Theists: What makes your claims right and the claims of other theists wrong?

[FifthElement]

There is only one true religion: loving the Lord above all else and living a life of brotherly love.

Which lord?

Good Lord Above, who else, he IS the best ever

[Vicki Q]

But that's resolutely not what the disciples claimed happened.

Do you have any writings authored by any of the disciples so we may examine what they claimed?

There is evidence for a theory, which might or might not be true, that Peter was the primary source for Mark.

I'm not sure where you're headed with the question. Either there's a point I've missed completely, or you're unfamiliar with how secondary sources function within historical studies, in which case research would be both interesting and educational.

[Angrboda]

Do you have any writings authored by any of the disciples so we may examine what they claimed?

There is evidence for a theory, which might or might not be true, that Peter was the primary source for Mark.

I'm not sure where you're headed with the question. Either there's a point I've missed completely, or you're unfamiliar with how secondary sources function within historical studies, in which case research would be both interesting and educational.

So, the answer to my question is "no."

[Vicki Q]

What's the sig picture of?

That's taken from a photo of my garden. You a gardener too?

I'm afraid not. I got put off by a friend of mine, who had a lovely apple tree in his garden. Unfortunately, a colony of nudists kept wandering in and stealing the apples.

I think that's the story, anyway. Or I might be muddling it with something I read.

But well done on your garden. Very impressive!

---

Interesting choice of word. Would you describe your beliefs as 'superior'?

The real reason I chose the term 'superior' is due to the total exclusivity demanded by the major religions. If the Christian version of the Yahweh tale is true as the Bible tells it, for example, then the Jews and Muslims are missing the entire point of the thing, worshipers of other gods are, by definition, worshiping false gods, and atheists/agnostics are simply wrong about everything. There is no room for compromise.

ChadWooters clearly says as much: if you're not a dedicated and willing slave of Jesus, you're simply doing it incorrectly. One can only assume he misread the title of the thread as "Your claim's right and claims of other theists are wrong", given his refusal to justify his assertion.

I'm not at all sure it's that simple. Those who like a simple, unsophistemicated belief based on their pastor's interpretation of the Bible might take that view. On the other hand, the Pope might be right that all sorts of beliefs get to enter the Kingdom of God, even atheist. (Please let it be true. I would so like to have eternity to go “In your face” to them. Although the humour might get a little thin after a couple of millennia.)

I would avoid assumptions about Christianity requiring a single approach to biblical inspiration. Internet crusaders aren't a truly randomised sample.

However I agree it's probably for the best to be a “dedicated and willing slave of Jesus”. It's where you go and what you do after that decision...

---

There is evidence for a theory, which might or might not be true, that Peter was the primary source for Mark.

I'm not sure where you're headed with the question. Either there's a point I've missed completely, or you're unfamiliar with how secondary sources function within historical studies, in which case research would be both interesting and educational.

So, the answer to my question is "no."

Sorry for not explaining myself particularly well. I was aiming for “Quite possibly not” followed by “So...”.

[Angrboda]

So, the answer to my question is "no."

Sorry for not explaining myself particularly well. I was aiming for “Quite possibly not” followed by “So...”.

You implied that certain things were inconsistent with what the disciples claimed. If we have no writings of the disciples, we can't very well know what is or isn't consistent with what they claimed, can we? I'd think that pretty obvious.

[Vicki Q]

You implied that certain things were inconsistent with what the disciples claimed. If we have no writings of the disciples, we can't very well know what is or isn't consistent with what they claimed, can we? I'd think that pretty obvious.

I do wonder if you might want to take up my suggestion and read up about use of secondary sources within historical research. I'll try to summarise, but I would strongly recommend doing your own reading, as the thread/post format doesn't allow the subject to be explored in depth.

Broadly speaking, 'getting it from the horses mouth' is called using primary sources. Finding out indirectly is called using secondary sources. Thus I can find out about Churchill's life by reading his memoirs, or by watching a documentary about him.

Using secondary sources is a perfectly good way of doing history. I don't believe William the Conqueror left any writings, but we know a lot about him from secondary sources, and much of this information is regarded as fixed points of human knowledge.

Now we can be very sure from secondary sources that the disciples believed in a physical return from the dead, rather than a non-physical one. For a start, all the vocabulary used in Greek can only refer to the former, not to the latter. The theological context of the C1 understanding of resurrection requires physicality. Paul, who knew the disciples well, uses writing that only makes sense if the shared understanding is of a physical set of events. Crucially, all the accounts (the Gospels) detail a series of events that are physical.

I must stress that this idea of a single physical return from the dead was as unacceptable to a C1 Jew as it is now. Non-corporeal visions- not a problem. The only sensible explanation is that what the disciples saw had a body. That's why they said it did.

This is only a brief summary. Those who would like detail at an academic level I would refer to N.T.Wright's landmark book “Resurrection Of The Son of God.”

I hope this is helpful.

[Angrboda]

You implied that certain things were inconsistent with what the disciples claimed. If we have no writings of the disciples, we can't very well know what is or isn't consistent with what they claimed, can we? I'd think that pretty obvious.

... Using secondary sources is a perfectly good way of doing history. ...

It may be acceptable for historical research, but it is an imperfect way to discover the claims of primary sources. Since your argument concerned the claims of primary sources, your relying on the accounts of secondary sources is illegitimate and bad scholarship.

Since you were making a claim about what the primary sources say, referring to secondary sources is irrelevant.

[Vicki Q]

... Using secondary sources is a perfectly good way of doing history. ...

It may be acceptable for historical research, but it is an imperfect way to discover the claims of primary sources. Since your argument concerned the claims of primary sources, your relying on the accounts of secondary sources is illegitimate and bad scholarship.

Since you were making a claim about what the primary sources say, referring to secondary sources is irrelevant.

Clearly my powers of explanation are less than I realised; again independent research is strongly advised.

Primary sources are not the people themselves, they are information that came directly from the people. Like an autobiography. Secondary sources are information that is about the person, rather than from them. Like a biography.

Both are used to research historical questions perfectly well. We know what the disciples said happened, because we have a mass of material, all of which points in the same direction.

The historical evidence is somewhat overwhelming about what they believed they saw.

[Esquilax]

Both are used to research historical questions perfectly well. We know what the disciples said happened, because we have a mass of material, all of which points in the same direction.

The historical evidence is somewhat overwhelming about what they believed they saw.

There's a larger issue here, which I think you're missing, which is that when sources for other historical figures mention magic or supernatural things, those claims are set aside as representative of the magical thinking of the time, and not taken seriously, as I expect you'd want us to be doing with the claims of the resurrection.

Go ahead and take a look; you can see references to omens and blessings from other gods all over historical writing. Punishments for witchcraft occur all throughout recorded history- clearly someone was convinced they saw witchcraft- and yet we don't credit witches as existing, do we? We quite rightly attribute that to the ignorance and superstition of those people, at that time.

Folks arguing for the historicity of biblical supernatural claims always seem to want a special exemption from this standard practice of historical skepticism for the bible, but why should that be the case? In many respects the bible's case relies on worse evidence than other discarded supernatural claims; merely arguing over the sources of the bible, even if we were to grant them accuracy, still puts it on the same level as those other historical claims.

[Phatt Matt s]

My claims r right insofar as they are my claims. The beleifs of others are always accurate are always correct when they dont contradick mine

---

The criteria for determining whether your beliefs are infallible is to submit your private interpretation to what I defined ex-cathedra