|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 13:09:48 GMT
Pull your nose out of the Bible and read some history. The only people who started saying Jesus was the son of God were people who wanted power over others. Like your priest holds spiritual power over you, even though you are as close to God as he is. It sucks when the person doing the preaching (you) knows less about his religion than the people he's preaching to. You made a historical claim, I'm now asking you to back it up with historical facts. Are you prepared to support your claim? Perhaps if I cared what you believe I would invest the time in teaching you. You don't need any proof that Jesus came back from the dead so I don't see why you're asking me for proof. Apparently all of a sudden you want proof before you believe something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 13:16:43 GMT
You made a historical claim, I'm now asking you to back it up with historical facts. Are you prepared to support your claim? Perhaps if I cared what you believe I would invest the time in teaching you. You don't need any proof that Jesus came back from the dead so I don't see why you're asking me for proof. Apparently all of a sudden you want proof before you believe something? You wouldn't have responded to this thread if you really didn't care what I believe. But nice evasion, Sam. Face it, you got called out on your claim and challenged to support it with historical facts. Now you're trying to run away from the responsibitly. But don't worry just going by your claim that Jesus wasn't considered deity until after Nicea alone is enough to deduce that you dont know what you're talking about. So we'll leave it there.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,654
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 19, 2017 13:34:24 GMT
What's interesting is Craig himself doesn't think the Gospels are primary sources:
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 13:36:32 GMT
You wouldn't have responded to this thread if you really didn't care what I believe. Are you stupid? I'm responding to you right now, am I not? Here: I don't care what you believe.
Just because someone replies to you doesn't mean they care about you.
Lacking even rudimentary logic, it's no wonder you think the Bible is true.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 13:39:46 GMT
Very compelling. I responded, so I must really care right? Actually, I didn't even watch the video.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 13:57:35 GMT
You made a historical claim, I'm now asking you to back it up with historical facts. Are you prepared to support your claim? Perhaps if I cared what you believe I would invest the time in teaching you. You don't need any proof that Jesus came back from the dead so I don't see why you're asking me for proof. Apparently all of a sudden you want proof before you believe something? You're not just responding, you basically called me gullible for believing the bible. That doesn't sound like somebody who doesn't care what I believe. Anyway, you claimed Jesus wasn't considered deity until after it was decreed at Nicea. Are you ready to support this claim or do I need to dismiss you for a second time?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 19, 2017 14:03:02 GMT
Perhaps if I cared what you believe I would invest the time in teaching you. You don't need any proof that Jesus came back from the dead so I don't see why you're asking me for proof. Apparently all of a sudden you want proof before you believe something? You're not just responding, you basically called me gullible for believing the bible. That doesn't sound like somebody who doesn't care what I believe. Anyway, you claimed Jesus wasn't considered deity until after it was decreed at Nicea. Are you ready to support this claim or do I need to dismiss you for a second time? Logically some must have considered Him deity before Nicea. If not how would the issue even get brought up? Seems clear there was debate before or it was seen as something to be officially considered doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 15:28:34 GMT
Perhaps if I cared what you believe I would invest the time in teaching you. You don't need any proof that Jesus came back from the dead so I don't see why you're asking me for proof. Apparently all of a sudden you want proof before you believe something? You're not just responding, you basically called me gullible for believing the bible. That doesn't sound like somebody who doesn't care what I believe. Anyway, you claimed Jesus wasn't considered deity until after it was decreed at Nicea. Are you ready to support this claim or do I need to dismiss you for a second time? The divine nature of your God was debated by mortals.. That is one powerful God you have there buddy! You're still debating it!
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 15:30:08 GMT
You're not just responding, you basically called me gullible for believing the bible. That doesn't sound like somebody who doesn't care what I believe. Anyway, you claimed Jesus wasn't considered deity until after it was decreed at Nicea. Are you ready to support this claim or do I need to dismiss you for a second time? Logically some must have considered Him deity before Nicea. If not how would the issue even get brought up? Seems clear there was debate before or it was seen as something to be officially considered doctrine. Yeah, obviously all the bishops would not debate the deification of Christ unless some of them were on the 'He's God' side. It was a good PR move for the early church. It still sucks them in.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 19, 2017 16:39:02 GMT
Sorry! When you mentioned the Gospels as a "primary source", I assumed you meant a primary source of trustworthy information. I shouldn't have assumed. And I've shown you why the gospels are considered trustworthy information. I even gave you two of the greatest secular archaeologists of the 20th century who can vouch for it's reliability. Seriously, are you trolling? I'm not trolling. However, what you consider trustworthy actually is not. Some archaeologists have also claimed to have found Noah's ark...over...and over again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 18:08:12 GMT
Sam said this: After the first council of Nicaea they created a new creed called the Nicene creed. It concluded the following: So that's when Christ's status as a deity was confirmed and the trinity was born. He was established as the son of god "begotten"(born) not "made". The Arians claims were rejected: There viewpoint was that Jesus was a "creature" created by God and not his son nor equal. The Nicene viewpoint won out and became accepted Christian doctrine. Again it has nothing to do with what Sam said. Sam claimed Jesus wasn't considered deity until after the council of Nicea. That is demonstrably false. The Arian question was simply a debate about the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Cody you're wrong. The council of Nicea made Jesus a deity the equal of God,before that he wasn't a God but a "creature of one" or a tool. It comes as no surprise to me that you don't even understand your own Christian doctrine and what gave birth to it.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,654
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 19, 2017 22:48:09 GMT
One thing that bugs me about these 4 Facts of Craig is he never alters them in response to criticism. For instance, historians have pointed out (sometimes in debate with Craig himself) a pretty significant problem with the criterion of embarrassment - that several myths contain "embarrassing" elements. Now perhaps Craig thinks the criterion can be salvaged despite this criticism - that's fine but he never changes his opening salvo to account for this. A good historian would acknowledge problems with his argument and either modify it or explain how this problem can be overcome. Craig never shows much interest in doing this.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 20, 2017 11:57:41 GMT
One thing that bugs me about these 4 Facts of Craig is he never alters them in response to criticism. For instance, historians have pointed out (sometimes in debate with Craig himself) a pretty significant problem with the criterion of embarrassment - that several myths contain "embarrassing" elements. Now perhaps Craig thinks the criterion can be salvaged despite this criticism - that's fine but he never changes his opening salvo to account for this. A good historian would acknowledge problems with his argument and either modify it or explain how this problem can be overcome. Craig never shows much interest in doing this. I wasn't even familiar with "the criterion of embarrassment." I don't read much apologetics or pay much attention to religious debates usually. The real problem with it is that it should be embarrassing to whoever forwards it because it's so stupid. (I'm saying that as intentionally paradoxical re the following:) What's embarrassing is subjective, reasons for including something that one person finds embarrassing (and another, including the author, maybe does or does not) are subjective and can be as varied as our imaginations, with justifications for that bit being anything imaginable, and in my opinion, Bayesian probability, which the criterion also depends on, is stupid in itself.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,654
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 20, 2017 12:26:42 GMT
What's embarrassing is subjective, reasons for including something that one person finds embarrassing (and another, including the author, maybe does or does not) are subjective and can be as varied as our imaginations, with justifications for that bit being anything imaginable That's true. Also there could be stylistic reasons for creating an embarrassment. For instance, Jesus' tragedy seems greater if he was buried by an enemy rather than his friends who had abandoned him.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 20, 2017 14:02:36 GMT
What's embarrassing is subjective, reasons for including something that one person finds embarrassing (and another, including the author, maybe does or does not) are subjective and can be as varied as our imaginations, with justifications for that bit being anything imaginable That's true. Also there could be stylistic reasons for creating an embarrassment. For instance, Jesus' tragedy seems greater if he was buried by an enemy rather than his friends who had abandoned him. Right. One pretty obvious reason to have him be killed in one of the most "embarrassing" ways at the time would be to emphasize the extent to which he was disrespected by heretics, and to further emphasize his "rise to glory" as he's supposedly resurrected. I mean, basically, if someone can't come up with a good, plausible reason for anything that one could consider embarrassing in some narrative, that only implies that one has zero creative/interpretive skills.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 20, 2017 14:37:35 GMT
That's true. Also there could be stylistic reasons for creating an embarrassment. For instance, Jesus' tragedy seems greater if he was buried by an enemy rather than his friends who had abandoned him. Right. One pretty obvious reason to have him be killed in one of the most "embarrassing" ways at the time would be to emphasize the extent to which he was disrespected by heretics, and to further emphasize his "rise to glory" as he's supposedly resurrected. I mean, basically, if someone can't come up with a good, plausible reason for anything that one could consider embarrassing in some narrative, that only implies that one has zero creative/interpretive skills. Of course it might have been the embarrassment of Jesus not, after all, returning from the dead, with the determination of followers to see and testify that He did, which stimulated the extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims of the gospels, worked over four times. (and Paul certainly spells out later just how critical such truths have to be taken as facts).
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,654
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 20, 2017 15:03:04 GMT
Of course it might have been the embarrassment of Jesus not, after all, returning from the dead, with the determination of followers to see and testify that He did, which stimulated the extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims of the gospels, worked over four times. (and Paul certainly spells out later just how critical such truths have to be taken as facts). Well Paul wrote a good bit before the Gospels of course. And he's extremely vague on details - so much so that it allowed Carrier and others to say he was talking about a purely spiritual entity when he spoke of Jesus. You can disagree with the mythicists here, but you're still left with a source that's so vague about the historical Jesus as to be almost useless. Craig also believes there were at least 2 earlier sources that influenced the gospels: a source Mark used and the one used by Matthew and Luke (the hypothetical Q Gospel). There's no compelling evidence for these sources though. To me it seems more plausible that Mark was the first attempt to write about the historical Jesus. Matthew copied Mark and added a lot of his own stuff. And Luke copied Matthew, changing it as he pleased. I'm on the fence about John. I know some have argued it's a liberal reworking of Luke rather than a separate tradition from the synoptics. Not sure we know enough to say either way. But whatever, Craig's claim that we have several independent sources is iffy. Paul hardly counts since he's so vague. Craig's argument that the passion story is different enough from the style of the rest of Mark is evidence of it being a copy of an earlier source is plausible but hardly concrete. The existence of Q falls away if we allow Luke to have copied Matthew. And we have no real certainty John is independent at all. So all we can really say is we have one confirmed source for the historical Jesus - Mark's Gospel. There may have been other sources but this idea that there definitely were others and only crazies would argue otherwise is silly.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 20, 2017 15:22:28 GMT
Of course it might have been the embarrassment of Jesus not, after all, returning from the dead, with the determination of followers to see and testify that He did, which stimulated the extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims of the gospels, worked over four times. (and Paul certainly spells out later just how critical such truths have to be taken as facts). Well Paul wrote a good bit before the Gospels of course. And he's extremely vague on details - so much so that it allowed Carrier and others to say he was talking about a purely spiritual entity when he spoke of Jesus. You can disagree with the mythicists here, but you're still left with a source that's so vague about the historical Jesus as to be almost useless. Craig also believes there were at least 2 earlier sources that influenced the gospels: a source Mark used and the one used by Matthew and Luke (the hypothetical Q Gospel). There's no compelling evidence for these sources though. To me it seems more plausible that Mark was the first attempt to write about the historical Jesus. Matthew copied Mark and added a lot of his own stuff. And Luke copied Matthew, changing it as he pleased. I'm on the fence about John. I know some have argued it's a liberal reworking of Luke rather than the separate tradition from the synoptics. Not sure we know enough to say either way. But whatever, Craig's claim that we have several independent sources is iffy. Paul hardly counts since he's so vague. Craig's argument that the passion story is different enough from the style of the rest of Mark is evidence of it being a copy of an earlier source is plausible but hardly concrete. The existence of Q falls away if we allow Luke to have copied Matthew. And we have no real certainty John is independent at all. So all we can really say is we have one confirmed source for the historical Jesus - Mark's Gospel. There may have been other sources but this idea that there definitely were others and only crazies would argue otherwise is silly. I'm less doubtful about the purported source, Q than perhaps yourself. When scholars first began to study the gospels of the New Testament literarily, they discovered that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as the core, sort of the basic story line that they tell. Because Mark is completely incorporated - 16 chapters - into both Matthew and Luke. But they both also used other sayings, parables, and stories and so forth. And scholars observed that there's a part of the sayings in Matthew that are exactly identical with sayings in Luke. In fact they're identical in Greek. Now think -- Jesus spoke Aramaic. So if you were translating Aramaic, and if I were translating Aramaic, they'd come out different, these translations. So you would only have Jesus speaking identical sayings in Greek if you had a written translation in Greek of his sayings. And so scholars suggest, reasonably I think, that there must have been, besides Mark, something else written down that would have been a list of the sayings of Jesus, translated into Greek. We can reconstruct it because we guess that there was such a written source. (There is no reason why Mark cannot also have a previous, now vanished source, since it appears to have been written in Greek and still does not appear as a contemporary, eyewitness account.) On this reckoning most likely wasn't a lost gospel, but the primary (?) source of the sayings of Jesus. For example, whoever collected the sayings of Q wasn't interested in the death of Jesus, wasn't interested in the resurrection of Jesus. They thought the importance of Jesus was what he said, what he preached. Then other people thought it wasn't enough to have the sayings of Jesus but wanted to tell about his Passion, as that was next the more important thing. So somebody put that all together and we call it Matthew, or Mark, or Luke. But it is still possible that one can identify a reason for the existence of the gospels as that of proselytizing to a purpose, as I suggested - where a need to overcome the risk of embarrassment with some approved narrative, one unsubstantiated, or even mentioned elsewhere, even by contemporary Jewish writers, was useful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 15:35:40 GMT
Again it has nothing to do with what Sam said. Sam claimed Jesus wasn't considered deity until after the council of Nicea. That is demonstrably false. The Arian question was simply a debate about the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Cody you're wrong. The council of Nicea made Jesus a deity the equal of God,before that he wasn't a God but a "creature of one" or a tool. It comes as no surprise to me that you don't even understand your own Christian doctrine and what gave birth to it. That's simply not true. Everybody at that council, actually just about every Christian at the time believed Jesus was Deity. The council of Nicea did not "make Jesus a deity".
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 20, 2017 16:13:26 GMT
tpfkar Both ideas were entertained until one was dictated forcefully (as typical) over centuries. Does a banana have a brain and organs too? Yet it shares roughly the same % of DNA to us as a Fruit Fly. The evidence discredits itself.
|
|