Choosing a faith

I am having trouble sorting out what I have replied to and what I haven't, so I think I'll go back this far. Ya, you may be right as I had just gotten over that sickness whatever it was and then got hit with Covid. I imagine that the punishment is for the company I keep on this forum. I listed that earlier as a possibility. I'm afraid that I am not convinced of any motive though. Ya, some of those things are more than a little embarrassing. I'm not sure how you would have a miracle that leaves no doubt as anyone who wasn't right there would doubt it anyway. It seems to me, (same as IMHO), that life itself is a miracle and yet the majority here don't see it as such. I have consistently said that the "bad things" are the most difficult problem for Christians to deal with. Where I do see God is in the empathetic response in wanting to help those in need as a result of the bad things. ...so then it's ok to use "science of the gaps" as a argument. Of course science can fill in a lot of "hows' but that does not constitute evidence as to first cause. That is anything but a fact. In my business you always look for why an accident happened and never was the thought of it being the result of something God did. It meant learning everything you could so that you wouldn't make the same mistake.

I'll leave Percy to deal with that, but just on a point of fact relating to an earlier point, Bauckham says outright that Jesus did not give the Sermon on the Mount, it was created by whoever the author of Matthew was.
​

So in an "expert" appeal to authority, this author knows for a fact that Jesus was likely a fictional character and yet he can't even tell us who the author of Matthew was? He needs to brush up on his homework.

No Phat, Bauckham is GDR's expert not mine - he believes that Jesus was real and what is written in the gospel's is reliable. He's actually one of the better biblical scholars. Even so, he says that Jesus never said the Sermon on the Mount.

quote:

---

Richard John Bauckham FRSE FBA[1] (born 22 September 1946) is an English Anglican scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament studies, specialising in New Testament Christology and the Gospel of John. He is a senior scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.

​

Bauckham is a prolific author of books and journal articles. In 2006, Bauckham published his most widely-read work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, a book that defends the historical reliability of the gospels.

---

Richard Bauckham - Wikipedia

I would say that those three things are mindless.
I would *not* suggest that Dragonflies are mindless, however. See the distinction?We all know that Vegetables are or were at one point a living thing.
We all know that minerals are not alive
​

*Touche*But if you are implying that God preferred one people over others, why is that a bad thing? I'm not Jewish, but I have no problem being a stepchild. And what about Isaac and Ishmael?

My problem is that I keep trying to work with your view of what constitutes evidence. The Bible is a collection of books with hundreds of individuals collectively involved. Each book has its own style and written in tits own culture and time and with its own biases.In my view it is a history of the progressive understanding of God by humans. It concludes with the life of Jesus and His death and resurrection.Is it evidence and if not then why not. I'm not asking whether or not it is good or poor evidence but simply is it evidence at all. To a degree that is true, but the beliefs that I choose first are based on a holistic understanding of Jesus gained by understanding Him by reading the entire NT, and then reading about Him by numerous scholars and theologians including those who reject Him.With that foundational understanding in place, and with reading up on the time and culture I can assess individual passages and accounts using that lens. I'm sure that if Jesus had raised up a great army, won numerous battles, ruled nations etc we would have all of that kind of information as well. He was from the working poor, had no army and was executed. Yes, it was claimed that He was resurrected but saw His followers being denied and persecuted even to death by those in power. I clearly didn't word that well so I'll try again. Let's look at the Battle of Hastings. Yes we have hard evidence that the battle occurred. It is popularly believed that King Harold died by being shot in the eye as recorded at the time but the fact of which is disputed. Is the fact that someone recorded that evidence to be considered or is it not evidence as we don't have a body left to examine?

Is it evidence at all? Well of course it is, even a modern book of known pure fiction is evidence of something - the writer, the publisher, the plot etc etc. You need to be specific about what you're claiming that the book is evidence of, then show why it is.Every claim made for the bible as evidence of the existence of the supernatural can be rebutted with equally good argument that it is not. This is because everybody is looking at exactly the same data and forming a different opinion. And by everybody I mean those qualified to do so. The actual evidence - real evidence, not opinion and wishful thinking - is so lacking that believers can put any spin on it they prefer, but it's not based on actual evidence.Historians need to apply a scientific methodology to their work if they want to call what they do history. Otherwise what they're doing is theology and apologetics and that is mostly what we have.

You are correct. When there is no evidence you can reach no conclusions. You are incorrect. There is more than sufficient evidence of much ancient history. We know that Ramesses II, Sennacherib, Nebhuchadnezzar, Zedekiah, Alexandar the Great, Ptolemy, Caesar, Mark Anthony, Ptolemy and Genghis Ghan all existed because of the historical record they left behind. Of Jesus's historical record there is nothing, just inconsistent and contradictory religious stories. Even his primary evangelist never met him. Yes, deceptions are so obvious, especially back in 70 AD when people were so much more knowledgable, literate and perspicacious. It was prophecy:

quote:

---

As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.
  —Luke 21:6

---

My saying Pharisees when I should have said Sadducees didn't confuse anyone. So you're saying that in the years after the destruction of the Temple everyone forgot the Sadducees? I don't think so. And now you're contradicting what you just said about no one being left to explain a difference over theology with the Sadducees. You really should pick up a gospel synopsis sometime (puts the synoptic gospel passages side by side). It would be very illuminating for you. For example: All the synoptic gospels relate this story using the metaphor of the dove. They are not cross-correlative independent accounts. They aren't even contemporary sources but were written forty to a hundred years after the fact. Why are you seeking excuses for believing what you like? You don't need them. Everybody's fine with you believing whatever you like.The problem isn't what you believe but that you keep claiming evidence for what you believe, which you can't show. You instead keep making appeals for using dramatically reduced standards for what qualifies as evidence. If we applied your standards it would mean that all religions throughout all time are true, and many fairytales as well.--Percy​

That's a false equivalence. God told his preferred people to massacre the "stepchildren". In that case, Abraham chose his preferred son over his legitimate hier - and God told Abraham to kill his preferred son. What's your point?

It's as if you have no idea what evidence is. What you just described has no evidence. It's a rationalization you're offering in place of evidence. That was a reply to Tangle (Message 1105), not me, but I don't think you grasped my point because this isn't a response to it. My point is that you have no evidence. There's certainly no evidence Jesus ever spoke any of those words. You're using the fallacy of argument from authority. If N T Wright argues from evidence then your next move should be to describe that evidence in this thread. It's not possible that you believe I hold the same views as American fundamentalists, so I'm guessing that you're trying to say I'm arguing like an American fundamentalist. Or maybe you're saying something else, who can tell. You'll have to clarify. Reading it again, you pretty clearly said pretty much what I thought you said the first time I read it. You said that other messianic movements didn't make end times predictions but that Jesus did, and this is what you offered as answer to a request for evidence. Obviously making end times predictions is your yardstick for assessing the validity of a messianic movement. Your words were not twisted. Now you're adding an additional distinction, that Jesus's prophecies were not supernatural. That's absurd. Concerning the stories about Jesus it was all about the supernatural, from his faith healings to his walking on water to his turning water to wine to his prophecies. Rationalize all you like, but writing long after the fall of the Temple the words Matthew put in Jesus's mouth has him prophesying the fall of the Temple. What you actually said is quoted above. Now you're making a different point. Are you really going to claim Jesus was talking about only the Romans, not the end times? How about this passage that occurs shortly before Jesus declares the current generation will not pass away until it has all occurred:

quote:

---

And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
  —Matthew 24:31

---

Yeah, the Romans, right. The fall of the Temple was just one of the signs of the end times. The army behind the Temple's fall was unimportant to Jesus, especially the Romans. Render unto Caesar and all that.And you're stuck on drawing your evidence from the Bible. That is not a book of fact. It's full of both facts and fantasies. It's a typical holy book. What is prophecy but prediction in a religious context?By the way, if you click on the Peak Mode button of the message you're replying to you'll be able to quote the original markup. Couldn't find it in Daniel 7, but what you quote isn't what Mark quotes Jesus saying at all. Not even close.But for the sake of argument let's say that the words Mark has Jesus say actually appear somewhere in Daniel 7. Doesn't that make it even less likely that Mark is quoting what Jesus actually said? Then there's the question of how Mark, writing at least 40 years after Jesus, knew Jesus's exact words. Daniel 7 doesn't use the phrase "son of man." He uses the Aramaic phrase bar enash which means human being. Bible translators only used the phrase "son of man" because of its use in the NT. The connection you think you see is not for the reasons you think.But your purpose shouldn't be Bible analysis. You're supposed to be looking for evidence. Where is it? Is this to be your strategy, convincing people that the Bible is too evidence? Now you're forgetting about the Romans. Just earlier you were claiming it was all about the Romans. I never accept reading assignments, and especially not now. I've got a ton of coding to do when I finish this message. If N T Wright has evidence then you should present it in this thread.--Percy

If you are referencing the OT, keep in mind that there were no stepchildren at that point. The adoption papers were not signed until the crucifixion and even then the public-at-large were informed that they too could become stepchildren if only they accepted the Father. (Families are messy like that )And how on earth was Ishmael the legitimate heir? This gets interesting...

I am not keeping any of your made-up rubbish in mind.Your idea of Christians being step-children doesn't work. It would require God to reject His Chosen People unless they too accepted the resurrection of Jesus. You're fantasizing a Father who adopts you and disowns His natural children. Duh! He was the oldest son.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Firstly it isn't about asking to make my life, ( or for others in the congregation), better. It is about us being better people, not for any reward in this life or the next. The part that refers to the next life was formed by reading N T Wright when he writes about us living lives in the present as we anticipate how lives will be lived after the re-creation of all things.Part of the prayer is about leading lives of Christ like love. I know that I pray that but deep down I know I don't really want that. I think of Jesus praying in Gethsemane not to have to make a messianic statement by riding a colt into Jerusalem and openly confronting the Jewish authorities. He knew what would happen to anyone who did what He felt called to do. He did that on faith believing, through His understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, that this was His messianic calling. I have no doubt that I wouldn't have the guts to follow through with something like that.​ Good questions and there really isn't a good answer. At this point it comes down to faith, which goes to show how weak my own is. I believe that as a Christian I should be vegetarian, but it hasn't happened. I know I should be more generous than I am. The Bible says to to whom much is given much is expected. I have been given much and whatever the expectations are I have no doubt that I'm not living up to them.However, I do believe that God does give our lives meaning and purpose and that somehow there is meaning and purpose beyond the world as it is. I believe that on faith.

Yeh, well, what can I say...just embarrassing nonsense really, but that's apparently normal in your world. The fact that you - and, of course, no-one else in history - has an answer to this problem, never seems to matter. It's just left on the top bookshelf labeled "mysteries, do not touch". I haven't read what you say next but I bet I could have written it for you. humph. Yeh, we know what you believe, you tell us over and over. But why should anyone else care what you believe? Maybe it impresses your fellow believers but you're amongst the lions here - we want meat. How can you believe what you believe when such a fundamental piece of the logic behind the belief is so obviously terminally contradictory? Not just missing, but something that undermines the entire edifice of the belief in a loving god.There is no answer, but the attempted rationalisation involves the torture and murder of a person that's supposed to be a god but is also human in order to redeem the sins of other humans that the same god made sinful. The whole thing is simply preposterous.You believe because you believe, well fine, but here we want reasons, critical thought and evidence, not just pious waffle and belief statements.
​