Leaving christianity, a bit of my story

[SteveII]

You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.

I am fine with accepting descriptions of historical events in the NT that can also be verified from other sources. The NT does contain many such descriptions of historical events. 

It is the supernatural god claims that I am referring to as being the claim, not evidence, in the NT.

The fact that there are 27 documents is meaningless. I can point out hundreds of documents written by sincere honest people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Does the number of books and articles written by "abductees" lend any credibility to their claims?

Jesus claimed to be God. 27 documents support this as historical fact. Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead to support his claim. 27 documents support this as historical fact. Your alien analogy is significantly wanting. Do 27 of these alien abduction accounts catalog the same series of events (not similar experiences, the same exact events)?

Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works.

And their were churches already in existence that believed the entire resurrection story did not occur on earth, but in a supernatural realm.  

Your fallacious thinking is not doing you any favors.

There were churches that believed this before 50-60 AD? Can you provide a link or references for this so I can review?

[Lek]

If you're going to be making actual life decisions based on the truth of a historical event, I'd have thought you'd want some pretty compelling evidence.

What difference it makes if a dude came back from the dead or not though, I don't know. Good for him I guess. It's a pretty meek claim compared with the rest of the bible.

The difference is that he had predicted that he would be raised from the dead. It verified his claim to be the messiah.

[SteveII]

You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.

Well, you are on to something: using just historic texts is not enough to confirm whether something really happened, especially if they come from a source that can be expected to be biased (those in favour). If you would have a lot more texts about the same topic from people from different backgrounds, especially those who are not in favour of the religion, then you would have something a bit more interesting.


A lot of things in history are uncertain, because we only have a few texts on the topic. In general, it's: the further you go back in time, the more uncertain it becomes, and the fewer sources, and the less diverse the sources (the more they are likely to be biased), the more uncertainty.

You never answered my question. How does a Christian come to the conclusion that the NT is not true? What specifically made you go from believing it one day and not the next? Your objections above are vague and frankly weak.

[robvalue]

If you're going to be making actual life decisions based on the truth of a historical event, I'd have thought you'd want some pretty compelling evidence.

What difference it makes if a dude came back from the dead or not though, I don't know. Good for him I guess. It's a pretty meek claim compared with the rest of the bible.

The difference is that he had predicted that he would be raised from the dead.  It verified his claim to be the messiah.

All it verifies is that he knew he was capable of coming back from the dead. Or maybe he didn't and he got lucky. How many people have made such claims I wonder?

He doesn't get to announce what the implications are without further evidence.

I also don't care if he's The Messiah anyway, whatever that's supposed to mean. I don't need people telling me how to act.

[Drich]

A lot judgement and insults. Jesus would be ashamed of you.

So... your version of Jesus never insulted anyone or made any personal judgements against them? Again, because you did not build your faith on an accurate depiction of God, God could not support you. He would not re-enforce your understanding of Him, by giving yo the assurances you sought from Him.. Could you imagine how hard your heart would become to your specific picture of God if in fact he supported your broken picture of Him with signs and wonders? That is why Jesus said the foolish man who does not build his house on the 'rock' see it fail when tested by the wind and rain. You did not build your faith on the rock or an accurate understanding of God.

If you like I can show you some very harsh words, insults and judgement levied by Christ toward others. including his own disciples, religious leaders and self appointed VIPs.. Some for doing what you did. Many 'religious' have unbiblically extended the role of Christ to include all 'polite'/westernized behavior. the propbelem with that? not all of it is indeed supported scripturally. Which has people like you 'build their faith/house' on a foundation God will not support.

And it's funny how you know these things... don't you realize that I can check whether everything you're saying about me is true?

Sport, what I said was based off what you told me... If it is not accurate then it is because you lied...

I can tell you that your assessment of my christian life is totally wrong, your oh so enormous life experience didn't help you there.

Again snow flake you will do well here with your new brothers and sisters. Because everyone here thinks themselves a spiritual enigma as well.. at least i got that part right huh? wonder what else if one were to objectively look...

If I don't agree with someone, I still would like to understand their point of view. Insulting people and making quick judgements does not help. I don't like to waste my time talking with people who don't have those basic social skills.

---

You mean you don't want to talk to some who will not just embrace whatever you say with open arms or someone who can not be manipulated by things like you said in the beginning of this post?

[Crossless2.0]

Again snow flake you will do well here with your new brothers and sisters. Because everyone here thinks themselves a spiritual enigma as well.. at least i got that part right huh? wonder what else if one were to objectively look...

  Ah, Drich. That mind-reading routine never gets old. No, really, our resident denominational snowflake of one . . . it's priceless.

[Lucifer]

Ok I'm out. I don't have time for this, I have a great life to build!

(note to christians: feel free to interpret this as a win for you, if that is good for your ego. and thanks for reminding me that it's good that I left you folks behind)

[robvalue]

I hope you're not leaving the whole forum? If you are, I wish you all the best for the future.

But yeah I agree, some of the Christians we get here do way more harm than good to their cause. You'd think they were plants.

[Simon Moon]

I am fine with accepting descriptions of historical events in the NT that can also be verified from other sources. The NT does contain many such descriptions of historical events. 

It is the supernatural god claims that I am referring to as being the claim, not evidence, in the NT.

The fact that there are 27 documents is meaningless. I can point out hundreds of documents written by sincere honest people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Does the number of books and articles written by "abductees" lend any credibility to their claims?

Jesus claimed to be God. 27 documents support this as historical fact. Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead to support his claim. 27 documents support this as historical fact. Your alien analogy is significantly wanting. Do 27 of these alien abduction accounts catalog the same series of events (not similar experiences, the same exact events)?

And their were churches already in existence that believed the entire resurrection story did not occur on earth, but in a supernatural realm.  

Your fallacious thinking is not doing you any favors.

There were churches that believed this before 50-60 AD? Can you provide a link or references for this so I can review?

Maybe not as early as the dates you mention, but pretty early. 

Docetics existed in the 1st century, however. They did not believe that the Jesus story took place in a supernatural realm, but they did have drastically different Christian beliefs than post Council of Nicea Christians for sure.

They believed that Jesus' physical body was an illusion,  as was his crucifixion. Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die.

[SteveII]

Jesus claimed to be God. 27 documents support this as historical fact. Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead to support his claim. 27 documents support this as historical fact. Your alien analogy is significantly wanting. Do 27 of these alien abduction accounts catalog the same series of events (not similar experiences, the same exact events)?


There were churches that believed this before 50-60 AD? Can you provide a link or references for this so I can review?

Maybe not as early as the dates you mention, but pretty early. 

Docetics existed in the 1st century, however. They did not believe that the Jesus story took place in a supernatural realm, but they did have drastically different Christian beliefs than post Council of Nicea Christians for sure.

They believed that Jesus' physical body was an illusion,  as was his crucifixion. Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die.

Okay. I am familiar with that later belief. I will go with the entire NT written before this belief seemed to have surfaced in which it was clear that Jesus was real and his death and resurrection also real.