Religious Background

[TheBeardedDude]

I never said everything requires interpretation. What I said is there are 2 options for the Bible:
1) literal (and that can't be true based on what we know about the universe, earth, and life)
2) interpretation, but with no objective standard to weigh one's interpretation against (and no evidence to substantiate your interpretation) you're left with a series of unverifiable beliefs that are indistinguishable from fiction/mythology. Considering how other mythologies work, Christianity fit it to the lowercase t (that's a crucifixion pun)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

1. If your hangup is on the first three chapters of Genesis, then you have to realize that many many Christians do not take the story to be literal. Augustine 1700 years ago did not think that the creation account was literal. There are good reasons to think the six days were not really six days.

a. not written in the same Hebrew as the rest of the book of Genesis--but in an older Hebrew.
b. poetic formulation of the versus
c. how it is clearly not meant to be in order because even by ancient reasoning, day and evening don't come before creating the sun.
d. How it very likely was the story passed down in order to draw a healthy distinction between other creation myths, where nature is endowed with spiritual qualities, to the correct view that the universe is an orderly thing not to be worshiped.

2. You are over-stating your case about interpretation. The core theology is quite easy to ascertain from the NT. Common sense and a little reading for context usually takes care of the rest. Perhaps give an example?? 

3. Since there are good reasons to believe the NT is true, the events described there are indeed distinguishable from mythology.

1) my "hang up" is with the Bible (New and Old Testaments). Not merely the first 3 chapters

2) the fact that you can find one Christian who will say one thing, while another Christian says the exact opposite. And each points to their Bible to justify their interpretation. (This is the fundamental reason there are so many denominations. So, if you want an example, look at literally any 2 Christian denominations and look for the differences in biblical interpretation)

3) did zombies roam the streets of Jerusalem on the day that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead? (Mark 27:52). Given that the NT has the same supernatural claims and stories as the old, and both are reminiscent of Greek and Roman mythology, you'll need to clarify how to distinguish between them. For instance, none of the NT stories about Jesus or Jesus' time were written by authors who witnessed any of it. So how do stories written no less than decades after they supposedly occurred, provide any validation to their claims? How do you know they are more than word-of-mouth stories that were distorted into legend? (Like with Johnny Appleseed or any other myth/legend?)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

[brewer]

Only 3. Good reasons to believe the NT is true, well it does refer to some places that we know existed at the time, for the rest, moot, please provide the evidence and then I will introduce you to Min.

Shit storm of fantasy rationalism a comin. Batten down the hatches.

[SteveII]

1. If your hangup is on the first three chapters of Genesis, then you have to realize that many many Christians do not take the story to be literal. Augustine 1700 years ago did not think that the creation account was literal. There are good reasons to think the six days were not really six days.

a. not written in the same Hebrew as the rest of the book of Genesis--but in an older Hebrew.
b. poetic formulation of the versus
c. how it is clearly not meant to be in order because even by ancient reasoning, day and evening don't come before creating the sun.
d. How it very likely was the story passed down in order to draw a healthy distinction between other creation myths, where nature is endowed with spiritual qualities, to the correct view that the universe is an orderly thing not to be worshiped.

2. You are over-stating your case about interpretation. The core theology is quite easy to ascertain from the NT. Common sense and a little reading for context usually takes care of the rest. Perhaps give an example?? 

3. Since there are good reasons to believe the NT is true, the events described there are indeed distinguishable from mythology.

Only 3. Good reasons to believe the NT is true, well it does refer to some places that we know existed at the time, for the rest, moot, please provide the evidence and then I will introduce you to Min.

Regarding the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus, we have plenty of evidence. 

1. The first NT documents were letters written to churches who already believed the overall theme of Christianity. So now we have two bodies (not pieces) of evidence: multiple churches existed throughout the Roman empire by 50AD and the documents written to them--believing the same thing about Jesus.
2. We also have documents that pre-date the gospels from which the gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) referred to (Q being one of them) --written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence to add to the fact that people believed the content just following Jesus' death.
3. We have the gospels themselves written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. More evidence for what people believed to be true.

The only evidence we will every get of events like this that happened in the first century is written. We can quite reasonably infer from the multiple sources of evidence that a large group of people (including the authors of the NT) believed what was written because they witnessed or knew and believed the witnesses of the events.

These facts make the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus the most attested to series of events in ancient history.

LOL about Min. I haven't seen one of his posts in years.

[SteveII]

1. If your hangup is on the first three chapters of Genesis, then you have to realize that many many Christians do not take the story to be literal. Augustine 1700 years ago did not think that the creation account was literal. There are good reasons to think the six days were not really six days.

a. not written in the same Hebrew as the rest of the book of Genesis--but in an older Hebrew.
b. poetic formulation of the versus
c. how it is clearly not meant to be in order because even by ancient reasoning, day and evening don't come before creating the sun.
d. How it very likely was the story passed down in order to draw a healthy distinction between other creation myths, where nature is endowed with spiritual qualities, to the correct view that the universe is an orderly thing not to be worshiped.

2. You are over-stating your case about interpretation. The core theology is quite easy to ascertain from the NT. Common sense and a little reading for context usually takes care of the rest. Perhaps give an example?? 

3. Since there are good reasons to believe the NT is true, the events described there are indeed distinguishable from mythology.

1) my "hang up" is with the Bible (New and Old Testaments). Not merely the first 3 chapters

2) the fact that you can find one Christian who will say one thing, while another Christian says the exact opposite. And each points to their Bible to justify their interpretation. (This is the fundamental reason there are so many denominations. So, if you want an example, look at literally any 2 Christian denominations and look for the differences in biblical interpretation)

3) did zombies roam the streets of Jerusalem on the day that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead? (Mark 27:52). Given that the NT has the same supernatural claims and stories as the old, and both are reminiscent of Greek and Roman mythology, you'll need to clarify how to distinguish between them. For instance, none of the NT stories about Jesus or Jesus' time were written by authors who witnessed any of it. So how do stories written no less than decades after they supposedly occurred, provide any validation to their claims? How do you know they are more than word-of-mouth stories that were distorted into legend? (Like with Johnny Appleseed or any other myth/legend?)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

2. That's seem like a pretty lame reason to reject Christianity. Obviously there will be differences in interpretation about minor things, but clearly there is a fairly large core that is agreed upon by all protestant churches. BTW, the vast majority of denominations were formed around cultural and church governance issues rather than doctrinal issues. 

3. Setting aside that that verse is in Matthew, yes, if people saw it, what right do I have to call them a liar? 

No, you have been reading to many atheist blogs. The NT has nothing at all in common with Greek or Roman mythology. The list of similarities are tortured and silly.

Why do you think that the people who wrote the stories were not eyewitnesses? There were many documents written before the gospels. The editors of the gospels could have been eyewitnesses themselves, known them, or sought them out. What we do know was that people believed the content of the gospels long before they were written (there were churches throughout the Roman empire by 50 AD). To many documents, too many people, too many facts to support the 'legend developed' hypothesis.

[TheBeardedDude]

1) my "hang up" is with the Bible (New and Old Testaments). Not merely the first 3 chapters

2) the fact that you can find one Christian who will say one thing, while another Christian says the exact opposite. And each points to their Bible to justify their interpretation. (This is the fundamental reason there are so many denominations. So, if you want an example, look at literally any 2 Christian denominations and look for the differences in biblical interpretation)

3) did zombies roam the streets of Jerusalem on the day that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead? (Mark 27:52). Given that the NT has the same supernatural claims and stories as the old, and both are reminiscent of Greek and Roman mythology, you'll need to clarify how to distinguish between them. For instance, none of the NT stories about Jesus or Jesus' time were written by authors who witnessed any of it. So how do stories written no less than decades after they supposedly occurred, provide any validation to their claims? How do you know they are more than word-of-mouth stories that were distorted into legend? (Like with Johnny Appleseed or any other myth/legend?)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

2. That's seem like a pretty lame reason to reject Christianity. Obviously there will be differences in interpretation about minor things, but clearly there is a fairly large core that is agreed upon by all protestant churches. BTW, the vast majority of denominations were formed around cultural and church governance issues rather than doctrinal issues. 

3. Setting aside that that verse is in Matthew, yes, if people saw it, what right do I have to call them a liar? 

No, you have been reading to many atheist blogs. The NT has nothing at all in common with Greek or Roman mythology. The list of similarities are tortured and silly.

Why do you think that the people who wrote the stories were not eyewitnesses? There were many documents written before the gospels. The editors of the gospels could have been eyewitnesses themselves, known them, or sought them out. What we do know was that people believed the content of the gospels long before they were written (there were churches throughout the Roman empire by 50 AD). To many documents, too many people, too many facts to support the 'legend developed' hypothesis.

Pt 2) it's not "the reason" I rejected Christianity or a god. It's one of many reasons that I started my questioning of my religion. Your opinion on it being "lame" isn't relevant.

Pt 3) people claim to have seen it. People also claim to have been abducted by aliens. They may sincerely believe it, and are therefore not really lying. But they also aren't telling a truth about the universe.

On the similarity with Greek and Roman mythology, I don't know what "atheist blogs" you're referring to. I mean that they present a man-like God with supernatural abilities who visits humans and wows them with magic. I'm not talking about any sort of Zeitgeist type (the movie) connection. Please stop assuming.

None of the NT books can be traced to earlier than 70 CE. That's at least 4 decades after Jesus supposedly died. So no, I don't believe any of the stories can validly be attributed to firsthand/eyewitness accounts. The closest you get is Paul claiming to have met Jesus' brother and Paul claiming to have had a vision (hallucination) of Jesus. That's it. That's not even convincing that he met Jesus' brother, let alone that any of the stories he wrote after it are accurate/true.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

[Wyrd of Gawd]

People keep ignoring history. There was a major war going on in Judea in 70AD. Tens of thousands of Jews were carted off to Rome as slaves to build the Colosseum. Jerusalem was destroyed. The idea that people were writing about Yesuha at that time is asinine.

[SteveII]

2. That's seem like a pretty lame reason to reject Christianity. Obviously there will be differences in interpretation about minor things, but clearly there is a fairly large core that is agreed upon by all protestant churches. BTW, the vast majority of denominations were formed around cultural and church governance issues rather than doctrinal issues. 

3. Setting aside that that verse is in Matthew, yes, if people saw it, what right do I have to call them a liar? 

No, you have been reading to many atheist blogs. The NT has nothing at all in common with Greek or Roman mythology. The list of similarities are tortured and silly.

Why do you think that the people who wrote the stories were not eyewitnesses? There were many documents written before the gospels. The editors of the gospels could have been eyewitnesses themselves, known them, or sought them out. What we do know was that people believed the content of the gospels long before they were written (there were churches throughout the Roman empire by 50 AD). To many documents, too many people, too many facts to support the 'legend developed' hypothesis.

Pt 2) it's not "the reason" I rejected Christianity or a god. It's one of many reasons that started my questioning of my religion. Your opinion on it being "lame" isn't relevant.

Pt 3) people claim to have seen it. People also claim to have been abducted by aliens. They may sincerely believe it, and are therefore not really lying. But they also aren't telling a truth about the universe.

On the similarity with Greek and Roman mythology, I don't know what "atheist blogs" you're referring to. I mean that they present a man-like God with supernatural abilities who visits humans and wows them with magic. I'm not talking about any sort of Zeitgeist-type (the movie) connection. Please stop assuming.

None of the NT books can be traced to earlier than 70 CE. That's at least 4 decades after Jesus supposedly died. So no, I don't believe any of the stories can validly be attributed to firsthand/eyewitness accounts. The closest you get is Paul claiming to have met Jesus' brother and Paul claiming to have had a vision (hallucination) of Jesus. That's it. That's not even convincing that he me Jesus' brother let alone that any of the stories he wrote after it are accurate/true.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

3. There are no similarities between the claims of the NT and that of an alien abductee. One person can be mistaken (or lying). Dozens or hundreds are no mistaken.

No, there is nothing even remotely similar to God coming to earth; teaching love, peace and redemption; and then, because it was the only way, died (paid other people's penalty) in order to bridge the gap so that people could have a personal relationship with him. If you think this has some basis in older mythology, give an example. Otherwise the objection was just a straw man. 

The Pauline epistles were almost all written in the 50s. Twenty years had past since Jesus' death and there were already churches spread from Jerusalem to Rome. Paul's language was constantly referring to their shared belief in Christ's death and resurrection. The existing church's theology, Paul's theology, the disciples theology and the gospels theology all match. John and Peter were both eyewitnesses and wrote books.

[Godscreated]

People keep ignoring history.  There was a major war going on in Judea in 70AD.  Tens of thousands of Jews were carted off to Rome as slaves to build the Colosseum.  Jerusalem was destroyed.  The idea that people were writing about Yesuha at that time is asinine.

During WWII C.S. Lewis was writing books, you think the battle at Jerusalem could compare to the bombing of England.

GC

[Wyrd of Gawd]

People keep ignoring history.  There was a major war going on in Judea in 70AD.  Tens of thousands of Jews were carted off to Rome as slaves to build the Colosseum.  Jerusalem was destroyed.  The idea that people were writing about Yesuha at that time is asinine.

During WWII C.S. Lewis was writing books, you think the battle at Jerusalem could compare to the bombing of England.

GC

Was Lewis writing books when bombs were falling around him?

[TheBeardedDude]

Pt 2) it's not "the reason" I rejected Christianity or a god. It's one of many reasons that started my questioning of my religion. Your opinion on it being "lame" isn't relevant.

Pt 3) people claim to have seen it. People also claim to have been abducted by aliens. They may sincerely believe it, and are therefore not really lying. But they also aren't telling a truth about the universe.

On the similarity with Greek and Roman mythology, I don't know what "atheist blogs" you're referring to. I mean that they present a man-like God with supernatural abilities who visits humans and wows them with magic. I'm not talking about any sort of Zeitgeist-type (the movie) connection. Please stop assuming.

None of the NT books can be traced to earlier than 70 CE. That's at least 4 decades after Jesus supposedly died. So no, I don't believe any of the stories can validly be attributed to firsthand/eyewitness accounts. The closest you get is Paul claiming to have met Jesus' brother and Paul claiming to have had a vision (hallucination) of Jesus. That's it. That's not even convincing that he me Jesus' brother let alone that any of the stories he wrote after it are accurate/true.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

3. There are no similarities between the claims of the NT and that of an alien abductee. One person can be mistaken (or lying). Dozens or hundreds are no mistaken.

No, there is nothing even remotely similar to God coming to earth; teaching love, peace and redemption; and then, because it was the only way, died (paid other people's penalty) in order to bridge the gap so that people could have a personal relationship with him. If you think this has some basis in older mythology, give an example. Otherwise the objection was just a straw man. 

The Pauline epistles were almost all written in the 50s. Twenty years had past since Jesus' death and there were already churches spread from Jerusalem to Rome. Paul's language was constantly referring to their shared belief in Christ's death and resurrection. The existing church's theology, Paul's theology, the disciples theology and the gospels theology all match. John and Peter were both eyewitnesses and wrote books.

Pt 3) there are similarities. People claim (without evidence) to have witnessed/experienced something extraordinary that (as far as we are aware) can't happen

I'm not constructing a straw man in comparing Christianity with alien abduction or other religious mythologies. They are comparisons. I didn't equate them, I compared them. They share core similarities with respect to how people believe in certain things that are fantastical and for which there is no evidence.

And while some of Paul's writings might have been earlier than 70 CE, none of the gospels are. And despite being written by maybe around 50 CE, that still means that no one wrote about the supposed events of Jesus' life while he was alive. So (at best) all you still have are stories passed down through hearsay. If I don't believe an alien abductee who claims firsthand experience being abducted by aliens, why would I accept hearsay claims about magic from 2,000 years ago? It's nonsensical


Cheers
TheBeardedDude