(December 15, 2017 at 1:33 pm)Dnte Wrote: Most of Jesus' miracles could've been staged. He didn't end the world's hunger, he didn't erradicate a disease or something of extreme importance and other sources didn't mention his "feats" outside the bible.
He didn't reveal anything of scientific importance, or something that could make humanity progress and enter a new era of prosperity. There were many impostors in that time, why would I have to believe that Jesus was any different? Where are the sources that mention his greatness outside the bible? I need to read what people OUTSIDE his sect experienced during his lifetime.
Fine. You established an impossible standard of evidence that would prove something to you. That is not the standard that most people apply, but as I said above--it is a matter of opinion. I do notice you have moved off your "illogical" nonsense--good for you.
Quote:If you want to justify this scam with the sect's own scriptures that would be like mormons justifying their faith with their own holy books. And it doesn't work that way.
Nope. Bad comparison. I listed my points for a reasonable inference. There are hundreds of independent pieces of data supporting those points (and hundreds more I didn't mention). How many data points do the Mormons have to infer the reliability of the Book of Mormon? I'll paste it here again in case you want to make more of an effort.
a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.
Quote:These miracles were in line with superstitious beliefs of that era (raising from the dead, casting out demons, healing sick people) and their account was written by fanatical and religious zealots who were also human and part of a SECT. And as humans they also had their personal interests: money, power, authority, influence, prestige, etc.
The miracles performed would have been remarkable in any era.
The inconvenient fact that their beliefs were abhorrent to Judaism is a clear indication that "money, power, authority, influence, prestige, etc." were not reasons for the early church to perpetuate the teachings of Jesus. In addition, no one for centuries achieved "money, power, authority, influence, prestige, etc." --are you saying they were thinking ahead 10+ generations?
Quote:Just because Paul, Peter or John Doe said it happened, doesn't make it real. And like most fantastical stories ever written in ancient times, there's a high likelihood that they are the product of someone's imagination.
The more "someone's" the less likely it was someone's imagination. How do you account for the fact there were churches spread across the Roman Empire before Paul wrote his first letter around 50AD?
Quote:I won't believe in christianity until there's scientific evidence that anything of that happened. Maybe it's time for you dear Lord to show himself up, he's been 2000 years late!
Ahh...there is the "scientific evidence" card. What "scientific evidence" is there for any series of events that happened in the distant past? Another logic fallacy: special pleading. You do stumble quite a bit for someone who is trying to approach this "logically".
