Why believe unverified stories?

[Zzyzx]

Everything ‘known’ about ‘the son of god’ is from stories told many decades after he is said to have died (and supposedly had returned to life and flown away into the sky).

None of those storytellers can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done. No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else noticed and reported anything about the wandering Jewish preacher or his ‘miraculous’ deeds.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #10]

Have you ever wondered why non-believers exert years of time and energy on subjects (such as Christianity), that have literally no effect or value in their godless lives?

I am on record here on this site bringing up the fact that there are those who spend day, after day, week after week, year after year debating a subject which they claim there is no reason to believe. However, I have never felt the need to refer to the unbeliever as "godless" since I understand my own sin, and that the unbeliever is an image bearer of God. I also understand that Jesus spent his time with the "godless" and came to save the "godless" and reserved His judgement for the righteous. In other words, Jesus saved His judgement for the righteous, because He came to save the unrighteous. Who was it who said,

"I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance?"

OH? That's right. That would be Jesus.

Nothing I said was unChrist-like, so try again.

Right! Because you are the "righteous" and the "righteous" would never say anything at all un-Christlike.

[SiNcE_1985]

However, I have never felt the need to refer to the unbeliever as "godless" since I understand my own sin, and that the unbeliever is an image bearer of God. I also understand that Jesus spent his time with the "godless" and came to save the "godless" and reserved His judgement for the righteous. In other words, Jesus saved His judgement for the righteous, because He came to save the unrighteous. Who was it who said,

"I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance?"

OH? That's right. That would be Jesus.

It has nothing to do with sin or repentance, per se.

When I said "godless", I simply meant "a life without God".

The person who maintains there is no God, is a person who lives a life without God, thus; godless.

And since unbelievers pride themselves on unbelief, calling them godless should be a compliment to them, in the same way calling a believer godly is a badge of honor to the believer.

Right! Because you are the "righteous" and the "righteous" would never say anything at all un-Christlike.

I am unworthy to breathe the same air as Jesus.

[Zzyzx]

If you don't believe it, then you shouldn't care.
Since the story of Jesus and his alleged resurrection doesn't jive with whatever you have going on in your godless life, then why waste years of your life on message forums concerning yourself with it?

I 'care' and spend time in opposition when religion is imposed on the society in which I live

Everything ‘known’ about ‘the son of god’ is from stories told many decades after he is said to have died (and supposedly had returned to life and flown away into the sky). None of those storytellers can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

Um, no. This is false.

Paul is said to have had his conversion 3-5 years after the resurrection, which would mean that the "stories known about the son of God" were not told many decades after Jesus died, as you allege.

Paul/Saul claimed (unverified) to have met Jesus in a 'vision' (or hallucination) while sick, blind, and delusional for days, and also claimed to have taken a trip to 'the third heaven.' The next mention is by four gospel writers (whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars) 40 to 60 or more years after Jesus is said to have died.

No contemporary person seems to have noticed and recorded anything that Jesus may have said or done.

Plus, Luke's preface states that these "stories" were first told by "eyewitnesses", and that his (Luke's) book is an orderly account, in like fashion.

Repeating stories told by others is NOT an eyewitness account. It is hearsay.

Now sure, certain books may have been written a few decades after the fact, but let's not pretend as if the books are not written accounts of preexisting oral stories that were in circulation decades prior.

Preexisting oral stories is properly known as folklore, mythology, legend, and hearsay

See, this is exactly why Christian apologetics is important..to put these same tired old skepticistic (new word) talking points in check.

I appreciate all foolish attempts at 'apologetics' that help accelerate the decline of religion.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else noticed and reported anything about the wandering Jewish preacher or his ‘miraculous’ deeds.

This is an argument from silence, thus fallacious.

I trust that readers find significance in: "In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!"
From: Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies

To those that it mattered, they wrote about it before their dying day...and Christianity became (and still is) the #1 biggest religion in the world..despite not having what you claim it doesn't have. So, if the goal was achieved despite it, then it simply wasn't needed.

Is being the biggest religion (with all 45,000 versions/denominations) proof of truth?

[SiNcE_1985]

I 'care' and spend time in opposition when religion is imposed on the society in which I live

Really?

Where in the world is Christianity being imposed on the lives of unbelievers, and a person just can't be an atheist in peace?

Where is this place on Earth?

Paul/Saul claimed (unverified) to have met Jesus in a 'vision' (or hallucination) while sick, blind, and delusional for days, and also claimed to have taken a trip to 'the third heaven.'

No, you said that the stories were told decades after Jesus' life.

Obviously, for Paul to have converted to Christianity 3-5 years after Jesus' life, this contradicts what you allege.

Whether or not Paul "met" Jesus or not, he still converted to Christianity not long after Jesus' death.

You are simply wrong here.

The next mention is by four gospel writers (whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars) 40 to 60 or more years after Jesus is said to have died.

More like 25-35 years..and even if it was 40 to 60 years, that is still more recent than hundreds of years after the fact...like the biographies of Alexander the Great, which were written 400 years after his death and is still viewed as reliable by historians today.

And the identity of the Gospels were known to the early Church, which is why there was never any competing authors to the books.

The early Church leaders lived a lot closer in time to the events, than skeptics living 2,000 years later who think they have the knowledge to decode history.

No contemporary person seems to have noticed and recorded anything that Jesus may have said or done.

If they did, would you become a Christian? Probably not.

Did this stop Christianity from spreading and becoming the biggest religion the world has ever seen? No, it didn't.

Moving along.

Repeating stories told by others is NOT an eyewitness account. It is hearsay.

It was an eyewitness account, to Luke...and as long as we view Luke as reliable, we're rocking with him.

It's either you believe him, or you don't.

Preexisting oral stories is properly known as folklore, mythology, legend, and hearsay

If that's what you believe, believe it.

But don't erroneously say that the stories were made up decades later, when history simply doesn't support such falsity.

I appreciate all foolish attempts at 'apologetics' that help accelerate the decline of religion.

Let it decline.

Only those who endure to the end will make it (Matt 24:13).

I trust that readers find significance in: "In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!"

Jesus didn't have to be mentioned by any of your beloved sources...the fact that Christianity spread and swept through the Roman Empire during the first century, in quick and rapid fashion, spoke for itself.

No pagan cosign was needed.

Is being the biggest religion (with all 45,000 versions/denominations) proof of truth?

No. I'm not saying "It is the largest, therefore it is true".

I'm saying "It is the largest, despite lack of a shout out from any of your beloved sources".

See the difference?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #12]

When I said "godless", I simply meant "a life without God".

Okay? So then, when you referred to the "godless" it had nothing to do with claiming that the "godless" was unrighteous?

The person who maintains there is no God, is a person who lives a life without God, thus; godless.

So again, your comment had nothing to do with the "godless" being unrighteous?

And since unbelievers pride themselves on unbelief, calling them godless should be a compliment to them

So then, what you are saying is, you meant it as a compliment referring to them as "godless?"

in the same way calling a believer godly is a badge of honor to the believer.

Oh really? So then, you consider yourself to be "godly," and you consider your "godliness" to be a badge of honor?

I am unworthy to breathe the same air as Jesus.

This was not the question. The question is, do you consider yourself to be godly, and can the godly ever say, or do things which would be un-Christlike?

[SiNcE_1985]

Okay? So then, when you referred to the "godless" it had nothing to do with claiming that the "godless" was unrighteous?

No!! Unrighteous?!?

I'm concerned about the quality of my own spirit.

Ain't got time to worry about the next man.

So again, your comment had nothing to do with the "godless" being unrighteous?

No. His righteousness wasn't even a consideration, and still isn't.

That's God's call.

So then, what you are saying is, you meant it as a compliment referring to them as "godless?"

I didn't say it as a compliment, but that is how they (unbelievers) should take it.

I said it as simply what it is; a life without God.

Godless.

Oh really? So then, you consider yourself to be "godly," and you consider your "godliness" to be a badge of honor?

I'm not godly, unfortunately.

I should be. But if someone were to call me godly, meaning that they can see God in me based on the way I live my life and by my fruits, then of course it'll be a badge of honor.

This was not the question. The question is, do you consider yourself to be godly, and can the godly ever say, or do things which would be un-Christlike?

Yeah, godly folks can say/do things that would be un-Christlike.

Ever heard of King David?

[1213]

Yes. The pyramids are ample evidence that their building happened.

Evidence that they were built, but no evidence when it happened.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #16]

No!! Unrighteous?!?

I'm concerned about the quality of my own spirit.

Ain't got time to worry about the next man.

OH? But you seem to think it necessary to mention these folks to be "godless?"

No. His righteousness wasn't even a consideration, and still isn't.

That's God's call.

And yet, you feel the need to mention that these folks are "godless?"

I didn't say it as a compliment, but that is how they (unbelievers) should take it.

I said it as simply what it is; a life without God.

Godless.

So then, it was not intended to be a compliment, and it was not intended to be referring to these folks as being unrighteous, so then, what was the intent on your part in referring to these folks as "godless?"

I'm not godly, unfortunately.

Would this mean you are "godless?"

But if someone were to call me godly, meaning that they can see God in me based on the way I live my life and by my fruits, then of course it'll be a badge of honor.

So then, if I were to refer to you as "godly" because you referred to those opposed to you as "godless" then you would wear my comment as a "badge of honor?"

Yeah, godly folks can say/do things that would be un-Christlike.

Ever heard of King David?

I have heard of "King David" which continually reminds me of the fact that it may be us as Christians who are acting "ungodly."

[SiNcE_1985]

OH? But you seem to think it necessary to mention these folks to be "godless?"

I already explained what I meant.

And yet, you feel the need to mention that these folks are "godless?"

Yeah, I do..and I did.

So, now what?

What are you gonna do?

So then, it was not intended to be a compliment, and it was not intended to be referring to these folks as being unrighteous, so then, what was the intent on your part in referring to these folks as "godless?"

I said what I said, and clarified what I meant.

Would this mean you are "godless?"

It means; saved by grace.

So then, if I were to refer to you as "godly" because you referred to those opposed to you as "godless" then you would wear my comment as a "badge of honor?"

I would conclude that your idea of "godly" differs from mine.

I have heard of "King David" which continually reminds me of the fact that it may be us as Christians who are acting "ungodly."

Or, it may be us Christians who call it as we see it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #19]

Yeah, I do..and I did.

So, now what?

What are you gonna do?

What am I gonna do? I am not gonna do anything at all. I was wondering what you are going to do. Are you going to attempt to justify this action? Or are you going to admit there was really no need in referring to our neighbor and fellow image bearer as "godless?"

I said what I said, and clarified what I meant.

And so, you are now justified?

It means; saved by grace.

And you somehow believe that referring to our neighbor and fellow image bearers as "godless" is the correct thing to do, when we agree that we are at the same time sinner, and justified?

I would conclude that your idea of "godly" differs from mine.

Is it "godly" to refer to our neighbor and fellow image bearers as "godless?"

Or, it may be us Christians who call it as we see it.

Would that make us "godly?"