Gospel Dating & Reliability

[Deesse23]

Sounds familiar, let's date something later because we can't have someone predicting the future with any sort of accuracy.

I see Steve still is poisoning wells. A part of so called "scorched earth apologetics".

[Minimalist]

1 Corinthians 15:14 (English Standard Version):

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

There you  go, Stevie.  NOW you have your answer!

[Bucky Ball]

1 Corinthians 15:14 (English Standard Version):

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

There you  go, Stevie.  NOW you have your answer!

Very true, but Paul also says Jesus was "exalted" not "raised". Paul was a Jew, and Jewish Apocalyptic heroes were "exalted", (as were the 7 sons of Hannah).
He uses the same word in Greek that Luke used when he said "this child shall be the *rise* and fall of many in Israel. A relative status change. He did not say Jesus rose from the dead physically.
The Jews had no history or tradition of anyone rising from the dead. Some Jewish sects believed in resurrection, but they were ALL "at the end of times". No Jew ever rose from the dead.


When Paul first talks about the resurrection, other than himself as a "revealed" thing, he says that he "appeared to Cephas". The word "appeared", is an ok translation but not exactly correct, in context. The Greek word is "ophthe". It has a *passive* element. In English it is an intransitive verb. "Appeared" is a word which means "to become visible", or "was made visible", or "became apparent". The Greek verb is the past tense of the passive verb "horao", "to see", ("was seen"). The passive translation is "The Anointed has been seen by Cephas". HOWEVER, normally a Greek translation of "by whom" would be translated in Greek using the "hypo" (preposition), to indicate "agency". THAT is not here, in the Greek. It really should be translated as "The Anointed has been seen FOR the advantage of Cephas or to BENEFIT Cephas, or for Cephas' *Advantage*". It does NOT mean "Cephas saw the Anointed". It means the "Anointed was made manifest for Cephas' advantage".
That begins to look very different, than Cephas seeing something. It's more like Paul's vision. There are many examples of these kinds of misuse, and mistranslations, due to assumed cultural overlay, which when translated correctly, make the entire picture look very very different, especially in terms of the many "sightings" of various beings, and mysterious things, in both the Old and New Testaments. The most famous of these "shifts" is the sighting of Moses of Yahweh in the burning bush, where the angel shifts into the bush and is also "seen for" Yahweh, when Abraham moves from Ur, (which Philo of Alexandria talks about around 20-50 CE, in "On Abraham"). There is NO physical "seeing". The correct translations all mean "seeing in the mind". It's a MENTAL change. Guess what ? PAUL's "blinding", and the "new seeing" is an EXACT correlation of these prior Biblical "manifestations", and any Jew or Christian, or Greek of the day would conflate these various "manifestations", "blindings", "and then seeings" as METAPHOR, for a mental attitude change. The same verbs, and words are used. Pauls blinding and then seeing" was equated, as Abraham's "vision", where his "mind saw again with it's recovered sight". Just like Paul. Paul "saw" with a different "sight". It was NOT a physical thing. It was a metaphor for a mental change. THAT is how he "*saw* the Anointed One". It like we say, "oh, ok, I get it, now". He did not intend to say he physically "saw" the Anointed One. It means "I have come to understand the Anointed One". In 1 Corinthians 9:1-2, in defending his apostleship, he appeals to his new "seeing". "Have I not seen the Lord". That means that a requirement for apostleship, one has to have "seen the light Lord". But here he changes the passive past tense, to active verb. He means the "seeing" has an ONGOING present continuing "influence". It's all missed in translation, usually.

Ref: Dr. B.B. Scott, "Progressive Christian", "The Troubge With Resurrection", Prof of NT at a Christian seminary in Oklahoma.

[SteveII]

the answer is not much. 

Edited for brevity, and isn't this what I've been suggesting?  

That like every other detail discussed in these last few pages the nonexistence of a christian prophecy in the ot nor the inaccuracy of prophetic details in general would modify your position on the larger issue.  Your religious beliefs, what you actually believe and your level of certainty in it, doesn't appear to have anything to do with any of your justifications for it thusfar - but I assume there actually is one.  

You mentioned in the full response that god knew the whole story before it began, and maybe so, but as far as I know I'm not questioning a god. I'm questioning you, and your response to the suggestion and to demonstrations that you know nothing of The Story is...as you put it above, not much.  

Why not skip any pretense to fealty in the text or the accuracy of it's details, these disposable defenses, and get straight to talking about what you actually believe and why you actually believe it?

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling. Put me in the category of "all of the above" with an emphasis on the last one.

I pray, read my Bible, attend church, small group, organize missions trips, give, serve on the board, etc. But the Christian life is more than just a check list or an appearance of commitment. I have an ongoing sense that God is interested in me and wants me to depend on him. I have more and more over the years. It creates an appreciation, humility, peace and more compassion for people than I have in the past. My perspectives have shifted. We have had some terrible tragedy in our family (a very young niece died when my sister's house burned to the ground recently). I have siblings who have made painful messes of their lives. My beliefs give me the basis for hope--not just in an afterlife, but that our dash between the dates has purpose and value as well.

But to your last question, the basics of the NT have to be true just as 1 Corinthians 15:14 points out: "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." So there are certain facts, theological claims, and promises that must be true. But I am convinced there is plenty of evidence for God beyond 'mere Christianity' and the Bible is a highly reliable source for all essential doctrines.

[Rhythmcs]

That's good stuff.  I assume that there are alot of people who find the character or message of christ compelling.  I'd put that in the category of "if god didn't say this or do this, he should have".  

I am confused, though, that was a wonderful list of all the things your religious beliefs have helped you to create - but if you were as insistent on the accuracy of the stories as that quote would entail then it would seem that your beliefs and your life would change by very much, if you ever came to believe that you were wrong about any of these things you've shared with us.  The life you've built and those desirable goods you mentioned would all disappear if you found out - for yourself I mean, that nothing in the OT was about a jesus christ - for example?  Or if you came to believe that everything about the NT was true except for the resurrection, as another?

[airportkid]

... I have an ongoing sense that God is interested in me and wants me to depend on him ...

... My perspectives have shifted. We have had some terrible tragedy in our family ... My beliefs give me the basis for hope--not just in an afterlife, but that our dash between the dates has purpose and value as well.

An ongoing question is what do the theists believe they're accomplishing in these threads?  Why are they here?

The ostensible reason is they're trying to persuade us we're wrong and they're right.  But when you examine their "arguments" there's an absolute lack of acknowledgement that any of our arguments are even considered.  They're full megaphone and no ears.

I don't think they're here to try to persuade us of anything.  I think they're here, buffeted by the relentless winds of reason, to persuade themselves.  Desperately.

[SteveII]

Sounds familiar, let's date something later because we can't have someone predicting the future with any sort of accuracy.

There are many reason's the Book of Daniels is dated 165-7 BCE.  It's not just an arbitrary number thought up out of the blue by biblical scholars.  It's one of the easiest books of the OT to date it's writing. 

The further back in time Daniel writes the more blatant the historical errors are.  As he gets closer to the 167 BCE he's a little more accurate. 

Here's the reason scholars date Daniel to 167-165 BCE: 

Daniel was excluded from the Hebrew Bible's "Cannon of the Prophets" which was compiled and closed in 200 BCE.   When a book of prophecy like Daniel is completely missing from an important cannon of Prophets, it's because it hadn't been written yet. 

It's also missing from the Wisdom of Sirach which was written in 180 BCE.  This is another important book which draws from every book of the Old Testament except Daniel.  Again, this led scholars to realize Daniel still hadn't been written yet.  Future prophecies that Daniel tries to make after the 167 BCE composition regarding Anticious are way off probably because the writer died.   This is what narrows the writing of Daniel to the mid-second century BCE.

The first time Daniel was ever quoted anywhere was in the Sibyline Oracles which is dated 150's  BCE.   Daniel was a piece of writing at Qumran at the beginning of the mid second century when writing apocalypses became very popular.  

Daniel was Jew from the Hellenistic period, not a person from the Babylonian court. The language it's written in is Aramaic from the mid second century.   Scholars know this because Aramaic changed over time the same way Middle English changed to the Modern English we speak today.  Some of it is written in Hebrew so it probably has two writers.    

Daniel was written during the difficult times for the Jews in the mid second century.   It is written "ex eventu".  It is not prophecy.

In most of your posts, you just assert a who bunch of claims like they are facts as if the sheer volume carries your point. It is usually not worth responding, but...

Daniel was included in the Ketuvim (The Writings), not the Nevi'im (The Book of Prophets). Chances are that was why you didn't find it there.


Why would Daniel (apocalyptic genre) be mentioned in the Book of Sirach (wisdom literature composed in poetic verse)? It does not mention any other books at all so, your entire paragraph above is BS. Are you using ChatGPT? LOL.

The Sibyline Oracles: more poetry. Doesn't mention any other book either.

Regarding the Aramaic, you have old information from a century ago and a dose of bad reasoning. Recent findings of Aramaic texts referred to as "Imperial" Aramaic demonstrate that the Aramaic used in the Book of Daniel aligns more closely with the Aramaic from the fifth century B.C. than with the considerably later Aramaic texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Additionally, it was thought that the maybe the Jews did not understand Hebrew anymore (hence the Aramaic sections) and the DSS debunked that theory as well.

[Dancefortwo]

But I am convinced there is plenty of evidence for God beyond 'mere Christianity' and the Bible is a highly reliable source for all essential doctrines.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence your god exists. None.  All you've done is tell us you believe in the NT because the NT says it's true.   Aren't you dizzy from all the circular fallacies you've used? 

What you need, what all religions need, is contemporary, cross referenced, incontrovertible, unbiased evidence from outside of your holy books that miracles took place.  The Bible has none.  Zero.   Historical scholars call the Bible  a "national foundation myth" written by elite priests to  establish Israel's territorial claim on this area after the Babylonan exile.  The writers of the Bible, unsuprisingly, have a god who has specifically chose them as their favorite tribe. Gee, what are the chances!! 

The Muslim god, Allah, has chosen them as their special tribe and protects only Muslims.  Amazing, isn't it?  The Indian god, Lord Vishnu, protects them as well.  What a shocking coincidence!  Tibes always have a personal-protector-god who will help them win battles against their enemies.  Hummm. 

It should tell you that something is wrong with the Bible  when Yahweh has no knowledge of the entire North and South American continents nor does he know anything about South East Asia or Lapland.  This god is only aware of the same geographical area it's writers are aware of and nothing beyond that.  That should send up a lot of red flags right there.   The mustard seed is a good example of the NT's geographical problems. The NT claims that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on the planet.  Well sure,  it was where Bible writers lived.  But unbeknownst to them the orchid seed is by far the smallest seed on the planet.  It's similar to microscopic dust however it only grew in South East Asia and Japan which the Bible writers, and by proxy their god, was unaware even existed.


All you have is faith.  Faith is what the Romans used to believe in Zeus. The Greeks used faith to believe in Aphrodite. Faith can lead you to believe in any number of different gods....hundreds of different gods.   If faith can lead people to believe in hundreds of different gods then what does that tell you about faith?  It certainly doesn't tell you whether what you believe is true or not because, as the saying goes.... "Well, you just gotta have faith".   Faith is what you need when you don't have any evidence.  That's the only thing you've proven in this long, long, loooooong thread, you've proven you have no evidence.

[Bucky Ball]

The Book of Daniel was a forgery.
Richard Carrier has proven that.
Only a fool would assert that it was either accurate or a prophesy.

[Dancefortwo]

There are many reason's the Book of Daniels is dated 165-7 BCE.  It's not just an arbitrary number thought up out of the blue by biblical scholars.  It's one of the easiest books of the OT to date it's writing. 

The further back in time Daniel writes the more blatant the historical errors are.  As he gets closer to the 167 BCE he's a little more accurate. 

Here's the reason scholars date Daniel to 167-165 BCE: 

Daniel was excluded from the Hebrew Bible's "Cannon of the Prophets" which was compiled and closed in 200 BCE.   When a book of prophecy like Daniel is completely missing from an important cannon of Prophets, it's because it hadn't been written yet. 

It's also missing from the Wisdom of Sirach which was written in 180 BCE.  This is another important book which draws from every book of the Old Testament except Daniel.  Again, this led scholars to realize Daniel still hadn't been written yet.  Future prophecies that Daniel tries to make after the 167 BCE composition regarding Anticious are way off probably because the writer died.   This is what narrows the writing of Daniel to the mid-second century BCE.

The first time Daniel was ever quoted anywhere was in the Sibyline Oracles which is dated 150's  BCE.   Daniel was a piece of writing at Qumran at the beginning of the mid second century when writing apocalypses became very popular.  

Daniel was Jew from the Hellenistic period, not a person from the Babylonian court. The language it's written in is Aramaic from the mid second century.   Scholars know this because Aramaic changed over time the same way Middle English changed to the Modern English we speak today.  Some of it is written in Hebrew so it probably has two writers.    

Daniel was written during the difficult times for the Jews in the mid second century.   It is written "ex eventu".  It is not prophecy.

In most of your posts, you just assert a who bunch of claims like they are facts as if the sheer volume carries your point. It is usually not worth responding, but...

Daniel was included in the Ketuvim (The Writings), not the Nevi'im (The Book of Prophets). Chances are that was why you didn't find it there.


Why would Daniel (apocalyptic genre) be mentioned in the Book of Sirach (wisdom literature composed in poetic verse)? It does not mention any other books at all so, your entire paragraph above is BS. Are you using ChatGPT? LOL.

The Sibyline Oracles: more poetry. Doesn't mention any other book either.

Regarding the Aramaic, you have old information from a century ago and a dose of bad reasoning.  Recent findings of Aramaic texts referred to as "Imperial" Aramaic demonstrate that the Aramaic used in the Book of Daniel aligns more closely with the Aramaic from the fifth century B.C. than with the considerably later Aramaic texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Additionally, it was thought that the maybe the Jews did not understand Hebrew anymore (hence the Aramaic sections) and the DSS debunked that theory as well.

You're dating is way off regarding the Ketuvim. 


Michael Googan, from Harvard Divinity School and the Oxford Library says this about the Ketuvim:

 While the Torah may have been considered canon by Israel as early as the 5th century BCE the Former and Latter Prophets were canonized by the 2nd century BCE.  The Ketuvim was not a fixed canon until the 2nd century CE.

  

Bolding is mine. 

Whan a canon is not fixed then edits and additions are being made. 


According to T Henshaw, a Bible historian and scholar, 

"the Ketuvim was not a fixed canon until the 2nd century CE. ....as early as 132 BCE some references suggesting that the Ketuvim was starting to take shape, though it lacked a formal title."

  

That's why portions of Daniel are in the Ketuvim.  It was being added to and fiddled with as late as 132 BCE.  


The Sibyline Oracles is the first and earliest time Daniel was quoted.  It doesn't matter if it was poetry or not.  What historians look for when dating text is references in other texts that they factually know the date it was written.   This still places the writing of Daniel to 167-65 BCE.  It's not prophecy.

[Dānu]

Edited for brevity, and isn't this what I've been suggesting?  

That like every other detail discussed in these last few pages the nonexistence of a christian prophecy in the ot nor the inaccuracy of prophetic details in general would modify your position on the larger issue.  Your religious beliefs, what you actually believe and your level of certainty in it, doesn't appear to have anything to do with any of your justifications for it thusfar - but I assume there actually is one.  

You mentioned in the full response that god knew the whole story before it began, and maybe so, but as far as I know I'm not questioning a god. I'm questioning you, and your response to the suggestion and to demonstrations that you know nothing of The Story is...as you put it above, not much.  

Why not skip any pretense to fealty in the text or the accuracy of it's details, these disposable defenses, and get straight to talking about what you actually believe and why you actually believe it?

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling. Put me in the category of "all of the above" with an emphasis on the last one.

I pray, read my Bible, attend church, small group, organize missions trips, give, serve on the board, etc. But the Christian life is more than just a check list or an appearance of commitment.  I have an ongoing sense that God is interested in me and wants me to depend on him. I have more and more over the years. It creates an appreciation, humility, peace and more compassion for people than I have in the past. My perspectives have shifted. We have had some terrible tragedy in our family (a very young niece died when my sister's house burned to the ground recently). I have siblings who have made painful messes of their lives. My beliefs give me the basis for hope--not just in an afterlife, but that our dash between the dates has purpose and value as well.

But to your last question, the basics of the NT have to be true just as 1 Corinthians 15:14 points out: "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." So there are certain facts, theological claims, and promises that must be true. But I am convinced there is plenty of evidence for God beyond 'mere Christianity' and the Bible is a highly reliable source for all essential doctrines.

[Minimalist]

 So there are certain facts, theological claims, and promises that must be true.

Stevie, you dumb fuck, nothing is true because you want it to be.

[SteveII]

That's good stuff.  I assume that there are alot of people who find the character or message of christ compelling.  I'd put that in the category of "if god didn't say this or do this, he should have".  

I am confused, though, that was a wonderful list of all the things your religious beliefs have helped you to create - but if you were as insistent on the accuracy of the stories as that quote would entail then it would seem that your beliefs and your life would change by very much, if you ever came to believe that you were wrong about any of these things you've shared with us.  The life you've built and those desirable goods you mentioned would all disappear if you found out - for yourself I mean, that nothing in the OT was about a jesus christ - for example?  Or if you came to believe that everything about the NT was true except for the resurrection, as another?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are getting at is that I defend the OT and NT so much because if it were substantially undermined, it would cause a crisis of belief.

I guess hypothetically, it would cause a crisis if they were proven to be substantially untrue. The nature of the Christian belief structure is really an entire worldview. I mentioned the four chapters of history. It makes claims about the nature of reality, morality, ultimate purpose, and specific claims about what it means to be human (value, identity, individual purpose). I think where the crisis would come from is the loss. For example, if you have an atheist that becomes a Christian, you gain quite a bit of meaning, purpose, direction--things that help you live and cope with life. Going the other direction from Christianity to atheism, there is substantial loss in these categories.

But I think subject knowledge plays a role. I know a lot about the OT and NT and a decent amount of Christian thinking accumulated in the last 2000 years--a lot more than most Christians. I understand that there are no enduring defeaters for Christianity. That provides a level of confidence. It other words, it is not like I am teetering on the edge and a clever argument from my atheist friends are going to send me careening off a cliff. This confidence (among other things) that allows me to proceed through life and get through seasons of doubt or tragedy.

[SteveII]

But I am convinced there is plenty of evidence for God beyond 'mere Christianity' and the Bible is a highly reliable source for all essential doctrines.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence your god exists. None.  All you've done is tell us you believe in the NT because the NT says it's true.   Aren't you dizzy from all the circular fallacies you've used? 

This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one souce. Over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on the teachings and life of one figure – Jesus Christ. We have plenty of non-canonical documents to study plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to any extant documents we have. These are just the categories of evidence.

What you need, what all religions need, is contemporary, cross referenced, incontrovertible, unbiased evidence from outside of your holy books that miracles took place.  The Bible has none.  Zero.   

You are struggling with definitions. You are conflating 'evidence' and 'proof.' Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

Or if you prefer Wikipedia:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence"

[and further down the page]

TYPES of EVIDENCE
Digital evidence
Personal experience
Scientific evidence
Testimonial
Physical evidence
Trace evidence
Relationship evidence

All you have is faith.  Faith is what the Romans used to believe in Zeus. The Greeks used faith to believe in Aphrodite. Faith can lead you to believe in any number of different gods....hundreds of different gods.   If faith can lead people to believe in hundreds of different gods then what does that tell you about faith?  It certainly doesn't tell you whether what you believe is true or not because, as the saying goes.... "Well, you just gotta have faith".   Faith is what you need when you don't have any evidence.  That's the only thing you've proven in this long, long, loooooong thread, you've proven you have no evidence.

Well...and definitions.

Faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Christian faith is component of a relationship with God, characterized by trust, surrender, and a genuine connection of the heart. It involves believing in God's promises and relying on His character, goodness, and sovereignty. Faith is not a substitute for reasoning, but a recognition that there are aspects of the divine that transcend human comprehension. It is a journey of the heart, marked by a willingness to embrace the mysteries of the spiritual realm and to live in alignment with God's will. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

[no one]

Faith is horseshit. Straight up ridiculous horseshit.

Nobody has "faith' that their blown transmission will work tomorrow, or that extra money just appears in their bank accounts.

And you are a gutless coward, stevieboi.

I am 219% sure of this.

[SteveII]

In most of your posts, you just assert a who bunch of claims like they are facts as if the sheer volume carries your point. It is usually not worth responding, but...

Daniel was included in the Ketuvim (The Writings), not the Nevi'im (The Book of Prophets). Chances are that was why you didn't find it there.


Why would Daniel (apocalyptic genre) be mentioned in the Book of Sirach (wisdom literature composed in poetic verse)? It does not mention any other books at all so, your entire paragraph above is BS. Are you using ChatGPT? LOL.

The Sibyline Oracles: more poetry. Doesn't mention any other book either.

Regarding the Aramaic, you have old information from a century ago and a dose of bad reasoning.  Recent findings of Aramaic texts referred to as "Imperial" Aramaic demonstrate that the Aramaic used in the Book of Daniel aligns more closely with the Aramaic from the fifth century B.C. than with the considerably later Aramaic texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Additionally, it was thought that the maybe the Jews did not understand Hebrew anymore (hence the Aramaic sections) and the DSS debunked that theory as well.

You're dating is way off regarding the Ketuvim. 


Michael Googan, from Harvard Divinity School and the Oxford Library says this about the Ketuvim:

 While the Torah may have been considered canon by Israel as early as the 5th century BCE the Former and Latter Prophets were canonized by the 2nd century BCE.  The Ketuvim was not a fixed canon until the 2nd century CE.

  

Bolding is mine. 

Whan a canon is not fixed then edits and additions are being made. 


According to T Henshaw, a Bible historian and scholar, 

"the Ketuvim was not a fixed canon until the 2nd century CE. ....as early as 132 BCE some references suggesting that the Ketuvim was starting to take shape, though it lacked a formal title."

  

That's why portions of Daniel are in the Ketuvim.  It was being added to and fiddled with as late as 132 BCE.  

That is definitely not what it means to be included in a canon. The word simply means to recognize as authoritative and therefore considered scripture. It tells us nothing else by itself (when, where, why, how). Of course something that is changing cannot be included in a canon. But your inference from that is just wrong: in no way does a lack of canonization imply that a book is still being changed. A non sequitur.

The Sibyline Oracles is the first and earliest time Daniel was quoted.  It doesn't matter if it was poetry or not.  What historians look for when dating text is references in other texts that they factually know the date it was written.   This still places the writing of Daniel to 167-65 BCE.  It's not prophecy.

That's an argument from silence. Not very scholarly of you.

[Rhythmcs]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are getting at is that I defend the OT and NT so much because if it were substantially undermined, it would cause a crisis of belief.

More that I'm wondering what that "substantial" means to you.  Getting the things you've mentioned thusfar wrong doesn't do the trick, so what would?

I guess hypothetically, it would cause a crisis if they were proven to be substantially untrue. The nature of the Christian belief structure is really an entire worldview. I mentioned the four chapters of history. It makes claims about the nature of reality, morality, ultimate purpose, and specific claims about what it means to be human (value, identity, individual purpose). I think where the crisis would come from is the loss. For example, if you have an atheist that becomes a Christian, you gain quite a bit of meaning, purpose, direction--things that help you live and cope with life. Going the other direction from Christianity to atheism, there is substantial loss in these categories.

I can understand why you'd believe that, but you'd be wrong.  There is nothing for me to gain in your religion.  I already have those things you mentioned as important, and more.  Perhaps even more directly to the point, I could not become a christian without losing a great deal.  Morality, purpose, etc.  

So, consider that as I wonder where your substantial actually is, what you could possibly be getting wrong or the story could possibly be getting wrong...I'm also a living breathing and talking-to-you-right-now example of your belief about that being incorrect as well.  

But I think subject knowledge plays a role. I know a lot about the OT and NT and a decent amount of Christian thinking accumulated in the last 2000 years--a lot more than most Christians. I understand that there are no enduring defeaters for Christianity. That provides a level of confidence. It other words, it is not like I am teetering on the edge and a clever argument from my atheist friends are going to send me careening off a cliff. This confidence (among other things) that allows me to proceed through life and get through seasons of doubt or tragedy.

I'm not sure that any objective observer would conclude, on the basis of your participation in this thread, that you know alot about the OT or the NT.  If you do, and it's some other set of knowledge that you haven't expressed in here - perhaps even the substantial set..why not just get the the moneyshot and discuss that? Rather than launching arguments and compounding your difficulties by making a string of increasingly absurd and even more immediately and demonstrably false claims that you will likely tell us didn't matter to you after the fact?

You have a confidence that allows you to avoid doubt in your life about the thing that you believe has brought a great deal of good - at least to you. However, at least as I understand religious belief to proceed - the factual status of a given claim in the world or in reality is immaterial. Our deeply held religious beliefs are about the way the world should be, not the way it is. Why would any part of the OT or NT narrative being accurate or true be substantial to that?

[Deesse23]

 So there are certain facts, theological claims, and promises that must be true.

Stevie, you dumb fuck, nothing is true because you want it to be.

Yeah, its really revealing, after peeling off all these layers of BS, we are left now with "it must be true, otherwise i wasted my life".

Thats not an argument, its declaring intellectual bancrupcy, completely and literally.  
Reminds me of the sunken cost fallacy. STOP this BS as long as you have some of your life left, instead of really wasting ALL of it.

Un
be
lieavable

[Rhythmcs]

Let me see if i can make a super simple form for this.

Do you only believe that turning the other cheek or doing unto others is the way the world should be..if a jesus who was christ said it? Such that, if you didn't think that those bits of the story were accurate, say someone else was putting words in gods mouth - you wouldn't think the world should be that way?

[Dānu]

But I think subject knowledge plays a role. I know a lot about the OT and NT and a decent amount of Christian thinking accumulated in the last 2000 years--a lot more than most Christians. I understand that there are no enduring defeaters for Christianity. That provides a level of confidence. It other words, it is not like I am teetering on the edge and a clever argument from my atheist friends are going to send me careening off a cliff. This confidence (among other things) that allows me to proceed through life and get through seasons of doubt or tragedy.

Translation: I'm so smart I can't be wrong. Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger?

[SteveII]

But I think subject knowledge plays a role. I know a lot about the OT and NT and a decent amount of Christian thinking accumulated in the last 2000 years--a lot more than most Christians. I understand that there are no enduring defeaters for Christianity. That provides a level of confidence. It other words, it is not like I am teetering on the edge and a clever argument from my atheist friends are going to send me careening off a cliff. This confidence (among other things) that allows me to proceed through life and get through seasons of doubt or tragedy.

Translation:  I'm so smart I can't be wrong.  Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger?

Or perhaps 50 years of going to church, attending a Christian HS, Christian College, thousands of hours of Sunday adult classes, a one-year fellowship on Christian worldview, thousands of hours of podcasts, all the hours directly with the Bible, and most importantly, the hundreds of hours I have spent here with the best and brightest critics is a sufficient basis for confidence that I understand the material.

[Minimalist]

I guess hypothetically, it would cause a crisis if they were proven to be substantially untrue.

Stevie, that has already happened.  It HAS been proven to be substantially untrue AND it has caused a crisis of faith like in Europe and the US where churches are emptying and closing left and right.  You are clinging to a leaky boat in shark infested waters.

You won't be missed.

[Dancefortwo]

You haven't provided one iota of evidence your god exists. None.  All you've done is tell us you believe in the NT because the NT says it's true.   Aren't you dizzy from all the circular fallacies you've used? 

This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one souce. Over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on the teachings and life of one figure – Jesus Christ. We have plenty of non-canonical documents to study plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to any extant documents we have. These are just the categories of evidence.

What you need, what all religions need, is contemporary, cross referenced, incontrovertible, unbiased evidence from outside of your holy books that miracles took place.  The Bible has none.  Zero.   

You are struggling with definitions. You are conflating 'evidence' and 'proof.' Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

Or if you prefer Wikipedia:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence"

[and further down the page]

TYPES of EVIDENCE
 Digital evidence
 Personal experience
 Scientific evidence
 Testimonial
 Physical evidence
 Trace evidence
 Relationship evidence

All you have is faith.  Faith is what the Romans used to believe in Zeus. The Greeks used faith to believe in Aphrodite. Faith can lead you to believe in any number of different gods....hundreds of different gods.   If faith can lead people to believe in hundreds of different gods then what does that tell you about faith?  It certainly doesn't tell you whether what you believe is true or not because, as the saying goes.... "Well, you just gotta have faith".   Faith is what you need when you don't have any evidence.  That's the only thing you've proven in this long, long, loooooong thread, you've proven you have no evidence.

Well...and definitions.

Faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Christian faith is component of a relationship with God, characterized by trust, surrender, and a genuine connection of the heart. It involves believing in God's promises and relying on His character, goodness, and sovereignty. Faith is not a substitute for reasoning, but a recognition that there are aspects of the divine that transcend human comprehension. It is a journey of the heart, marked by a willingness to embrace the mysteries of the spiritual realm and to live in alignment with God's will. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one souce. Over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on the teachings and life of one figure

None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts.  They are based on anecdotal storytelling and written 40 to 80 years after Jesus died.   None of them could be used in a court of law as evidence because they are all based on 4th or 5th hand oracles.   

Paul didn't write about seeing Jesus until almost 20 years later.  What was he doing in all that time that was more important than writing a current account of seeing a god in the middle of the road?

How did the writers know what Jesus said to Satan out in the desert?  Were they sneaking around, hiding behind bushes and rocks while writing down the conversation?  

How did the writers know what Jesus said when he was praying in the garden of Gethsemane while the three apostles were asleep. Who witnessed this prayer.  Jesus was arrested immediately after that, he wouldn't have had time to recount what he said during his prayer.  

How did the writers know what Pontius Pilate said in private to Jesus during the trial? The Romans wouldn't have kept records of a common crucifixion and even if they did they certainly wouldn't have shared the records with a bunch of Jews whom they despised.     





-There is no digital evidence.
-Personal experience is well known to be fallacious.  Hindu's experience Lord Vishnu.  So what.
-There is ZERO scientific evidence.  None.  Zip.  Nada.
-Testamonials are anecdotal. The gospels are 4th or 5th hand so inadmissable as evidence.
-There is no physical evidence because the accounts were written decades later.  Again, inadmissable.
-There is zero trace evidence.  None of the accounts can be traced back to their sources. They are all anonymous.
-The relationship evidence is again, anonymously sourced. 


The gospels use a technique in which their narrators are given unlimited omniscience. They know what is being said at any given time and place, even in private. They even know what people are thinking and what their feelings are. Outside the gospels, narrators with unlimited omniscience are normally only found in novels.

[Dānu]

Translation:  I'm so smart I can't be wrong.  Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger?

Or perhaps 50 years of going to church, attending a Christian HS, Christian College, thousands of hours of Sunday adult classes, a one-year fellowship on Christian worldview, thousands of hours of podcasts, all the hours directly with the Bible, and most importantly, the hundreds of hours I have spent here with the best and brightest critics is a sufficient basis for confidence that I understand the material.

You don't actually understand what Dunning-Kruger is, do you?

[Minimalist]

Or perhaps 50 years of going to church, attending a Christian HS, Christian College, thousands of hours of Sunday adult classes, a one-year fellowship on Christian worldview, thousands of hours of podcasts, all the hours directly with the Bible, and most importantly, the hundreds of hours I have spent here with the best and brightest critics is a sufficient basis for confidence that I understand the material.

Hey asswipe, you have most of the critics on "Ignore."   As for the rest of it, it is obvious that you seek not information but confirmation.  You wasted your whole life with a bunch of xhristard shitballs who all mouth the same stupidity , day in and day out.  Of course you are indoctrinated.  By your own admission indoctrination is what you sought and found.