The Hard Questions

[ph1l]

One person I have personally found to be a good scholar on the subject is Lee Strobel. He was an atheist and an investigative journalist for 14 years with the Chicago Tribune. He has degrees from the University of Missouri and Yale Law School

He has written a detailed account of how he decided to investigate Christianity to prove it wrong and ended up becoming a believer.

At 5:31 in the video, He says "But what I had to accept it as being, which it undeniably is, is a set of ancient historical documents. And I knew that historians had criteria that they could apply to determine whether or not these documents are trustworthy. So those are the kind of people I pursued."

The people he pursued had titles like Professor of New Testament and Bishop.

One might conclude something else without that assumption and investigative path.

There are alternative theories like:

 

[studentofthemarkets]

At 5:31 in the video, He says "But what I had to accept it as being, which it undeniably is, is a set of ancient historical documents. And I knew that historians had criteria that they could apply to determine whether or not these documents are trustworthy. So those are the kind of people I pursued."

The people he pursued had titles like Professor of New Testament and Bishop.

One might conclude something else without that assumption and investigative path.

There are alternative theories like:

Just want to point out that a little ways down in the comment section for the you tube video Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, posted by ph1l in the previous post, and based on the book with the same title by Joseph Atwell, there is a link to a "non- Christian take down of this ridiculous theory."

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664
Richard Carrier's response begins as follows:

"Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university."

 

[expiated]

Just want to point out that a little ways down in the comment section for the you tube video Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, posted by ph1l in the previous post, and based on the book with the same title by Joseph Atwell, there is a link to a "non- Christian take down of this ridiculous theory."

I almost responded to ph1's post with the question: "Yeah, but are the alternative theories credible?" However, I chose not to because I was unwilling to review the video, the reason being that I have no desire to waste my time with such nonsense. I say that without seeing the video because I'm informed enough about the facts to know that anything arguing against them is pure zaniness. But someone can always say, "How can you dismiss the presentation without even looking at it?"

There are ALWAYS alternative theories to anything! I've come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, those who are inclined to believe them either don't know enough for the contradictory evidence I might show them to make it obvious how silly the claims are, or simply want to believe the theories and are therefore going to stick with them no matter how much evidence I present otherwise.

Either way, with the outcome already a forgone conclusion, I've more-or-less ceased responding at all. Thankfully, there are people like you who are still willing to give it a shot.

 

[stu]

What Stu wrote is in blue and smaller letters. My response is black and larger.
First of all, thanks for the civil response. It's especially refreshing to be able to have an exchange with you without the usual insults that seem to have invariably accompanied conversations with others on this subject.

I feel the same. There’s really no point in adding personal attacks to a rational discussion. And thanks for giving a well-thought out response.

I've read through your log and after doing so have to say dude, if you are only going to argue in the form of "Scripture" It's what it says so it must be true, then we ain't going to get very far.

A way to think about it is that neither of us were there thousands of years ago at creation, or in your view, millions of years ago when something came from nothing. So, as in any event that took place in the past, we have to look for “evidences.” Courts use written records, pictures of damages, witnesses, expert witnesses, etc to be believable enough to be considered for a possible conviction. Jurors might be misled and convict an innocent or let a guilty person go free, but they have to work with what is supplied to them.

In the same way, I do not think it at all unreliable, unsound, or unreasonable to view the Jewish writings as historical documents of the history of their own people. If one thinks of it as their prophets giving witnesses to things that God had told them, then you have “witnesses” who were also bound by their own law NOT to lie to another and contained harsh warnings for anyone attempting to make up revelations not direct from God. So, as in a court case, there is evidence. Regarding the evaluation of the character of the witnesses, they have been presented as being trustworthy.

One thing I’m trying to show by using the Scriptures foretelling of Jesus is that there is a common theme written throughout the hundreds of years spanning the writings of Scripture. This by itself is an evidence. Think of a lawyer presenting his witnesses in a courtroom. He calls up prophet after prophet who wrote describing God’s revelations to them. The revelations reveal the SAME God being revealed to each prophet. The same, everlasting Good Character who will not tolerate sin, yet offers forgiveness.

AND many of them have a common theme of talking of a future coming Messiah. Jews acknowledge the multiple prophecies of a coming one to rule the world, their Messiah. Christians see that, believe that, but have also come to understand these ancient prophecies have foretold a “Suffering” Messiah as well….which is understood as being fulfilled by Jesus in his First coming and yet to be fulfilled in His second coming.

AND to have a specific event, or even several events take place in Jesus’ life that were written before by prophets who said they spoke for God….well, it’s NOT unsound or unreasonable to give careful consideration to them as “WITNESSES.” If a court can use people as witnesses for determining guilt or innocence, then it’s a valid method for determining actions that happened in the past. Now, that doesn’t mean just because someone says they are a witness, that what they say is true. Everything has to be evaluated for it’s believablility...in court as well as in life and certainly in this discussion.

So, I’m presenting this to you. You will make the decision of whether or not you will accept it’s validity, for yourself. But what you or I decide, does not determine it’s validity. What we believe has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it’s true.

To be fair though, I do appreciate you've given some explanation of reasons why you believe in God, but I do find they come accross as unreliable, unsound and unreasonable.

What I'm saying is, the Bible is a collection of (fictional)stories and you are using the contents of those stories as evidences that they are true. So we're still doing... the Bible's true because the Bible's true... thing.


To address a couple of your examples which I understand form the crux of your position.

It's true peeps carried out animal sacrifices for centuries before Bible God, and during the time when authors started writing stories about Bible God they were doing the same.

The bizarre tale about God talking to a snake (ie "protoevangelium", religion likes to use big words for its absurdities), has God first requiring animal sacrifice before he gets round to killing himself in the form of a human sacrifice while he was being Jesus.

But of course any author can write a so called prophecy like this one and fulfill it later in the story. You can't use the story as "evidences" that the story is true. That's just silly .

What? Did I understand you correctly? “any author can write a so called prophecy like this one and fulfill it later in the story”

That’s right! Just like anything you read, the author can make a prophecy and fulfill it. In this case, the people authors spanned several hundreds of years, claimed God told them what to write, that He was the Author….and God DID fulfill His own prophecy.

What’s also amazing is that SO MANY witnesses, or authors, had a part being the mouth for God in predicting Jesus.

Similarly with your argument that the Bible declares a "God with us" Jesus character will be born in Bethlehem, then tada, in the very same Bible, the "God with us" Jesus character is born in Bethlehem. What? If that is a prophesy fulfilled, anyone can do it. Write a story, make a prophesy in it, then a few pages later, or even in a separate story altogether, make it come true.

Anyone can write a prophecy and make it happen? Micah, the verse in my earlier post was written around 700 B.C. and is accepted by the Jewish people of today as being from their prophets.

It is not anything like you have a rational let alone logical argument here dude.

OK, if you weren’t going to listen to Micah, a witness from 700 years before Jesus was born who told that the Ruler of Israel would be born in Bethlehem and that He existed previously, then maybe you will consider this:

Isaiah, a different “witness,” wrote between 740 B.C and c. 686 B.C. The book of Isaiah in chapter 53 details a coming Substitute for sin:

4 Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.

5 But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we are healed.

6 We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of us all.

Let me interject here that as Jesus was was dying on the cross, He was praying and interceding for all and specifically for those who crucified Him. “Jesus kept saying, “Father, forgive them, because they don’t know what they’re doing.” Luke 23:34 International Standard Version

I took the Isaiah 53 translation and link below from a Jewish (not Christian) site to show that the book of Isaiah and this translation is respected by the Jewish community as an accurate translation.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15984

I know someone who is a Jew who converted to Christianity. He told a group of us that he read this passage from Isaiah to his mother. She responded by getting upset with him for talking to her about his new belief in Jesus. She was very surprised to find out that it came from the book of Isaiah, which is a book, or I think he said scroll, that is kept in her synagogue. The point, once again, is that it's not like Jesus or his disciples inserted these prophecies into the Scriptures also held sacred by Judaism.

Another thing to think about is that all the early disciples and the large number of those who first became Christians were Jewish. They would have known the Scriptures well and known if they had been tinkered with. But what happened is that many believed and some even gave their lives for that belief.

I feel sure religious faith would encourage you to believe otherwise and that's ok if it's what rocks your boat, but if you are to be honest, it's most likely just not going to be possible for you to support what you believe with any reasoning.

On your end points, I really don't think your assertion that something cannot come out of nothing because it would take an Imaginary Giant Sky Goblin to intelligently magic everything, is at all compelling.

OK, but remember, it’s not dependent on what you or I want to “think.”

The law of conservation of mass states that matter is neither created nor destroyed.

The law of the conservation of energy is that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

These were combined after Albert Einstein discovered that the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant. https://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/Law-Cons-Mass-Energy.html


Is it more reasonable to believe that God has always existed and willed to bring forth creation, so that our matter and energy came from a Source, or to believe that contrary scientific laws, matter and energy came about from nothing?

Nevertheless, many thanks too for the discussion. I'm open to hearing any logical and reasonable reasons why Christians believe the Bible. But ones other than the reliance upon blind uncompromising religious faith please, which serves only to distort and delude what would otherwise render itself to be no more than fiction, fantasy and fairy tale.

I believe what I’ve presented is logical and reasonable. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to defend my faith from the accusation that it is unreasonable.

Many thanks for your response.

My intention has been to invite you to expand on the "evidences" for why you have religious faith. However, I feel unless you can reply directly to the points I'm raising, there is a danger this turns into nothing but reiteration, which is not going to take our conversation anywhere.

When I raise objection to something you post, I do think it would help me understand more how what you saying might not be so unreliable, unsound, or unreasonable, if you would tackle the substance of my objections, rather than simply repeat or revise the original point you made.

Despite your extensive reply we are still unfortunately at...

The Bible is not true just because the Bible says it is true.
'Prophets' are not true just because they tell a same or a similar tale.
'Prophets' are not true just because they write their prophesy by dating it hundreds of years prior to the prophesy they then write as fulfilled.
"Witnesses" are not made true just because the witness says what they write is true.
"Witnesses" are not made true by merely describing what they write or others say, is that which an imaginary God told them to write.

The phrase 'false prophets' stands for good reason.

The law of conservation of mass states that matter is neither created nor destroyed.

The law of the conservation of energy is that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

You brought up a universe from nothing. You didn't present an argument for an eternal universe which you've done now.
The universe actually exists, which I suggest counts as a pretty strong "evidences" for it.
On the other hand, God can only be imagined, and accordingly cannot even be shown to exist, let alone shown to be eternal.
That's quite unlike how the universe could well be eternal, which you have supplied far more sound and credible evidence for here.

I believe what I’ve presented is logical and reasonable. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to defend my faith from the accusation that it is unreasonable.

In the way Lee Strobel who you linked to, and the serial proselytizing expiated does, y'all put the horse before the cart, by first presuming the answer as the means to handle the question.

In this and my previous posts to you, I've given some reason why what you've presented is not logical or reasonable and it would be cool if you could address those reasons more directly.
Nevertheless, thank you again for the respectful discussion.

 

[stu]

I thought only God judges and rules. What's with all these other people passing judgement and dictating rules?

Strong evidence for how man made God in his own image.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Strong evidence for how man made God in his own image.

I'm inclined to accept this as more likely than not, at least for the traditional God as it is being told by organized religion. There may be some greater being, energy, call it what you like, but the God who stands in judgment of his own creation handing out rewards and punishment is ridiculous. Only a human looking for some way to even the score for all the injustices in the world would come up with that.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

Many thanks for your response.

My intention has been to invite you to expand on the "evidences" for why you have religious faith. However, I feel unless you can reply directly to the points I'm raising, there is a danger this turns into nothing but reiteration, which is not going to take our conversation anywhere.

When I raise objection to something you post, I do think it would help me understand more how what you saying might not be so unreliable, unsound, or unreasonable, if you would tackle the substance of my objections, rather than simply repeat or revise the original point you made.

Despite your extensive reply we are still unfortunately at...

The Bible is not true just because the Bible says it is true.
'Prophets' are not true just because they tell a same or a similar tale.
'Prophets' are not true just because they write their prophesy by dating it hundreds of years prior to the prophesy they then write as fulfilled.
"Witnesses" are not made true just because the witness says what they write is true.
"Witnesses" are not made true by merely describing what they write or others say, is that which an imaginary God told them to write.

The phrase 'false prophets' stands for good reason.



You brought up a universe from nothing. You didn't present an argument for an eternal universe which you've done now.
The universe actually exists, which I suggest counts as a pretty strong "evidences" for it.
On the other hand, God can only be imagined, and accordingly cannot even be shown to exist, let alone shown to be eternal.
That's quite unlike how the universe could well be eternal, which you have supplied far more sound and credible evidence for here.




In the way Lee Strobel who you linked to, and the serial proselytizing expiated does, y'all put the horse before the cart, by first presuming the answer as the means to handle the question.

In this and my previous posts to you, I've given some reason why what you've presented is not logical or reasonable and it would be cool if you could address those reasons more directly.
Nevertheless, thank you again for the respectful discussion.

Thank you, also, for keeping the discussion respectful.

Before I respond to your reply, it would help me out to understand your position better if you would explain what basis you have for your belief that:

Stu wrote: 'Prophets' are not true just because they write their prophesy by dating it hundreds of years prior to the prophesy they then write as fulfilled.

I showed 2 proofs that the prophets DID write in their time, and you did not provide any evidence whatsoever to contradict my evidences.

My evidences were:

1. By using a Jewish, non Christian site, I showed that both the prophecy of Micah and the prophecy of Isaiah are contained in the historical documents that Jews accept as coming from before the period of time of Christ, generally accepted to be about 700 B.C.

This is strong proof, just as strong as any proof can be that would hold up in a court of law, because of the amount of people, even the entire Israeli nation that held to these Scriptures before Jesus was born, while Jesus was on earth and up to the present time.

2. By implication, this provides another strong PROOF, that the prophecies could not have been written after Jesus was born because the majority of the Jewish leaders and Jewish people have NOT been followers of Jesus during the time Jesus was alive on this earth and in the years between then and now and they would NOT have accepted tampering with their ancient Scriptures by Jesus, His disciples or the Christians that later came to follow Him.

3. If indeed those prophecies were written at the time that they are generally believed to be written in, the two I specifically mentioned were written around 700 B.C., then the evidences that there are specific events that apply directly to what happened to Jesus, both at His birth (a mere person can't dictate his own birthplace) and His death, as well as many other prophesies that show similar specific details that came to be fulfilled in Jesus, become proofs that are also MIRACULOUS in that God foretold details of the plan for Jesus to come to be our Savior.

Point number 3 is the crux of the matter. Evidences point to it. However, it becomes a heart issue as well, because if one believes point number 3 is correct simply based on evidences, then when one examines what Jesus taught, one finds that that there is the issue of personal reconciliation with God needed and that comes through faith in Jesus. Another way to put it is that "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13 To ignore such a great plan of salvation has severe consequences, because it is rejecting the sacrificial death of One who is described as being the Ruler and existing before, coming from ancient days. As shown in a previous post, Micah 5:2 says, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” Micah 5:2

Jurors can choose to believe or disregard a witnesses account, or any piece of evidence. They are supposed to make that choice by taking into consideration all the factors presented and discerning what is reliable and what is unreliable evidence. In the same way, I have presented facts, even the same quality of evidences as would stand up in a court of law. However, you are dismissing them as unreliable evidences, yet you have not disproven points 1 or 2, or even addressed them other than to say: "by dating it hundreds of years prior to the prophesy."

As stated earlier, I will respond to the rest of your reply after you clarify your reasons for not accepting these evidences.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I debated whether to respond to your post. Perhaps it is a mistake, but I'm going to go ahead and do so...

"Nice story..." can be applied to God as much as to heaven, so I'm struggling to understand from what point of view you are writing your comments. Why would you think only God judges and rules if there is no heaven, in which case, it would follow that there is no God who is judging and ruling, or at least, not the God of the Bible?

If you mean that you know there is no God, but you thought that Christians believe only the God of the Bible judges and rules, from where are you getting that? The Bible itself is the primary evidence on which I personally base my belief in Yahweh and what I understand Him to be like. And according to this document, God intended for human beings to rule from the very beginning. For God said...

"Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

And of course, there is...

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it..."

2 Timothy 2:12A says to believers "...if we endure, we will also rein with him."

In Revelation 3:21, Jesus says "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne."

Revelation 22:5B states: "They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever."

The parable of the ten minas in the 19th chapter of Luke implies that Jesus will give his followers authority in heaven in accordance with what kind of stewards they were for God while here on the earth.

And in 1 Corinthians 6 the Apostle Paul asks, "Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels?

I can't tell if you are basing what you believe about spiritual things from one or more sources, or if you are just making it up yourself. But being someone who is relatively familiar with Scripture, it doesn't sound to me like you are basing it on the Bible.

No, my opinion is not based on scripture. I don't know is there is or isn't a God as described in the Bible. It seems unlikely to me, but I do not know one way or the other with certainty. I respect your right to believe what you will, but IMO evidence is lacking for conclusive proof on either side of the argument.
This is a debate I rarely engage in the message board type forum. Too many misconceptions and misunderstandings occur. I prefer this topic, which truly interests me, to be discussed face to face with people of varying opinions. For that reason I'll leave you to your discussion with others and meant no disrespect to your beliefs.

 

[expiated]

I prefer this topic, which truly interests me, to be discussed face to face with people of varying opinions. For that reason I'll leave you to your discussion with others and meant no disrespect to your beliefs.

If this topic truly interests you, then I'm glad I opted to respond to your question (i.e., I thought only God judges and rules. What's with all these other people passing judgement and dictating rules?)

As for disrespecting my beliefs, I'm not sure to what degree that is possible, since (other than my believing that God truly exists) you probably are not all that aware of what my beliefs are, as implied by your stating that you "suppose we all need something to hang on to during difficult times," which has absolutely nothing to do with why I believe heaven exists, and perhaps reflects your comment that "too many misconceptions and misunderstandings occur."

My goal was simply to clarify that other people judging and ruling in no way violates God's plan as described in the Bible (because your question gave me the impression that you thought it did).

(P.S. If I felt you were being disrespectful, I wouldn't have bothered responding at all, so no problem in that area as far as I'm concerned.)

 

[ph1l]

I was unwilling to review the video, the reason being that I have no desire to waste my time with such nonsense. I say that without seeing the video because I'm informed enough about the facts to know that anything arguing against them is pure zaniness. But someone can always say, "How can you dismiss the presentation without even looking at it?"

There are ALWAYS alternative theories to anything! I've come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, those who are inclined to believe them either don't know enough for the contradictory evidence I might show them to make it obvious how silly the claims are, or simply want to believe the theories and are therefore going to stick with them no matter how much evidence I present otherwise.

Some people are not open to reviewing alternate theories, and I respect that you appear to agree with

from this book