Posted on 09/04/2014 6:53:59 PM PDT by Kartographer
“As I read the news, I can’t help but wonder if we are in the last hours before our Lord Jesus Christ returns to rescue His church and God pours out His wrath on the world for the rejection of His Son,” said Rev. Graham in a post on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) website.
“I don’t know if we have hours, days, months, or years—but as Christians, God calls us to take the truth of the Gospel to the ends of the earth,” said Graham. “Our job is to warn sinners of the consequences of sin and show them that God is loving and gracious, willing to forgive if we come to Him in repentance and faith.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Religion has had 5,000 years to provide evidence for eternal life, and has failed. It would make sense that mankind would invent eternity for the mind, since our minds are all that we have. But everything we know about the universe says that nothing is eternal, and waking up from the Bronze Age point of view and making peace with that fact is the most adult decision one can make.
I'm actually familiar with Dr. Alexander from an Intelligence Squared debate he participated in. I just watched this debate last month, and would recommend it to everyone, as Sean Carroll and and Dr. Novella intricately pick apart Dr. Alexander's extremely subjective arguments (Ray Moody is more of a spectator, leaving poor Dr. Alexander outnumbered):
Their hate comes from fear.
They can feel it coming too.
And as we’ve seen in some cases where evangelists are physically attacked,
the perishing get violently agitated when reminded of the coming judgement.
“That’s fine, but I’ve been reading religious books since I was in grade school.”
I too, was in that position. What it took for me, was to quit reading about it, and start writing my own ‘living’ book. Years ago I cried out to God, calling upon Him and as many of the people I had read about, with all my might. That was on the beach in Texas. The following morning my cries were answered as a man approached me (whom I had never met before) and introduced himself. He told me that I had cried out. He invited me to a place up in the redwoods just off the coast, where I spent the next 3 1/2 months in prayer and meditation, living in a gutted out airstream, and barely eating. During those 3 1/2 months, God answered me and showed me many of the things Dr Alexander describes in his book. Can I give you concrete evidence of those things? No one can but He who created us, and All.
God is faithful and true. He will answer you, but you have to ask, and really want it. The book is accurate, and affirmed, at least for me, what had been revealed to me. There is nothing new under the sun.
A consistent theme of a lot of these is that much of the specifics match cultural and geographical variances of faith. For instance, Muslims tend to feel the presence of Allah and meet Muhammad when they have NDEs. Christians see Jesus and/or the Abrahamic God. Hindus meet Vishnu, children meet Santa.
This makes sense if these are functions of the brain. The constant is the transcendent and numinous experience that people can have, not the various gods they ascribe them to. I don't doubt that you had an experience (or Dr. Alexander), but it doesn't prove religion true.
Tell that to the atheists who believe in life after death because they’ve examined instances where people “come back” with knowledge they had no way of acquiring if their mind/soul was exclusively bound to their body on an operating table.
There’s no RATIONAL reason for a lot of things that still exist. Heck, there’s no RATIONAL reason for ANYTHING to exist. What is the scientific/rational reason for anything in this universe to exist? What is the first “cause” - or does the source/reason for everything that exists have to come from something eternal?
If a person has tasted the good and hates it, what difference does it make whether the evidence of that is over a 90-year period, or over a 5,000-year period? And what more can be done with those who hate the good than to isolate them in their own corner and let them enjoy each other forever? The Islamists can have their “Paradise” where they get to rape virgins forever and be as selfish, loveless, and scummy as they ever wished they could be here on earth. Give them their own place where there’s none of this “love” stuff to stop them. It’s called Hell to us, Paradise to them.
For those who are just “part bad” - love some, hate some, don’t believe in much - they need to shop around and figure out what creates love, if they want their eternity to have love in it. Scientifically speaking, where does love come from? Do you find it in your test tubes and chemical tests?
You don’t like God and don’t seem to be interested in being in a place where love, joy, peace, forgiveness, hope, etc dwell. Fine. That’s your choice. You will be rewarded with exactly what you seek. Enjoy it.
Just know that it may not be what you thought it would be. As annoying as you find Christians here and now in our un-perfected state, it’s a whole nother thing when the alternative is to share a room with Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or others who have no reason to treat you any differently than a toy for their amusement. Real evil exists, and it very often has a lot of RATIONALIZATIONS for why it can’t be evil because evil doesn’t rationally exist.
Well, the chief Revealer rose from the dead after suffering a very specific death - with both the death and the resurrection predicted in great detail thousands of years before it happened, by all different kinds of people....
You got better credentials than that? Why should we (or you) believe your opinion?
Thanks for hijacking this thread. It’s between your wife and God if she does not believe in Jesus. We do not need your inane lectures.
Lots of gods claim resurrection, and if you believe Christianity, specifically Matthew 27, it happened to many people even in the gospels.
I'd recommend reading the New Testament in chronological order (Epistles first, then gospels, years they were written). If you're interested in being objective about it, you might have a different understanding.
He quotes numerous accounts, ancient sources and church texts. Look, if you don’t believe in heaven that is one thing, but your point was that you didn’t want to go there since you didn’t like the idea of what you perceive it to be. Either you believe it or you don’t. I was just offering you a link to a summary of what has actually been taught about it as opposed to the cartoon version.
That’s why I said that the death and resurrection was foretold in very intricate detail thousands of years before it happened. And the death and resurrection happened in the midst of enemies who would have loved to refute its factuality if they could but instead the news of it spread explosively starting right where the hostile witnesses could have torn it to bits if possible. It spread even with the threat of death to those who believed the claims about Jesus.
Why do you suppose that was? Why didn’t somebody simply go point out the body of Jesus in the tomb where it was laid?
The Gospels and Epistles seem to have been written around the same time - within the first 10-30 years after Jesus died and rose.
Great description!!
I’m so THANKFUL for God’s saving grace and love!
Heaven is mine to look forward to! NOT because I am a “ good kind person”... only going there because Jesus PAID in FULL my redemption!
I wouldn't consider that good evidence when you're talking about an inter-dimensional realm of bliss run by a cosmic creator. Lots of cultures have ancient texts that describe an afterlife, and all cultures have some forms of NDEs. The concept is more likely to be a human construct.
I think that in addition to the lack of any empirical evidence, one could make an argument that the Gambit of Heaven is not properly explained. I don't have enough evidence to know whether I'd want to go to such a place, and the idea is so unlikely that it isn't something that merits an emotional connection. People's acceptance of an eternal life is based on cultural, cognitive, and confirmation biases without ever really thinking about it.
There's a certain potential emptiness to everlasting existence that is at least worth discussing.
As far as cosmic justice is concerned, it isn't really just to base the fate of one's eternal soul on a single thought, and it's always dangerous to assume that the universe is constructed with you in mind.
The Gospels are clearly mythical literature, and good literature at that. Richard Carrier has a fantastic synopsis explaing how they're literature, and the very complex structure that they take. They aren't recounting history, but retelling it within a historical context and sprinkling it with myth and mysticism.
Of course they match prophecy, as they were written intentionally to do so to make a point.
There are over 40 gospels that we know existed, not all of which survived. The ones that were chosen to be included in the Bible are the ones that match what the early Church followers wanted them to match.
The Gospels and Epistles seem to have been written around the same time - within the first 10-30 years after Jesus died and rose.
This is untrue. The best evidence we have shows that the Epistles predate the Gospels, which were written close to the end of the first century. We have no eyewitness accounts, and even if we did, the testimony of credulous 1st century Iron Age people are not reliable as confirmation that the laws of nature have been violated. Look at how goofily the Roswell incident has been blown out of proportion; look at 9/11 truther theories about an incident that happened right in front of us on video and in the midst of a 24 hour news cycle. People aren't very reliable witnesses the further you get from the evidence.
Ah, you’re a Richard Carrier devotee. That explains a lot.
There’s a book by Colin Hemer that you should read, called “The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History”. Acts and the Gospel of Luke contain geographic information that contradicts the reference materials of that day but that is shown to be correct based on fairly recent scientific discoveries regarding the coastal sediment, etc for the areas mentioned. That’s just one example of how the claim that the historical claims about Jesus and the early church were made up later, as “myth”. Hemer has page after page after page of similar instances.
I once debated with atheists/agnostics about the historical accuracy of Luke, versus Josephus and other historians - I think that was about whether the proper historic word was “prefect” or “procurator”, and etchings in stone confirmed that it was Luke who was accurate. To his credit, at least one of the atheists with whom I was conversing acknowledged that Luke was more trustworthy than Josephus and that Luke was proven by the stones themselves to have knowledge directly from that time period.
After debating with Carrier devotees for some time, I met socially with a friend who was working on his doctorate in antiquities and asked him how he deals with people who claim that the Gospels were “myth” written long after the witnesses were dead. He laughed and said, “Nobody serious in academia is still making those claims. There’s way too much evidence in stone and papyrus for anybody to credibly make those claims any more.” He said those arguments come from the RELIGIOUS STUDIES people, not from the HISTORY/ARCHAEOLOGY or ANTIQUITIES people. It’s the “religious studies” people who can give “scholarly opinions” (like Carrier does) without having any documentation to back them up. The hard sciences such as archaeology, geology, etc operate much more scientifically than that.
But enough of that. You still haven’t answered my question as to why the claims of Christianity arose from Jerusalem/Judea at the very time that the hostile witnesses were there to refute the claims - and as evidenced by both the Jewish and Roman writings showing they had much motivation to refute the claims if they could.
Why do you suppose that happened? Archaeological remains show Christian symbols in first-century ossuaries for Temple priests. Temple priests became Christians. Why is that, if their own guard watched the tomb of Jesus and knew that the resurrection claims were bunk?
Should have said, “That’s just one example OF THE DEBUNKING of the claim that the historical claims about Jesus and the early church were made up later, as ‘myth’.”
If I were you I wouldn’t even get involved in a nasty thread like this.
.
There's Ehrmann on the other side who claims that the evidence is solid that Jesus did exist, so it's not like non-believers all agree.
However, for me personally, the myth hypothesis makes more sense, and more accurately describes why the New Testament is so weird. Looking at the Epistles of Paul and reading them as if Paul were talking about Christ in a heavenly realm instead of Earth, it's a remarkable exercise. It works. I wouldn't expect any devout Christian to even be able to have the mindset to do such an exercise, as religious presupposition is so strong. But if you're ever able to do it objectively it's eye opening.
It perfectly explains why Paul, in writing over 100,000 words about Christianity, didn't once mention anything about the Virgin Birth, Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist, Christ's miracles, Jesus' ministry, Palm Sunday, Pontius Pilate, the Jewish Mob, nor does Paul even quote anything Jesus is supposed to have said.
The Christ myth theory, coupled together with the 100% proved fact that the Epistles came first, and the historical fiction gospels coming second, is the best explanation in my opinion.
I think many of the "majority of scholars" are presupposed to believe in the historical Jesus, and perhaps unaware of the evidence or think it unimportant.
...why the claims of Christianity arose from Jerusalem/Judea at the very time that the hostile witnesses were there to refute the claims?
Well, the Gospels were written around 70 or after, so it's highly doubtful that there were many "eyewitnesses" around to debunk the claims. It's likely that early Christians viewed the Gospels for what they were; a reinterpretation of history putting Jesus in middle of it, much like other people in the same era believed in other resurrection myths. There were all sorts of resurrection cults that combined Hellenism with other cultural myths, and Christianity just happened to be one that combined Hellenism and Judaism.
No one can say for sure, but I don't see any reason to believe that the explanation for all of this is that this ONE religion is actually true, and that the laws of nature were violated. You wouldn't accept this incredibly poor standard of evidence for anything not related to your religion.
Also, I needed to correct you on this. Carrier has a PhD in ancient history, and is an ancient history scholar, not a religious studies academic.
However, I think your friend may have confirmed a lot of what Carrier says about the poor nature of Christ-myth scholarship out there (even if your friend was wrong about Carrier's background).
Carrier said that the reason Christ-myth theories are rejected by a lot of academia is that most of the arguments have been really poor, and not thoroughly researched. Carrier is actually quite helpful in debunking a lot of the Christ-myth garbage out there that I'd read, such as Mithras being a resurrected god, whose birthday was on December 25th, and the thoroughly discredited idea that the Romans invented Jesus.
Carrier said that at many levels he was having to start from scratch.
Nothing that you’ve said explains the Christian symbols on the Temple priests’ ossuaries, why the contemporaneous Jewish writings say that Jesus was condemned for being a “sorceror” (one who performs certifiably-real miracles, supposedly using the devil’s power) and why they ridiculed the idea of a man also being God or someone rising from the dead, why there were enough Christians in Rome within a couple decades that Tacitus mentioned them specifically, why Luke supposedly writing so much later gets the science/geography/nomenclature right even when the reference materials at the time didn’t, why the non-pastoral Pauline Epistles which are compiled and contained in an actual physical codex dating to around 80CE contain references to the same events that are claimed in the Gospels, etc.
You’re going to believe what you want to believe. That’s fine. It’s your life.
But there are a lot of good reasons to believe the opposite of what you believe.
In the discussions I’ve had, the question ALWAYS comes down to a person’s epistemology. Two people could observe somebody clinically dead for 3 days rise from the dead and one would say it was a miracle of God and the other would say there’s some as-yet-undiscovered natural explanation for what had happened. We can’t see either. We can’t see God doing it, and we can’t see the undiscovered natural explanation, but both people will believe one or the other based sheerly on faith. Which conclusion is more “reasonable”? I don’t know. What I do know is that if a person’s epistemology is that there CAN NEVER be a supernatural event because there absolutely is NO GOD.... the evidence will ALWAYS end up supporting that in their mind. And the same is true for someone who says there HAS TO be a God. And unless either one has some way for their belief to be proven wrong (falsified), that’s how it’s always gonna be.
We will never be able to convince each other, and that’s fine. Like I said, it’s your life. You want it to be without God and you’ll eventually get what you want, while others will reject God because they blame Him for not forcing you into His Heaven.
I just want those who are seriously pondering their worldview to realize the role that epistemology plays in the FAITH that we all have. Because we ALL have faith in something we can’t see or prove. It’s just a matter of WHAT we have faith in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.