The real religion?

[KevinM1]

Why are you assuming that these documents are unbiased and thus objectively truthful?  These people were trying to build and spread a religion, correct?

Why would you want to build and spread a religion that was based on what you knew to be false? Is there any evidence or hint that might be the case in the 8-9 authors of the NT? The core belief of Jesus coming back from the dead is hardly an event to be mistaken or 'biased' with.

Because religion is power, especially in the ancient world?  And Jesus' resurrection is exactly the kind of event that fits the bill.  It's the ultimate "My messiah is better, more powerful than yours" trump card.

You cannot be this naive.

[LadyForCamus]

So it's our job to show that your unfalsifiable claim is not true? That old game again?

Actually, no. That is not what the argument achieves. It simply removes the charge that belief in God is irrational, unjustifiable, or unwarranted. While it contributes to a cumulative argument for the existence of God, it does not prove it.

It also demonstrates that my experience-based belief in the flying-purple-people-eater is as equally rational, justified, and warranted as your belief in God. That doesn't taste so good going down, does it?

[SteveII]

Because you have failed to make them so.  This isn't the first time that these things have been asserted on these boards, or by you.  I'm not going to humor the weekly reset Steve.  As ever, the drums sound retreat immediately, and the plebs burn the fields on their way out.  "Well, we don't/can't know".  OFC we can, don't be ridiculous....you're the one who decided to bring godman down to earth, after all.

That's ridiculous. I cannot make something 'untrue' because you do not believe the evidence that exists. I never said anything about 'we don't/can't know'. I believe the evidence and you don't. Is there a reason that the NT events could not be true despite the accounts?

[LadyForCamus]

Here's the thing that for me sinks you entirely-- you have a nearly impossible 2-step process: 1) claim that your intuitions and feelings represent knowledge of reality; 2) demonstrate that the intuitions and feelings of dozens of other cultures and thousands of subcultures do NOT represent knowledge of reality. That you will achieve that second step seems highly unlikely to anyone who isn't already a Christian.

Pshhh...SO. EASY.

1. They do because some philosophers say they do

2. The Bible

*bam* drops mike

[emoji56]

[SteveII]

And we're back to the "they really really believed it" excuse.

I simply responded to an attempt to suggest that the people who wrote the NT were mistaken or biased and pointed out there is no evidence for this so therefore...find another reason not to believe what the writers wrote.

[purplepurpose]

And we're back to the "they really really believed it" excuse.

I simply responded to an attempt to suggest that the people who wrote the NT were mistaken or biased and pointed out there is no evidence for this so therefore...find another reason not to believe what the writers wrote.

You like idea of surrendering you life for possible eternal servitude under the God.

Many people dislike such idea of eternal servitude because they would have to choke their earthly happines for invisible reward.

[LadyForCamus]

Why are you assuming that these documents are unbiased and thus objectively truthful?  These people were trying to build and spread a religion, correct?

Why would you want to build and spread a religion that was based on what you knew to be false? 

Are you serious?

[account_inactive]

Guys, guys...Scientology is the real religion.

Understand?

All hail Xenu.

Please remove your thetan from my ass.

You'll have to take more auditing classes first.

[SteveII]

Why would you want to build and spread a religion that was based on what you knew to be false? Is there any evidence or hint that might be the case in the 8-9 authors of the NT? The core belief of Jesus coming back from the dead is hardly an event to be mistaken or 'biased' with.

Because religion is power, especially in the ancient world?  And Jesus' resurrection is exactly the kind of event that fits the bill.  It's the ultimate "My messiah is better, more powerful than yours" trump card.

You cannot be this naive.

Can you back this theory up with an ounce of historical data that supports it? Please be sure to include the point at which people started to benefit from perpetuating a new, yet false religion. 

This is another example of dopey theories being repeated enough that people begin to believe they have merit--just because--"it must be so because I've seen this argument so used so many times.

[Jesster]

And what year, exactly, are those letters dated?  What's "just a few years" and how do you know, exactly?

You'd think if a dude was walking on freaking water, healing crowds of sick people, and doing water-to-wine party tricks, the Roman literature would be FULL FULL FULL of mention of him.  Instead, he's pretty much completely absent except by those who formed his church decades after his supposed death.

Are you sure the document evidence is as solid as you think it is?  Cuz I'm pretty sure it's not.

If you want to know the dates of 27 different documents, look them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

So, your reason why my belief is 'laughable' is...what? There would have been more surviving Roman literature on what happened in Palestine during the life of Jesus? That is the criteria for laughable??? You're sure the evidence of the NT is not solid, yet...nothing of substance has been forthcoming.

No. You drew the line so you get to abide by it as well. No more links for arguments unless you want to go back and change your mind about mine.