Christian- 90% of us suck

[dennyg]

It doesn't necessarily. But it's much more reliable if it gives a correct history, which the NT and some of the OT does.
Ex: if you find a Jewish Temple at a dig site with the inscription Solomon on it, which only the Bible/Torah mentions, that adds validity to other claims. Like Solomon, David and a whole host of Jewish kings, as well as towns not mentioned in other texts, have been uncovered. They've even found non-Biblical references to Goliath recently. For at least 2000 years the OT was the only mention of him. Things like this add credibility.

In the case for Jesus having some sort of supernatural ability, that actually has some non-Biblical evidence as well. Some rabbinical records from the time Jesus is said to have been alive talk of him as a 'magician.' They hated Jesus and ultimately forced Pontius Pilate to kill him, but that suggests they believed in his supernatural powers. They attributed it to witchcraft and not divinity is the only difference.
That extra-Biblical reference to Jesus having powers is, to me, the most compelling argument for him actually being what he claimed to be

Undoubtedly, any extra-biblical support for the bible's claims is going to be scientifically controversial to say the least, but I think the legitimacy of that evidence isn't a worthwhile debate. What I want to know is that why would the claims of someone that comes from a time and place that is rife with superstition and irrationality hold any significance at all? We didn't even start developing a good process to interpret the reality around us until the time of the Enlightenment, so why should someone believe a claim written down 1600 years prior?

I'm not saying the Jewish magician reference is proof by any means but it's significant that people who were going out of their way to discredit Jesus believed themselves that he had some sort of power. The reason that the NT is considered by most theological scholars as having a high chance of being historically accurate, other than archaeological support, is that the multiple accounts all tell the same story, but they are just different enough to see that each is from a different perspective. No key details are different, but certain phrases or Jesus' closeness with a given person varies slightly. If 4 different authors had composed them, this is what you'd expect.
Jesus and interpretation of the natural world don't really contradict at any point. He doesn't speak much in terms of trying to explain nature. He just gives parables and supposedly performs miracles. So when you say that because the accounts of Jesus' life are 1600 years old they shouldn't be trusted I'm not sure what you're referring to. Maybe if you cite a specific example I'd better understand

[robvalue]

edit : never mind I'll leave you be

[dennyg]

[robvalue]

Whoah wait... Assuming the miracles occured? Why would we assume that?

Would any book ever, other than the bible, cause you to make such an assumption?

The rest of what you say sounds very much like the classic "argument from ignorance", that if no naturally explanation has yet been found, we can just insert any supernatural one we feel like.

We don't have to discount miracles, we have to consider whether there is any evidence for them, that is how scepticism and science works. And a bunch of textual accounts could never be sufficient evidence for a supernatural event. How can those accounts, which are at best just someone's description, be used to discount any natural explanation that there could ever possibly be?

If someone comes to you and says they've been abductees by aliens, do you assume they are right until you can find another explanation?

And that's assuming it happened at all, and wasn't massively distorted over time. Which we all know it was, the bible went through thousands of iterations.

Thanks for replying! It's so good to debate someone who doesn't just go "no you're wrong". That really gets boring.

---

Just for comparison: how many eye witness accounts of me actually being jesus, returning from heaven, would be sufficient for you to accept it as probably true?

[dennyg]

Whoah wait... Assuming the miracles occured? Why would we assume that?

Would any book ever, other than the bible, cause you to make such an assumption?

The rest of what you say sounds very much like the classic "argument from ignorance", that if no naturally explanation has yet been found, we can just insert any supernatural one we feel like.

We don't have to discount miracles, we have to consider whether there is any evidence for them, that is how scepticism and science works. And a bunch of textual accounts could never be sufficient evidence for a supernatural event. How can those accounts, which are at best just someone's description, be used to discount any natural explanation that there could ever possibly be?

If someone comes to you and says they've been abductees by aliens, do you assume they are right until you can find another explanation?

And that's assuming it happened at all, and wasn't massively distorted over time. Which we all know it was, the bible went through thousands of iterations.

Thanks for replying! It's so good to debate someone who doesn't just go "no you're wrong". That really gets boring.

---

Just for comparison: how many eye witness accounts of me actually being jesus, returning from heaven, would be sufficient for you to accept it as probably true?

We had a little misunderstanding. I thought you were asking, "Assuming all events in the NT were true, meaning that the miracles were either tricks or real [but the event happening is historically accurate], why should that testimony hold water?"
I think the post after this quoted one can elaborate on why I don't discount supernatural things completely.
But for me to believe you were Jesus I'd require at least hundreds of people all swearing that you had some sort of power. If there was a book about you that historians studied and found to be accurate and supported historically with solid evidence (as the NT has been) that wouldn't hurt.
I think you have this notion that the Bible is all myth. Genesis is myth. The Flood is myth. But the line of David, Jesus' life, and a large quantity of the information has held up to centuries of scrutiny from religious and non-religious scholars and archaeologists alike. The wikipedia link has much more info on why it is considered so accurate.

[watchamadoodle]

It's great to have a more liberal Christian to add some variety.

What type of church do you attend?

[Whateverist]

With agreement on both sides concerning 90% of xtians, shall we discuss the degree to which we find the other 10% to suck?

Well tbh I only think hardcore fundamentalists who reject modern science and think dinosaurs were on Noah's ark suck. Too many actually think that, but it's probably more in the 30-40% range.
I'm fairly certain the Catholicism has accepted evolution, a 13 million year old universe, and even is pro-gay rights now. So it's only Protestants who think God penned the Bible himself that suck

Yeah, I'll give you that. Just messing with you.

[robvalue]

No problem, misunderstanding

Why do I have to have a book about me? Why does something happening in the past, written down and read later have more weight than something that just happened?

If I could give you sworn testimony from 1,000 people that they saw me come down from the sky, perform a load of miracles, and that I "am jesus", would that be enough for you to bow down and worship me as Lord?

Also, you consider God doesn't interfere. But jesus is usually considered to be at least the son of God, if not God himself, so wouldn't impregnating a human and have himself/his son running around doing a load of stuff count as interfering?

As for jesus, can you provide a single source for the existence of Jesus that is not hearsay?

[robvalue]

Oh yes, regarding my book, well I do have one. I'm jesus, as clearly described in the bible, and it said I would return. I have returned, so would 1,000 eye witness accounts to this event be enough to verify I am in fact jesus? They saw me do miracles.

If not, what about 4 accounts not from eye witnesses? Would that be enough? They aren't signed I'm afraid though, and they are anonymous. I have collected them just now from the writers. But they do correctly give the names of some towns and cities that we have, and a bit of recent history.

[GrandizerII]