Hi Percy
I've combed through a very long series of psts by you and have tried to condense it down into the salient points. It's taken all afternoon and I have done what I can.
Percy writes:
I think everyone's fine with what you believe religiously. It's your belief that there's evidence for what you believe that people take issue with.
OK. I made the point earlier that it is clear that The Bible wasn’t written as fiction. It’s an historical book like so many others. Yes, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t completely fabricated, or that there isn’t any truth in it.
So then we can look at other sources to see if there is support for it. We can also consider the rise of the very early church.
There is no physical evidence, other than what is written that can be examined.
So it simply boils down to how much credence do we give the ancient texts. Obviously, in your case you give them very little or no credibility.
Percy writes:
The Bible is not a "historical account." It's a mishmash of fact, history, religion, fantasy, and fallacies that people thought true over 2000 years ago. You're correct about confidence depending upon cross-confirming accounts, but there are no such accounts for the religious stories in Bible, including the accounts in the NT.
Here is a site that outlines what constitutes historical evidence.
Types of historical evidence One of the statements is this. “All historical sources that have been written are considered written evidence. “.
Percy writes:
There are numerous reasons to know that . Here is Mark 13:14.________________________________________
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
________________________________________
Actually it's a reference to what had already happened, the destruction of the Temple and the retreat to the stronghold at Masada.
Wrong. It refers back to Daniel 12:11 where it talks about the abomination that causes desolation. Firstly Mark starts off with “when you see” which clearly shows it hasn’t happened yet and again why flee to the mountains, (Masada is by the Dead Sea and hardly in the mountains) if it has already happened?
Percy writes:
Yes indeedy. And you're not half bad at it. The conundrum is why you can't take the next step and see that all your thinking is arbitrary with respect to the Bible, and driven from within with respect to yourself.
That is the equivalent of walking into a library and reading a book and find that you are in disagreement with it and on that basis reject the other books in the library. The Bible is a library of 66 books by who knows how many authors, written within different eras, different styles, within different cultural circumstances and over hundreds of years.
Percy writes:
I think GDR's the one who should watch this. Ehrman says all the things we've been telling him about history in this thread. Ehrman focuses on the resurrection, but the principles he describes apply to everything in the past, which includes all aspects of Jesus's life, including his very existence.
From an amazon site detailing the point of Ehrman’s book
Did Jesus ExistFrom that site
quote:
In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.
Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.
Maybe you should read it.
Percy writes:
It was prophecy
Prophesy implies divine inspiration. A prediction is simply looking at the situation and forming a conclusion on its outcome.
Percy writes:
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.
My point was simply that you largely seem to insist that I should understand the Bible as a fundamentalist would, and then argue from that perspective.
Percy writes:
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.
Christians have generally made the claim that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God. The Gospels have many accounts of Him praying to the Father. However, the Gospels also paint a picture of a man who had a unique connection the one He called Father. However, Jesus was a man who lived with fear, hunger, pain etc, but He also live by faith in the Father, and gained His understanding through the Hebrew Scripture and prayer. The miracles were a response by God to the prayers and faith of Jesus.
Percy writes:
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.
This is something of connecting verse between two thoughts. Firstly it confirms His message opposing violent revolution and will be the vindication of Jesus as Messiah, (the anointed one of Yahweh), Then it His message is again in reference to Daniel 7 where the “Ancient of Days” establishes the Kingdom, from all corners of the world, with dominion given to the Son of Man. He draws a parallel between this and Moses meeting Yahweh at the top of Mount Sanai after being summoned by a loud trumpet.
Percy writes:
Bauckham? The Anglican scholar? And he's got objective evidence of eyewitnesses that would persuade anyone regardless of their religious background or lack thereof? Bring it on, by all means.
He wrote that 650 page book, full size not pocket book size, where he outlines the evidence. There is no way and can condense it down into a post here. If you really are interested, which I question, then read the book. (This is not an assignement but just information in case you really are interested.
GDR writes:
Sure, he is talking about his road to Damascus experience but he also spent considerable time with the apostles in Judea.
Percy writes:
Where in the Bible does it describe this? I'm just trying to hold you to what your book actually says.
Acts 9:15 to the end of the Chap. Also another occasion in Acts 21.
Percy writes:
I'd still like to see you back up your claim that you can argue the existence of God using the worst qualities of our world.
I don’t know where you get that from. I have said that the suffering in the world, particularly from natural disasters, is the most difficult subject we have when arguing for Christianity. Where I do see God in tragedies is in the response of those who sacrificially reach out to help those who suffer.
Percy writes:
And atheists are just like you in accepting the possibility of historical evidence. But when someone like yourself says that such evidence exists but presents religious apologetics and says, "Here's your evidence," anyone capable of assessing evidence (not just atheists) would quite correctly point out that all you've presented is religious apologetics.
We understand it feels very real to you, but the past is full of quite brilliant people who believed real things that were very much not real. Percival Lowell firmly believed there were canals on Mars. Arthur Conan Doyle firmly believed in ghosts and fairies and and so forth. But despite all the believers and all that's been written on the subjects, there's no more evidence for ghosts or Martian canals than there is for Jesus.
..and you and others are apologists for antitheism. Materialists believe that sentient life can by chance come from mindless matter without objective evidence.
Percy writes:
If Jesus and everything about him in the gospels were true then Jesus's fame would have exploded out of the gates. But it didn't. It instead took decades before the early Christian evangelists hit upon a set of stories that captured people's imaginations.
People in that era weren’t necessarily impressed by miracles. Some of the Jews accused Him of being an agent for the evil one. There were multiple stories of miracles. Remember too that each nation had its own set of deities with miraculous stories. [url=
miracle - Miracles in the religions of the world | Britannica[]Miracles in various religions[/url]
Percy writes:
The Bible tells you about Jesus, then you take what those parts of the Bible tell you about Jesus to decide what parts of the Bible to accept, then you take what those parts of the Bible tell you about Jesus to decide what parts of the Bible to accept, then you take what those parts of the Bible tell you about Jesus to decide what parts of the Bible to accept,...
Circular.
..and again, the Bible is a library of books and it is not circular to take something from one book as a lens to understanding ad different book. The Bible is not one book but does have an ongoing narrative of the progressive understanding of the nature of God.
Percy writes:
And very negative social changes, too. Right now evangelicals in the states are trying to beat down the division between church and state. They're insisting that this is a Christian nation in a thinly disguised attempt to get Christianity preferential treatment and create a state sponsored religion. Hey, combining religion and government, what could go wrong? The Handmaid's Tale is just fiction and not instructive, right? The Spanish Inquisition was merely curious about things, and the Pope during WWII wasn't really complicit, right? And even if he was, protestant America was wonderfully welcoming to Jews trying to flee Europe, just don't mention the St. Louis.
There should be a barrier between church and state as it is a disaster for both institutions. However, I see that had been used to promote and agenda that the views of those of any religious organization are marginalized and that only secularist views should have influence.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8
™ Version 4.2
(1)