RE: What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?
April 12, 2017 at 8:17 am
(This post was last modified: April 12, 2017 at 8:31 am by SteveII.)
(April 10, 2017 at 9:24 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Evidence, but not convincing evidence, at least not for me and many others.
If jesus was god (that whole trinity thing) and god can do anything (that whole omnipotent thing) then it should not be a problem for god to show up and put an end to the lack of convincing evidence. Evidence any anyone holding any belief would be able to say "that is god, I'm convinced".
So SteveII, why doesn't this happen?
1. Most people do not start with "there is no God". We are wired to believe in the supernatural--and most humans do. That is why a reading of the NT and the genuine changing power of a conversion in a persons life (other people's testimony) is compelling to many people every day (there are millions of adult conversions every year).
2. Whether or not you are aware of the formal natural theology arguments, most people can understand deep down that the universe calls out for an explanation. Conscienceless calls out for an explanation. Morality calls out for an explanation. You have to develop alternate explanations to support atheism--I don't think they are intuitive.
3. Regarding what God could have done a better job convincing, a few points:
a. It is not clear that ongoing flashing, crowd-convincing miracles would not be coercive to free will. I believe that minor miracles happen every day and many Christians are convinced of the same.
b. God is not concerned if you believe he exists. He is only interested in having a relationship with you. If your heart is searching, there is more than enough evidence that he exists.
(April 11, 2017 at 10:59 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:(April 11, 2017 at 6:23 am)SteveII Wrote: Jesus being the son of God (his claim), dying on a cross to make it possible to to have a relationship with God, and rising again is not possible to interpret subjectively. In addition, the majority of NT teachings are not all that easy to interpret differently either (love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.).
Thank you for your response, SteveII. With all due respect, out of curiosity, suppose the people back then possessed humanity's current level of knowledge and understanding. Do you think that the information quoted above in your post would've been as convincing to them as it was when they didn't possess that knowledge?
Also, do today's current practitioners of Christianity take humanity's current knowledge and understanding and try to make sense of it via a 2,000 year old mindset (for example, the writings in the NT)? Has the Christian mindset evolved with advancements in human knowledge and understanding? Would today's Christian practitioners be seen as foreign to the Christian practitioners around the time of Christ? Thanks SteveII.
What current level of understanding do you think we have that would have made the people interpret things differently? Cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life.
I don't think Christian understanding has changed in 2000 years. Do you have something specifically that might have changed (some important feature)?
(April 11, 2017 at 4:14 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:(April 10, 2017 at 12:30 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. You would be wrong. As I just posted to Mr. Agenda, your problems is with definitions:
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.
The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.
Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.
2. The letters (and trips) of Paul started in the 50s AD. They were addressed to churches throughout the empire who already believed the basics of Christianity.
3. You found some fringe theories that better fits your bias. I'm going to go with common consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Origin
4. See 1
5. If you are going with Jesus never existed, I'm done. I don't have time for stupidity and whack-jobs.
6. That's simply wrong. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
7. I don't need to prove anything to you. You said there was no evidence and that is obviously not the case--so I supported my assertion--there is evidence.
As I said you are unwilling to provide evidence aside from "the bible is true because god said so. God is real because the bible said so". It is pointless continuing the debate with you until you man up and provide evidence.
You are spouting an objection from your atheist quick list--but it does not apply to my answer. Try to keep up.
