NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #90]

Obviously true. re. evidence/faith. Bible -apologists never seem to get this as they think in terms of believe...or not.

True, atheist apologists sometimes forget that Evidence is on a sliding scale of validation.

Faith comes in where the evidence For a naturalistic - materialist explanation is better, but Theists prefer the less -well supported Theist explanation because they have faith in it.

I have observed that Believers also seem to think that the less faith it takes to reject a materialist hypothesis (e.g Abiogenesis) the less worthy the Faith is.

I truly believe that the purest declaration of faith that should earn them one of the crowns of the kingdom of heaven is to deny what is surely true.

But few can attain those heights of religious worthiness; I cannot remember a Theist proclaiming a flat earth, other than through stupidity (in one case, poor lady) rather than denialist faith.

And I never know whether the Theist apologist really doesn't understand how santa, etc are valid analogies for religious beliefs, or they just pretend to, as to push the argument away. In fact, I do know - they push away a matter of fact that is staring them in the face, but they do not want to see it.

It isn't just theist -think; it is general human self - validation.

Haven't we seen it in politics? Awkward question, they evade 'Well, i think it also important to talk about..." We know this is evasion and we accept it. We accept that, and the lies and denial as that is the game of Politics.

But the religion -debate is supposed to be about getting at the truth, not just about winning. Which in my experience is what both sides say they understand, but Faith makes the Bible - apologist use every trick to try to win, or at least scrape a draw because their conviction is not based on evidence, but on Faith, and evidence, if it doesn't suit the Theist case, can be as easily dismissed as 'Opinion' as it can be used, or misused, to help the religious case, because that is the only purpose science, evidence and epistemology has - to support the Faith. If it doesn't do that, it is dismissed.

[POI]

You are making this way more complicated than it has to be. Faith is belief in something of which there would be no facts and evidence to examine. Where there are facts and evidence to examine, no faith is required.

You are missing my point. Many will read the Bible, and not believe, to varying degrees. Some might even study this stuff and not even believe a Jesus existed. Just like many will read the Rig Reda, and not believe, to varying degrees. To many, your stated 'facts and evidence' fall a little short. And to others, these claims fall completely flat. Maybe the NT authors knew this. Varying levels of "faith" will need to be propped up. The more blind faith you possess, the better. The way to maximize converts anyhow, was to push necessary 'faith' and 'fear'. An early form of 'Pascal's Wager', if you will...

My friend, I and my wife have witnessed a UFO, simply meaning we both saw a flying object which we could not identify. I am not suggesting this had anything to do with outer space or aliens, I am simply saying we both saw a huge object in the sky which we could not identify. This is nothing like the reports contained in the NT in which even scholars who are not Christian are convinced based upon the facts and evidence involved that the earlier followers were not making the story up but rather truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ. I'm just telling you that attempting to compare Christianity to Santa, UFOS etc. is not helping your case.

Point missed again. Many/most will not directly experience some sort of UFO, in which the only conclusion deemed is "extraterrestrial." Just like many who believe, or even do not believe, will ever feel a direct experience with what they can only conclude is/was a true 'Jesus moment.' Hence, the Bible rewards the ones who possess 'faith.'

But this is not what the authors contained in the NT did. In other words, they never asked their audience to believe the resurrection upon faith

Then Jesus gave Thomas incorrect information:

John 20:29: “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”

but were rather pointing to what they claimed to be historical events

Yes Realworldjack, I agree. The Bible is filled with claims. The readers do not have direct experiences with any of these claims. Hence, the Bible posts up "faith".

You are surely confused here because the authors contained in the Bible wrote hundreds of years before there was any sort of Bible. The point is, the "intentions of the Bible" would have nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of the authors, since the authors would have had no idea about any sort of Bible. Moreover, let us think about the fact that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to audiences who already believed, with the authors having no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would read what they had to write other than the intended audience at the time. The fact of the matter is, the whole of the NT may well have been addressed to believers at the time, and since this is the case, what in the world would what they had to write have to do with converting others? What in the world would Paul's letter to Philemon have to do with converting others? What would any of his other letters have to do with converting others? Paul's letters are the majority of the NT and when we add the two letters addressed to Theophilus to this, we have the overwhelming majority of the NT addressed to those who already believed. What would this have to do with converting others?

I am not confused. Humans decided what floating stories and claims are to be contained in what we now call the New Testament. Please harken back to the UFO link. Say I decided to make this a 'religion.' I would decide which claims and stories to place into my collection. I could also tell the readers that the ones who do not see, are more rewarded, if they still believe. I could then also attempt to persuade readers, by way of coercion.

As I already told another, if these facts and evidence(s) are so convincing, and no longer require 'faith', skeptics would not so frequently be greeted with "Pascal's Wager.'

I do not. I can tell you that when I started the study of the Christian claims I did not care where I landed. The only reason I even started such a study is because I knew my children would be exposed to Christianity and I knew I had to give them some sort of answer. So, if like you say, you want to protect your children above all else, what makes you think that I would be any different? With this being the case, I simply shared with my children what it is I believe, and why I believe it, and I can assure you they are Christians today, not because their dad is, but rather they know what they believe and why they believe it.

My point did not land. Allow me to try again... I admit that I possess some, or much, cognitive dissonance, when it comes to politics, eating meat, and my children. What I'm essentially saying, is that to uphold support for a specific political position, some or much cognitive dissonance is required. To uphold to the position of eating meat, while acknowledging animals possess consciousness, is another cognitive dissonance. Further, to defend your child's actions, 100% of the time, would be yet another likely cognitive dissonance. What I'm essentially saying here Realworldjack, is that to retain 'faith' in Christianity also requires some, or a lot of, cognitive dissonance. This is why 'faith' is propped up, followed by coercion -- (via eternal torment). The existence of Pascal's Wager is a testament to my claim, no pun intended. Believe and worship anyways.... The existence of "Christian apologetics" is another piece to the puzzle here. --> "Defend" stuff which looks to defy logic and reason.

What you are saying here is impossible. There is no way in which you have studied all the religions of the world and found them all lacking.

I was not clear enough here. When I state I reject them "all". I mean the ones which have been presented or offered to me. Maybe one claim, in the future, will be presented or offered and I will be a "new man"

More than likely, you have not really studied any of them at all. More to the truth would probably be that you were a Christian at one time who found what you were taught to be lacking, who then went on to reject Christianity and since Christianity is a religion in your mind, all the rest of the religions must and have to be lacking, but I can assure you that you have not studied all the religions of the world to come to the conclusion that "they all lack sufficient evidence and logic".

LOL! I would imagine you've at least cracked open the pages of the Rig Veda, or the Book of Mormon, or the Quran, right? How long did it take before you were convinced that these were not true? Did you study them for months/years/decades? I doubt it. Maybe the only reason you do not believe Joseph discovered "Golden plates", is that you have not truly studied the claims enough?

And no, your assessment about me is incorrect. My deconversion came by way of actually deciding to read the Bible myself. One of the fastest ways to become a skeptic, is by deciding to actually read the Bible. Some, who believe, do not read the Bible. I wonder how many of them would no longer believe, like me, if they decided to actually read the Bible? Interesting question....

Can one be genuinely motivated to still apply the 'golden rule', (the listed second greatest Commandment), without believing in a postmortem Jesus?

Yes.

Noted.

You see, many do not believe a postmortem Jesus is above watching all. And yet, still apply the golden rule where they can - (me for instance).

Agreed! Does this make you a moral person?

According to Jesus, the only thing that truly matters is the greatest given command.

If all that really matters is the belief, morals are completely superfluous or irrelevant, whether one believes or not. Which begs the question... Why give any moral law at all, outside, "believe in me and worship me"?

The moral law was given in order to demonstrate to us that we can never measure up. In other words, the moral law was given to drive us to Christ.

Then the 'golden rule' would not be deemed superfluous or irrelevant by both you and me.

Further, in my case, I follow the 'golden rule' for other reasons. And reading the Bible is what drove me away from the claims of a 'Christ'.

[Realworldjack]

[[url=./viewtopic.php?p=1158066#p1158066]Replying to Difflugia in post #90[/url

That's not necessarily true. Faith is required if the facts and evidence point to a different conclusion than the one that you really, really want to believe in.

Your problem here is the fact that I do not want to believe Christianity. The only way in which I can imagine one wanting to believe it would be they do not understand it. Next, even if I were looking at the facts and evidence incorrectly, this still would not require faith. Faith is the belief in something for which there would be no facts and evidence to examine. It is quite common for folks to look at the same exact facts, and evidence and come to completely different conclusions, which means that either one or both of them are incorrect. However, even if one and both are incorrect this does not mean that they did not have good reasons to believe as they did. The point is, simply because one may have looked at the facts and evidence and comes to a faulty conclusion does not in any way mean they were exercising faith. Anyone can look at the facts and evidence and interpret them the way in which they wish, and this includes Christians and non-Christians alike. It is sort of like this. One may have been brought up in a Christian home, and really does not want to consider the fact that what they were taught all their life could possibly be false, and therefore they interpret the facts and evidence in a way that supports what they would rather believe. On the other hand, one could be brought up in a Christian home, and somewhere along the way they have some sort of bad experience with the Church, and, or Christians to the point they are ready to reject Christianity "come hell or high water" and they too could interpret the facts and evidence toward what they would rather believe. I mean, you are acting as if it is only Christians who could be guilty of what you charge.

You've had this conversation too many times and still come away with an incorrect idea of what the scholars believe.

My friend, I know exactly what the scholars believe. In fact, one of the scholars who is not a Christian says that it is not something she simply believes, but is rather something we can know, and she claims we can know this based upon the facts and evidence we have. Of course, this does not mean that all scholars believe the resurrection took place, but it does mean that this evidence we have must and has to have some sort of explanation and there is no known explanation of the facts we can know, which would explain what we know, which would not include the extraordinary, meaning out of the ordinary.

The facts and evidence are that the earliest followers earnestly believed something about a resurrection, but not necessarily that it was physical or that they experienced a risen Christ in the flesh.

The above is not the argument I am making. It is not my argument in the least that most of the scholars are conceding a resurrection. Rather, it is the fact that we have enough facts and evidence to determine that the earlier followers were not making up the idea that they had encountered Jesus alive after death. Since this is the case, we can eliminate the idea that these earlier followers were involved in some sort of hoax, which would not explain the facts and evidence we have anyway. So then, we can know these folks were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death, which is what caused them to continue to preach this same thing and what they were preaching goes on to have one of the most, if not the most significant impacts upon the history of the world.

The facts and evidence are that the earliest followers earnestly believed something about a resurrection

Correct, which again eliminates the idea that these folks were involved in knowingly deceiving folks. And again, we need some sort of explanation which would explain the fact that these folks were truly convinced of what they were preaching.

but not necessarily that it was physical or that they experienced a risen Christ in the flesh.

Again, you are correct, but the key word you use is "necessarily" which means it very well may have been. In other words, I may not be able to insist that these followers did in fact encounter Jesus alive in the flesh, but you cannot rightly insist that it was not, which is exactly why you have to frame it as, "not necessarily".

Instead, you've turned your misconception into a weird feedback loop. You're convinced that the scholars believe something that's fundamentally different than what any of them claims, which means to you that the evidence must be much stronger than it is.

I have just demonstrated above that you are in error, because I have not taken the evidence any further than where it leads which is the fact that I am not insisting the evidence insists that these followers must and had to have seen Jesus in the flesh, but it is also true that you cannot rightly insist they did not.

The tired claim of "facts and evidence" when referring to gross speculation isn't helping yours.

Based upon what I have said above, exactly what am I speculating?

[Difflugia]

And I never know whether the Theist apologist really doesn't understand how santa, etc are valid analogies for religious beliefs, or they just pretend to, as to push the argument away. In fact, I do know - they push away a matter of fact that is staring them in the face, but they do not want to see it.

I think it ends up being both. In my previous comment, I mentioned a feedback loop and I think that's again what's responsible in the case you're talking about.

If someone's wrong about one thing and they get feedback about that, they can compare that with the reception other ideas get. They might disagree with the criticism, but they at least know what it's like to have people that they consider smart agree with them.

If someone's wrong about a lot of things, then the landscape is different. It's difficult for a person to believe that they can themselves be that wrong about so many things, so the easiest thing for them to believe is that the feedback is dishonest. Since all of this feedback must be dishonest, the first corollary is that dishonest criticism is a legitimate part of debate. The second corollary is that all sources are not only suspect, but that a certain level of corruption is actually endemic to the debate. I think we see this in the way that the phrase "both sides" gets used in these discussions. The difference isn't seen as being settled by the quality of the evidence, but by finding the trick or the fraud. Hardcore apologists are accustomed to being told why their view of the evidence is corrupted, but it seems impossible that the corruption can be that one-sided. The corruption, therefore, must be present on both sides.

[Difflugia]

That's not necessarily true. Faith is required if the facts and evidence point to a different conclusion than the one that you really, really want to believe in.

Your problem here is the fact that I do not want to believe Christianity. The only way in which I can imagine one wanting to believe it would be they do not understand it. Next, even if I were looking at the facts and evidence incorrectly, this still would not require faith. Faith is the belief in something for which there would be no facts and evidence to examine. It is quite common for folks to look at the same exact facts, and evidence and come to completely different conclusions, which means that either one or both of them are incorrect. However, even if one and both are incorrect this does not mean that they did not have good reasons to believe as they did.

I was making this point in the part you omitted when you quoted me:

Alternately, one might not need faith if one is badly mistaken about how to interpret the facts and evidence.

If you're wrong about the evidence and truly think that it points to a religious conclusion, that conclusion isn't based on faith per se.

My friend, I know exactly what the scholars believe.

Your statements don't bear this out.

In fact, one of the scholars who is not a Christian says that it is not something she simply believes, but is rather something we can know, and she claims we can know this based upon the facts and evidence we have. Of course, this does not mean that all scholars believe the resurrection took place, but it does mean that this evidence we have must and has to have some sort of explanation and there is no known explanation of the facts we can know, which would explain what we know, which would not include the extraordinary, meaning out of the ordinary.

This is a case in point. You keep conflating the scholarly view of a first-century belief in a resurrection with the modern Christian belief that the resurrection was necessarily a bodily one.

Since this is the case, we can eliminate the idea that these earlier followers were involved in some sort of hoax, which would not explain the facts and evidence we have anyway. So then, we can know these folks were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death, which is what caused them to continue to preach this same thing and what they were preaching goes on to have one of the most, if not the most significant impacts upon the history of the world.

This is a straw man. I've claimed that the resurrection may be spiritual and the stories fictional, but you're the only one trying to discuss a hoax.

And again, we need some sort of explanation which would explain the fact that these folks were truly convinced of what they were preaching.

"Spiritual" and "fictional" cover a lot.

but not necessarily that it was physical or that they experienced a risen Christ in the flesh.

Again, you are correct, but the key word you use is "necessarily" which means it very well may have been. In other words, I may not be able to insist that these followers did in fact encounter Jesus alive in the flesh, but you cannot rightly insist that it was not, which is exactly why you have to frame it as, "not necessarily".

Assuming you maintain this stance and don't later equivocate on "very well may have been" to claim anything more than merely possible, then we're on the same page.

I have just demonstrated above that you are in error, because I have not taken the evidence any further than where it leads which is the fact that I am not insisting the evidence insists that these followers must and had to have seen Jesus in the flesh, but it is also true that you cannot rightly insist they did not.

And there it is already. It's possible that Jesus appeared in the flesh (in the sense that anything is possible), but you're now trying to imply that the probability is on par with a spiritual or some other imaginary kind of appearance.

I can't insist that a dead man coming back to life is impossible, but I can insist that it's no more probable than the existence of Santa Claus.

The tired claim of "facts and evidence" when referring to gross speculation isn't helping yours.

Based upon what I have said above, exactly what am I speculating?

In this discussion, that the belief of early Christians involved a bodiliy resurrection. If it continues the way we've seen in the past, we'll very soon get to speculation that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul and that Acts is historically accurate. I made a representative list in an earlier thread of conjecture that you relabeled as fact.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #92]

You are missing my point. Many will read the Bible, and not believe, to varying degrees. Some might even study this stuff and not even believe a Jesus existed. Just like many will read the Rig Reda, and not believe, to varying degrees. To many, your stated 'facts and evidence' fall a little short. And to others, these claims fall completely flat. Maybe the NT authors knew this. Varying levels of "faith" will need to be propped up. The more blind faith you possess, the better. The way to maximize converts anyhow, was to push necessary 'faith' and 'fear'. An early form of 'Pascal's Wager', if you will...

The thing you need to understand is the fact that I have no problem at all with your speculation above, and I also do not have a problem with any conclusions you come to, nor how you and others may have come to these conclusions. My problem comes in when there are those who want to insist, I have no reasons to come to the conclusions I have, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. However, having said this, what facts and evidence do you have which would support any of what you have said above? I mean, you act as if these earlier followers had something to gain by converting folks to Christianity when the evidence suggests they had everything to lose.

Point missed again. Many/most will not directly experience some sort of UFO, in which the only conclusion deemed is "extraterrestrial." Just like many who believe, or even do not believe, will ever feel a direct experience with what they can only conclude is/was a true 'Jesus moment.' Hence, the Bible rewards the ones who possess 'faith.'

While I will concede that many, if not most Christians somehow believe they have had a "Jesus moment" there are others of us who have never had such an experience and so we have no such experience to base the belief upon. The facts suggests that the early followers truly believed they had encountered Christ alive after death. However, they were not encouraging folks at the time to have the same experience. Rather, they were pointing to what they claimed to be historical evidence. I mean, you will have to show me where in the Bible that the authors were encouraging their audience to have some sort of experience.

Then Jesus gave Thomas incorrect information:

John 20:29: “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”

GOOD GRIEF! You are making my point. If the earlier followers were attempting to get folks to have some sort of experience of Jesus, then they would have never allowed this to come out of His mouth. So then, Jesus is saying to Thomas, you believe because you have seen, (experienced) blessed are those who have not seen (experienced) but rather believe upon the testimony of those who have.

Yes Realworldjack, I agree. The Bible is filled with claims. The readers do not have direct experiences with any of these claims. Hence, the Bible posts up "faith".

Then please explain why any of the authors would have bothered pointing to the historical if they were promoting simply believing upon faith? Allow me to share with you some of the words the authors contained in the Bible use. They use words like, witness, eyewitness, defense, judge, judgement, evidence, testimony. Now, where would you hear these words on a daily basis? That's right! In a courtroom were facts and evidence are being examined. So then, give us an example of how the authors contained in the Bible "prop up faith" in order to believe the resurrection?

I am not confused. Humans decided what floating stories and claims are to be contained in what we now call the New Testament. Please harken back to the UFO link. Say I decided to make this a 'religion.' I would decide which claims and stories to place into my collection. I could also tell the readers that the ones who do not see, are more rewarded, if they still believe. I could then also attempt to persuade readers, by way of coercion.

We are not talking about a person wanting to start a religion. We are not talking about folks who were claiming to have witnessed something they could not identify. We are talking about multiple folks who claimed to have identified Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Moreover, the majority of scholars tell us that we have enough facts and evidence to know that these followers truly believed they had encountered what they claimed. My friend, that is a far cry from one pointing into the air and claiming they witnessed something they could not identify.

As I already told another, if these facts and evidence(s) are so convincing, and no longer require 'faith', skeptics would not so frequently be greeted with "Pascal's Wager.'

I am not offering you the "Pascal Wager".

My point did not land. Allow me to try again... I admit that I possess some, or much, cognitive dissonance, when it comes to politics, eating meat, and my children.

Why would you do that? I mean, how in the world can you acknowledge that you have "cognitive dissonance" and not do all you can to mitigate for it. It is like you are saying that there is no way one can avoid cognitive dissonance. This is not the case in the least. As an example, I voted for Trump in the last two elections, and I have never voted for a democrat. However, I will not only not be voting for Trump this time around, but I will also not be voting for any republican, and that is because the republican party has been taken over by far-right Christian nationalists who are aiming to get rid of our democratic republic. Now, I could be like many of my friends, that when I give them the facts and evidence for what I am saying, and they have no argument left who say, "I am voting for whom I want to, and you will vote for whom you want to. My point is, one can look at the facts and evidence involved, acknowledge the possibility of cognitive dissonance and mitigate for it, or they can ignore the facts and evidence and continue to believe what it is they would rather believe. It is not a virtue to admit you have cognitive dissonance and then ignore it.

What I'm essentially saying here Realworldjack, is that to retain 'faith' in Christianity also requires some, or a lot of, cognitive dissonance.

This is false. But allow me to ask you this. Is there "some, or a lot" of cognitive dissonance involved in order to believe the reports contained in the NT are false? I will admit there are folks on both sides which are guilty of cognitive dissonance, but this does not necessitate that all are guilty.

I was not clear enough here. When I state I reject them "all". I mean the ones which have been presented or offered to me.

Exactly how many have been presented or offered to you? The point is you seem to want to criticize me, because you are under the impression that I show favoritism to Christianity, while you are also under the impression that I have rejected all religions as being false. This is not the case in the least. There are a number of things I can believe to be true, which I would rather not believe. I can believe my wife is cheating on me, because of the facts and evidence. This does not mean that I favor to believe it. The fact of the matter would be, I would favor not to believe it, but the evidence tells a different story. Whether you would like to believe it or not, I would rather not believe the Christian claims, but the evidence keeps getting in the way. Next, I have not rejected all the religions as being false, because I have not study any of them, so I would not know if there would be any reason to believe them or not. However, I do not have to know a thing about all these religions, in order to know whether there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims. One would have absolutely nothing to do with the other. This is exactly why it is a useless argument to compare Christianity to the religions of the world. So then, while you seem to want to insist that all the religions of the world are false, I am not at all insisting such a thing. I am simply insisting there are good reasons to believe the Christian claims, while you seem to be insisting there is no good reason to believe the Christian claims, but the problem is, you cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

LOL! I would imagine you've at least cracked open the pages of the Rig Veda, or the Book of Mormon, or the Quran, right?

Nope!

How long did it take before you were convinced that these were not true?

I have not decided they are not true, because I have not "cracked open" any of the pages.

Did you study them for months/years/decades?

Nope!

Maybe the only reason you do not believe Joseph discovered "Golden plates", is that you have not truly studied the claims enough?

Maybe so, but I do not have to know a thing about any of this to know if there would be reasons to believe the Christian claims. One would have nothing to do with the other.

And no, your assessment about me is incorrect. My deconversion came by way of actually deciding to read the Bible myself.

That is sort of funny, because the same thing happened to me only in sort of reverse. I was enjoying life, and did not have a care about Christianity, and it was only when I realized my young children would be exposed to it that I began to care. What was the reason? Because I care for and love my children. I had no dog in the hunt other than my children. What sort of incentive did I have to lead my children astray, if I did not give a care about Christianity?

One of the fastest ways to become a skeptic, is by deciding to actually read the Bible. Some, who believe, do not read the Bible. I wonder how many of them would no longer believe, like me, if they decided to actually read the Bible? Interesting question....

So then, what you are telling us is, you were a Christian, who did not read the Bible, and when you actually read what was in the Bible, this is what caused you to reject Christianity? GOOD GRIEF! What in the world caused you to become a Christian if you had not read the Bible? What was the thinking process there? But what is even more funny is the fact that things have not changed very much now, have they? I mean, when you were a Christian, it was, "if only others could have the same experience I have had, they would be a Christian". Now that you are no longer a Chrisitan it is the same thing. "If only all these folks who are like what I was, they would no longer be a Christian", because you could not have possibly been wrong when you were a Christian, and there is no way you are wrong now that you have changed the mind.

According to Jesus, the only thing that truly matters is the greatest given command.

You are avoiding the question. The question was, does your attempts to follow the "golden rule" cause you to be a moral person?

Then the 'golden rule' would not be deemed superfluous or irrelevant by both you and me.

Said differently, Christians have been set free of the chase after morality. In other words, we do not preform service to others on order to demonstrate we are moral. Rather, the motivation comes from gratitude for what has been done on our behalf.

Further, in my case, I follow the 'golden rule' for other reasons.

Does your attempts to "follow the golden rule cause you to be a moral person?

[POI]

what facts and evidence do you have which would support any of what you have said above? I mean, you act as if these earlier followers had something to gain by converting folks to Christianity when the evidence suggests they had everything to lose.

Please re-read the OP. This topic speaks of the NT writers. I'll explain more again below.

While I will concede that many, if not most Christians somehow believe they have had a "Jesus moment" there are others of us who have never had such an experience and so we have no such experience to base the belief upon. The facts suggests that the early followers truly believed they had encountered Christ alive after death. However, they were not encouraging folks at the time to have the same experience. Rather, they were pointing to what they claimed to be historical evidence. I mean, you will have to show me where in the Bible that the authors were encouraging their audience to have some sort of experience.

This is not what I said. When you and I read all these claims, we were not there to share in these direct experiences. Further, neither of us have ever experienced any 'Jesus moment(s)' to immediately convert us. The Bible is encouraging such readers to believe without direct evidence. The Bible props up 'faith' and 'fear' to achieve this task.

GOOD GRIEF! You are making my point. If the earlier followers were attempting to get folks to have some sort of experience of Jesus, then they would have never allowed this to come out of His mouth. So then, Jesus is saying to Thomas, you believe because you have seen, (experienced) blessed are those who have not seen (experienced) but rather believe upon the testimony of those who have.

You missed my point again. Jesus tells Thomas that the ones which believe without seeing are revered more. In other words, Jesus ain't gonna be giving direct evidence to many/most, like he did for Thomas. Blessed are the ones who have faith anyways. The storyline suggests that many will not believe without hard evidence. The Bible states Jesus rewards those who apply true faith without evidence. The mention of eternal torment adds further encouragement for folks to jump on the Jesus train.

Then please explain why any of the authors would have bothered pointing to the historical if they were promoting simply believing upon faith? Allow me to share with you some of the words the authors contained in the Bible use. They use words like, witness, eyewitness, defense, judge, judgement, evidence, testimony. Now, where would you hear these words on a daily basis? That's right! In a courtroom were facts and evidence are being examined. So then, give us an example of how the authors contained in the Bible "prop up faith" in order to believe the resurrection?

I already did. John 20:29 - "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". The following requires blind faith, as you and I, who read the pages of the Bible, were not there to have any of these said supernatural experiences.

We are not talking about a person wanting to start a religion. We are not talking about folks who were claiming to have witnessed something they could not identify. We are talking about multiple folks who claimed to have identified Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Moreover, the majority of scholars tell us that we have enough facts and evidence to know that these followers truly believed they had encountered what they claimed. My friend, that is a far cry from one pointing into the air and claiming they witnessed something they could not identify.

We are talking about the NT writers. I again need to reference the UFO link. This link is just a small list of countless claims floating around about E.T.'s. Many of these claims suggest that 'extraterrestrial' sightings have been made. If I wanted to create a following, I could simply curate as many of these individual stories, to taste, as possible. I can tweak them accordingly, and also add motivating factors - like propping up the faith and fear, etc... I could make a comprehensive book about it.

Case/point, how many similar claims suggest direct contact from an almond-head-shaped extraterrestrial? Many claims exist. It must be real! Now, have an inspired group place all these claims together, add some other stuff, and make a religion out of it.

I am not offering you the "Pascal Wager".

I'm not saying that YOU did. The mere existence of this popular argument is the compelling evidence that this religion is not to be taken upon 'facts and evidence', but instead upon "faith".

a) one can look at the facts and evidence involved, acknowledge the possibility of cognitive dissonance and mitigate for it, or b) they can ignore the facts and evidence and continue to believe what it is they would rather believe.

Where Christianity is concerned, where do you land, a) or b)?

This is false.

This would then require an option c) above. Do you have one?

But allow me to ask you this. Is there "some, or a lot" of cognitive dissonance involved in order to believe the reports contained in the NT are false? I will admit there are folks on both sides which are guilty of cognitive dissonance, but this does not necessitate that all are guilty.

Many of the NT claims pertain to the supernatural. I used to only believe the supernatural claims from the Bible, and nowhere else. Which is to mean, I harbored a cognitive dissonance for the Bible. But I now reject all claims to the supernatural, unless hard evidence were to suggests otherwise - which it has not yet. Why? Before I read the Bible for myself, I trusted authority, who told me we have evidence which includes 500 witnesses seeing a postmortem Jesus at one time. This was hard for me to deny, until I read the actual claim myself, and placed it into context. So no, where NT claims are concerned, I no longer harbor cognitive dissonance. The claims from the NT are no different than the claims from the Quran.

Now to you... Why do you 'know' supernatural claims are true from the NT, without requiring any 'faith'? Further, if you require no faith, then doesn't Jesus think less of you?

Exactly how many have been presented or offered to you? The point is you seem to want to criticize me, because you are under the impression that I show favoritism to Christianity, while you are also under the impression that I have rejected all religions as being false. This is not the case in the least. There are a number of things I can believe to be true, which I would rather not believe. I can believe my wife is cheating on me, because of the facts and evidence. This does not mean that I favor to believe it. The fact of the matter would be, I would favor not to believe it, but the evidence tells a different story. Whether you would like to believe it or not, I would rather not believe the Christian claims, but the evidence keeps getting in the way. Next, I have not rejected all the religions as being false, because I have not study any of them, so I would not know if there would be any reason to believe them or not. However, I do not have to know a thing about all these religions, in order to know whether there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims. One would have absolutely nothing to do with the other. This is exactly why it is a useless argument to compare Christianity to the religions of the world. So then, while you seem to want to insist that all the religions of the world are false, I am not at all insisting such a thing. I am simply insisting there are good reasons to believe the Christian claims, while you seem to be insisting there is no good reason to believe the Christian claims, but the problem is, you cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

This particular exchange appears to be going side-ways. We are speaking about differing things, but if we keep exploring, it may need its own thread.

Maybe so, but I do not have to know a thing about any of this to know if there would be reasons to believe the Christian claims. One would have nothing to do with the other.

Maybe your standards for what you refer to as 'facts and evidence' are nowhere near as stringent as mine, especially when the claims are about something supernatural?

So then, what you are telling us is, you were a Christian, who did not read the Bible, and when you actually read what was in the Bible, this is what caused you to reject Christianity? GOOD GRIEF! What in the world caused you to become a Christian if you had not read the Bible? What was the thinking process there? But what is even more funny is the fact that things have not changed very much now, have they? I mean, when you were a Christian, it was, "if only others could have the same experience I have had, they would be a Christian". Now that you are no longer a Chrisitan it is the same thing. "If only all these folks who are like what I was, they would no longer be a Christian", because you could not have possibly been wrong when you were a Christian, and there is no way you are wrong now that you have changed the mind.

I'm a Product Of Indoctrination. Many do not read the Bible, believers included. As stated above, I trusted authority around me. This was my own personal journey. All I'm saying is that many fall away after they finally read the Bible. (i.e)

Isaac Asimov "said that the Bible is the most potent force for atheism if it is read properly."

You are avoiding the question. The question was, does your attempts to follow the "golden rule" cause you to be a moral person?

I'm answering the question, based upon what you and I already agreed upon, via post 85 Morals are both superfluous and irrelevant. Ironically, Jesus' greatest command is also a moral. So I guess, game over...

[TRANSPONDER]

I see that Realworld Jack appeared to be arguing history (evidence) vs Faith and why, if faith, they would point to historical material (evidence) anyway.

Obvious or ought to be. Claims without support get shot down. "Why do you believe that?" Evidence has to be produced.

If itis based on something that is know, or accepted or credible, that supports the claim.

In the case of Thomas, of course that the claim not only fails, debunked by Luke and unsupported by Mark and Matthew, but the whole scenario from the empty tomb onwards fails, as John doesn't a even agree an angel explaining everything.

And therein lies the clue. Sure - the Disciples believed that Jesus had risen - in the spirit. This was implicit in the text even before the Gabriel stone (studiously not talked about) indicated that a three day )spirit) resurrection was a Thing even before Jesus' mission (.I know the believers dispute the translation).

But a claim of a spirit resurrection is a claim with no more than visions in the head ( O.w k.A imagination) and so it is Jesus' body that must walk. Which of course had a problem, rarely talked about - that Jesus, in a supposed New Incorruptible form, still has the war - wounds in for identification purposes, which only enable him to be recognised when the plot requires it.

Jesus, fellas, don't we know when we see a faked plotline, full of holes? Why do we let them control the narrative?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #95]

Alternately, one might not need faith if one is badly mistaken about how to interpret the facts and evidence.

Correct, and this would include you as well. In other words, it is a fact that one or both of us are in error, but this does not necessitate that either of us is operating upon faith, or that we do not have good reasons for what we believe.

Your statements don't bear this out.

Well, let us see as we continue.

This is a case in point. You keep conflating the scholarly view of a first-century belief in a resurrection with the modern Christian belief that the resurrection was necessarily a bodily one.

False. I am acknowledging that the majority of the scholars are convinced the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered the risen Jesus. This does not necessitate that the majority of scholars believe that they in fact did encounter Jesus alive after death. What this does mean is, we have enough facts and evidence to convince the majority of scholars (whether Christian or not) that the earliest followers were somehow convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. Now, how are the scholars so convinced this would be the case? Well, that would be by reading the material contained in the NT. So then, while there are folks who want to insist the material contained in the NT is not reliable (and I am not arguing that it is) it is reliable enough for the scholars to be convinced that the authors were not intending to write fiction, fable, tales, etc. but were truly convinced in what they were reporting. This means, these earliest followers were not at all attempting to deceive folks, which would also mean, they could not possibly be attempting to get folks to believe in the resurrection upon faith.

So then, as you can see, I am not "conflating the scholarly view of a first-century belief in a resurrection with the modern Christian belief that the resurrection was necessarily a bodily one". Rather, I am acknowledging the fact that the majority of scholars (whether Christian or not) are convinced by the evidence, the reports were not made up, no matter the explanation.

This is a straw man. I've claimed that the resurrection may be spiritual and the stories fictional, but you're the only one trying to discuss a hoax.

Thank you so much. So, you agree there could not have been any sort of hoax involved, which would mean these folks could not have possibly been attempting to get folks to simply believe in the resurrection upon faith. Next, I am not attempting to "discuss a hoax" but rather have eliminated a hoax from the discussion, and you seem to agree. GOOD STUFF!

"Spiritual" and "fictional" cover a lot.

If these folks were claiming a spiritual resurrection, then why would there be a need to point to the empty tomb? I mean, at this point they could have said, "while the tomb still holds the remains of Jesus, his spirit rose up from the grave"? I mean, it is from the NT these scholars are convinced the earliest followers truly believed they had encountered Christ alive after death, and it is this same NT that reports upon an empty tomb, which would make no sense if we are only talking about a spiritual resurrection.

Assuming you maintain this stance and don't later equivocate on "very well may have been" to claim anything more than merely possible, then we're on the same page.

My friend, we are on the same page, because I have never said anything different. Rather, you have read what you wanted to read into what I have said. I have never, ever, one time suggested, that since the scholars are convinced the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death, that this would somehow translate into, the opinion of the scholars equals the modern Christian view. How could you have possibly come away with this idea from anything I have said?

"Spiritual" and "fictional" cover a lot.

My friend, if this is what you choose to believe, then I have no problem with that in the least. The problem is, if the reports were fictional, we can eliminate the possibility that these earlier followers intended to report fiction. Moreover, claiming that it is possible the reports involved the spiritual and the fictional does not eliminate the possibility that it did in fact involve the physical bodily resurrection.

Assuming you maintain this stance and don't later equivocate on "very well may have been" to claim anything more than merely possible, then we're on the same page.

We are on the same page, and I have never said anything different. However, the same would go for you as well, meaning that, as long as you do not "later equivocate from it "very well may have been" fictional and or spiritual.

And there it is already. It's possible that Jesus appeared in the flesh (in the sense that anything is possible), but you're now trying to imply that the probability is on par with a spiritual or some other imaginary kind of appearance.

You are correct in that, "there it is already" because there is no doubt that the next argument is going to have to be the probabilities. However, before we get to the root of your problem here, let us look at some probabilities. What is the probabilities that a whole group of folks would claim to have witnessed the same person alive after death? What are the probabilities that we would have enough facts and evidence to know these folks truly believed this to be the case, which means they were not reporting what they knew to be false? What are the probabilities that these same folks would go on to continue to proclaim this same thing well into old age, facing persecution for doing so? What are the probabilities that these same reports go on to have one of the most, if not the most significant impacts the world has ever known? I do not know what the probabilities would be, but I can tell you that the probabilities of even one of the above being true is not good, and for all of them to be true is not very good in the least.

With that being said, you are absolutely correct to say that I would agree that the probabilities of a resurrection occurring are not very good at all. In fact, it is not simply that the probabilities are not very good, rather it is the fact that a resurrection is impossible. But the thing is, these early followers were not at all attempting to argue that the probabilities of a resurrection was pretty good. Moreover, these folks were not even attempting to argue that a resurrection was possible. Rather, they seem to clearly understand they were proclaiming the impossible had occurred, and we have enough facts and evidence to convince scholars who do not believe the resurrection occurred, that these earlier followers were reporting what they were convinced was the truth. My friend, what is the probabilities this would be the case?

So, to be clear here, I am certainly not arguing that the probabilities of a resurrection are good, since I understand a resurrection is impossible. But the thing is, the probabilities can only tell you what is more likely to be true, but they cannot in any way lead you to the truth since we all know that events have occurred which were not very likely at all. As an example, I have read a number of books by Karen Armstrong, who is not a Christian and one of the books I have read concerned the history of Israel and the three faiths competing there. On a number of occasions concerning the Jews, Armstrong would make the statement, "against all odds". In other words, she is saying, "what I am reporting is the least probable, but the least probable is what actually occurred.

I can't insist that a dead man coming back to life is impossible

I can, and I do!

but I can insist that it's no more probable than the existence of Santa Claus.

You are taking yourself out of the conversation by making such comparisons because there are no serious scholars who would do such a thing. In other words, I am not aware of any scholars dedicating their whole life to the study of Santa who come away convinced that we have enough facts and evidence to know that those who first reported upon Santa truly believed he delivered toys on Christmas eve to all the children of the world. The serious scholars would laugh you out of the room and I do not have time for such nonsense.

In this discussion, that the belief of early Christians involved a bodiliy resurrection.

As we have discovered above, I have never made such an argument.

If it continues the way we've seen in the past, we'll very soon get to speculation that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul and that Acts is historically accurate.

My friend, we have actual evidence the author traveled with Paul. Now, you can speculate that the author was using a literary device in the "we" and "us" passages, but the problem is the fact that the author begins his second account reporting on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem but for some strange reason when Paul comes on the scene, we begin to hear only of the actions of Paul, and we hear nothing of the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them. Can you imagine why this might be? Sure you can, because if the author was with Paul, he could not possibly report on what the apostles in Jerusalem were doing until, or unless, Paul was to come back in contact with them again.

So then, I am not insisting the author was a traveling companion of Paul, but I am insisting that we have very good evidence this was the case. However, if you are insisting the author was not a traveling companion of Paul, then you are the one who is speculating.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think you are missing, one way or the other, the difference between belief in a spiritual resurrection and a solid body one. I am not impressed by appeal to scholarly consensus, which sounds odd for someone who relies on the experts in the field, rather than a god downloading truth into my head, but the reasoning went like this;

Paul's letters up to Philemon, say were genuine.
He showed that he and the disciples and the whole body of believers has seen the risen Jesus.
It is evident that this is not the solid body resurrection of the gospels. It is an appearance in the head - even if the Bible - experts try to deny it.
The gospel solid - body resurrections smells fishy. After all the faith - claims and excuses about 'the end of Mark got lost (other scholars disagree 'The ending of Mark is perfect and just right'), the evolution of the claim can be seen: Jesus must have risen - the tomb was empty.
How do we know? The women went there and found it open.
Problem right away. If Jesus could walk through walls, why was it open? It had to be so the women could see that Jesus was gone. That is how it originally ended as John shows. There is no angel explaining anything.
The synoptic version has an angel parked there to tell us what conclusions we are supposed to reach.
John has a different story. Nobody knows what happened to Jesus until he appears to Mary after the disciples have checked the tomb.
But Matthew has Jesus appearing to the women before the disciples check the tomb.

We have here a particularly bad example of contradiction because the writers invented their own accounts. This is not eyewitness and not reliable and is certainly not the same thing that Paul was talking about.

Though Luke, who evidently read Paul's letters, adapts the gospel to fit it, fiddling in an appearance to Simon, first off, which none of the others mention.

Nor do the experts, Authorities and scholars, so far as I know. They seem to miss everything, so I can only say that they do not know their job, or we have a load of Bible - apologists and their consensus does not impress me.

"Sometimes it takes a layman to set these people straight" (Lucy van Pelt).

Oh yes, b.t.w; the present tombs (sepulchre and garden tomb) cannot be Arimathea's new tomb. In Jesus' time it would have to have been on the mount of Olives. Thing is, the purported reliable facts of the whole story are all fakes, fabrications and frauds. This while supposedly historically reliable story crumbles as soon as one tries to take hold of it.