[
Replying to post 29 by Jagella]
It doesn't logically follow that the number of people writing about a character makes that character real. A lot of people write about fictional characters, and this kind of writing was very common in antiquity.
Okay, how many fictional writings are there that happen to be real letters, written by real people, to real audiences, supposedly addressing real concerns at the time? In other words, who writes fiction in letters, addressed to others, as if they are addressing real concerns?
Now of course, this would not mean that what was contained in the letters would have to be true, but even if it is not true, we cannot say the authors were intending to write fiction. The letters contained in the NT will not allow for this, and this can be easily demonstrated.
Not everybody is convinced by that evidence.
Exactly! And some of those folks, who are not convinced, would be the very same folks who were so convinced at one time, that they donated enormous amounts of their time, money, and energy, towards one they would now like us to believe that they are now convinced, that there may not be enough evidence to even suggest this person even existed, who they once dedicated their whole life to.
You see, it is one thing to say, "I do not believe this man, (who really existed) is who I once thought he was, as opposed to, "I dedicated years of my life to someone who may have been fiction all along."
Yes. Please explain the difference between a real person people believe in and a fictional person they believe in.
I do not believe this is what I said. A "real person" people may believe in, would be someone like, Donald Trump. A fictional FIGURE (not person) someone may believe is real, would be like, Santa Claus.
But again, this is not what I said. What I said was,
rwj wrote:Do I really have to explain that there is a tremendous difference between a number of folks who simply "perceived" a person who would not have been real, as opposed to these same folk reporting about a real man, but held different opinions of the same real person?
Can you see the difference? In other words, there is a difference between a fictional character, that one may have never laid eyes upon but yet they believe he is real, as opposed to a number of people reporting on the same person they claimed to know to have been a real historical character, but may hold different opinions about this real historical character.
The question is, since it can be demonstrated that at least some of the letters that are contained in the NT, were written inside the lifetime of the original Apostles, and also the fact that we have others outside the Bible that attest to Jesus as a real person, then why would we not have those at the time who would have testified, that this man was never a real historical figure, but was rather fictitious?
In other words, we have the letters contained in the NT, along with many other writings concerning this man, but we have no one, until some 2000 years later who suggests, "he may not have been real."
Something to think about for one who use to embrace someone with their whole being, that would now like us to believe that they are now convinced this man they gave their whole life to, may have never been a real person after all.
Because you see, there is a big difference between one who may have bought into the whole "Santa" bit as a child, and came out of it before the age of 8, as opposed to one who freely admits to dedicating years of their life as an adult, to one who they are now convinced, may have never existed. WOW!
In that case you believe Jesus was a sorcerer.
Allow me to try this again. Jesus was a real man, who some believe to be the Messiah, long predicted in the OT. Some thought him just a man like all the rest, while there may have been some who took him as a sorcerer, because of the many extraordinary feats that they could not deny, and so they had to have some sort of explanation.
What I think of him would be irrelevant.
Yes. One religion's messiah is another religion's sorcerer. Religious writings are so biased that one should be very careful in trusting what they say.
Agreed!
Is this an argument from I-just-can't-believe-anybody-could-disagree-with-me?
I do not think so, seeing as how I have been on this site well over 5 years now, and have said on numerous occasions, and in different ways, "I am convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true, but I do not insist that I must, and have to be correct, and I can also understand how there can be those who may doubt, and even disbelieve."
So then, I cannot be accused of, "I-just-can't-believe-anybody-could-disagree-with-me", seeing as how I can can understand unbelief. What I do not understand, and do not accept, are those who insist, "there would be no evidence, nor any good reason whatsoever, to believe the accounts contained in the NT, especially from those who once totally, and completely embraced the truth of Christianity, to now claim there would be no good reason, nor evidence to believe such things, as if this should be some sort of feather in their cap? It is not!
And it would be especially not, for one to go from completely embracing the truth of Christianity to, there is not even enough evidence to even suggest that Jesus may have been a real historical figure.
As I said, it would be one thing to say, "I use to believe Jesus was the Messiah, but now I do not", as opposed to saying, "I used to embrace Christianity with all my mind, heart, soul, money, and energy, because I was convinced it was true, but now I am convinced there may not be enough evidence to suggest that Jesus was even a real historical figure, and he may have been fictional, and therefore, I devoted much of my adult life, (not just childhood) to what very well may have been, a fictional character. My friend, do I have to explain to you how this is not a very good position to take?
That may be, but isn't it possible that many people are desperate for a real Jesus hoping he will take them to heaven?
Not only is it possible, it is a fact! In other words, I will assure you that there are many, many Christians who really do not know what they believe, nor why they believe it, nor can they explain why they believe, what they claim to believe. However, what would any of this have to do with whether what they claim to believe, would be true, or not?
As an example, I may claim to believe in electricity, but I may not be able to explain how, or why it works, but this would have nothing whatsoever to do with, what I believe being true, or false.
The question to you is, when you were a Christian, who embraced the truth of Christianity with all your heart, soul, mind, and energy, would you have been the type of Christian described above? Oh but now, we can all be rest assured that you have it all together now, and your thinking could never, ever be as faulty as it once was?
Would you really swallow this sort of thing, and thinking from anyone else? Or, would you question one who would have allowed themselves to be sucked into a scenario where they devoted much of their adult life to what they are now convinced may have in fact been fiction?
If this sort of person as an adult admits to not using the mind properly to make such a major life decision, then what in the world would make us think that simply because they have made a complete about face, that this would entail that the mind is now being used properly? Because in most cases, those who admit to not using the mind properly, continue to do just that, even when, and if, they change their mind.
In other words, simply because there are those who can change their mind, this does not ensure that they have the ability to use the mind properly, and it really adds nothing at all to anyone's argument to suggest that, "I must be right, because I was convinced I was right when I was wrong, and I had the ability to admit I was wrong, and because I could admit I was wrong, I must be correct now." GOOD GRIEF!
Have you "analyzed and examined" the Talmud? It's an enormous work.
No I have not, and I have not appealed to the Talmud, and I do not have to examine it, in order to understand if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe the things recorded in the letters contained in the NT.
I believe it would have been you who appealed to the Talmud, and now you are suggesting that,
The Talmud was written way too late to be credible evidence for Christ. Moreover, the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud probably was not Christ. Finally, the Talmud was censored by Jew-hating Christians who mistakenly believed it blasphemed Jesus, so we don't know what the Talmud originally said.
So again, it was not me who appealed to the Talmud, but you who appealed to the Talmud, but either way, what is contained in the Talmud, would have nothing whatsoever to do with if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe the letters contained in the NT.
Actually I'm not sure if there was a Jesus who inspired the New Testament. The evidence is ambiguous.
The first thing I would like to do here, is instruct you that there is really no such thing as the, "New Testament." What is contained, in what has been called the, "New Testament" is mostly, if not all letters written by real people, writing to real audience. In other words, it is not as though these authors were intending to write some sort of fiction.
At any rate, I do not get the impression that "Jesus inspired the NT" but what I do know is, the authors of these letters were real folk, who were addressing real folk, and they mention Jesus very often, and tell of his life.
The point is, because the things recorded in the NT are letters written by real people, addressing real audiences at the time, they cannot be said to be writing some sort of books, and the NT, nor the Bible as a whole is any sort of book, and none of the authors contained in the NT had any idea that anyone else would read their letters other than the intended audiences at the time, and they certainly had no idea that their letters would be contained in a Bible, that they would have had no idea about. The point is, none of these authors were writing with the intent to be in a Bible, that they could have known nothing about.
I was joking. There are many historical difficulties in citing the Talmud as evidence for Jesus Christ that you appear not to be aware of. The Talmud was written way too late to be credible evidence for Christ. Moreover, the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud probably was not Christ. Finally, the Talmud was censored by Jew-hating Christians who mistakenly believed it blasphemed Jesus, so we don't know what the Talmud originally said.
And again, I am not the one who brought the Talmud into the conversation, but at any rate, no matter what the Talmud is, it is certainly evidence that those at the time heard of Jesus, and were not questioning his real existence.
It happened I suppose just like you believed Santa was a real person.
My friend, what you are talking about does not even compare. I was around the age of 7 when I figured the Santa thing out, and even before then it was not like I was dedicating my whole life, mind, body, soul, and money to him, which is a far cry from a grown adult, who seems to freely admit that they dedicated themselves wholly to one without even going to the trouble before they made such a major life decision, to even determine if this person they were dedicating themselves to, was even a real person. How in the world can the two compare in one's mind is beyond me?
People have a nasty habit of lying to us.
Right, and a very young child would not have this knowledge, and tends to be trusting of those older, and really does not possess the ability to understand there may be those who will attempt to deceive.
But what I am attempting to figure out is, how in the world a grown adult can feely admit to such things, when they can, and do know there are many who would want to deceive, and yet they allow themselves, not simply to believe in some sort of fictional character, but rather go all the way to the point that they dedicate their whole life to this fictional character, and now want us to believe, their thinking is somehow better?
In other words, "I was convinced I was right when I was really wrong, but now I am really, really, convinced I am right, about my being so wrong."
