Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[samuelbb7]

Dear Goat

The arguement has been made that Paul initally believed that Jesus became divine upon his death, and the resurrection was spirtual, not physical. The second/third generations of Christians after Paul definately started believing in a physical Resurrection.

If you look about the details that Paul had about Jesus in his writings, you will notice they have very very little about Jesus's life, and very little about what Jesus taught.

Those details became developed later on.

Well that goes against both what my college at a Public college and my professor taught. For they both agreed it was the Believe in the physical resurrection that propelled Paul and Christians. It is referred to as the main reason for the gospel in both Scripture and Early Christian Writings.

The Pagans taught as Socrates and Plato point out in an immortal soul. But christians at first stressed the resurrection. It was not until latter that the immortal soul came into the christian church and replaced the Resurrection at the center of importance.

Paul was dealing with church discipline and theology. He left it to the Gospels for what JESUS did. No need to duplicate. His writings brim with the teachings of JESUS but not alway in the same words. Take up your cross and follow me is what JESUS said. Die daily to self is what Paul stressed. They are the same doctrine. True Paul as a trained theologian did bring a more theological basis and background of the Tanak to show the reasons why JESUS was the Messiah and why he had to die. The whole book of Hebrews is the theological basis of why the death of JESUS saves us.

[Metacrock]

the assumption is no one die for a story they knew to be a lie. That argument is logical, but of limited use.

Especially when any alleged eyewitnesses are long gone. This argument supports the validity of fundamentalist Islam well enough. The 9/11 hijackers apparently believed.

That's just talking at cross purposes. You are trying to discredit the argument by applying to non analogous situations.

(1) The fact that the witnesses are long gone in no way discredits the argument; the argument being that the people who wrote the gospels would not die for something knew was fictinoal. that's got nothing to do with how long they have been dead.

(2) that the same logic could be used to argue for other faiths or erroniious ideas is totally irrevilvant. It does not change the fact of the argument itself.

(3) any argument can be misapplied.

[Metacrock]

Thank you Goat for the list. I copied it and will use it.

One point on Christianity that a History professor and a couple of history textbooks made is this. The Resurrection cannot be proven. But that the early Christians believed it is beyond doubt.

Samuel, this is a really good point that is often overlooked by those that discredit Christian claims. One must wonder why the early followers of Christ believed so deeply that many of them were martyred because of their undying belief. Which of course had rippling effects for the next 2000 years. One example in July of 180CE in the town of Scillium in North Afica. Seven men and five women were beheaded by Roman authorities because they would not swear loyalty to the Emperor. Their belief in Chritianity was that strong. By 250CE there were 130 Churches in N. Africa alone. The sceptic will dismiss this of course as religious fervor. But it certainly lends credibility to Christian claims.

We must also then wonder about the followes of Doe (applebe), who so ferverntly believed in him that they commited suicide so they could hop on a flying saucer that was following the comet Hale Bop. Or all those
followers of Scientology and Sun Yen Moon.

What's to wonder? Suicide and martyrdom/persecution are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution

But in the examples i have shown, it was the belief of the person that propelled them to suffer through it.

So what? the fact that there are erronious beliefs does not dispove true beliefs. Marxists (atheists) also sufferened for what they bleieved in. The argument from martyrdom is specific and ony applies to the original evangelists who passed on the story. It is not an argument that all martyrdom proves it's case, it's that thsoe who "made up" the story would not die for something they just made up.

[Goat]

But in the examples i have shown, it was the belief of the person that propelled them to suffer through it.

So what? the fact that there are erronious beliefs does not dispove true beliefs. Marxists (atheists) also sufferened for what they bleieved in. The argument from martyrdom is specific and ony applies to the original evangelists who passed on the story. It is not an argument that all martyrdom proves it's case, it's that thsoe who "made up" the story would not die for something they just made up.

And of course, as far as the non-christian is concerned, just because there are 'martres' doesn't make Christianity true. As for as the original evangalists who passed on the story, why, as was pointed on earlier, the only one 'martyred' was James, and it is quite feasible it wasn't because he was holding onto 'Jesus' as his lord and savior.

I mean, you personally can make up all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

[Metacrock]

But in the examples i have shown, it was the belief of the person that propelled them to suffer through it.

So what? the fact that there are erronious beliefs does not dispove true beliefs. Marxists (atheists) also sufferened for what they bleieved in. The argument from martyrdom is specific and ony applies to the original evangelists who passed on the story. It is not an argument that all martyrdom proves it's case, it's that thsoe who "made up" the story would not die for something they just made up.

And of course, as far as the non-christian is concerned, just because there are 'martres' doesn't make Christianity true. As for as the original evangalists who passed on the story, why, as was pointed on earlier, the only one 'martyred' was James, and it is quite feasible it wasn't because he was holding onto 'Jesus' as his lord and savior.

I mean, you personally can make up all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

I said that argument is not that any kind of general martyrdom proves Christianity, but that the death of the original tellers of the story is what makes the argument.

[Goat]

But in the examples i have shown, it was the belief of the person that propelled them to suffer through it.

So what? the fact that there are erronious beliefs does not dispove true beliefs. Marxists (atheists) also sufferened for what they bleieved in. The argument from martyrdom is specific and ony applies to the original evangelists who passed on the story. It is not an argument that all martyrdom proves it's case, it's that thsoe who "made up" the story would not die for something they just made up.

And of course, as far as the non-christian is concerned, just because there are 'martres' doesn't make Christianity true. As for as the original evangalists who passed on the story, why, as was pointed on earlier, the only one 'martyred' was James, and it is quite feasible it wasn't because he was holding onto 'Jesus' as his lord and savior.

I mean, you personally can make up all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

I said that argument is not that any kind of general martyrdom proves Christianity, but that the death of the original tellers of the story is what makes the argument.

And where is the 'death of the original tellers'??

Come to think of it, none of the original tellers wrote any of the scriptures.

[samuelbb7]

Dear Goat

Come to think of it, none of the original tellers wrote any of the scriptures.

That is basically saying the writers of the New Testament are liars. Paul was the original writer but it is true he is not the original teller of the life of JESUS. So on that basis you could ignore him. Yet he appeals to numerous eyewitness and speaks to people about talking to them.
1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
The Jewish people who lived in Israel and who followed JESUS and were eyewitness of his life. These were eyewitness but not writers.

But Peter (Cephas) told Mark what to write and he later wrote two books of the New Testament and he was in fact martyred.

Luke collected first person accounts so you could say he was not one of the original tellers but he did speak to them.

Matthew was an original teller but he did not speak of his death so we have to depend on legends which are less accurate for how he died.

John was an original teller and died of Old age so yes he was not martyred but it did cost him.

If you assume these men were liars and fakes or crazy then yes you can ignore them that is your right. I just believe them to be truthful.

[Goat]

Dear Goat

Come to think of it, none of the original tellers wrote any of the scriptures.

That is basically saying the writers of the New Testament are liars. Paul was the original writer but it is true he is not the original teller of the life of JESUS. So on that basis you could ignore him. Yet he appeals to numerous eyewitness and speaks to people about talking to them.

He claims there were eye witnesses, yes. None of the eye witnesses wrote any books. Nor, is there any evidence that Paul actually TALKED to an eye witness. He makes the appeal to the witnesses, but there is no actual connection to an eye witness. If that makes Paul a 'liar', so be it.

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
The Jewish people who lived in Israel and who followed JESUS and were eyewitness of his life. These were eyewitness but not writers.

Since none of these ones who followed Jesus wrote any books, nor were any books written about the actual teachings of Jesus until 40 years or more after the supposed events, who is to say what is written down is what these followers believed? I will note that apparently the original apostles still went to the temple. That shows that Jesus didn't try to start a new religion.

But Peter (Cephas) told Mark what to write and he later wrote two books of the New Testament and he was in fact martyred.

Luke collected first person accounts so you could say he was not one of the original tellers but he did speak to them.

Matthew was an original teller but he did not speak of his death so we have to depend on legends which are less accurate for how he died.

John was an original teller and died of Old age so yes he was not martyred but it did cost him.

If you assume these men were liars and fakes or crazy then yes you can ignore them that is your right. I just believe them to be truthful.

Well, Mark wrote after Peter was dead. Who knows what Peter actually told Mark, and how much was Marks own interpretation? Matthew, well, the stories he told were rather outragous. I mean, zombies walking the streets and darkness at noon for 3 hours?? With no one else noticing??
That certainly eliminates him as a reliable source.


As for "John", there is debate about which John wrote the "Gospel of John", or if a "John" wrote that gospel at all.

The Gospel itself gives very little indication about who wrote it.

[samuelbb7]

Dear Goat

Well, Mark wrote after Peter was dead. Who knows what Peter actually told Mark, and how much was Marks own interpretation? Matthew, well, the stories he told were rather outragous. I mean, zombies walking the streets and darkness at noon for 3 hours?? With no one else noticing??
That certainly eliminates him as a reliable source.

First that is an assumption that mark was written after the death of Paul. It cannot be proved. In fact many point that Mark was written before I and II Peter. So you could be wrong. Matthew is not speaking of zombies but of people resurrected from the dead. These were noticed by some people and in fact went to heaven with JESUS at his ascension.

As for "John", there is debate about which John wrote the "Gospel of John", or if a "John" wrote that gospel at all.

True there is debate about the entire Bible so why should this be different.

The Gospel itself gives very little indication about who wrote it.

Jhn 21:20 ¶ Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Jhn 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]?
Jhn 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.
Jhn 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?
Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Like I have said before. YOu can accuse these men of being liars and fakes and disbelieve them. That is a reasonable position. But if like I you believe they are truthful then you should choose to believe and follow.

[Goat]

Dear Goat

Well, Mark wrote after Peter was dead. Who knows what Peter actually told Mark, and how much was Marks own interpretation? Matthew, well, the stories he told were rather outragous. I mean, zombies walking the streets and darkness at noon for 3 hours?? With no one else noticing??
That certainly eliminates him as a reliable source.

First that is an assumption that mark was written after the death of Paul. It cannot be proved. In fact many point that Mark was written before I and II Peter. So you could be wrong. Matthew is not speaking of zombies but of people resurrected from the dead. These were noticed by some people and in fact went to heaven with JESUS at his ascension.

As for "John", there is debate about which John wrote the "Gospel of John", or if a "John" wrote that gospel at all.

True there is debate about the entire Bible so why should this be different.

The Gospel itself gives very little indication about who wrote it.

Jhn 21:20 ¶ Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Jhn 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]?
Jhn 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.
Jhn 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?
Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Like I have said before. YOu can accuse these men of being liars and fakes and disbelieve them. That is a reasonable position. But if like I you believe they are truthful then you should choose to believe and follow.

You are, of course, assuming that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by the apostle Peter.

From the mainstream CHristians biblical scholars, the date for Mark is between 65 and 80, 1 Peter is between 80 and 110, while 2 Peter is between 100 and 160.

And, I would say it is more like that they were mistaken, and also those that followed didn't understand the style of writing