Total posts: 905
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It makes sense, since Jews expected that if someone can be saved, it would be just them. They believe they are chosen people.
Except Judaism doesn't have the idea of being "saved" for anyone. You clearly misunderstand the idea of the "chosen" idea.
In the Bible, there was an entire section dedicated to God convincing disciples to give teachings (Bible) to non-Jews.
Not in my bible there isn't.
You are confusing what Jews think today with what Jews thought back then.
You are confusing the gospel and church versions of Judaism was and is with what it actually was and is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you think that that is a threat to Judaism, then you don't know Judaism. Judaism doesn't teach any idea of "saving" so telling non-Jews they can be saved "also" makes no sense.
And Judaism doesn't believe that non-Jews can't read the bible but I'm not sure what you mean by "give the bible".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Elohim is a noun that has both singular and plural uses, as determined often by the verb. When there was a no verb to correlate it, the sentence structure and other wirds help determine meaning as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ex 22:28 is more complicated than that because the word "elohim" has a variety of meanings. The text reads "don't curse elohim."
This is understood to be a statement EITHER of not cursing God, or not cursing judges.
Created:
Posted in:
How do you plan on resolving contradictions?
Are you ceding explanatory authority to any particular source? Are you applying your own personal common sense? Are you looking for a plausible understanding or an actual explanation?
There are a lot of underlying issues here.
Created:
Posted in:
Knowing what I know and having lived as a Jew for a long time now, there is no logical reason that I WOULD become a Christian.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
People dream what they dream and remember what they remember. The anecdotal evidence is thin and not very substantial (and can't be corroborated, tested or repeated). It takes a person with a pre-existing tendency towards belief to accept that low of a threshold or standard for "proof." Not being able to see that not everyone shares that way of thinking is to hold a very narrow world view.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
You ask about whether skeptics are skeptical about ESP or other out-of-body experiences while the individual is alive. That's a fair question but not necessarily persuasive. I have no doubt that there are those who don't believe in a soul, God or life after death but think that the human brain is capable (when alive) of many things that science has yet to discover. There is no necessary connection between the possibility that when alive a brain can do things and that a person has the capability of perception after brain function ceases.
I also don't understand why "people should be hallucinating living people and non family members". People dream about things that their brain can create from the inputs and memories that it has. I dream of speaking to my father but he passed away 5 years ago. That doesn't make it real. I also dream of talking to people who I know who are alive. I similarly dream of people I have never met and situations which couldn't possibly happen. Why would a dream that happens amidst the rush of activity in a NDE be any different? Additionally, I'm confused by the absolute nature of "people would always hallucinate telepathic communication in their experiences" (emphasis mine). In my dreams I often sense communication without seeing anyone's lips move. I also sense floating or flying (sometimes in an airplane, sometimes a car, sometimes, just flying). Why is there anything conclusive about dreams?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I understand your position but you are speaking from within an a priori belief system, through that particular lens.
It isn't easy, but try standing outside yourself. Imagine yourself as a blank slate with no prior notions. People who are not dead tell you that when they were dead, they saw things. Now, you know that people who are dying can see things, but you have no way of proving that what anyone saw was WHILE that person was dead. I don't see why (not "how" but "why") anyone would be convinced that the say so of people would be enough.
My sister in law became observant because when her grandparent was ill she bargained with God that if God healed the grandparent, she would be more observant. He was healed and she changed her life. Should that be considered "proof" of God's existence? Or might a reasoning person find a whole lot of other explanations? Again, I can see HOW a person might take that as proof, but I don't see WHY a person who does not believe in God would see any causal link there. It takes no particular mental gymnastics to say that human health is not fully understood and sometimes healthy people die and sick people recover.
When people have NDE's and envision family, that makes sense. In our dreams, our brain shows us things we know, possibly things we yearn for. The electrical overload of a death experience causes activity in the human brain but who is to say that any of the awareness (even if this brain activity is connected to a divine connection) happens AFTER the death? So far, there is no evidence of such. So how could someone believe it? Through faith. Why would someone without faith believe it? I don't know.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
But if you are willing to concede that the anecdotal information may not be evidence (as you write, "even if it's not evidence") then you should be able to see why someone who is looking for evidence before accepting as fact would feel that that level has not been reached. There is a whole lot of "if" in your position and not everyone is willing to grant the same hypotheticals.
Created:
I don't understand why is it irrational to argue that something which cannot be definitively proven lacks evidence that would make it proven.
The existence of an afterlife is a function of belief (often religious) but that belief is irrational as it is predicated on faith. Or better, it sets a very different threshold for "proof", one that others would not necessarily agree with so the person with belief sees things as proof while the person without that faith does not, and sees the "evidence" as not proof or non-existent.
As a person dies, the death throes in the brain can make all sorts of images. Now I know that I can tell when I had a dream -- whether it was 30 seconds long or 5 minutes long. I also have no way of knowing when during my sleep patter that dream happened. When someone goes through an NDE any images or thoughts might easily happen in the brief seconds before the cessation of life, not after. There is no way to prove when they happened. So accepting that they happened after death and are related to existence after death has to be a function of belief, defying any actual proof. And since human brains are all strikingly similar, the nature of the images would be similar.
Why try to enlist an inexplicable and undefinable experience as a "proof" of something that cannot be measured or communicated at the time?
Created:
Posted in:
Just a quick note --
Judaism sees the biblical text (especially the 5 books of Moses) as highly precise and specific with nary a wasted word or letter. Translations that conflate the specific word choices under the umbrella of a single word lose the subtleties of the choice. So in the Hebrew text, there are at least 4 different words that are often lumped under the English word "fear" and there are pages upon pages that have been written dissecting what each one imports in any given situation. To understand that one really does need to be able to read the text in the Hebrew a see the significance of the specific word choice. For an example of a discussion about the differences, try here
There is an aspect of "fear" which is steeped in a respect and an awe. There is also an aspect which is stuck in "dreading consequences." These become connected when the English for each just uses "fear" regardless of the Hebrew word choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You are correct - I should have referred to God as "Hashem" so I will do that in deference to your point. If anyone asks why I do that and what it means, I hope you will step in and explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Just a quick note -- there are a variety of messianic prophecies but Judaism focuses on 4 as a start:
- Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
- Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
- Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
- Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
I copied from https://aish.com/why-jews-dont-believe-in-jesus/ which is a useful site as it sums up a lot of stuff.
Since
1 -- there is no third temple yet
2 -- not all Jews live in Israel
3 -- there is no world peace
4 -- humanity hasn't been united in knowledge of God
and since
Judaism has no concept of a "second coming"
We know that the promised, future king messiah has not arrived.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
you mean, "the Christian bible."
Created:
it is irrational to argue that there is evidence if the evidence is unverifiable, not repeatable and not sourced in "death."
The afterlife (and the before life) are functions of faith and believers see them as "proven" only by dint of a selection of "testimony" that is driven by the same belief agenda.
The idea of debating something based in faith is a waste of time. The non-believer cannot be persuaded rationally to believe and the believer can not be persuaded not to.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
General sense is something that is something everyone agrees on and makes sense. And in-depth understanding is something that is beyond that. You understand?
I am interested in something beyond what you think "everyone agrees on." If there are translational differences, then not everyone agrees on it. You seem to ignore that.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I look at the details, but details like that of what you are bringing up, is basic common knowledge. You are conflating basic common knowledge for an argument.
The translational difference is not common knowledge and you don't look at details if you don't look at the words. You are confusing a general sense for an in-depth understanding.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
I don't know. I'm just surmising from the comment he made that, "If you look at the contexts and not simply just scripture, you will see that portion of the bible was talking about life, and the wonders of life of the sea, and land."
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you look at the contexts and not simply just scripture, you will see that portion of the bible was talking about life, and the wonders of life of the sea, and land.
So you don't focus on the details and just look at the "big picture" and general notions?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The problem is with translations. The bible isn't falsified when a translation is falsified, but the student should investigate how and why a translator made a particular choice when other translators chose differently. If one does not read ALL translations, one might think that the verse is only talking about dragons. Is it? You say it is talking about "great creatures of the sea" (which would not include dragons). How do you get to that generalization from the Hebrew?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yeah, I've never quite understood how (not why...the why, I get) translators get from the Hebrew to the future tense in the English
The Hebrew is clear
הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙
behold,
the young woman
pregnant
Note that the Hebrew word in this verse, harah, serves as a predicate adjective, not a verb. In Hebrew, there is no "to-be" word for the present tense. If the verse intended past or future, there would be a to-be word inserted to clarify that the verse is NOT in the present tense. But the verse has no such word, so it is in the present.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How do you know what the Bible meant. I think if they were trying to be vague about it, they would just say woman, and not young woman. You are calling out words that "could mean something else" if you look at it through a microscope. Do you really think that's what they meant when the wrote this?
Well, one way is by reading in the hebrew and not in a translation, but your question can be applied to your position -- how do YOU know? You say that they all "say the same thing" but they don't. The Hebrew, by the way, is not vague and one does not need a microscope to see that. You introduced the "Many young woman could be virgins" so the looking through a microscope to explore possibilities is yours.
Again, doesn't have to specify what creature. The bible is talking about great creatures of the sea. Doesn't have to be specified.
Your claim was that all the versions say the same thing, that they "don't mean anything different" so you are saying that "great whales" and "dragons" mean the same thing. Is that an accurate restatement of your position?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
virgin is woman who hasn't had sex. Many young woman could be virgins.Also, conception is the start of pregnancy, the same thing.
Many young women are NOT virgins. Since to many, an essential element of Christianity hinges on a virgin's being pregnant, a translation which does not say that the prophecy is about a virgin would be significant.
As to the second point, the difference is in the tense of the verb (is v.s shall).
You are arguing these scriptures are inheritably different, by taking the words and picking at them. The words mean the same, and the message of the scripture is the same as well.
the words therefore do not mean the same thing, and the agendas of the various translations come through.
In Gen 1:21's various translations, do you see a difference between "sea-creatures", "sea-monsters", "great whales" and "great dragons"?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So you don't see any difference between a "virgin" and a "young woman" or between "shall conceive" and "is pregnant"?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, it doesn't -- take one of the old ones:
kjv
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
and take one of the new ones:
gnt
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'
Are you telling me you don't see a difference?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The different versions of the bible, don't mean anything different, they are just spoken with different words that are synonyms.
This is not true -- the various translations are driven, often, by agendas, mixing interpretation into the word choice. Look at the various translations of Is 7:14 here https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-14.htm . You will see that the older translations that all stem from the same source have similar wording, but there are significant differences in the right column (literal) and the last 4 of the left column (contemporary).
Created:
Posted in:
Today is the 4th day of Channukah. Sending out earnest good wishes to all to whom this day and holiday are significant.
If you have any sincere Channukah questions, I can try to help with them.
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe I'm missing something here.
If, in one given case, one knows 90% of all knowledge. That leaves 10% not known.
Is it possible that in that 10% there is either the absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist, or simply no knowledge that God does exist?
The answer is "yes" so therefore, in the absence of all (100%) knowledge, God's existence can NOT be proven and the entire premise of this thread is flawed. Can we go home now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Jesus cast the demons into the pigs
So Jesus did the act which led to the loss of the pigs. Thanks for confirming it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, throwing out, sinful spirits (demons) is a sin.You should probably do more research buddy.
You should read more carefully. Causing loss to the owners is the sin. If the demons could have left on their own then the choice to sin was all Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
People still followed Jesus's teachings, before it, but the church itself, and Christianity, followed after his death.
exactly -- so before his death, Christianity wasn't a thing. His status of sin was measured by his actual religion, Judaism, making the religion he founded false.
In the Judaist religion, it might have been a sin, but just because something is proclaimed as a sin, doesn't mean it really is one.
Except that God, in his text of the bible, says it is a sin.
Jesus followed what God said was right, because he was God. What man called sin meant nothing to him, because he was the judge of sin.
God said sin was right? No, Jesus might have invented things to justify his actions, but what he did was against what God said and, as you concede, was in Jesus' own actual birth-religion, a sin.
yes....and? Man makes many laws that don't abide by the Bibles teachings. Therefore, law made by man isn't always the correct thing to do.
But if the bible says to abide by them (and your "yes...and" concedes this point) then following those laws IS the right thing to do and therefore Jesus was wrong.
You need to understand, those sinful activities, only took place in the eyes of a different religion. Not Christian faith.
You admitted that there was no Christian faith until Jesus died, so those were sinful activities according to the relevant religion at the time.
He didn't. The Demons asked to be thrown among the pigs. The demons could have left, and the pigs would have stayed.Not Jesus's fault, the Demons fault.
If the demons could have left on their own, then Jesus' decision to move them out was purely his decision and its impact on the pigs and their loss is on him. Sin.
Again, I am not accusing you of doing said thing. I am saying if you are going to use that argument, then you are contradicting yourself.So, if not for that reason, then why?
If you are trying to prove that the earth is shaped like a burrito then you are failing. Otherwise, why say what you say?
Maybe next time read a bit further.
I have and nothing you quoted contradicts what I quoted. While there was a problem with the actions of the Pharisees, what they taught (which was Judaism) was to be followed. That makes the laws, even in Jesus' eyes, binding and so Jesus was, by his own instruction, sinful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes. Because his death and resurrection jumpstarted Christianity.
If his death jump started it, then it wasn't a thing before his death.
umm....please elaborate more on this.
Your words in post 167: "If the person who is responsible for starting a religion is with sin, then that religion is false."
Your words in post #210: "It might have been a sin in Judaism"
So if it was a sin in Judaism, and Jesus was Jewish, then he sinned and any religion he starts is false. Your logic.
Man bases some of their laws off of the Bible, but man still makes those laws.
And the bible commands us to abide by those laws.
No he didn't. He didn't do anything sinful according to what God said. He did things that were sinful that man said was sinful.
The things I pointed to are from textual mentions of sinful activities.
So, when the demons were asked to be thrown among the pigs, it was Gods fault that the pigs ran away?
That's a lot of silly presumptions. How about "when Jesus caused the pigs to run away, that was his fault."
All I'm saying is that if your going to prove to me that Jesus wasn't God,
another "if"? Should I point out (again) that that's not what I'm doing?
He actually didn't do that.
really? Matt 23 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Jesus was not part of Judaism. He follows the Christian religion, because his death, and resurrection, started it.
So he wasn't part of the religion that he was and that he told others to listen to -- he followed a religion that only existed after he died. Makes as much sense as anything you have claimed thus far.
It might have been a sin in Judaism, but not in Christianity.
So if it was a sin then, according to your logic, any religion he founds must be false. That was your claim.
Where in the Bible does it say one has to abide by laws made by man, to not sin.
Who said laws are made by man? Deut 17 is pretty clear about enforcement of all sorts of laws including following all instruction given by the courts.
Jesus followed what God said to do, and everything God said to do, was without sin.
No he didn't. He did things that were sinful according to what God said. You can keep trying to wriggle out, but between dietary laws, sabbath observance, respect for teachers and parents, destruction of property and harming trees, he had plenty of sins.
If you are going to call this stealing, then give me one example of Judaist law, that states that standing next to a herd of pigs, casting demons unto them and them running away is breaking the law.
The Jewish law says that one who indirectly causes a loss of money to an owner is responsible for that loss.
Jesus was Jewish, but does that mean that he was supposed to abide by Judaist law? No, that would be like saying, that someone who is Chinese, has to abide by Chinese law always. Well, what if they move to America? Now they don't have to follow the same laws.
But Jesus didn't move. In fact, he told his followers to listen to the teachings of the Pharisees. He said in Matt 5 that no element of the law would pass until all was "fulfilled." If you want to believe that Jesus, by his death, somehow "fulfilled" laws then you still have the laws being in force BEFORE he died, making his actions sinful under those laws.
I said if you are, not you are definitely doing that thing.
OK, so your guess was wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I say again:It isn't sin just because it is a law.
In Judaism, and remember, Jesus was supposedly Jewish, breaking a law IS a sin.
If you are trying to prove to me that God doesn't exist, then you have to use evidence that you agree with, or else it's a contradiction.
and who said that that's what I'm trying to do?
That would be like me saying you shot a gun next to a herd of sheep, and those sheep ran away.Gun=Demons in this scenario.
And in Jewish law, you would be liable as a sinner for having done that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is flawed logic.You are both trying to prove that Yahweh doesn't exist, but your using his supernatural power as evidence?
You are missing the point, possibly intentionally. I am using the account of his actions within the book YOU value to show you that according to YOUR definition, the religion is false. I don't have to stipulate to the factual nature of the account, just that YOU think it is factual so you have to accept the consequences.
If you learn Jewish law, you would know that, according to Jewish law, causing the harm (that is, the financial loss to the owner) even indirectly is theft which is liable to judicial action. If your solution to this is to blame demons, then no one needs to be responsible for actions because, hey, "demons."
He also cursed a fruit tree and it is a sin to cause damage to a fruit tree.
Jesus doesn't run by laws, he runs by morals.
So no laws. Got it. He must be sinless then because he doesn't follow laws? Great...great.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So your evidence for him not being god, is doing something supernatural? Hmmmmm......
I am using the story as told in a text I don't value to show that even according to your logic, your own text testifies the falsity of the religion. I can use the text of Harry Potter to show that Harry Potter is sinful also if you would like.
Laws don't negate sin. Their are many laws in many countries that are sinfully in themselves. Raising taxes because of greed is one example. So he did not break the law, he just understood what was sinful and what wasn't.
No, he broke laws. If I drive 56 miles per hour in a 55 zone, I am breaking the law even if I think it is a dumb limit designed to trap drivers into getting tickets. That makes me a law breaker. Sin has to do with breaking laws. Jesus broke laws, therefore he was a sinner. QED.
Yes.....and?
and therefore your logical conclusion, predicated on a presumption which you invalidate as it applies to others can equally be applied to and cause the invalidating of your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Jesus cast the demons out of a person who was being tormented by them, and he cast them among the pigs, the animals.The fact that the pigs ran away, was not his felt, but the demons who were in control of the pigs.To assume that this was Jesus stealing is preposterous.
In Jewish law (remember, he was Jewish supposedly), he caused it so he is responsible for the result. So, a sin.
Yea your right, in Judaism not Christianity.I think you are arguing about a different religion.Jesus did not go by Judaism's laws, in fact he revoked them when he argued with the high priests and called them out for their sins.
There was no Christianity. Jesus was supposedly a Jew, breaking Jewish law. Remember, you said" If the person who is responsible for starting a religion is with sin, then that religion is false." If Jesus is responsible for starting Christianity, and, as you concede, in Judaism (he was Jewish) he was sinful, then the religion he starts must be false.
Yes, but it is was still proven historically to be a religion.
So are other religions.
Well to compare the Bible to Harry Potter is very stupid.The Bible is based in facts.Harry Potter is based in fiction.
I sense that some people might disagree with your claim to facts behind the bible.
And really, the fact is that their will never be blatant truth and there will never be hard concrete evidence of Yahweh's existence, because again, God wants us to love him, and if we only base this faith in facts, and only accept god because the facts are right, then that is not true love, the thing that God wants most from us.So no their will never be hard, concrete, physical evidence of Yahweh, but their is still no evidence to this day, that the bible contradicts itself, or that Jesus contradicted himself either. Their is a lot of evidence proving his existence and resurrection.Now whether you believe that or not is up to you.
So basically, "there will never be hard concrete evidence of Yahweh's existence". Any statement you make about being able to PROVE God's existence must NOT be based on facts. 'nuff said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Give me an example of this. This is a lie and a false statement.Jesus himself lived a pure life, and faced all the hardships of humanity.The whole point of Jesus sacrificing himself, wasn't just a show.Jesus, showed God, that it was possible to live a sinless life, therefore, people can enter the kingdom of heaven by accepting Jesus as there lord and savior.His sinless body died on the cross for our sins.
Here are some resources
He healed on the sabbath (which is a sin)
He encouraged others to break laws (like laws of food and the sabbath).
There's more, but there you have it. He sinned according to Judaism, so by your logic, his religion is false.
Then of course you make the ridiculous claim about dying for another's sin which is not a thing in Judaism...
I have literally spent this entire time proving it.
No, you keep claiming it.
Claiming it is saying it happened without evidence, just simply claiming.I have provided valid proof of his existence. It is up to you to believe it or not.
your "valid" proof is from texts that require belief to give them any authority.
Habermas is already speaking from within the box of faith in Jesus, so his scholarship outside of the faith box is absent.
Actually, that wasn't the start of Christianity, you are false.You are stating that an emperor forced people to worship god, therefore, that's when it started. The religion itself actually started after Jesus's Resurrection, which was sparked by his disciples, who led thousands of people to God.
Until it was forced on people, it wasn't a large number. You conflate the population before and after. Thousands (still an unprovable claim because it relies on the bible testimony) isn't all that impressive.
Numbers is just an extra addon to the proof. It is a matter of historical continuity. Muslim, and Hindu don't have that much type of evidence when it comes to events that scientists cant explain.
So we abandon your numbers argument. Great. Now you wnat to say that it depends on things you say science can't explain. First this would require that science accepts your biblical accounts as historically accurate. I would suggest it doesn't. Do you think science can explain the magic in the Harry Potter books? Fiction is like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, but how many other beliefs have this much evidence, and the most religious followers in the world going over 2 billion followers.
so it is a matter of numbers? The 1.6 Billion Muslims and 1 million Hindus just aren't enough? Since Christian belief came by the edge of a sword and by an emperor's fiat, is it really valid?
I don't see a link to that website.
If the person who is responsible for starting a religion is with sin, then that religion is false
I guess that Christianity is false then because according to Jesus' own religion, Judaism, he sinned. Thanks.
For certain aspects of Christianity, you have to have some sort of faith to believe in God.
So then it isn't a function of proof and you might want to stop insisting that you can prove it.
But I have already proven the existence of a higher being in one of my first posts
No, you have claimed it and relied on a special pleading which you just conceded requires faith. You then try to justify with the circular statement that "therefore the claims that cant be proven, you must have faith in, based on my other evidence."
So things that you can't prove have to be believed in because of claims you made that can't be proven but need to be accepted by faith.
Yes, but there hasn't been any other case in history, where that big of a group of people go from mourning, and doubting Christ, to risking their lives to spread his word, in the span of less than a year.
two problems -- the first is that you are still relying on a faith based book to make your supposedly historical claim, and second, you are making a claim about all people and all history that you cannot support. Did all the people who accepted Jesus first doubt? Or maybe they had no opinion. Was the group that big? We don't really have any evidence of that. Remember, it took an act of an emperor to force people to adopt the religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God didn't come into existence as I explained in post #103:"God is eternal without a cause because he lives outside of time. Think of it like this:In a metaphorical sense, there is a box, and in the box is all of time/space. God doesn't live in the box. He lives outside of that (outside of time and space, things he created.)He can stick his hand in the box and affect things, but he doesn't live inside that box."
That's the eseence of the special pleading -- you assert a nature of God and because of that nature, God must exist. But nothing is proven, just claimed.
Go to any other religious text or history, and you will find little to no proof of its actual historical existence.But Christianity has actual proof.
Huh? Plenty of other religions are entrenched in the history books. All Christianity has is faith in its text, and so do all the others. I found a website that says "scholars agree that Buddha existed" so there goes your claim.
So, how did all of those people all of the sudden go from mourning gods' death (which actually did happen) to immediately leaving their homes and families to go risk their lives to spread the word.
What happened, if it happened, was the death of a man. You can't just jump to insisting (without any evidence otehr than the self-serving text) that Jesus was God. Then to the question of "why would people leave to spread a message if it wasn't true?" and the answer to that is "because some people are easily influenced and are looking anywhere for a sign to drive their lives." People knock on my door all the time to preach their views. People send me unsolicited emails. Some start their own religions. If your logic about "people only champion what is true" is accurate then plenty of other religions which have people spreading the word must be likewise true. Again, no proof, just a rationalization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
All of these examples show God telling us that he is God, which someone who isn't God wouldn't do.
Your proof that a particular version of God is God is that God says he is God?
So any theology which has a text in which its idea of God declares itself to be God is equally valid.
You then use only internal texts whose validity and authority rests on already believing their validity and authority. You use the bible to proof the accuracy of the bible. That doesn't work as proof of anything.
Then your litany of claims by "experts" is flawed. It is a catalogue of beliefs and emotional reactions (with at least one factual error, BTW). No one has to argue that people didn't believe something. But today, many people believe things -- does that make every object of belief a reality or truth? Is every conspiracy theory a proven truth? Is every religion right?
Here is your list
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.2. He was buried.3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lost hope.4. The tomb was later found empty after his interment.(accepted by 75% of scholars)5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.7. The proclamation of the resurrection took place at the very beginning of the church.8. They preached the message of Jesus's resurrection in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried.9. The gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus.10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.11. James, a family skeptic, was converted to the faith, when he believed he saw the resurrected Christ.12. Saul (Paul) was converted to the faith because he believed he saw the risen Jesus."
1 may be a claim of historical fact. 2 may even be, though "buried" is a technical and probably wrong word here. By #3 you are wading into reaction and feelings, all evidenced by that self-serving text. 4 is also a matter of faith and doesn't account for cause, only effect. Five is about what people believed about their experiences, 6 tells of a reaction to five. Many people now believe their visions and beliefs are real and they change their lives accordingly (see the obit for GG Allin and look at the source of his birth name).
Seven moves into more reaction, built on a foundation of belief. 8 and 9 are the codification of that belief, and no one has to disagree that someone thought that a restaurant serving dogs was a good idea so he built it. This doesn't mean it was a good idea, just that he believed it.
10 is wrong.
11. is a claim made in a text. Lots of claims are made in texts. Only if you start by believing in the value of the text does the claim have use.
Same with 12.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How did the "infinitely hot and dense single point" come into existence, at the beginning of time, if there was nothing there to create, that point?
Wouldn't the same question be applicable to a God idea? How did God "come into existence"? If you claim that God was "outside" of the flow of time then you have created a special pleading. Your conclusion, necessary for you to sustain a belief, is just a claim with no proof.
Answer is: There was something there to create that point, and that thing was a god, or a higher being of some sort.
Or that point always was, outside the flow, as you posit God is
one of your quotes includes the statement:
"Time begins when it starts ticking, that is, when physical processes take place in the background of a classical space-time. Anything that happened before has been erased from cosmic memory."
This points to a "before" standing outside of time. Paradoxical yes, but apparently within the understanding of the author of the quote.
That is just a scratch of my evidence proving a god, now I will return with evidence proving why the god that created the universe is Jesus/Yahweh.
But there has been no evidence. Drawing a conclusion based on interpretation and then synthesis from a selection of facts is not evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
I feel it is safer to say
"God exists and I can prove it...to myself and others who already agree with me."
trying to prove a function of faith without a threshhold of proof in common is a fools errand, and it is (IMHO) arrogant to think that anyone can definitively prove a personal proposition to anyone else if they don't aready agree to the proposition's underlying validity.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
There is nothing for me to address. The top post was aimed at those who believe that the gospels have any value while they both embrace and deny the value of the earlier texts. As i have no interest in the gospels, what they say means nothing to me.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
No, I wouldn't. But thanks for making the assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
do you mean "particularly questionable" or just "questionable in terms of authorship" or even "questionable on its face in the same way that all religious texts are questionable"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
According to Jewish law, Jesus would not be a mamzer unless it could be proven that his father was another Jewish man.
Created:
Posted in:
And so far I have not found a singular list of "we rule like X in all cases". There are discussions of general policies and exceptions but not one full list. Here is a site which mentions a couple in passing https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/78509/when-reading-the-megillah-why-do-we-pasken-like-rebbi-meir https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/103975/why-is-the-halacha-according-to-r-meir-against-r-shimon?noredirect=1&lq=1 https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/106227/where-in-shas-was-the-psak-din-of-rabbi-meir-vs-rabbi-yehuda-accepted?noredirect=1&lq=1
Created: