Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #30]

That's as good a post as I have seen, and makes as good an apologetics approach as I have seen. Though you do appear to have contradicted yourself in claiming various authors all arguing for two different versions of the same god, while otherwise writing from different perspectives. But you bit a bullet nicely in abandoning Faith for the 'factual' evidence of the Bible. That worked well for a while as the old diggers excavated the middle east 'confirming the Bible'.

But (like so much science, started by believers) the evidence undermined the Bible. Jericho did not have its' walls collapsed by the Brass section. Exodus looks increasingly untenable as a real event. The Ark sites and Moses sites are not tenable as fact, and the nativities are demonstrably false, and the Resurrection stories are nearly as bad.

Though there is a basic tale of a real Jesus, the Gospel story based on it is false, or there is a decent argument for that, and we may see a discussion on it.

In short, the claim for historical ("Factual") support for the Gospels in fact fails, and that's where Faith comes in as none of the made- up excuses or denial would even be suggested unless Faith was what was driving it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #31]

Again, you are not giving me anything to sink my teeth into. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, I have not mentioned it, and the OT has nothing to do with the reports of a resurrection in the NT. In other words, even if it is demonstrated that what was reported in the OT is false, this would have no bearing upon what is reported in the NT. You then simply go on to state, "the Gospel story based on it is false" along with "In short, the claim for historical ("Factual") support for the Gospels in fact fails". It seems to me as if you are asking me to have "faith" in what it is you are saying, because again, there is nothing there to hang my hat on, other than you said it.

I can tell you this. There are indeed facts and evidence in support of the resurrection, and the fact there are those who attempt to come up with alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, demonstrates there are indeed facts and evidence. I can also tell you that simply claiming the whole story is a made-up tale is not going to get it. There is way more involved to it than that. In other words, the facts and evidence we have demonstrates there are no simple answers involved here, and no matter what explanation you give, you are still left with the extraordinary. In other words, you will simply be exchanging one extraordinary tale for another.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #31]

Again, you are not giving me anything to sink my teeth into. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, I have not mentioned it, and the OT has nothing to do with the reports of a resurrection in the NT. In other words, even if it is demonstrated that what was reported in the OT is false, this would have no bearing upon what is reported in the NT. You then simply go on to state, "the Gospel story based on it is false" along with "In short, the claim for historical ("Factual") support for the Gospels in fact fails". It seems to me as if you are asking me to have "faith" in what it is you are saying, because again, there is nothing there to hang my hat on, other than you said it.

I can tell you this. There are indeed facts and evidence in support of the resurrection, and the fact there are those who attempt to come up with alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, demonstrates there are indeed facts and evidence. I can also tell you that simply claiming the whole story is a made-up tale is not going to get it. There is way more involved to it than that. In other words, the facts and evidence we have demonstrates there are no simple answers involved here, and no matter what explanation you give, you are still left with the extraordinary. In other words, you will simply be exchanging one extraordinary tale for another.

True. I am not refuting the resurrection there, just the reasons why the Bible does not make a factual case in the way you believe it does.

I like your approach and can sympathise as many critics (and I myself) credited the story as broadly true, give or take a few excusable slips. But the contradictions in the resurrections torpedo it, between bulkheads 4 and 5.

Mark has no resurrection. An empty tomb and the synoptic angel posted to tell us what that means. But John has no angel and Mary has no idea where Jesus has got to.

Matthew says however that the women ran into Jesus on the way back and Luke specifically says it was Mary Magdalene and the others. This contradiction floors the credibility of the account and mind games will not excuse or explain it. Made up separately invented stories will.

I can go on. Luke changes the angelic message from going to Galilee to what Jesus said in Galilee. We know why, because Luke known that the disciples do not go to Galilee but stay in Jerusalem and found the church.

Matthew has them go to Galilee as Jesus told the women to tell them after the angel had delivered the message. Matthew's elaborations are pretty clumsy you know. Luke is sharper and he's read Paul's letters. So he knows that Paul says that Jesus appeared to Simon (1.Coi) apparently first. So he gets us out of the way following Cleopas to Emmaus. Here he tells Jesus that the women saw angels and heard that Jesus was alive but no mention that they saw Jesus. I'd say that totally debunks Matthew. What do you think? Meanwhile, while Cleophas is hearing the disciples report that him (Jesus) they did not see, Jesus appears to Mary for the first time,. Two angels pop up for no good reason.

When Cleophas and companion get back, they hear that Jesus has appeared to Simon. No account of this because Paul does not describe it (it's probably visionary, anyway) and no other gospel describes this amazing event. You still think that the evidence and facts support a resurrection?

Luke and John both have Jesus turn up that evening, Thomas is absent in John but in Luke all eleven (minus Judas) are there. Thomas and his doubts are made up. Bets on it.

The final mess is the disciples, after Jesus turning up several times and giving scripture lessons and they stay in Jerusalem praising God and founding the church, Matthew has them go to Galilee where Jesus appears and tells them to preach to all nations, which Luke knows is not what they did, but that mission was to Paul alone.

There's the add - on in John about going fishing in Galilee and Jesus appearing for no good reason.

Now, if you maintain that is evidence and facts for the resurrection, I can only say that's Faithbased denial of terminal collapse of a case, and deny it if you like, I don't buy it and I reckon others won't either.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

I am not refuting the resurrection there, just the reasons why the Bible does not make a factual case in the way you believe it does.

How in the world do you know what I believe about the Bible? I do not believe what is contained in the Bible is inerrant, without error of contradictions. Inerrancy is a crutch for weak-minded Christians. How in the world you can come to the conclusion that these errors, and contradictions somehow demonstrate the stories were "Made up separately invented stories" is beyond my ability to understand. I mean, we have those who complain that the stories are so aligned together, that the authors must, and had to have copied each other.

So, let's think about this for a moment. We know that Paul was opposed to this movement to begin with, to the point he was willing to have followers dragged off to prison, and even put to death. We have overwhelming evidence that the author of Acts was a traveling companion of Paul. We know that Paul was alive during the life of Jesus, which means we have overwhelming evidence the author of both Luke and Acts would have been alive at the time of the events recorded. This means, both Paul, and the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have known, and spent time with the original apostles, and would have known the claims they were making because they would have heard them from their very lips. Part of the evidence we have for the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus being a traveling companion of Paul is the fact that the author begins his second letter to Theophilus with the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, when Paul comes on the scene and begins his journeys, we begin to only read of what Paul is doing, and do not hear of what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing, until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again. Can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can! Because if the author was traveling with Paul, he could not have possibly reported upon the events of the apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless Paul were to come back in contact with them.

As I said, this is simply part of the evidence we have that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul and would have known and heard the claims the original apostles were making. So then, what we have is an author who would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, would have known and spent time with the original apostles, who traveled with Paul for years, who then sits down to write not one, but two long detailed letters to one individual out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth which has been accomplished among us".

Okay, with all the above being fact, we are to believe that both Paul, and the author to Theophilus were either deceived into believing the resurrection reports and go on to live the rest of their lives as if it were true, to the point that Paul is imprisoned on more than one occasion, on top of being whipped, stoned, and persecuted. Or we are to believe that this author and Paul knew full well it was "Made up separately invented stories" and lived out the rest of their lives as if this known lie was the truth to the point Paul suffers all the things just mentioned, and the author to Theophilus sits down in order to pass on what he knows to be a lie, claiming it is in order for Theophilus to know the exact truth. GOOD GRIEF! Do you really want to talk about faith?

Again, I want to be clear here in saying I have no problem with those who do not believe, and I enjoy conversing with those opposed in order to determine what it is they believe, and why they believe it, and I am convinced these conversations can be beneficial for all involved. The problem comes in when we have those who want to insist that one side or the other has no reason to believe as they do, as if they are the ones who have arrived to the exact truth of the matter. The fact of the matter is there are facts and evidence to be had concerning the resurrection, and we can all look at this evidence and we can come to different conclusions, but for one to insist there are no facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, is for one to be in a dream world, choosing to believe what they would rather believe, more than likely just like they did when they were at one time a convinced Christian who did not have any facts and evidence in order to be convinced.

[Clownboat]

When one makes an idol out of a book, like seems to be happening above with the Bible

Again, this is quite comical, because I can demonstrate from right here on this site that I have stated, "I wish the Bible had never been composed". Does this sound like one who is making "an idol out of a book"?

No, but this does:
Copy/paste from Realworldjack: "I do not need any sort of faith in order to believe that Jesus was resurrected"
"I can look at, weigh, analyze, and study the evidence we have and come to a conclusion based upon such evidence." You do mean the evidence from the Bible, right? The idol I'm referring to, right?
"I encourage you to read the New Testament." - From the Bible, right? The idol I'm referring to, right?

Now to examine my words:
"It seems that many have faith in an idol the rest of us acknowledge as the Bible."
"Idol - a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered."

If the Bible had never been composed, we would still have the content which is contained in the Bible,

Leaving this one here for all to see.

we would not have folks like you who have no clue about what is contained in the Bible say things like, "all the evidence is coming from the same source".

I know the Bible quite well as a matter of fact. Your poison in this well is misplaced.

The fact of the matter is what is contained in the Bible is from different sources,

"Idol - a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered."
Notice how coming from different sources is irrelevant? The Bible is the idol I am referring to, whether one source or many unknown sources as is the actual case matters not.

Either you can demonstrate how these folks were tied together, or we have no idea who the authors were.

Non sequitur. - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
The Old Testament for example is about the history of the Jews... and some of it even happened if you ask a Rabbi.

But I can tell you this. From what we have contained in the Bible, there are certain things we can know for certain, whether one is a believer or not. One of the many things we can know for certain is, we have four accounts of the same exact event, from four different sources, addressing particular audiences at the time, who had no idea that what they were writing to the audience at the time, would have been contained in a Bible they had no idea about. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the New Testament can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else besides the intended audience at the time.

"Idol - a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered."

In other words, this material cannot be considered religious propaganda intended to persuade the masses, when it can be demonstrated the material was intended for a particular audience at the time.

The Bible is religious promotional material, so is the Qu'ran.

So, no! I do not hold the Bible up as some sort of idol.

"Idol - a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered."
I'm sorry, but I must disagree.

All you are doing is to attempt to transpose upon others the way in which you operated when you were a convinced Christian who now admits there are no facts and evidence to support what you were once convinced of.

I see nothing worthy of a response here.

Not at all. I am not asking you to leave their book out of the equation in the least. Bring it on. The fact of the matter is, Christianity does not really have a book.

Without the Bible, the New Testament specifically, there is no Christianity.

Rather, Christianity is built upon different sources,

Compiled in the Bible, which is then taken to be a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered. Once this is done, a believer often times will consider claims made in their book to be fact. This is my point.

reporting upon the same historical events, and there were countless folks who believed these reports hundreds of years before there was any sort of book.

Please show that numerous dead bodies got out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem appearing to many. Such a historical event would surely be in evidence, right?

Even for religions that existed long before their own which doesn't seem to give them pause.

Do you seriously believe that you are the only Christian who has thought of the fact that there are countless religions in the world, and that this fact needs to be considered? GOOD GRIEF! The only ones I can imagine who would not have thought about such things, is one who was convinced of Christianity with no facts, and evidence in support of what they were convinced of. However, the rest of us have thought about such things, and have come to realize that this fact has no bearing whatsoever as to whether Christianity would be true or not. I mean, the reason surely is not, "since we know there are false religions in the world, this then demonstrates all religions are false". I mean, this is not an argument at all.

See! That there are religions that existed long before your own doesn't give you pause. You prove my words, so thank you.

Again, I can demonstrate beyond doubt that I do not hold the Bible in high regard.

Then you are on a good path and one day may be set free. Much in the Bible is vile and should not be held in high regard, on that we agree. Yes, there are things that are not vile in the Bible as well of course.

I think what we are beginning to see is one who was a convinced Christian with no facts and evidence to support what they were once convinced of who has now convinced themselves that anyone else who is a Christian must and had to use the same sloppy logic.

Think what you will, it matters not. All I see here is a defense mechanism at play.

<snipped more poisoning of the well>

Want to believe in Bigfoot or Nessie? Faith is required as there is no evidence for these things.

This again is an example of sloppy thinking. Certainly, you are not attempting to compare the evidence concerning "Bigfoot or Nessie" to the evidence we have concerning the resurrection. I mean, I am here to tell you that when you do such things you disqualify yourself from the conversation because one who does such things cannot be taken seriously. Seriously! If you truly believe Christianity to be false, and you have a passion to save folks from believing, these types of arguments are hurting your credibility.

When the debate is lost, slander become the tool of the loser. - Socrates
Faith is required to believe in Bigfoot or Nessie. Things that are not real. Therefore faith is not a valid mechanism for arriving at truths is my argument.

My friend, I do not need to have faith in order to believe that Jesus was a "real" person who walked the face of the earth in "real" time and in "real" space.

I find this very dishonest. If you only felt that Jesus walked the earth, you would have a point, but you don't. You have a book called the Bible that makes miraculous claims about this person. Those are the claims that require faith in the Bible, that I observe to be an idol.
"Idol - a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered."

I do not need to have faith in order to believe that this same "real" Jesus got himself in trouble with the authorities and was crucified.

You're still doing it!

I do not need faith in order to believe that this same "real" Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The reason no faith is required in order to believe these things is because of the facts, and evidence involved, and belief in these things can be built upon the facts and evidence with no faith required. What one would need faith to believe, is when there is no facts and evidence to be analyzed.

You have claims made in a book that you idolize. You place your faith in these claims. I don't see this as a valid way to discovering truths and I also note that Muslims and Hindu's have their books that they idolize and you don't give them special considerations. Heck, you don't even seem to know what the Bhagavad Gita is. It, like the Bible and Qu'ran is a greatly admired book of scriptures that humans can place faith in to believe that the claims are real.
Similar to how a person would have to believe claims via faith in order to believe in Bigfoot I note.
In Christianity specifically, Faith is important because it is the means by which a human can have a relationship with God: "For by grace you have been saved through faith" (Eph 2:8). Faith is how we receive the benefits of what Jesus has done for us, if we are to believe the Bible that is.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

I am not refuting the resurrection there, just the reasons why the Bible does not make a factual case in the way you believe it does.

How in the world do you know what I believe about the Bible? I do not believe what is contained in the Bible is inerrant, without error of contradictions. Inerrancy is a crutch for weak-minded Christians. How in the world you can come to the conclusion that these errors, and contradictions somehow demonstrate the stories were "Made up separately invented stories" is beyond my ability to understand. I mean, we have those who complain that the stories are so aligned together, that the authors must, and had to have copied each other.

So, let's think about this for a moment. We know that Paul was opposed to this movement to begin with, to the point he was willing to have followers dragged off to prison, and even put to death. We have overwhelming evidence that the author of Acts was a traveling companion of Paul. We know that Paul was alive during the life of Jesus, which means we have overwhelming evidence the author of both Luke and Acts would have been alive at the time of the events recorded. This means, both Paul, and the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have known, and spent time with the original apostles, and would have known the claims they were making because they would have heard them from their very lips. Part of the evidence we have for the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus being a traveling companion of Paul is the fact that the author begins his second letter to Theophilus with the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, when Paul comes on the scene and begins his journeys, we begin to only read of what Paul is doing, and do not hear of what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing, until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again. Can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can! Because if the author was traveling with Paul, he could not have possibly reported upon the events of the apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless Paul were to come back in contact with them.

As I said, this is simply part of the evidence we have that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul and would have known and heard the claims the original apostles were making. So then, what we have is an author who would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, would have known and spent time with the original apostles, who traveled with Paul for years, who then sits down to write not one, but two long detailed letters to one individual out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth which has been accomplished among us".

Okay, with all the above being fact, we are to believe that both Paul, and the author to Theophilus were either deceived into believing the resurrection reports and go on to live the rest of their lives as if it were true, to the point that Paul is imprisoned on more than one occasion, on top of being whipped, stoned, and persecuted. Or we are to believe that this author and Paul knew full well it was "Made up separately invented stories" and lived out the rest of their lives as if this known lie was the truth to the point Paul suffers all the things just mentioned, and the author to Theophilus sits down in order to pass on what he knows to be a lie, claiming it is in order for Theophilus to know the exact truth. GOOD GRIEF! Do you really want to talk about faith?

Again, I want to be clear here in saying I have no problem with those who do not believe, and I enjoy conversing with those opposed in order to determine what it is they believe, and why they believe it, and I am convinced these conversations can be beneficial for all involved. The problem comes in when we have those who want to insist that one side or the other has no reason to believe as they do, as if they are the ones who have arrived to the exact truth of the matter. The fact of the matter is there are facts and evidence to be had concerning the resurrection, and we can all look at this evidence and we can come to different conclusions, but for one to insist there are no facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, is for one to be in a dream world, choosing to believe what they would rather believe, more than likely just like they did when they were at one time a convinced Christian who did not have any facts and evidence in order to be convinced.

Very nice. I assume you believe in the broad factuality of the Bible or the NT at any rate, and the reliability of the resurrection accounts. I'm willing for you to explain details about what you believe of it or don't, but you will score no points by trying to make it look as though I am claiming to know what you think.

As to 'Facts' in Paul and Acts, I do not agree that the writer of Acts (who on evidence also wrote Luke - I have long suspected it was Eusebius) neither knew Paul nor the apostles- or those who knew Jesus anyway. Acts is (on evidence) a fantasy loosely based on Paul's letters, and I consider that evidence and 'Fact' as much as your claim that the writer hobnobbed but Jesus' followers.

Paul I am convinced was real, though not For real. That he says himself that he went after Jesus' followers, with permission and support of the Sanhedrin is evidence that convinces me. What does not convince me is the change over to believer had to be because of some magical event that proved that Jesus had risen. If that is what you are trying to argue. There is another more down to earth explanation - it was a political strategy on Paul's part.

To fill out a bit more, Acts does not stack up. Just a few things. Even before Acts, Luke alters the angelic message because he reads in Paul's letters that the apostles were in Jerusalem, not in Galilee. Further, he shoehorns in an appearance to Simon that isn't described or mentioned by any other writer....hang on me toast is burning.

But Luke does know from Paul's letter to the One Corinthian that Jesus appeared (first) to Simon but does not describe the event.

Theophilus is not a real name, I would argue. It mimics the swank of dedicating a book to a patron. This 'patron' is, I suggest 'Theo - Philus': 'Lover of God', or his Christian readers. There are other reasons to question Acts, before we even get to the death of Judas not matching Matthew or the ascension being something none of the others troubled to mention. Acts follows the escape from Damascus but replaces Paul's rather absurd claim that the Nabatean army was after him with a claim that it was because (of course) of a Jewish plot to kill him. Luke has adapted the story in Paul.

He also adapts the story in Josephus about the demise of Herod Agrippa. Though he turns the owl into the more Biblical angel. Oh yes, he also uses Josephus in Gamaliel's speech linking the census with the Roman takeover of 6/7 AD and the revolt of Judas.Though he gets Judas and Theudas in the wrong order - the messianic attempt of Theudas came after the census - revolt.

Luke guesses when the conversion happened. And sees that it was a vision, not Paul being there on resurrection night. But Paul seems to suggest that he saw Jesus on a headdenly visit to the third heaven. Yes, Acts seems a bit wabbling about whether Jesus had told the 12 that all foods were clean, or whether they were still Kosher Jews. James (boss of the Jewish church) was concerned with Jewish observance and even offers to cover up Jewish suspicions that Paul was disregarding the Law and teaching others to disregard it.

On fact James is partial to Paul' side to a degree that would appal Judge Cannon, and Peter acts as an advocate for Paul (1) in what is a full senate hearing of Jews for and against the circumcision, when Paul indicated that it was more a private talk he had with James. Oh yes, I read an argument that showed that Paul's debate with the Athenian philosophers wasn't reliable as the agora no longer existed as a civic institution and it was just Luke talking down the old philosophy to polite applause. In fact Socrates would have debunked him in two minutes.

Luke runs out of info around AD 60 and guesses that Paul went to Rome where he wraps his novelette up with Paul presiding over lectures in house arrest

Acts is a biographical novel and not reliable fact.

Paul - at least the letters up to Ephesians, I estimate - is genuine, but Romans is him arguing his thesis and Corinthians is him coping with it not working as he'd expected and the rest is his self - justifying excuses and railing at those teaching any gospel but his.

None of this makes a case to me about Jesus walking about with nail marks on him for identification purposes on Sunday, or any real credibility for the Gospels, NT or Bible as Fact or even good evidence For Christianity.

(1) in a puzzling remark about the law being a burden our fathers could not bear. This would elicit a storm of protest to the Jews, who reckon they delight in the Law. But it becomes clear, Acts is quoting Paul's opinion that the Law just adds a burden of extra things to sin about.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #35]

Now to examine my words:
"It seems that many have faith in an idol the rest of us acknowledge as the Bible."
"Idol - a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered."

How in the world can you be looked at as revering something when you can demonstrate you "wish it had never been composed?" How can you make this make sense in your mind? I will guarantee that you never made such a comment when you were at one time a convinced Christian who did not use facts and evidence to become convinced. This may well be how you can know one has said that they "wish the Bible was never composed" and come away believing they make an idol out of something they wish would have never been in existence, because it seems that facts and evidence does not matter to some folks. Try to read this slowly, and maybe you can understand it better. I am on record almost exactly one year ago as saying, "I wish the Bible had never been composed". Now, please explain how one can make an idol out of something they wish would have never been in existence. This is what happens when one realizes they have no argument. They simply continue to say the same thing over, and over, in spite of the fact they have been demonstrated to be in error. It is really funny, because I imagine this is what you did when you were a convinced Christian with no facts and evidence in support of what you were convinced of. Facts and evidence hits you in the face? No matter, just continue to plug your ears and scream the same thing over, and over.

I said,

If the Bible had never been composed, we would still have the content which is contained in the Bible,

To which you reply,

Leaving this one here for all to see.

Well, thank you. I wrote it out for you to see, because I am not playing to an audience. But I am fine for all to see it, because it is a fact. If the Bible had never been composed, we would still have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the letters of Paul, and all the rest. What we would not have is a Bible that folks such as yourself held up as an idol when they were convinced Christians at one time, who would proudly proclaim that this Bible was inerrant, but when the mind is changed these folks go on to transpose the way in which they operated upon others, because they cannot imagine one who uses their own mind in order to come to different positions then the way in which they were told to believe. It is becoming ever clearer that we are dealing with one who was a convinced Christian at one time, who simply took the word of others and simply regurgitated what they were told to believe, and the only thing which seems to have changed is the mind.

I know the Bible quite well as a matter of fact.

I am afraid not, and I believe I can demonstrate this to be fact. Let's see if we can determine this? It is a small verse and one any Christian should know. So exactly what did Paul mean when he said, "we take every thought captive"? Here is your chance to demonstrate how much you know about the Bible. If you avoid this challenge, it will speak volumes. So then, go ahead and demonstrate to us all exactly how well you know the Bible.

The Bible is religious promotional material, so is the Qu'ran.

This pretty much demonstrates how little you know about the Bible. The overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with the author having no idea anyone else would read what they were writing other than the intended audience at the time, and the authors could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible. So then, how in the world can letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed, be considered "promotional material"? GOOD GRIEF! Promotional material, would be material written in order to persuade the masses, and what is contained in the Bible can be demonstrated not to have been an attempt to persuade the masses. You simply continue to demonstrate one who does not have a clue about what you are so critical of, which you were once convinced of?

Without the Bible, the New Testament specifically, there is no Christianity.

This is SO, SO FUNNY! I mean, you cannot be for real! You are truly demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge. Christianity was alive and well, hundreds of years before there was any sort of Bible. GOOD GRIEF! In fact, Christianity was alive and well, long before the authors ever penned a single word. Do you have any idea at all what year the Bible was compiled? I mean, this fact alone demonstrates that Christianity was well organized long before the Bible. You really need to stop.

Compiled in the Bible, which is then taken to be a thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered. Once this is done, a believer often times will consider claims made in their book to be fact. This is my point.

My point is, you are simply transposing the way in which you operated when you were a convinced Christian upon others, when I can demonstrate that I have stated "I wish the Bible had never been composed" while also demonstrating that I am on record as saying that "I do not believe in inerrancy". You on the other hand, more than likely "greatly admired, loved, or revered" the Bible, along with arguing that the Bible was inerrant, and you cannot wrap your mind around a Christian who could possibly think differently. I do not simply assume the claims in the Bible are fact as you did when you were once convinced. I am however aware there are certain things we can know to be fact by reading the material, and as we go on to examine the text, and take into consideration what all would have to be involved for the claims to be false, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, you will have to come away realizing there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection took place. Does this mean there would be no reason to doubt the claims? Absolutely not. So then, we have a Christian who is not insisting they must and have to be correct, along with leaving room for others to be opposed. This is what is called, "intellectual honesty". On the other hand, we have one here, who wants to insist they were a convinced Christian at one time, but there was no facts, evidence, nor reasons to be convinced. It's hilarious! I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

Please show that numerous dead bodies got out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem appearing to many. Such a historical event would surely be in evidence, right?

Another example of sloppy thinking. Even if this particular event could be demonstrated to be false, has no bearing upon the resurrection claim in that particular account or the other three. Why would one waste their time attempting to discover if this event occurred, when it is next to impossible to discover if it was accurate, and it has no bearing upon the main event, when one can indeed sit down and think about what all would have to be involved in order for the claims of the resurrection to be true, as opposed to being false. I am here to tell you that there would have to be a lot involved in order for the claims to be false, because I can assure you there are no easy answers to be had. Of course, if one can be convinced of something there would be no facts and evidence to support, it would not be shocking at all to come to realize that they are under the impression that there would not have to be a lot involved at all. It is what I call, "easy in, easy out". It did not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them Christianity was true, and therefore, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to cause a change of mind. My friend, there is a whole lot more involved to it, and for one to think otherwise sort of demonstrates a simple mind.

Allow me to demonstrate just how sloppy the thinking is above, by giving a real-life example. I had two different folks come into my office at two different times. Both of these folks told me the same exact story almost word for word. The only difference was the fact, they were both using the word "I" in the same place. In other words, they both were attempting to take credit. Now, does this fact have any bearing upon whether the event took place? Well no. The fact of the matter is, the reports are in fact pretty strong evidence the event did in fact occur, the only question is, who is responsible? In the same way, even if the report you refer to is an embellishment, false, made up, or a lie, does not in any way demonstrate everything else in the report would be false.

Another example would be the fact that scholars examine ancient letters because in these they believe they can know what occurred in those times by reading these letters. Now, do they believe that everything in these letters would be fact. Absolutely not! However, they know there are certain things we can know whether or not everything in the letters would be true. In the same way, even if the report you refer to would be found not to be true, does not in any way keep us from learning what we can know to be true from reading that same material.

See! That there are religions that existed long before your own doesn't give you pause. You prove my words, so thank you.

How in the world does my acknowledging there are other religions in the world, which I pause to think about, which causes me to understand that this fact has no bearing upon whether the resurrection occurred or not, demonstrate how these other religions do not give me pause? Please explain to me what these other religions would have to do with whether or not Jesus rose from the dead?

All I see here is a defense mechanism at play.

How in the world is my repeating exactly what you have said about yourself, a "defense mechanism"? My friend, you are the one who seems to believe it relevant to announce to everyone you were at one time a convinced Christian who did not use the mind, and that there would be no reason to believe the things you were once convinced of. I can assure you that it is you, who is on the defense.

When the debate is lost, slander become the tool of the loser. - Socrates
Faith is required to believe in Bigfoot or Nessie. Things that are not real. Therefore faith is not a valid mechanism for arriving at truths is my argument.

My friend, this is a debate site, and my pointing out the fact that one disqualifies themselves from the conversation by attempting to compare the evidence for "Bigfoot or Nessie" to the facts and evidence concerning the resurrection is not in any way slander. It is simply a fact which can be demonstrated. No one who takes the debate seriously would ever make such a comparison. Rather, it would only be one who has nothing left to add to the debate.

If you only felt that Jesus walked the earth, you would have a point, but you don't.

This is another difference between you and me. I do not walk around with my spiritual antenna in the air hoping to "feel" something. In other words, I do not "feel" Jesus walked the face of the earth, rather I am certain the facts and evidence demonstrates this beyond a reasonable doubt, no feelings, or faith required.

You have a book called the Bible that makes miraculous claims about this person.

Again, you show a complete ignorance about the Bible. The Bible makes no claims at all. It is impossible for the Bible to make claims. The claims you are referring to were claims being made, long before any sort of Bible was even thought of. The author of Matthew makes claims, the author of Mark, as well as the authors of Luke, Acts, John, along with Paul. All these authors made these claims orally long before they wrote them down, and when they wrote, they were addressing audiences at the time who would have already believed the miraculous claims. This means, these authors did not have you, me, nor anyone else in mind as they wrote, and they certainly did not intend these letters to be contained in a Bible for the world to read, when they could have had no idea about any sort of Bible. This is exactly why I have said that "I wish the Bible would have never been composed", so that folks like you could not say, "the Bible makes claims".

So then, what we are reading is, the authors making claims to audiences at the time who would have already believed the claims, and we do not simply believe the claims to be true, but we rather analyze all the evidence involved, in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for the claims to be false. Or one can simply believe the claims because the Bible said it as many Christians do, or you can simply dismiss the claims because they contain the miraculous. I really do not care which avenue one takes, but I can tell you this. There are indeed facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection. Now, does this fact demonstrate the resurrection occurred? It does not. But I can go on to tell you that it is not as simple as saying, "the resurrection could not have occurred because it involves the miraculous".

I don't see this as a valid way to discovering truths and I also note that Muslims and Hindu's have their books that they idolize and you don't give them special considerations.

As demonstrated above, I do not give "special consideration" to the Bible. Rather, I read the Bible critically in order to determine what all is involved, and I do not need to know a thing about any other religion in order to determine if there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and I do not have to have an ounce of faith in order to know there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe. Moreover, I do not have to simply take the word of those making the claims in order to know there are facts, evidence and reasons to believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith" (Eph 2:8).

And again, a complete lack of understanding. It says, "we have been saved through faith". What have we been saved from? That would be our sin. In other words, forgiveness. Therefore, I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, because there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe this to be true. What I would need faith in order to believe is, this event atoned for my sin. Because you see, I cannot look at, see, analyze, feel, or study forgiveness. Forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence for the rest.

Allow me to end by saying that I understand that I come across as rude, but this is the way in which I was brought up. I was taught to think for myself, and no one cared much about your feelings, because we were taught feelings get in the way of truth and therefore, we were told to leave our feelings at the door. With that being said, I am really not attempting to be mean here, but your arguments are extremely weak. Seriously! Most all of your arguments are things which one should have thought of long ago if they are any sort of thinker at all. Like, when you bring up the other religions of the world. Do you seriously believe I have not thought about these other religions? My friend, it does not take a whole lot of thinking to understand that I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions in order to know, and understand there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected. I do not have to prove any of these other religions to be false, and I do not have to give any reasons they may be false, in order to demonstrate there are reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. These other religions do not even enter into that equation. And then there is your argument about the Bible. I can assure you that I know far more about the Bible than you do, and I have never, ever had the attitude that we should simply accept what has been contained in the Bible. I continue to read the Bible, (along with everything else) critically, and I encourage everyone else to do so. I would never, and have never, encouraged one to simply believe what is contained therein. I would also advise you to be careful when using Biblical text because you will get yourself in trouble when you run up against one who happens to be a true student. My point is this issue is far more complex than you make it out to be and your arguments are elementary.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, a lot to like. Essentially, Faith (apparently revelation from God) is not the way to truth, but evidence and reason is. No problem with that. Not even when those who think that the evidence (and reasoned analysis) confirms the claims of the Bible, and as I have said at times, the resurrection, because it that falls down, the whole edifice collapses.

The debate ought( as I see it) be about that. Not about cosmic origins, Morality, or evolution, which although they are Christian apologetic favorites, they are actually irrelevant. It is the gospels and specifically the resurrection - claim that matters and all that matters.

Slavery in the Bible is slam dunk. Either believers recognise it and have to accept it and deal with it, or they deny everything and lie to themselves and anyone else who will listen. That's Faith, not reason.

Same with the gospels. The nativities are demonstrably as false as slavery in the Bible is real, and only faithbased denial can refuse to accept that Fact.

I say and will argue that the resurrection - claim and accounts are nearly as bad and can be demonstrated to be untenable, despite the false claims and fiddled excuses of the apologists (Mary did not go into the tomb, indeed ). When the case is laid out, then the question comes back; will they accept the verdict and admit the Gospels are guilty of making up contradictory stories to make resurrection more than a faithclaim, or will we get dogmatic doubling down and faithbased denial?

I have debated this matter several times and it has always ended up with the latter. Maybe you will be a glowing exception.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #36]

I assume you believe in the broad factuality of the Bible or the NT at any rate, and the reliability of the resurrection accounts.

What I happen to believe concerning these things is irrelevant. What I am saying is, anyone who reads the material whether believer or not, can learn and know certain things by reading the material, and the material does not have to be reliable in order to do such a thing. As an example, there are scholars who do not believe the resurrection, who are coming to the conclusion that the early followers of Jesus were indeed convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. Why would one who does not believe the resurrection, believe this to be the case? This is because there are certain things we can know by reading and analyzing the text whether believer or not. Okay, if we can determine from examining the evidence, the early followers were somehow convinced they had encountered the risen Christ, what best explains this fact? Well, I would certainly not suggest we simply assume the resurrection best explains it, but we do have to consider what else would explain it. So then, I am not at all arguing for the reliability of the accounts, or that the Bible is "broadly factual". Rather, I am saying there are certain things we can all know to be fact by reading the material no matter if the material be reliable or not.

As to 'Facts' in Paul and Acts, I do not agree that the writer of Acts (who on evidence also wrote Luke - I have long suspected it was Eusebius) neither knew Paul nor the apostles- or those who knew Jesus anyway.

Well, you are going to have to explain this to me. I may be misunderstanding, but I am thinking Eusebius lived in the 4th century 301-400. If this is correct, I believe Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, identified Luke as the author of both the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts. I believe Irenaeus was born in 130 and died in 202. So then, if Irenaeus had access to both of the letters addressed to Theophilus, and Irenaeus died in 202 then how in the world is it possible that Eusebius was the author when his life is said to have been from 301-400? So then, am I misunderstanding here? Or did something miraculous occur?

While you think on this, allow me to give you the evidence that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was actually a traveling companion of Paul. First, the author begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the actions of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events he is recording. Of course, there are scholars who want to insist the author was using some sort of literary device and did not intend to be understood as being present. However, this is not something which has been demonstrated, and the natural reading of the text would naturally lead one to believe the author was indeed present. In order to believe the author was not present, one would have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops. With this being said, I am not attempting to discount what the scholars have to say, rather I am simply saying that if one is being intellectually honest, they would have to admit that the use of the words "we" and "us" is at least evidence the author was present, while taking into consideration what the scholars have to say, and in the end I think we would all have to admit the natural reading would lead one to believe the author was present, and we would need the input of the scholars to cause us to believe this may not be the case.

Now, with all the above being said, I am going to attempt to consider what you have to say about Eusebius being the author. If this is the case, why in the world would Eusebius begin to use the words "we" and "us"? Did Eusebius intend to deceive folks into thinking the author was present? Or was he using the literary device the scholars are referring to?

Okay, the next evidence that the author was a traveling companion of Paul, is the fact that Paul actually identifies some of those who were traveling with him, and in more than one letter he refers to Luke as being with him. In one of the letters in which Paul identifies Luke as being with him, is a letter addressed to Timothy in which he tells Timothy that all the others have left him and, "only Luke is left with me". This letter is clearly written while Paul is in prison, and where does the author of the second letter addressed to Theophilus end this letter? Well, that would be with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years, which would give this author plenty of time to write out 2 long and detailed letters addressed to Theophilus, out of concern for this Theophilus "knowing the exact truth". And this would also explain why the letter ends with Paul being under arrest, since this is where they are, and there would be no more to write about.

Another piece of evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul, is the fact that Irenaeus attributes the letters to Luke. Of course, Irenaeus could be mistaken, but this would still have to be considered to be evidence, because we cannot simply assume he was mistaken, and this would mean we have evidence that the author was not only a traveling companion of Paul, but it would actually be Luke, and we know Luke was indeed a traveling companion of Paul.

A piece of evidence we have that the author would have been alive at the time of the events recorded would be the fact that in the first letter to Theophilus, the author tells Theophilus that he had, "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" as if he is alive to actually do such an investigation. Again, we can say this may not be the case, but we cannot simply assume it is not the case. Moreover, this author goes on to talk about the events "accomplished among us" as if he were alive during the events.

And then, we have the fact that the author starts out the second letter reporting on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, but for some strange reason when Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys, we only begin to read of what Paul is doing and we hear nothing of what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing, until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them again. Now, can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can! Because if the author was indeed traveling with Paul, he could not possibly tell us what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing until, or unless Paul were to come in contact with them.

Now, I am not suggesting there would be no reason to have doubts concerning the author, but I am here to tell you that the evidence is mounting up that the author was not only a traveling companion of Paul, but the evidence also suggests the author was more than likely Luke, and it would be intellectually dishonest to deny the fact that we have very good reasons to believe the author would have been Luke who traveled with Paul.

I think we now have to ask ourselves, if the author was not a traveling companion of Paul, then how in the world did we get all this evidence that he was? Did it simply fall out of the sky? Was the author brilliant enough to somehow work all this evidence in? I can tell you this, one would have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to believe the author was not a traveling companion of Paul.

With all the above being said, I have to ask, why is it that there are those who seem so desperate to cast doubt upon who the author of these two letters may have been? Why does this matter so much? Well, it matters, and it matters greatly. Because you see, if this author was indeed a traveling companion of Paul as the evidence suggest, then this would demonstrate the author was indeed alive at the time of the events recorded and it would also demonstrate this author would have known and spent time with the original apostles and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips. This is why it matters, and this is why we have those who are so desperate to explain the evidence we have away. This is why we have to ignore the plain reading of the text and instead imagine the author was using some sort of literary device. This is exactly why we have those who are desperate to cast doubt upon the authorship of Paul's letter to Timothy, because this letter gives us evidence that Luke was indeed the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus.

However, even though they have desperately attempted to explain the clear evidence we have away, they still have not explained it all away. This is why I have no problem with these objections to who the author may have been, and that is because, no matter what objections they have, we are still left with the evidence that the author was a traveling companion of Paul, and that the author was indeed Luke, and the fact these folks are attempting to explain this evidence away demonstrates clearly, we have this evidence they are attempting to explain away, and for one to insist there is no evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul, nor the author was Luke, demonstrates one who is not in the "real world" and is willing to do whatever they can to continue to believe what they would rather believe, by being intellectually dishonest in order to push a certain narrative they would rather believe.

So again, I encourage and invite these objections to who the author may have been, because it simply continues to demonstrate that there is indeed evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul that those opposed understand they must and have to attempt to explain away.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll probably have to deal with this in bits as I don't do the church fathers much. I have heard before that Luke is too early to be the work (editing, rather) of Eusebius. But a quick look at Irenaus and Marcion suggests that Marcion would be working, not from Luke as such but the synoptic original they all three used (other than John) and Irenaus was talking (from what I read just now) about Paul travelling with Luke as in Paul's letters, not from the gospel or Acts, and I see no reason at all to suppose that the writer of Luke or Acts actually was named Luke or was a companion of Paul.

As to we and us, I don't know the context that might suggest the writer is talking as a participant rather than a biographer, but even then, it isn't surprising that someone pretending to be Luke would write as he supposed a companion of Paul would do.

I am not impressed by Luke declaring his research. All I see is a jump off from the synoptic gospel as amended by the writer and Acts using Paul's letters as a spare frame with a bit of Josephus for history (though as I say, he mistakes the order of Judas and Theudas in Gamaliel's speech) and a lot of invention.

So my pointing up of the fiddling and fails of the Acts doesn't bother you? Not to mention how Luke edits the gospel to fit Paul's letters.