool, demonstrate why believing myths makes sense. Demonstrate why all of historicity scholarship and comparative religion scholarship finds the gospels to be myth and that doesn't make sense.
Demonstrate why one branch of academia are all misled but all others are doing good work. Including scholars who know Islam, Hinduism and so on are not literally real. Just your myth, all scholars cannot get that. Demonstrate why.
Show why the scientific method has led us to amazing medical technology, space travel, cars, planes, computers, but biblical historicity cant get it together?

While you somehow "know" the truth?
(not a real question, I know it's because other people told you it was true)

 

[joelr]

Yes you quote almost verbatim these ' scholars ' rarely do i discuss the text with Avatars of these 'authorities ' that people trust and give up their sense making to .

Then, explain what your evidence is that these scholars gave up their sense rather than have realized your religion is actually a myth like every other.

 

[joelr]

Yes you quote almost verbatim these ' scholars ' rarely do i discuss the text with Avatars of these 'authorities ' that people trust and give up their sense making to .

This isn't a historian but an actual PhD Theologian.
He's explaining why Mark is the source gospel.

Why don't you explain where he goes wrong? You keep talking about "scholars" as if every single one is automatically wrong. Which is creepy. You just lump them all together in the "wrong" group and somehow don't think you are indoctrinated?

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Where does his sense go off the rails? Explain why I should not trust his work.

 

[John1.12]

Then, explain what your evidence is that these scholars gave up their sense rather than have realized your religion is actually a myth like every other.

For me I trust the writers/Authors of the bible over men 2000 years after the fact telling me how I should view the bible.

 

[John1.12]

This isn't a historian but an actual PhD Theologian.
He's explaining why Mark is the source gospel.

Why don't you explain where he goes wrong? You keep talking about "scholars" as if every single one is automatically wrong. Which is creepy. You just lump them all together in the "wrong" group and somehow don't think you are indoctrinated?

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Where does his sense go off the rails? Explain why I should not trust his work.

whats wrong with taking the 66 books at face value ,suspending Judgement , bias and presups accepting the narrative as it describes? Why do you need these men to hold your hand ?

 

[joelr]

For me I trust the writers/Authors of the bible over men 2000 years after the fact telling me how I should view the bible.

I am certain that the Greek, Persian, Hindu, Egyptian, Islamic, Mormon and other myths were written from 4000 years ago, up to the late 1800's and were intended to be true.
So according to that logic you should believe all of them. I have read several papers on Zeus. They took him very seriously.
Why would you trust modern scholarship to tell you that they are not literal?

So again, I do not wish to engage with endless circular logic and being preached beliefs at. Please tell me where the theologian went wrong since you are so certain. I have already established that I find your beliefs to lack evidence so I do not need to go in that circle.

 

[joelr]

whats wrong with taking the 66 books at face value ,suspending Judgement , bias and presups accepting the narrative as it describes? Why do you need these men to hold your hand ?

1) I care about what is true, not what I want to be true
2) framing learning and knowledge as "hand holding" demonstrates an ignorance and willingness to live a life of delusion. Good for you but I do not share this inclination
3) there are facts that one cannot divine from a plain reading, for example:

"Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke."

there are also 7 detailed arguments why Mark was the source gospel. I care about evidence.

4) I have already spoke on the plain reading of scripture. I find it to be an archaic myth, riddled with violence and a ridiculous concept of a God who needs a sacrifice to abolish some magic sin-force. It's copy-cat mythology full of contradictions and based on bronze age beliefs, laws and cosmology.

5) once again, why don't you take Islam and accept it as described, an update on Jesus message? Islam members have faith also?

6) you are going in apologetic circles now asking why can't I just believe like a good boy? The indoctrination used on you is showing. I see how people can believe made up stories, you just refuse rational thought.