(July 14, 2012 at 8:46 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: This is why I clarified I wasn't talking about prophecy, to eliminate #2. I can show you where in the OT the author of Mark got the material for the part about Jesus and the fig tree. This isn't any sort of prediction but a trivial bit of 'history'.

Therefore, answering your question, to me it's almost undeniable that it's a fabrication.

I'm listening. Please explain why it's undeniable.

Gladly. Here's a thread I started and I still haven't seen a convincing explanation. I'd like to hear what your thoughts are.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-13747.html

(July 14, 2012 at 8:51 pm)Gambit Wrote:

Quote:I believe there are more statues and mosaics and other ancient reminders of Christ than their are of Caesar. But these aside, what other evidence do we accept of Julius Caesar? How do we know the details of the specific events of his life--what he said and what he did? For example, how do we know why he decided to cross the river and march his army on Rome?

I think I already addressed this in my response about what constitutes evidence and whose is more credible. The simple answer is, we can't. however, the claims of Christianity are extraordinary claims, and so, require extraordinary evidence to support them. If Caesar were alive today, he could do the same things and no one would ask the same questions in the same vein. However, if Jesus were alive today and did the things he was purported to have done, then you can bet your ass there would be a lot more scrutiny of what he was doing and how he was doing it.

If God were alive today and visited us in human form, would you expect him to do anything less than--well, miraculous? But what evidence would you accept to prove that someone did things no other man ever did? If the written accounts do not convince, then what would?

spockrates Wrote:If God were alive today and visited us in human form, would you expect him to do anything less than--well, miraculous? But what evidence would you accept to prove that someone did things no other man ever did? If the written accounts do not convince, then what would?

The written accounts are a step down to what would be convincing; a modern day miracle. If prayer actually healed once out of all the times I've seen it 'at work' around my church then I wouldn't be in disbelief today.

(July 14, 2012 at 8:55 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 8:46 pm)spockrates Wrote: I'm listening. Please explain why it's undeniable.

Gladly. Here's a thread I started and I still haven't seen a convincing explanation. I'd like to hear what your thoughts are.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-13747.html

Jesus gives an alternat interpretation of the relationship between John the Baptist and Elijah in Matthew, chapter 11, if you care to discuss it:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...on=NIV1984

My thought is that Jesus' explanation is closer to what is true, for he knew John better than me, or you.

(July 14, 2012 at 8:53 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 8:51 pm)jonb Wrote: I don't know. You own a computer.

And you are...the Matrix? C'mon! Do I look like a battery to you?

Ok I borrow this computer, but that is beside the point. But If a westerner is going to start talking about notions of wealth, then that questions what is rich, if the definition of rich is a little bit more than what you have, then you like everyone else is not rich, then nobody has to worry it was stupid of him to say anything in the first place. But by any definition said in first century Palestine you are rich beyond reason.

If he was god and the word of god, it does not seem logical to change his definitions to suit yourself, but that as far as I can see is what the church is all about

Are you not surprised to learn, Fallen that Jesus states the words describing Elijah in the Old Testament actually are predictions?

(July 14, 2012 at 9:22 pm)spockrates Wrote: Are you not surprised to learn, Fallen that Jesus states the words describing Elijah in the Old Testament actually are predictions?

Sherl O'Crates 'Fallen' have you just cast the first stone rich boy?
Was it a hot potato?

(July 14, 2012 at 9:18 pm)jonb Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 8:53 pm)spockrates Wrote: And you are...the Matrix? C'mon! Do I look like a battery to you?

Ok I borrow this computer, but that is beside the point. But If a westerner is going to start talking about notions of wealth, then that questions what is rich, if the definition of rich is a little bit more than what you have, then you like everyone else is not rich, then nobody has to worry it was stupid of him to say anything in the first place. But by any definition said in first century Palestine you are rich beyond reason.

If he was god and the word of god, it does not seem logical to change his definitions to suit yourself, but that as far as I can see is what the church is all about

I'm no ancient scholar, but I do know that the ancient Jewish people had the belief that the more God approved of them, the more wealth they would amass. The filthy rich were highly loved, and the poor and diseased were sorely hated by God. According to Jesus, this belief was the opposite of the truth. Rather than stupid, I'd say it was wise and loving and right to dispell this myth.

(July 14, 2012 at 8:58 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 8:51 pm)Gambit Wrote: I think I already addressed this in my response about what constitutes evidence and whose is more credible. The simple answer is, we can't. however, the claims of Christianity are extraordinary claims, and so, require extraordinary evidence to support them. If Caesar were alive today, he could do the same things and no one would ask the same questions in the same vein. However, if Jesus were alive today and did the things he was purported to have done, then you can bet your ass there would be a lot more scrutiny of what he was doing and how he was doing it.

If God were alive today and visited us in human form, would you expect him to do anything less than--well, miraculous? But what evidence would you accept to prove that someone did things no other man ever did? If the written accounts do not convince, then what would?

How about the classic healed amputee, for a start? There are no medical claims attributed to miracles today that can't be explained. Actually, come to think of it, even a healed amputee wouldn't suffice. We've already cloned animals, so there's no reason why science couldn't advance enough to allow us to grow back limbs. Research is already being conducted to that end, and is illustrated in recent breakthroughs on how flatworms are able to regenerate. The ability to regenerate parts of the body is not unheard of in the natural world in more advanced species, either.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-flatworms-m...ality.html

I really don't know what would suffice as enough for me to believe in a living, true god. If I'm honest, I'd reserve judgement until people who are a lot more objective than I am took the time to scrutinize the claim. As it goes, I would say I would be more likely to fall victim to false God claims than most others on this site.

(July 14, 2012 at 9:29 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 9:18 pm)jonb Wrote: Ok I borrow this computer, but that is beside the point. But If a westerner is going to start talking about notions of wealth, then that questions what is rich, if the definition of rich is a little bit more than what you have, then you like everyone else is not rich, then nobody has to worry it was stupid of him to say anything in the first place. But by any definition said in first century Palestine you are rich beyond reason.

If he was god and the word of god, it does not seem logical to change his definitions to suit yourself, but that as far as I can see is what the church is all about

I'm no ancient scholar, but I do know that the ancient Jewish people had the belief that the more God approved of them, the more wealth they would amass. The filthy rich were highly loved, and the poor and diseased were sorely hated by God. According to Jesus, this belief was the opposite of the truth. Rather than stupid, I'd say it was wise and loving and right to dispell this myth.

Seems like we have that in common. The religious on my side of the fence criticize me for my weak faith by my even considering the possibility that what I believe might not be true. Perhaps those on your side of the fence criticize you for having a faith that is not weak enough?

I often respond that I take Socrates' words to heart: "There is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always with you. It's quite terrible!" (Cratylus 385-386).