Choosing a faith

I don't believe that the Romans started pagan worship in the Temple. As far as I know they simply plundered it which is interesting but I don't think addresses your point. At any rate it would be at least about the Roman occupation of the Temple and in reference to the Babylonian occupation back in 589 BC.I suggest that it would be quite natural for Jesus to predict that the Temple would be desecrated prior to the more general invasion. As I said I contend that His prediction was based on His understanding of the political situation in His world then.I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews. I see it as Jesus saying that if you carry on with this violent revolution that the Romans will do what the Babylonians did 600 years earlier. So I agree that this would be an indicator that it was time to get out of Dodge.BTW, you said something about this suggesting a later writing. I just don't see that and in addition it is recorded as Him having said that not one stone would be left on another in regards to the Temple. As we know, there are still quite a few stones on top of one another. If any of these were written after the war then surely they wouldn't have included that statement.I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews. I see it as Jesus saying that if you carry on with this violent revolution that the Romans will do what the Babylonians did 600 years earlier. So I agree that this would be an indictor that it was time to get out of Dodge.

I don't know what you would agree to as evidence. Here is a wiki page that provides considerable support for what he wrote. Tacitus on JesusHere is one brief bit from that site.

quote:

---

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.

---

My concern is my ability to express my conclusions is not at the level of someone like yourself. Agreed The problem is though, when it comes to things that can't be concluded objectively we look at what information we have, and then subjectively conclude of how strongly we rate the material, and then come to our own conclusions. In many cases, such as the subject of this discussion, we all come to it with a bias which can't help, in spite of our best efforts, to influence our conclusions regardless of how critically we review the material.In many ways I suggest in looking at something like the resurrection of Jesus that I as a theist can look at it more objectively than an atheists can. As an atheist has decided that there is no cosmic intelligence involved in our existence then there can't be any reason to believe it to be historical. However, I as a theist can accept that it could possibly be historical and the look for more material to form a conclusion. I agree with all of that. In the case of the junior stone mason his purpose cna be formed by just wanting to get the job done so he can get on with what he wants to do, maybe he just ignores the assignment altogether or just maybe it does become his purpose, at least until it is finished, to do the best job that he can. The only place I take issue with any of that is that our basic nature is not a fixed point. I think that our basic nature is largely formed based on the lens through which we view our existence. However the lens is adjustable. Maybe someone grows up in a home where he is abused but as he gets older he marries into a family where he is treated like a beloved son or daughter. The individuals lens has been adjusted and likely alters hi/her purposes. Agreed. I think we're on the same page, it is just that you express it better.

Frankly, I'm not sure how you contend that the prophesy was changed. Also, I'm not that keen on calling it a prophesy as prophesy has in my view a suggestion of supernatural knowledge. I simply see Jesus as predicting what will happen if and when they go ahead with a military revolution.
Also the most likely prediction to be changed would be the one where no rock is left on another. Of course, but Jesus referred to it as paralleling the Babylonian situation to the Roman situation in which they lived. It is clear that he is referencing the Romans for the demolition. I'm not clear as to what comes at the end of what.Jesus conducted a counter Temple movement and that the current Temple culture was corrupt, a den of thieves even, and that era would end. Jesus saw Himself as the Temple replacement as the man who embodied the Word or nature of God and represented the return of Yahweh to the Jewish people for the world. There are several details like that in the Gospels that don't line up with one another. Different authors.AbE BTW, I'm impressed with you knowledge in all of this. Is this something that you have studied previously or are you just googling around. In either case you have a good grasp of it.

Agreed Sure that works great with questions that can be answered by science. It can't for example tell us who we should vote for in an election. Actually that used to be true but not in the last few decades. Look at the likes of Dom Crossan, Marcus Borg and the balance of the Jesus Seminar. Actually, (although I believe it's a decreasing number) there are many in the CoE. However, I would agree that if I didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus that I would refer to myself as Christian but simply one who believed in what Jesus taught. Yes, that leaves me with a bias, which of course doesn't mean that my beliefs are in error. But we both know that an historical event can't be proven so we have to decide for ourselves if what we do have written is sufficient for us to believe or not. No sense in running around that again. We simply disagree. Yes, and as a Christian I say thankfully so, and many of the past assumptions are being overturned such as the meaning of Matthew 24.

I did say theist as opposed to Christian, but you have a point. I was an agnostic for years but I never was atheistic. I just hadn't formed an opinion. I left agnosticism primarily from reading Mere Christianity. Over 20 years ago I decided that I wanted to put more thought into what I believed. It was relatively easy to accept the idea that God is about love and that we should live by the Golden Rule but then I started wondering about things like resurrection, miracles, how to understand the bible etc.I have shelves of books that I went through and was impressed by N T Wright in particular in his argument for the resurrection. I found that those like Borg and Crossan etc simply argued that it didn't happen because we know it can't happen. I was also interested in how it connected with the world as seen by science. Of course, resurrection requires a different law than the ones we know but I found that people like John Polkinghorne very helpful in finding where the Christianity and science can go together. This was a very helpful book in that regard. Testing Scripture - A Scientist Explores the BibleIt shows how we can understand the Bible while getting away from the idea of it being dictated by God.Anyway, that was kind of my journey.

I guess that you might say I was a social Christian. I accepted the gospel as such but largely rejected the supernatural. However, it just wasn't anything I thought about much if at all.I was busy with my job and raising kids.

Yes, I agree that Luke was written after Matthew and that Luke would be very familiar with what Matthew wrote. However, Matthew would hardly be the only source. Luke travelled with Paul and also spent time in Jerusalem while with Paul. Luke wouldn't just have used Matthew as a source.
Can you be specific as to what differences you are referring to? Actually I had Daniel 9 in mind. He was arguing against the revolution and who else are they going to revolt against. He is essentially saying that as the Babylonians did earlier, the Romans will destroy the Temple. No. He predicted the destruction of the Temple as a result of a violent revolution. Jesus said that the Temple authorities had turned the Temple into a den of thieves. He wanted reformation not destruction and part of the reformation would be that Gpd resides in the hearts of those who love Him and not is a Building.

The point wasn't about my view. I used the term theists simply as anyone who believes in a higher power but not one of any particular faith group. As a Christian of course I am biased. I believe that the resurrection is an historical event just as you believe it isn't. Firstly I'm not claiming objectivity. I don't throw out much of the Gospels at all. I simply recognize the fact that they were written by fallible human beings and there will be differences in the details. Just wondering about miracles. I think we would agree that the Earth was once completely lifeless. Basically dirt in one form or another. Now, out of that dirt we have sentient life. I know we have the evolutionary trail but isn't the fact that life exists fairly strong evidence of a miracle? Yet, many here still deny it.

That has to be true when you look at the people we elect. Nothing it seems is ever cut and dried. Everyone has a bias.

Hi Stile
I've read your post over twice and frankly I may have lost the plot. I have no idea of how to respond so I'll pick out this one part. I suppose that I see an atheist as holding their beliefs the way I hold mine. Yes I get it. I don't think that you'll agree with this but I see atheism as being synonymous with materialism meaning that there is nothing beyond the material. Is there evidence, (beyond that there is no evidence to support theism), in support of that position.It seems, by my experience here, that most atheists do seem to allow for the possibility of a higher power but due to a lack of evidence reject the idea.
I find that our existence from a completely material source requires an outside intelligence. In the end it is all belief.

Absolutely not. We both have. ...as did Bauckham. Yes, except that in all the other cases the movement died and there was nothing like the NT written about them
​

You were replying to Phat but linked it to me.You keep promoting the few atheists that argue that Jesus was only a mythical figure. YOu never quote theists who support your views.You keep saying that it is Christians who argue for the historicity of Jesus. so, hereere is an atheist, who also mentions other atheists the goes through the arguments against the historicity of Jesus and shows how nonsensical that view is. Atheistic Historian Examines Evidence for JesusHere is one quote from that link.

quote:

---

More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives. Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (1) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (2) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity. Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.

​

In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).

---

Actually I don't discard anything in the Bible. I do however agree that it is not a God dictated library of books, but 66 books written by fallible human beings. I also read the Bible as the very human story about the progressive understanding of the nature of God. I see the narrative concluding with Jesus.Jesus was a first century Jew dealing with 1st century Jews with a couple of exceptions that we know of. As a result I contend that we can't, as the church has done for far too long, simply read the Bible in contemporary terms. We need to do it in the context of the times and the culture that it was intended for.As a result of all this, it isn't simply choosing what I want to believe, but doing my best to understand it in a way that is consistent with the message that I understand Jesus to be giving in the Gospels.So as I have said numerous times, God can't be both the genocidal character sometimes seen in the OT as well as the one who says we are to love our enemies. Firstly, the point of religion including Christianity is not about getting to "The Good Place". In my view the point of Christianity is about serving God in this world by loving other, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoners etc. It is about forming a personal nature that is in line with my signature.I see it too as being grateful for my life, the lives of my loved ones and for that matter for life in general. I find that my faith does offer me a sense of gratitude. We have a prayer that is about giving of our time and assets with the reminder that "all things come of the Lord, of thine own have we given thee".Also on a practical level the church gives us a community through which we can do things we need organization for such as fund raising for local food banks, hospitals etc. We also were instrumental on bringing 3 Syrian families out of refugee camps and setting them up locally and getting them settled and self sufficient.We also are able to support each other in those times where we need support.And yes, I do believe that the ability to love and to receive love is a gift from God and understanding the nature and source of love is a gift that I receive from my Christian faith.Actually the Bible talks vey little about the next life until we get to Paul and Paul does so in reference to the resurrection. He talks about the renewal or the resurrection of all things, not just the simple heaven/hell options. The NT is clear that our lives here will have an impact on our lives in the next, but I am quite happy to leave it to a God that is loving, merciful and just as to how that plays out.We talk about truth. I agree that I can't know the truth in the way I know 2+2=4, but I am convinced of the truth of at least the basics of Christian belief. I could be wrong - but I don't think so. ABE - I just realized that as in the post below I managed to go back to an old post thinking it was current.

It is about the priorities in your life that represent what/whom you serve.
From what you say that the priorities in your life are your creature comforts. It isn't circular. Yes, the Bible has things that I agree represent God and His nature and then use that to argue against another writer in another time in a different book. You can take pretty much and book of non-fiction and you'll agree that some of it is correct, some parts a maybe and other parts where you believe they got it wrong. ...and I keep telling you where your presuppositions are wrong and yet you keep repeating them. When you keep asking the same questions why do you expect a different answer.ABE Sorry somehow it went back to an old post when I thought I was selecting a current one. Since i have taken the time to write it I guess I'll leave it.