|
Post by Isapop on Jan 6, 2023 18:56:59 GMT
There are the factual assertions of Christianity, such as: Jesus was born of a virgin That was added later, a mistranslation carried forward by tradition but factually incorrect according to ancient texts. If that's so, it strikes me as very strange. After all, the whole point of Christianity is that, since a man born with sin can't redeem everybody else born with sin, redemption requires someone who didn't inherit Adam's sin. So, Jesus can't have a human father. Something so fundamental to Christianity as that resulted from a mistranslation? I won't argue it. But that is strange.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
Member is Online
|
Post by djorno on Jan 6, 2023 18:59:53 GMT
Under what definition of Christianity would you accept the faith? It would no longer be a faith, if it were proven, it would be a fact, like thunderstorms or gravity. I would never accept it on faith, that's why I rejected religion in the first place. As for your question, I'm not sure, you asked the question so what definition are you using? Dude, you know what I meant. okay under that definition of Christianity would you accept the religion?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 6, 2023 22:20:39 GMT
That was added later, a mistranslation carried forward by tradition but factually incorrect according to ancient texts. If that's so, it strikes me as very strange. After all, the whole point of Christianity is that, since a man born with sin can't redeem everybody else born with sin, redemption requires someone who didn't inherit Adam's sin. So, Jesus can't have a human father. Something so fundamental to Christianity as that resulted from a mistranslation? I won't argue it. But that is strange. It's not that strange, all sorts of minor changes in the Bible have been made to tweak the story. In this case the Hebrew word Almah for young woman, was mistranslated (or purposefully changed) to mean virgin, but Hebrew has a different word for virgin, bethulah, that doesn't appear anywhere in the original scriptures. It's been known for a long time that the virgin birth was a lie, but Bible translators kept it going out of tradition and because clergy apply pressure to keep it in.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 6, 2023 22:37:26 GMT
If that's so, it strikes me as very strange. After all, the whole point of Christianity is that, since a man born with sin can't redeem everybody else born with sin, redemption requires someone who didn't inherit Adam's sin. So, Jesus can't have a human father. Something so fundamental to Christianity as that resulted from a mistranslation? I won't argue it. But that is strange. It's not that strange, all sorts of minor changes in the Bible have been made to tweak the story. In this case the Hebrew word Almah for young woman, was mistranslated (or purposefully changed) to mean virgin, but Hebrew has a different word for virgin, bethulah, that doesn't appear anywhere in the original scriptures. It's been known for a long time that the virgin birth was a lie, but Bible translators kept it going out of tradition and because clergy apply pressure to keep it in. The question I would have, and I don't mean for you to exert any more effort than you have made (I should do my own homework), is "Are there genuine neutral scholars among those who would argue on the other side, or only apologists?"
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 6, 2023 22:51:01 GMT
Would you become a Christian? I honestly don’t know what you mean by “If Christianity were proven true”. What does that even mean? Christianity is a real religion in the same way that Islam and Judaism are real religions. They are all “true” by virtue of their existence. But if by “true” you are referring to the propositional content espoused by the believers, well then that would depend on which “Christian” claims you’re talking about (as many are contradictory). They can’t all be true; although they can all be false. So why don’t you state what you mean by “Christianity” and then I can provide an answer. Which specific Christian claim(s) that might be proven true are you talking about? I will state that certain Christian claims are already proven false. They literally CAN’T be proven “true”, which makes it largely an irrelevant question for me. In order to even evaluate your question it requires ignoring the known false things espoused by some Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 6, 2023 22:59:11 GMT
It would no longer be a faith, if it were proven, it would be a fact, like thunderstorms or gravity. I would never accept it on faith, that's why I rejected religion in the first place. As for your question, I'm not sure, you asked the question so what definition are you using? Dude, you know what I meant. okay under that definition of Christianity would you accept the religion? I can guess you meant that Jesus was the son of God and died on the cross for our sins and to save our souls, etc. I mean, if you could demonstrate it as fact, sure I would accept it. Jesus doesn't have to be the son of a god for his teachings to mean something. But the more you dig, the more complicated it becomes, I believe, to define what is a Christian. For example, did Jesus believe in the soul? Was he the Son of God? Was that god Yahweh, or a different god? And once you start looking into ancient texts, it's not a certainty. The Bible as it's known in American churches (I can't speak for any other) is one interpretation, one belief system, inspired by Paul and the Roman church, but not necessarily true to what Jesus was in his own time. Sometimes the teachings aren't even true to the KJV.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
Member is Online
|
Post by djorno on Jan 6, 2023 23:02:26 GMT
What about the value judgements? Could you please elaborate. There are the factual assertions of Christianity, such as: Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus was sent by God to redeem our sins, Jesus died and was then resurrected. If these things were proven, I'd believe them. But then there are value judgments asserted by Christianity. Surely if Christianity is true then that would include the value judgements, no? That seems like a misconception to me. Sin and its punishment are not inherited. Everyone is responsible for their own transgression. Ezekiel 18:20 states that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.“ Again, bro, that’s not an accurate interpretation. We are born with an inherited sinful nature, yes, but not inherited guilt. Unjust if we’re punished for Adam’s sin, just if we’re punished for our own sins alone. Curious to know what your standard is of what is good and bad or right and wrong other than your own personal opinion? But again if Christianity is ultimately true than you would have no choice but to accept all it’s moral judgements, even if they contradict your presuppositions, otherwise you’re really just guilty of cherry-picking. The version preached by Jesus is completely unique to Christianity. Really? You don’t think a being that is infinitely loving and holy is worthy of your praises? Again you can only reach such a conclusion if you use a standard separate from God. In other words your own arbitrary personal opinion which is pretty much meaningless.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
Member is Online
|
Post by djorno on Jan 6, 2023 23:14:59 GMT
Would you become a Christian? I honestly don’t know what you mean by “If Christianity were proven true”. What does that even mean? Christianity is a real religion in the same way that Islam and Judaism are real religions. They are all “true” by virtue of their existence. No need to overcomplicate it. By true I mean all the truth claims made in the NT are proven to be fact. Better? Interesting. Could you cite some examples? Jesus is the divine Son of God, who came to earth to die on the cross and rose again after the 3rd day to redeem us from our sins. Again every proposition made in the NT. Ahh but let’s say hypothetically your understanding of them were false and that they were in fact all true. Would you become a Christian? If not, why?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 6, 2023 23:25:59 GMT
It's not that strange, all sorts of minor changes in the Bible have been made to tweak the story. In this case the Hebrew word Almah for young woman, was mistranslated (or purposefully changed) to mean virgin, but Hebrew has a different word for virgin, bethulah, that doesn't appear anywhere in the original scriptures. It's been known for a long time that the virgin birth was a lie, but Bible translators kept it going out of tradition and because clergy apply pressure to keep it in. The question I would have, and I don't mean for you to exert any more effort than you have made (I should do my own homework), is "Are there genuine neutral scholars among those who would argue on the other side, or only apologists?" None that I know of for what that's worth (not much). There are a few bible translations that have corrected the wording to young woman and Bart Ehrman recently interviewed Jen Knust, both have worked on bible translations.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 6, 2023 23:31:21 GMT
So, if I believe those factual assertions about Jesus that I mentioned and that I try to "do unto others", does that mean I'm a Christian despite being of the opinion that God is a dick? Again you can only reach such a conclusion if you use a standard separate from God. In other words your own arbitrary personal opinion which is pretty much meaningless. Not to butt in, (who am I kidding, I love to butt in), but some early Christians believed that Jesus' father was a new god come to free them from Yahweh. This was a debate in early Christianity, but the new god theory fell out of favor for somewhat obvious reasons if you are trying to convert Jews. And part of the reason was the father Jesus describes is 180 degrees from Yahweh who was a huge asshole.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
Member is Online
|
Post by djorno on Jan 6, 2023 23:32:53 GMT
That was added later, a mistranslation carried forward by tradition but factually incorrect according to ancient texts. If that's so, it strikes me as very strange. After all, the whole point of Christianity is that, since a man born with sin can't redeem everybody else born with sin, redemption requires someone who didn't inherit Adam's sin. So, Jesus can't have a human father. Something so fundamental to Christianity as that resulted from a mistranslation? I won't argue it. But that is strange. Sarge hasn’t framed it correctly. If you read the passage in context then it supports the Christian interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 6, 2023 23:38:16 GMT
If that's so, it strikes me as very strange. After all, the whole point of Christianity is that, since a man born with sin can't redeem everybody else born with sin, redemption requires someone who didn't inherit Adam's sin. So, Jesus can't have a human father. Something so fundamental to Christianity as that resulted from a mistranslation? I won't argue it. But that is strange. Sarge hasn’t framed it correctly. If you read the passage in context then it supports the Christian interpretation. Please continue, I'm happy to be corrected, but I would like more specifics.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
Member is Online
|
Post by djorno on Jan 7, 2023 0:04:36 GMT
Sarge hasn’t framed it correctly. If you read the passage in context then it supports the Christian interpretation. Please continue, I'm happy to be corrected, but I would like more specifics. Sure. Whilst Isaiah 7:14 in the original Hebrew uses the word “almah” which literally means “a young girl” or “maiden”. First thing to notice though is that the prophecy states that “a sign will be given”, by God. This would obviously be a supernatural sign, otherwise what would be so remarkable about a young woman giving birth to a baby? It goes onto to say that before the child grows up to be a certain age the enemies would be destroyed. It then calls him “Immanuel” which means “God with us”, fitting the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. Now the Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek. What Matthew does is quote from the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the OT, written roughly 200 years before the time of Christ. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word Almah in Isaiah 7:14, meaning a young woman, as “Parthenos”, which primarily means virgin in the Greek.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 7, 2023 0:16:09 GMT
There are the factual assertions of Christianity, such as: Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus was sent by God to redeem our sins, Jesus died and was then resurrected. If these things were proven, I'd believe them. But then there are value judgments asserted by Christianity. Surely if Christianity is true then that would include the value judgements, no? That seems like a misconception to me. Sin and its punishment are not inherited. Everyone is responsible for their own transgression. Ezekiel 18:20 states that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.“ Again, bro, that’s not an accurate interpretation. We are born with an inherited sinful nature, yes, but not inherited guilt. Unjust if we’re punished for Adam’s sin, just if we’re punished for our own sins alone. Curious to know what your standard is of what is good and bad or right and wrong other than your own personal opinion? But again if Christianity is ultimately true than you would have no choice but to accept all it’s moral judgements, even if they contradict your presuppositions, otherwise you’re really just guilty of cherry-picking. The version preached by Jesus is completely unique to Christianity. Really? You don’t think a being that is infinitely loving and holy is worthy of your praises? Again you can only reach such a conclusion if you use a standard separate from God. In other words your own arbitrary personal opinion which is pretty much meaningless. What seems like a "misconception" to you is just standard Christian doctrine: Romans 5:12, NLT: When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. Romans 5:12, CSB: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all people, because all sinned. What's clear from Paul's argument here is that death followed sin, as God said it would...They became mortal beings with a limited lifespan. Even worse, Adam and Eve passed on their sin to their offspring. Every person ever born in the world, other than Christ (Hebrews 4:15) was born sinful and destined to die.www.bibleref.com/Romans/5/Romans-5-12.html#:~:text=Romans%205%3A12%2C%20NLT%3A,all%20people%2C%20because%20all%20sinned. God decided that both sin and its penalty shall be an inherited trait. It is no different from any judge who pronounced sentence on the unborn children of some wrongdoer. But arguing over this would miss the point of your OP. You wanted to know if I would become a Christian if its claims were proven. And I have said that I would believe all those factual assertions, as well as trying to "Do unto others.." (which I try to do, regardless). Does that define me as a Christian, even if those facts lead me to an opinion that differs from yours regarding whether God is good? Think of the question this way: Two citizens live under a dictator who commands you love him. Are they both equal citizens even if one citizen loves him and the other doesn't?
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
Member is Online
|
Post by djorno on Jan 7, 2023 0:22:04 GMT
Bro, there is evidence for the truth claims of Christianity. But again I was talking hypothetically. Well your own initial admission seems to testify against that assertion. "Bro, there is evidence for the truth claims of Christianity" You've yet to actually cite any despite me asking several times "But again I was talking hypothetically." That wasn't "hypothetical, you clearly made the claim ("they remain unconvinced by the evidence") "Well your own initial admission seems to testify against that assertion." No it really doesn't, all I ask for is evidence if someone makes a claim. That's not "preconceived" at all, that's just skepticism. In fact skepticism is actually quite the opposite of "preconceived bias", it's means not deciding on an issue until evidence is presented (which you've yet to still provide) and if no evidence is presented, then it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claim. Otherwise you would have to believe in any number of riddiculous claims (alien origin theory, virtual simulation reality) “Good thing there's no actual evidence for the Christian god” These sound like more than the words of someone who’s motivation is only about evidence but also a personal bias against a proposition. You very much seem to be against the idea of Christianity being true.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
Member is Online
|
Post by djorno on Jan 7, 2023 1:35:02 GMT
lowtacks86Seeing as the resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity, let’s start with that. If you’re genuinely enquiring here’s a good video that goes over the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 7, 2023 2:05:57 GMT
"Bro, there is evidence for the truth claims of Christianity" You've yet to actually cite any despite me asking several times "But again I was talking hypothetically." That wasn't "hypothetical, you clearly made the claim ("they remain unconvinced by the evidence") "Well your own initial admission seems to testify against that assertion." No it really doesn't, all I ask for is evidence if someone makes a claim. That's not "preconceived" at all, that's just skepticism. In fact skepticism is actually quite the opposite of "preconceived bias", it's means not deciding on an issue until evidence is presented (which you've yet to still provide) and if no evidence is presented, then it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claim. Otherwise you would have to believe in any number of riddiculous claims (alien origin theory, virtual simulation reality) “Good thing there's no actual evidence for the Christian god” These sound like more than the words of someone who’s motivation is only about evidence but also a personal bias against a proposition. You very much seem to be against the idea of Christianity being true. While you can’t fathom that you yourself could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 7, 2023 2:31:32 GMT
lowtacks86 Seeing as the resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity, let’s start with that. If you’re genuinely enquiring here’s a good video that goes over the evidence. Seriously, they have video from 2,000-some years ago? Are we sure it hasn't been Photoshopped? If someone today claimed to have died and been resurrected, what evidence could that person present? Given that CGI can accomplish most anything in the visual department, would we believe eye-witness accounts of doctors who declared the person dead, then verify that person living again? What if the person had a secret identical twin? Same DNA, etc. Really, FACTUAL EVIDENCE? I don't think so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Stick to faith, it's all you have.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 7, 2023 2:36:27 GMT
"Bro, there is evidence for the truth claims of Christianity" You've yet to actually cite any despite me asking several times "But again I was talking hypothetically." That wasn't "hypothetical, you clearly made the claim ("they remain unconvinced by the evidence") "Well your own initial admission seems to testify against that assertion." No it really doesn't, all I ask for is evidence if someone makes a claim. That's not "preconceived" at all, that's just skepticism. In fact skepticism is actually quite the opposite of "preconceived bias", it's means not deciding on an issue until evidence is presented (which you've yet to still provide) and if no evidence is presented, then it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claim. Otherwise you would have to believe in any number of riddiculous claims (alien origin theory, virtual simulation reality) “Good thing there's no actual evidence for the Christian god” These sound like more than the words of someone who’s motivation is only about evidence but also a personal bias against a proposition. You very much seem to be against the idea of Christianity being true. Uh no, you're doing a bait and switch. Yes it is true I don't like the idea of the Christian God being true (Genesis portrays him as a genocidal maniac), however that's not the same thing as "preconceived bias" (your mind is already made up before looking at the evidence). I sure also wouldn't like the idea of man eating ogres being real, which is why I'm glad there's no actual evidence for them (again that's not "preconceived bias" that's dismissing something that has no evidence). If you can provide evidence for an uncomfortable truth then I'm willing to bite the bullet and accept it. But again you (or any Christian) has yet to provide any. Do you not understand the distinction? I could just as easily say the same about you and any riddiculous claim ("You won't accept the existence of leprechauns because of your preconceived bias")
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 7, 2023 2:38:02 GMT
lowtacks86 Seeing as the resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity, let’s start with that. If you’re genuinely enquiring here’s a good video that goes over the evidence. Jesus Christ (lame pun intended) I'm not gonna watch an entire 45 minute video. Can you at summarize some of the arguments in the video or tell me a time stamp I should forward to?
|
|