An answer to a question about the state of our hearts

solodeogloria

looksee wrote: »

What are God's standards? Other than reference to interaction with God, which is irrelevant if you are not a follower of that God, what standards does God have that are not basic human decency and social behaviour?

How do you define sin?

Good evening looksee!

Thank you for your question. I've decided to pick it up from the other thread to discuss it further. I'm happy to take more questions anyone else has also.

God's standards for us are declared in the Bible and demonstrated most supremely in the Lord Jesus Christ. It speaks into a whole host of areas ranging from the heart attitudes that we have towards one another to the practical every say things. I can point to two areas that would go beyond common human decency.

The first in respect to the lustful attitudes of our heart:

Matthew 5:27-30 ESVUK wrote:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

The second in respect to how we treat our enemies:

Matthew 5:38-48 ESVUK wrote:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

For a brief summary of the kinds of unclean things that come from our human hearts Jesus offers the diagnosis:

Mark 7:14-23 ESVUK wrote:

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

You can't seriously suggest that this is how the secular world views either of these topics or that secular morality is the same as Christian morality. Jesus ups the ante on what the Jewish people considered God's holy law in the Old Testament. God doesn't command our mere obedience but God commands the loyalty of heart. Unless we love Him above and beyond everything in this life we fall short.

The good news for the Christian is that Jesus came to rescue us where we have clearly sinned against the God who made us.

Sin is defined as falling short of God's standards but it is also suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. The sins that we commit are an external sign that we don't love God as we should and that we have exchanged our worship for Him with the worship of other things. This is how the Bible puts it. The heart of sin is a futile and arrogant rejection of the God who made us.

Romans 1:18-32 ESVUK wrote:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practise such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practise them.

We can't really shirk that picture. I think any honest person looking to the deepest corner of their hearts will see this. God reveals this stuff to me daily about my own heart. Claiming that we are basically alright, is just a lie from a Christian perspective.

One might claim that these things are irrelevant but if Jesus walked the earth as He did in history and if He was who He declared to be and who the prophets said He must be then we ought to listen. If Jesus is truly the one who will judge the living and the dead then we won't be able to flippantly dismiss His Word as irrelevant.

Some of that was and will always be hard to write - it is sobering - but it is only truly sobering if we refuse to listen to God's Son. There is so much joy in walking with Him and having hope both in this age and the age to come!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

looksee

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practise such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practise them.

I am not sure if I should step into this mire of arrogance, but I will respond, though how anyone with any sort of charitable outlook could believe this is really beyond me. You are saying that all those of us who do not acknowledge your god have all the personality traits and faults that you list above? Indeed the quote seems to suggest that god actually imposes these behaviours on them.

People are supposed to turn the other cheek when they abused, but god does not have to obey his own rules, rather he will 'ruthlessly and heartlessly' inflict all these faults on someone who does not bow down to him?

You can't seriously suggest that this is how the secular world views either of these topics or that secular morality is the same as Christian morality.

No, and I am grateful that secular morality is not the same as Christian morality, if your argument is to be taken seriously. Secular morality is not puffed up with self righteousness and over-confidence that it is the only way. Secular morality is prepared to look at society and attempts to treat people with fairness, courtesy and respect. It is prepared to keep adjusting and balancing to achieve the best for society, rather than dictate on a basis of threats of retribution in the next life.

And for all that lengthy post, you have not answered either of my questions.

solodeogloria

looksee wrote: »

I am not sure if I should step into this mire of arrogance, but I will respond, though how anyone with any sort of charitable outlook could believe this is really beyond me. You are saying that all those of us who do not acknowledge your god have all the personality traits and faults that you list above? Indeed the quote seems to suggest that god actually imposes these behaviours on them.

Good morning!

I think I ought to remind you that firstly, I didn't write the book of Romans in the New Testament. Secondly, I consider my own state to be that which is described in these verses. Thirdly, these verses aren't here to cause us to beat ourselves up about ourselves, but rather they are to encourage us to see our need to turn and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. While we were still sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-9)

Romans 1:18-32 which I quoted, does say that God gave people over to sin because of their rejection of Him. The primary issue isn't with the specific sins that we commit, it is because we reject our God and do not give Him the acknowledgement that He deserves. We wilfully walk away from Him. This sin points to the coming judgement to come. In short, it shows us of our need of rescue.

Although you mightn't see me as having a charitable outlook, my function on this forum is very simple. To try and explain what God has said in His Word about this and any other topic that people might ask me about. I have to be honest with you about what the Bible says about our heart.

looksee wrote: »

People are supposed to turn the other cheek when they abused, but god does not have to obey his own rules, rather he will 'ruthlessly and heartlessly' inflict all these faults on someone who does not bow down to him?

People are not God. God gave us His standards because He loves us. We have turned away and we have fallen short of them, and even then God sent His Son to rescue us because He loves us. The option to repent and put our trust in Him is available.

Pinning the blame on God doesn't work given the track record.

looksee wrote: »

No, and I am grateful that secular morality is not the same as Christian morality, if your argument is to be taken seriously. Secular morality is not puffed up with self righteousness and over-confidence that it is the only way. Secular morality is prepared to look at society and attempts to treat people with fairness, courtesy and respect. It is prepared to keep adjusting and balancing to achieve the best for society, rather than dictate on a basis of threats of retribution in the next life.

I amn't self-righteous at all. I've acknowledged very clearly on that thread that I am a sinner and that I am no better than an atheist in God's sight. I deserve judgement also for my sins, but Christ has come to rescue us. I've seen my need for a Saviour and I have put my trust in Him. That option is available to all and that is what I am stating.

A Christian believer is only "righteous" in God's sight by virtue of Jesus' saving death and resurrection. Self-righteousness has no place in Christianity. Only God is righteous. If you like we are Christ righteous. Or we are only righteous because of Jesus and what He has done.

looksee wrote: »

And for all that lengthy post, you have not answered either of my questions.

• You asked me if Christian standards are the same as basic human decency and social behaviour - I told you that they are not. They go far beyond this.

• You asked me how do I define sin. I gave you the Biblical answer from Romans 1.

I've tried my best to answer your question. If I've missed anything please point it out to me.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

looksee

Romans 1:18-32 which I quoted, does say that God gave people over to sin because of their rejection of Him. The primary issue isn't with the specific sins that we commit, it is because we reject our God and do not give Him the acknowledgement that He deserves. We wilfully walk away from Him. This sin points to the coming judgement to come. In short, it shows us of our need of rescue.

I suspect it might be better to walk away from this discussion and accept that we will have to agree to disagree. However. We are discussing a god who demands that people acknowledge and worship him. How do we know that? Because intermediaries wrote these demands down a couple of millennia or more ago. Those who do not obey these demands are given over to anti-social behaviours and allowed to mess up humanity.

This does not answer why we should acknowledge and worship this entity who chose to create us - apparently for the sole purpose of dying and getting into heaven - chose to make us faulty, and then entertains himself by giving some people horrific burdens to bear, while others are born healthy into loving, stable, peaceful families. It really all sounds rather more like a petulant child than a loving father.

The issue of sin is even darker than I imagined. The only sin is to not accept and worship god? If we do not do that then we will be thrown away to engage in all the evils that are listed. Whether we engage in un-social behaviour does not matter, what matters is not acknowledging god? So a person who lives an honest, caring, loving life but does not acknowledge god is wrong, whereas a person who worships and accepts god but chooses to do god's work by killing unbelievers is somehow 'right'?

No, I think the world has been run god's way for the past couple of thousand years, and has been an almost constant bloodbath of war, injustice and cruelty. Now, as more and more people cast off the yoke of belief the world is gradually improving. At a local level Ireland has improved immeasurably since the burden of guilt and worry brought on by people who set themselves up to know what god wants has declined.

Just possibly god has grown up and has realised that his need to be worshiped is less important than each individual finding a conscience and a way of living socially, and that that in itself is a form a worship that has nothing to do with guilt and interpreting old books.

solodeogloria

looksee wrote: »

I suspect it might be better to walk away from this discussion and accept that we will have to agree to disagree. However. We are discussing a god who demands that people acknowledge and worship him. How do we know that? Because intermediaries wrote these demands down a couple of millennia or more ago. Those who do not obey these demands are given over to anti-social behaviours and allowed to mess up humanity.

This does not answer why we should acknowledge and worship this entity who chose to create us - apparently for the sole purpose of dying and getting into heaven - chose to make us faulty, and then entertains himself by giving some people horrific burdens to bear, while others are born healthy into loving, stable, peaceful families. It really all sounds rather more like a petulant child than a loving father.

The issue of sin is even darker than I imagined. The only sin is to not accept and worship god? If we do not do that then we will be thrown away to engage in all the evils that are listed. Whether we engage in un-social behaviour does not matter, what matters is not acknowledging god? So a person who lives an honest, caring, loving life but does not acknowledge god is wrong, whereas a person who worships and accepts god but chooses to do god's work by killing unbelievers is somehow 'right'?

No, I think the world has been run god's way for the past couple of thousand years, and has been an almost constant bloodbath of war, injustice and cruelty. Now, as more and more people cast off the yoke of belief the world is gradually improving. At a local level Ireland has improved immeasurably since the burden of guilt and worry brought on by people who set themselves up to know what god wants has declined.

Just possibly god has grown up and has realised that his need to be worshiped is less important than each individual finding a conscience and a way of living socially, and that that in itself is a form a worship that has nothing to do with guilt and interpreting old books.

Good morning!

By all means it is up to you as to whether or not you want to continue with this discussion! I'm hopeful though that good conversations between Christians and atheists can at the very least provide better understanding. My role on this forum is very simple - answer the questions I am provided to the best of my ability from the Bible with the love and respect of the Lord Jesus Christ while doing so.

You're right that the Bible was revealed to people. The Bible is an account of God's interaction with dozens of people over hundreds of years. I don't claim anything otherwise. The Romans passage referring to being "given over" is speaking of the root problem. The root problem of all sin is exchanging the worship of God with other things. That is the hypothesis that Paul is expounding in Romans.

I've not argued once that we should worship God for the sole purpose of getting into heaven. God reveals judgement against all ungodliness certainly, but God longs that we live for Him and love Him by virtue of creation and the gift of life that He has given us. We have all the more reason to love Him when we see that He has loved us first, most supremely in His Son while we rejected Him:

1 John 4:8-12 ESVUK wrote:

In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

The logic then seems to flow that because God showed us His love in the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving death on the cross that we are to love others. We love God because of the mercy that He has shown us, and if you don't understand why we need God's mercy you won't love God. That's very transparent.

I don't believe that God made us faulty. We chose to walk away from Him. Sin and death entered the world through Adam:

Romans 5:12-14 ESVUK wrote:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

The horrific burdens that we face in this life aren't because of God, but they are in spite of God. The burdens that we face are because of the root problem of our sinfulness. Choosing to blame God for this is the only thing that is truly petulant and childish particularly when God gives us the Lord Jesus. The issue of sin is incredibly dark, but that is because of the hardness of our hearts. I never said that the sins that we commit don't matter. They are horrific, but they are all the fruit of rejecting God which I believe is horrific in and of itself. The bloodbath of wars, injustice and cruelty is the result of human sinfulness.

People living rightly is directly correlated to the heart attitude that they have towards God from a Christian perspective. All sinfulness results from our petulant, childish and futile rebellion against the God who created us and the God who loves us and the God who sent His Son for us.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

MRnotlob606

Christian Morality is the highest form of Morality.

mordeith

God makes humans, god gives them free will. But you can't excercise that free will or else suffer wrath of God. [That's unjust]<snip>

looksee

Sorry S. but it seems to me that all your arguments are circular. You may think you are replying to my points but you really are not.

My role on this forum is very simple - answer the questions I am provided to the best of my ability from the Bible with the love and respect of the Lord Jesus Christ while doing so.

This is - kinda - a case in point. Your role on here is to engage in discussion with other people. You are apparently under the impression that you have the role of teacher, you do not have that role; all you can do is discuss and engage with others' views.

So going back to my earlier question:

Whether we engage in un-social behaviour does not matter, what matters is not acknowledging god? So a person who lives an honest, caring, loving life but does not acknowledge god, is wrong, whereas a person who worships and accepts god but chooses to do god's work by killing unbelievers is somehow 'right'?

Can you give me your own views on this? Your understanding of the answer, rather than a long biblical quote that has to be interpreted?

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Please list the questions I haven't answered. I've answered the bolded question. The answer is yes, they are wrong from a Christian view.

I want to answer them if I haven't. Bear in mind that not liking the answer isn't the same thing as not having answered it.

I subscribe to a Biblical perspective on the world by virtue of Jesus. I hold to a sola scriptura Reformation perspective on the Bible. The reason why I quote from it is to show that it isn't a mere opinion but that all that I've said is grounded in the Word of God.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

looksee

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Please list the questions I haven't answered. I've answered the bolded question. The answer is yes, they are wrong from a Christian view.

I want to answer them if I haven't. Bear in mind that not liking the answer isn't the same thing as not having answered it.

I subscribe to a Biblical perspective on the world by virtue of Jesus. I hold to a sola scriptura Reformation perspective on the Bible. The reason why I quote from it is to show that it isn't a mere opinion but that all that I've said is grounded in the Word of God.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Well that is clear enough. Christian does not mean what I thought it meant, so I will bow out of this discussion.

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Please list the questions I haven't answered. I've answered the bolded question. The answer is yes, they are wrong from a Christian view.

I want to answer them if I haven't. Bear in mind that not liking the answer isn't the same thing as not having answered it.

I subscribe to a Biblical perspective on the world by virtue of Jesus. I hold to a sola scriptura Reformation perspective on the Bible. The reason why I quote from it is to show that it isn't a mere opinion but that all that I've said is grounded in the Word of God.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Unsatisfactory.
By your posts, they are not only wrong but damned.
The poster suggested an essentially good person, who did not believe in God.
According to you there is no hope for this person if they remain in this state - despite their alleged good character and life.
This is a denial of any positive attributes they may possess - a denial of the value of the essential goodness suggested by the poster who put the question to you.
How would you describe a person who denies a positive value?

solodeogloria

indioblack wrote: »

Unsatisfactory.
By your posts, they are not only wrong but damned.
The poster suggested an essentially good person, who did not believe in God.
According to you there is no hope for this person if they remain in this state - despite their alleged good character and life.
This is a denial of any positive attributes they may possess - a denial of the value of the essential goodness suggested by the poster who put the question to you.
How would you describe a person who denies a positive value?

Good afternoon!

I can't promise you that you will find the Christian faith satisfactory. My aim isn't to tingle ears with what people may want to hear, but to convey what God has declared.

There is no such thing as a "good person" on someone's own account in the Christian faith. All have sinned, and therefore all need rescue. There are those who have accepted that rescue and those that have not. I long for the latter to know Jesus and follow Him.

There are no exceptions to that principle and I can't honestly claim that there are.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I can't promise you that you will find the Christian faith satisfactory. My aim isn't to tingle ears with what people may want to hear, but to convey what God has declared.

There is no such thing as a "good person" on someone's own account in the Christian faith. All have sinned, and therefore all need rescue. There are those who have accepted that rescue and those that have not. I long for the latter to know Jesus and follow Him.

There are no exceptions to that principle and I can't honestly claim that there are.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Please bear in mind that most of the posters who would describe themselves as unbelievers have almost certainly been Christian at some time in their lives - in this part of the world that's a reasonable assumption to make.
This isn't uncharted territory.
"Tickle their ears" was the variant expression given to me - in a patronising way. Even the "saved" aren't beyond the pernicious grasp of ego and pride.
I interpret your answer to mean that there is no hope for the hypothetically good person, who is also an unbeliever, suggested by the poster who put the question to you.
Again I'll ask you, how would you describe a person who denies a positive value?
As with the other hypothetical case put forward in the other thread, nothing matters except repentance, acceptance.
No other positive, good value has any worth if it is not linked to a belief in God.
All other actions, behaviours, lifestyles have no value unless connected in this way.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

Well that is clear enough. Christian does not mean what I thought it meant, so I will bow out of this discussion.

I suspect it means quite a lot of different things to the very many people out there who would consider themselves Christian. The differences would seem to have been large enough over the years to be the source of some rather serious conflict.

smacl

indioblack wrote: »

Please bear in mind that most of the posters who would describe themselves as unbelievers have almost certainly been Christian at some time in their lives - in this part of the world that's a reasonable assumption to make.

Most perhaps, but fewer than you'd think at the same time. I'm an atheist for example, as were both of my parents and are both of my kids. A fair proportion of my kids friends are also second if not third generation atheists. While many Christians on this forum might consider boards.ie to be an anomalous hot-bed of atheism, I'd suggest it is more reflective of broader Irish society than you might think.

indioblack

smacl wrote: »

Most perhaps, but fewer than you'd think at the same time. I'm an atheist for example, as were both of my parents and are both of my kids. A fair proportion of my kids friends are also second if not third generation atheists. While many Christians on this forum might consider boards.ie to be an anomalous hot-bed of atheism, I'd suggest it is more reflective of broader Irish society than you might think.

Fair enough - but you'd agree that the basics of the religion would be known to all.

smacl

indioblack wrote: »

Fair enough - but you'd agree that the basics of the religion would be known to all.

To an extent, but I would say that is often a rather flawed understanding. For example, I'd always thought that following the ten commandments was a basic part of Christianity, and one of those commandments was 'thou shalt not kill', but apparently this isn't the case. I've come to the opinion that the basics of the religion vary significantly between different Christians, and that it is a mistake to assumptions about what any given Christian may or may not believe.

solodeogloria

indioblack wrote: »

Please bear in mind that most of the posters who would describe themselves as unbelievers have almost certainly been Christian at some time in their lives - in this part of the world that's a reasonable assumption to make.
This isn't uncharted territory.
"Tickle their ears" was the variant expression given to me - in a patronising way. Even the "saved" aren't beyond the pernicious grasp of ego and pride.
I interpret your answer to mean that there is no hope for the hypothetically good person, who is also an unbeliever, suggested by the poster who put the question to you.
Again I'll ask you, how would you describe a person who denies a positive value?
As with the other hypothetical case put forward in the other thread, nothing matters except repentance, acceptance.
No other positive, good value has any worth if it is not linked to a belief in God.
All other actions, behaviours, lifestyles have no value unless connected in this way.

Good evening!

My point is that I don't intend my posts to be "satisfactory".

If you dislike the Gospel I can't change it for you. It's not mine to change. As for tickling ears I was alluding to Paul's second letter to Timothy. It wasn't intended to be patronising.

2 Timothy 4:1-5 ESVUK wrote:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.

The only people who give people what they want to hear over God's truth are false teachers. That's not loving and not caring.

Prior knowledge of Christianity is irrelevant. The truth doesn't change because people reject it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

smacl wrote: »

To an extent, but I would say that is often a rather flawed understanding. For example, I'd always thought that following the ten commandments was a basic part of Christianity, and one of those commandments was 'thou shalt not kill', but apparently this isn't the case. I've come to the opinion that the basics of the religion vary significantly between different Christians, and that it is a mistake to assumptions about what any given Christian may or may not believe.

Good post - and, thinking over the various exchanges I've had in this and other related threads, a necessary correction.

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My point is that I don't intend my posts to be "satisfactory".

If you dislike the Gospel I can't change it for you. It's not mine to change. As for tickling ears I was alluding to Paul's second letter to Timothy. It wasn't intended to be patronising.


The only people who give people what they want to hear over God's truth are false teachers. That's not loving and not caring.

Prior knowledge of Christianity is irrelevant. The truth doesn't change because people reject it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

At present I neither like nor dislike the Gospels - I've not asked you to change anything.
I asked for your own opinion.
As for the truth, it depends on what truth you're referring to.
If it's in reference to belief then that is subjective.
I've just had an exchange with a poster who reminded me that Christians have different views regarding their beliefs.

solodeogloria

indioblack wrote: »

At present I neither like nor dislike the Gospels - I've not asked you to change anything.
I asked for your own opinion.
As for the truth, it depends on what truth you're referring to.
If it's in reference to belief then that is subjective.
I've just had an exchange with a poster who reminded me that Christians have different views regarding their beliefs.

Good evening!

Not if Jesus is actually Lord and if He is actually returning to judge the world. It doesn't get much more objective than that.

If I hold atheist assumptions and treat it as a myth or a fairytale then sure it's subjective but only if your assumptions hold up.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Not if Jesus is actually Lord and if He is actually returning to judge the world. It doesn't get much more objective than that.

"If".
It's a matter of choice - dependant on what you want for yourself.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

You can of course choose what to believe.
You can't however choose what is true.

If belief A is true and belief B isn't then the substance of belief A is true even though the adherent of belief B doesn't believe it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

smacl

solodeogloria wrote: »

If belief A is true and belief B isn't then the substance of belief A is true even though the adherent of belief B doesn't believe it.

The natural extension of this played out through history though is that adherent of religion A states that the beliefs held adherent of religion B are false and vice-versa. This leads to conflict and often outright war. Perhaps if the adherent of any religion were to limit their discourse to their own beliefs while acknowledging that others held different beliefs, the world would be a kinder place. If you closely examine the truth you speak about it is actually better described as a belief, and trying to foist that belief on those who have other, possibly opposing beliefs, could be seen as an act of aggression however well intentioned.

looksee

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You can of course choose what to believe.
You can't however choose what is true.

If belief A is true and belief B isn't then the substance of belief A is true even though the adherent of belief B doesn't believe it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

However:

The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You can of course choose what to believe.
You can't however choose what is true.

If belief A is true and belief B isn't then the substance of belief A is true even though the adherent of belief B doesn't believe it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Perfectly correct - except it doesn't get us anywhere.
You have no more idea if the person known to Christian tradition as Jesus was the son of God than I do. It's a matter of belief.
Nothing wrong with that - we accept many things in our daily lives without knowing if they are actually true - we have to, we simply couldn't verify everything on a daily basis.
You're approaching this from a position of belief - a belief you hold to be true. I'm looking at it from a position of doubt, uncertainty.
I cannot prove you wrong any more than you can prove you are right - in fact it would be undesirable to do so - what need would there be for faith?
It is probably possible to rationalise that a belief in an omnipotent creator is desirable - it can make sense.
But it is a choice made, a chance taken.
And belief must be absolute or it is no belief at all.
For some it is a matter of hope - hope for the best. That's good, it's a position we can choose to take as human beings - to hope for the best.
We make think that something has been revealed to us - but that's personal, individual.
Finally, it comes down to choice - and the question that can be asked in that situation is "why do you choose to believe?".

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

I am not sure if I should step into this mire of arrogance,

Before stepping in, you should calibrate yourself. Against utter purity, you can't help but appear steeped in muck. Now you might correctly see yourself as somewhat less mucky than the muckier of us but that doesn't alter your standing when measured against that which is wholly pure.

but I will respond, though how anyone with any sort of charitable outlook could believe this is really beyond me.

You (or me) having charitable aspects doesn't alter the position. Muck is muck and it isn't being uncharitable to acknowledge that. It is, instead, an attitude which ignores that which is muck which holds as you hold. Which is a sentimental, rose-tinted view.

This isn't to say there are good aspects to us and there are places where the Bible acknowledges the good we muckers do. This section is dealing with the absolute measure of us though. And concludes us filthy in sin.

You are saying that all those of us who do not acknowledge your god have all the personality traits and faults that you list above? Indeed the quote seems to suggest that god actually imposes these behaviours on them.

The words are "gives them over". That is to say: releases his restraint on them, releases that which would limit their desire for filth, hands them over to that which their heart yearns for.

They want it, God let's them have it. Doing so respects their will expression.

-

Now you might have a problem with the terms muck, filth, depravity .. they seem so awful. The only issue in this is a failure to appreciate what we're being measured against. Purity.

The usual error that takes place then is to point to what God does and suppose him less than pure. Which is to suppose God's actions against us driven by the same motivation as our actions. Our ugly actions are driven by selfishness. God's percieved-ugly actions are driven by righteousness. That is: it is right to unleash fury on that which is driven by ugly motivation.

So far, I've never seen anyone actually attack that point: God is right is what he does. We're not.

For instance..

People are supposed to turn the other cheek when they abused, but god does not have to obey his own rules, rather he will 'ruthlessly and heartlessly' inflict all these faults on someone who does not bow down to him?

See above. He doesn't inflict anything. He just ceases to restrain us. He is not obliged to restrain us. He owes us nothing other than that which he beholds himself to.

No, and I am grateful that secular morality

There is no such thing. Morality comes from within and takes on group form which is codified in law and in commonly held norms.

The within cannot be called secular since secular is just a badge and affects not one jot the source of morality. If we are indeed God's creations then that is what we are, whether believers or no and our morality stems from God. If

Secular morality is not puffed up with self righteousness and over-confidence that it is the only way

If there is no only way then there are all sorts of ways. Which makes this "morality" a moveable feast. You do see the issues with that don't you? Something wrong today is right tomorrow.

When you've no compass you are lost.

Secular morality is prepared to look at society and attempts to treat people with fairness, courtesy and respect.

You should read history and the impact Christianity had in precisely those areas. Christian sinners exhorting, campaigning, influencing such that other, less fortunate sinners be treated by justly by sinners who'd (sinfully) erected an unjust society. This impacts not at all on the overarching problem: that all are sinners. Mentioning the latter problem doesn't mean you can't act on the former problem

It is prepared to keep adjusting and balancing to achieve the best for society

Who is qualified to actually understand what's globally best for society? Who is qualified to take on the complexity of such a system in expectation that they could actually form society in that image? It would take God like powers to have that overview and the ability (and time) to bring such a society about.

When you've no idea of the scale of the issue, and when you've no way to actually bring society to that position then you are tinkering around. And you don't know how complex the mechanism is and what long term effect your tinkering will have on the system, whatever about apparently local gains.

solodeogloria

indioblack wrote: »

Perfectly correct - except it doesn't get us anywhere.
You have no more idea if the person known to Christian tradition as Jesus was the son of God than I do. It's a matter of belief.
Nothing wrong with that - we accept many things in our daily lives without knowing if they are actually true - we have to, we simply couldn't verify everything on a daily basis.
You're approaching this from a position of belief - a belief you hold to be true. I'm looking at it from a position of doubt, uncertainty.
I cannot prove you wrong any more than you can prove you are right - in fact it would be undesirable to do so - what need would there be for faith?
It is probably possible to rationalise that a belief in an omnipotent creator is desirable - it can make sense.
But it is a choice made, a chance taken.
And belief must be absolute or it is no belief at all.
For some it is a matter of hope - hope for the best. That's good, it's a position we can choose to take as human beings - to hope for the best.
We make think that something has been revealed to us - but that's personal, individual.
Finally, it comes down to choice - and the question that can be asked in that situation is "why do you choose to believe?".

Good evening!

I guess my first question is why do we have to get somewhere? We can happily just agree to disagree.

We know that Jesus was the Son of God by virtue of what was recorded for us by the eyewitnesses in history. We can look and examine the gospel accounts that were recorded for us and subject them to scrutiny. The key question still remains. When all is said and done, show me the bones.

You are proposing a philosophy of belief that I don't agree with. Belief isn't blind faith, but rather a trust on the basis of the evidence that we have before us. That seems to be how the Apostle John understood it when he wrote the following:

John 20:20-21 ESVUK wrote:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

I can't and I won't accept an atheists philosophy of belief. The reality is that we have the accounts recorded for us, and they were very clearly falsifiable in so far as there were people alive within a lifetime of Christ that could have demonstrated this to be false if there was sufficient reason to do so in an era where by people would have wanted to rubbish it.

You also present a hypothesis of faith that is at odds with how Christians understand faith. I have faith in Jesus Christ as a person on the basis of the evidence. Much in the same way that I have faith that the driver of the Central Line will get me into central London on the basis of my experience using this mode of transport in the past. Faith and belief can be rational. I believe Christian belief falls into this category both on the basis of revealed history, but also in respect to a Christian's experience walking with Jesus.

Again, I have to point out it only comes down to choice if there is no day when we are held to account when Jesus returns. It doesn't come down to "choice" if that happens. The only thing that comes down to choice is whether or not we stand before Him condemned or justified.

John 5:20-24 ESVUK wrote:

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son, just as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgement, but has passed from death to life.

John 3:36 ESVUK wrote:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

The reality is at the end of the day, this is something that needs our consideration. If this is true this has massive consequences for how we live our lives. When I say true, I mean objectively and factually true rather than subjectively true.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

smacl

solodeogloria wrote: »

When I say true, I mean objectively and factually true rather than subjectively true.

Evening,

Surely objectivity as best we can approach it is consensus amongst the largest group who care to state their understanding. As such, any single religious belief cannot be considered objective as it does not enjoy such consensus. Perhaps objectivity is not even something we can approach, because we can only ever see the world through our own extremely narrow experience. Perhaps any truth we can hope to understand will always be subjective. As such one honestly held truth based on a religious abstract has no more or less value than another similarly held truth in an alternate abstract. Who are you that can claim objectivity?

looksee

Antiskeptic, I am going to save a lot of typing by admitting I do not have the faintest idea what you are saying in your detailed analysis of my comments. I could try and argue each detail back with you, but I suspect it would be like plaiting fog, there really is not any substance to argue with.

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I guess my first question is why do we have to get somewhere? We can happily just agree to disagree.

We know that Jesus was the Son of God by virtue of what was recorded for us by the eyewitnesses in history. We can look and examine the gospel accounts that were recorded for us and subject them to scrutiny. The key question still remains. When all is said and done, show me the bones.

You are proposing a philosophy of belief that I don't agree with. Belief isn't blind faith, but rather a trust on the basis of the evidence that we have before us. That seems to be how the Apostle John understood it when he wrote the following:

I can't and I won't accept an atheists philosophy of belief. The reality is that we have the accounts recorded for us, and they were very clearly falsifiable in so far as there were people alive within a lifetime of Christ that could have demonstrated this to be false if there was sufficient reason to do so in an era where by people would have wanted to rubbish it.

You also present a hypothesis of faith that is at odds with how Christians understand faith. I have faith in Jesus Christ as a person on the basis of the evidence. Much in the same way that I have faith that the driver of the Central Line will get me into central London on the basis of my experience using this mode of transport in the past. Faith and belief can be rational. I believe Christian belief falls into this category both on the basis of revealed history, but also in respect to a Christian's experience walking with Jesus.

Again, I have to point out it only comes down to choice if there is no day when we are held to account when Jesus returns. It doesn't come down to "choice" if that happens. The only thing that comes down to choice is whether or not we stand before Him condemned or justified.



The reality is at the end of the day, this is something that needs our consideration. If this is true this has massive consequences for how we live our lives. When I say true, I mean objectively and factually true rather than subjectively true.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

My answer to your first point would be "why not?" The one thing we have in common is the journey we're on.
If it seems fruitless to debate this - sure, let's agree to disagree.

solodeogloria

smacl wrote: »

Evening,

Surely objectivity as best we can approach it is consensus amongst the largest group who care to state their understanding. As such, any single religious belief cannot be considered objective as it does not enjoy such consensus. Perhaps objectivity is not even something we can approach, because we can only ever see the world through our own extremely narrow experience. Perhaps any truth we can hope to understand will always be subjective. As such one honestly held truth based on a religious abstract has no more or less value than another similarly held truth in an alternate abstract. Who are you that can claim objectivity?

Good evening!

I agree that in an atheist worldview the closest thing that you can get to objectivity is a consensus model. This is what philosophers like Jürgen Habermas propose in respect to ethics.

In a Christian worldview objectivity is simply found in the objective God whose objective Word is ultimately binding on all.

This is why I think we shouldn't be thinking about getting anywhere like indioblack. We should use these conversations for understanding. It would take an incredibly good set of reasons in order for me to conclude that the assumptions I hold on the basis of the eyewitnesses are false. Likewise I suspect the same is true for you. I've staked my life on the Gospel being true. You will need very good reasons in order for me to adopt an atheist worldview.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I agree that in an atheist worldview the closest thing that you can get to objectivity is a consensus model. This is what philosophers like Jürgen Habermas propose in respect to ethics.

In a Christian worldview objectivity is simply found in the objective God whose objective Word is ultimately binding on all.

This is why I think we shouldn't be thinking about getting anywhere like indioblack. We should use these conversations for understanding. It would take an incredibly good set of reasons in order for me to conclude that the assumptions I hold on the basis of the eyewitnesses are false. Likewise I suspect the same is true for you. I've staked my life on the Gospel being true. You will need very good reasons in order for me to adopt an atheist worldview.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Understanding is the attainment of a position - and in the process we may alter our values and experience a shift in perceptions - "getting there".
There have been many thousands of books regarding the period in history regarding Jesus. Some claiming authenticity for his existence, others disputing this claim.
You would require several lifetimes to study, translate and correctly interpret every archaeological, historical and religious document.
You would probably find a myriad of different views within religious belief - never mind outside of it.
You have chosen to take your view and you have found nothing to merit a change in that belief - which renders this debate redundant.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I agree that there are thousands of books in all time written about Jesus.

However there are only 4 falsifiable eyewitness accounts which mention specific people, places and events written within a lifetime of Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I agree that there are thousands of books in all time written about Jesus.

However there are only 4 falsifiable eyewitness accounts which mention specific people, places and events written within a lifetime of Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

This is a matter of belief again. There were, I understand, contemporary writers who mentioned the political and religious upheavals in this region at that time, who make no mention of Jesus.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

It isn't a matter of belief that all four gospels were written in the first century. That's historical scholarship.

There are quite a number of other historical texts that refer to Jesus' existence. Most historians hold that Jesus existed.

Christian belief isn't just a make believe world with no correlation to reality and evidence like what many would like to believe. There's plenty of evidence before us for our consideration. As I said previously, it's certainly worthy of consideration.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't a matter of belief that all four gospels were written in the first century. That's historical scholarship.

There are quite a number of other historical texts that refer to Jesus' existence. Most historians hold that Jesus existed.

Christian belief isn't just a make believe world with no correlation to reality and evidence like what many would like to believe. There's plenty of evidence before us for our consideration. As I said previously, it's certainly worthy of consideration.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I never claimed that they weren't.
I don't know what most historians think on this subject - I haven't read all the books! Who has?
When people make claims I'd want to know where they're coming from, their motivations - these things can colour and even bias opinions, and "facts".
It would be near impossible to wade through the mass of writings about this period - and I suspect there would be few authors who did not have an agenda.

pauldla

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't a matter of belief that all four gospels were written in the first century. That's historical scholarship.

There are quite a number of other historical texts that refer to Jesus' existence. Most historians hold that Jesus existed.

Christian belief isn't just a make believe world with no correlation to reality and evidence like what many would like to believe. There's plenty of evidence before us for our consideration. As I said previously, it's certainly worthy of consideration.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Hi Solodegloria,

Not meaning to be picky, but I can't help but note that your 'eyewitness accounts' of post #34 has become 'written in the first century' in the above post; there is a huge difference in meaning there.

Not wanting to get into a debate on the historicity of Jesus, but can I ask what 'other historical texts' you are referring to?

Thanks,

Paul

solodeogloria

pauldla wrote: »

Hi Solodegloria,

Not meaning to be picky, but I can't help but note that your 'eyewitness accounts' of post #34 has become 'written in the first century' in the above post; there is a huge difference in meaning there.

Not wanting to get into a debate on the historicity of Jesus, but can I ask what 'other historical texts' you are referring to?

Thanks,

Paul

Good morning Paul!

I brought up within the first century because indioblack mentioned that there are thousands of books that comment on Jesus. He mentioned this in a way that seemed that they are if equal weight. I informed him that when you reduce this down to the first century there are only 4 eyewitness accounts. I know there's a difference between eyewitness accounts and written in the first century. However you know as well as I do that if someone said they had an eyewitness accounts of Jesus more than a lifetime after him that something would be fishy.

I'm referring to historical texts that anyone with Internet access could find. Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus are a start.
The New Testament itself is also the most reliable ancient manuscript in the world that we have in terms of time difference between the originals and the first copies.
Unlike any other religious texts I've seen it also contains falsifiable details that could have been easily fact checked by those who opposed the Gospel.

We can't dismiss Christianity as fanciful make believe, there are plenty of reasons to put our lot in with Jesus. I so.wonder if we should merge this with the megathread.

It is very interesting that we have ended up here from the point of saying that our hearts are sinful. I think we end up here lots because people want to find an excuse not to have to face up to our sin before a holy, righteous and merciful God.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

pauldla

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning Paul!

I brought up within the first century because indioblack mentioned that there are thousands of books that comment on Jesus. He mentioned this in a way that seemed that they are if equal weight. I informed him that when you reduce this down to the first century there are only 4 eyewitness accounts. I know there's a difference between eyewitness accounts and written in the first century. However you know as well as I do that if someone said they had an eyewitness accounts of Jesus more than a lifetime after him that something would be fishy.

Good afternoon! I spelled your name wrong in my previous post, my apologies.
Well yes, and here is the problem. As far as I am aware, very few biblical scholars accept that the four gospels are indeed eyewitness accounts, and it would seem that the gospels were not named until sometime in the second century. I can accept that the four gospels that we now refer to as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written in the late 1st/early 2nd century, but I do not think it is accurate or useful to refer to them as eye-witness accounts.

I'm referring to historical texts that anyone with Internet access could find. Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus are a start.

I thought as much. Josephus we can rule out completely; it is almost certain that the references to Christ contained in Josephus were added later (earlier copies make no mention, for example). Pliny does not give us any insight at all into the historicity of Jesus, but rather shows us that Christianity was extant and spreading by the time he was writing. Tacitus is perhaps the strongest of the sources you mention, but even then he is problematic. That said, I don’t want to derail this thread, so I will not pursue the matter further here.

The New Testament itself is also the most reliable ancient manuscript in the world that we have in terms of time difference between the originals and the first copies.
Unlike any other religious texts I've seen it also contains falsifiable details that could have been easily fact checked by those who opposed the Gospel.

I wonder how one can determine that it is ‘also the most reliable ancient manuscript in the world that we have in terms of time difference between the originals and the first copies’; and the NT contains a wealth of detail that does not stand up to scrutiny (The Slaughter of the Innocents being just one example).

We can't dismiss Christianity as fanciful make believe, there are plenty of reasons to put our lot in with Jesus. I so.wonder if we should merge this with the megathread.

If the mods deem it so. It’s a fascinating area for discussion, but can be quite time-consuming.

It is very interesting that we have ended up here from the point of saying that our hearts are sinful. I think we end up here lots because people want to find an excuse not to have to face up to our sin before a holy, righteous and merciful God.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Yes, I must apologies for the diversion but I just wanted to get your views on the points about historical sources. Thanks for your reply!

indioblack

pauldla wrote: »

Good afternoon! I spelled your name wrong in my previous post, my apologies.
Well yes, and here is the problem. As far as I am aware, very few biblical scholars accept that the four gospels are indeed eyewitness accounts, and it would seem that the gospels were not named until sometime in the second century. I can accept that the four gospels that we now refer to as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written in the late 1st/early 2nd century, but I do not think it is accurate or useful to refer to them as eye-witness accounts.

I thought as much. Josephus we can rule out completely; it is almost certain that the references to Christ contained in Josephus were added later (earlier copies make no mention, for example). Pliny does not give us any insight at all into the historicity of Jesus, but rather shows us that Christianity was extant and spreading by the time he was writing. Tacitus is perhaps the strongest of the sources you mention, but even then he is problematic. That said, I don’t want to derail this thread, so I will not pursue the matter further here.

I wonder how one can determine that it is ‘also the most reliable ancient manuscript in the world that we have in terms of time difference between the originals and the first copies’; and the NT contains a wealth of detail that does not stand up to scrutiny (The Slaughter of the Innocents being just one example).

If the mods deem it so. It’s a fascinating area for discussion, but can be quite time-consuming.

Yes, I must apologies for the diversion but I just wanted to get your views on the points about historical sources. Thanks for your reply!

This is the type of reply I would make with confidence if I had more in-depth knowledge of the period.
The gospels were referenced as accurate historical documents of the time. If that is debatable or disputable it returns to believing what you choose.
That's OK - but it is a choice.
So many threads like this have doubters and unbelievers questioning the motivation behind the workings of creation and it's creator.
For believers an omnipotent God cannot be quizzed at all - it smacks of criticism - this cannot be, for it implies a possible error - and that would be impossible for an omnipotent God. That makes logical sense - from their perspective.
As I've said before, it makes this debate redundant.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

Your point on Josephus isn't correct.

There are two references to Jesus one which scholars believe was there but was embellished. The second referring to James and how he was the brother of Jesus of Nazareth which isn't disputed at all.

Tacitus and Pliny give credence to Jesus' existence. There are more sources that you can look at also. There is broad consensus that Jesus' existed. Opinion that he didn't exist is in a tiny minority.

On the Slaughter of the Innocents I need to look that up. I do doubt your claim. There is a great deal of New Testament events that correlate with history.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

pauldla

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

Your point on Josephus isn't correct.

There are two references to Jesus one which scholars believe was there but was embellished. The second referring to James and how he was the brother of Jesus of Nazareth which isn't disputed at all.

The Jamesian reference is most certainly disputed, not least because of the sudden use of the term ‘Christ’ by Josephus without any reference or explanation for his gentile readership. My understanding is that the reference here is ‘errant marginalia’ that subsequently got copied into the text.

Tacitus and Pliny give credence to Jesus' existence. There are more sources that you can look at also. There is broad consensus that Jesus' existed. Opinion that he didn't exist is in a tiny minority.

Pliny, as far as I know, says nothing about Jesus of Nazareth, though he does write about Christians (please correct me if I am wrong). Tacitus, as I mentioned above, is also problematic; without going in to too much detail, he mentions ‘Christians’ (once) and says that they believe in ‘Christos’ who was put to death when Pilate was procurator. It is strange that a) he, as an Imperial Roman writer, would use the term ‘Christos’ and that b) he would get Pilate’s position wrong (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. Procurators were not usually used in governing roles until late in the 1st Century). It is possible to explain these errors as Tacitus repeating what he has heard from Christians; but that does not give us evidence of Jesus’ existence.

On the Slaughter of the Innocents I need to look that up. I do doubt your claim. There is a great deal of New Testament events that correlate with history.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The only mention of the Slaughter of the Innocents is in the Gospel of Matthew; it is not mentioned in any other source. Even Josephus, who had no time for Herod and who enthusiastically chronicled many of his misdeed in Antiquities of the Jews, makes no mention of it whatsoever.
I wonder if it is worth reopening the historicity thread, if you want to discuss this further…?

hinault

The historicity of Jesus Christ - the historical fact that Jesus existed - is not disputed by an credible historian.

In fact the vast majority of credible historians agree that the life of Jesus Christ contains far more verifiable data, compared to many other historical figures of that time period and the time periods immediately before and for the many time periods subsequently.
The fact that Jesus Christ lived is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of historical fact.

What is disputed and what is a matter of belief and/or disbelief is whether or not Jesus Christ was God incarnate.

pauldla

hinault wrote: »

The historicity of Jesus Christ - the historical fact that Jesus existed - is not disputed by an credible historian.

In fact the vast majority of credible historians agree that the life of Jesus Christ contains far more verifiable data, compared to many other historical figures of that time period and the time periods immediately before and for the many time periods subsequently.
The fact that Jesus Christ lived is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of historical fact.

What is disputed and what is a matter of belief and/or disbelief is whether or not Jesus Christ was God incarnate.

Can you give some examples of this verifiable data, please? Because every time I have this discussion, it usually ends up with the argument for the historicity of Jesus being either an appeal to tradition or an appeal to authority - both of which are fine for belief, but don't make for good history.

Take, as an example, the story of Barabbas. The four Gospels tell as that, as a Passover custom, the people were allowed to select one condemned prisoner to have his sentence commuted. Much to Pilate's surprise, the people call for the release of Barabbas, a notorious bandit or insurrectionist. Reluctantly, Pilate gives in to the demands of the crowd, Barabbas is released, and Jesus is crucified.

Now as history, this is nonsense. First of all, there is no record in any other historical document of there being such a custom. Secondly, it does not fit the character of Pilate as he is presented in Josephus (it seems he delighted in doing all he could to antagonize the Jews). Thirdly, it is difficult to imagine a Roman governor pardoning a 'bandit', 'instigator of riots' or 'insurrectionist'; for the Romans, taking up arms to defy Roman rule was the ultimate no-no, and a governor who issued such a pardon would not be governor for long (indeed, he would probably be tried himself for treason and executed). As history, this story has no legs.

But as en expression of belief, this story is rich with imagery. It is worth noting the meaning of the name Barabbas ('Son of the Father'), and that some very ancient copies of Matthew render the name as Jesus Barabbas. Reading the story, it is hard not be struck by the parallels it presents to the Scapegoat ritual of Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement). Two goats would be presented to the High Priest. One goat, chosen by lot, would be sacrificed to atone for the sins of Israel, and its blood would be sprinkled on the mercy seat in the Holiest of Holies (Matthew, "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children"). The other goat, the Scapegoat, would have placed upon it all the iniquities of Israel and be released to wander the desert (though actually, it was usually pushed off a cliff, as apparently one Scapegoat was inconsiderate enough to attempt to wander back into Jerusalem after one particular ceremony, and this was considered very bad luck indeed. It certainly was for the goat).

So, rich, emotive imagery, using the traditions of Judaism to present the Christian narrative in a way that would be apparent and accessible to 1st/2nd century audiences. But, and this is the point I think is important, not history, and it should not be presented as such.

solodeogloria

pauldla wrote: »

The Jamesian reference is most certainly disputed, not least because of the sudden use of the term ‘Christ’ by Josephus without any reference or explanation for his gentile readership. My understanding is that the reference here is ‘errant marginalia’ that subsequently got copied into the text.


Pliny, as far as I know, says nothing about Jesus of Nazareth, though he does write about Christians (please correct me if I am wrong). Tacitus, as I mentioned above, is also problematic; without going in to too much detail, he mentions ‘Christians’ (once) and says that they believe in ‘Christos’ who was put to death when Pilate was procurator. It is strange that a) he, as an Imperial Roman writer, would use the term ‘Christos’ and that b) he would get Pilate’s position wrong (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. Procurators were not usually used in governing roles until late in the 1st Century). It is possible to explain these errors as Tacitus repeating what he has heard from Christians; but that does not give us evidence of Jesus’ existence.


The only mention of the Slaughter of the Innocents is in the Gospel of Matthew; it is not mentioned in any other source. Even Josephus, who had no time for Herod and who enthusiastically chronicled many of his misdeed in Antiquities of the Jews, makes no mention of it whatsoever.
I wonder if it is worth reopening the historicity thread, if you want to discuss this further…?

Good morning Paul!

Can you please provide your sources on Josephus? All that I've seen say that the first reference existed in a different form and that the second existed in the text.

As for Pliny and Tacitus I think even mentioning Jesus goes some way to showing His existence. In addition it's very clear that the New Testament is written as an eyewitness accounts and not as mythology. Anyone in the first century could have checked it's claims. It's a text that was entirely falsifiable for about 70 years after Jesus' death. Yet despite the appetite to do so nobody was able to do so. In addition most significantly nobody has produced the bones after the Crucifixion.

As for the Slaughter of the Innocents I agree that there are no sources outside the New Testament. However it is an assumption to say that it didn't happen and a dangerous one. Scholars also didn't believe that Nazareth existed but in 2009 they dug up the ruins of the town. There are however many many incidents which are affirmed by outside sources.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

pauldla

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning Paul!

Can you please provide your sources on Josephus? All that I've seen say that the first reference existed in a different form and that the second existed in the text.

Hello, Solodeogloria. It’s not difficult to find different views on Josephus. The Wikipedia entry does mention the difficulties in Josephus, but notes that scholarly consensus is largely in agreement that the Jamesian reference is authentic. However, the opposing viewpoint is summed up here (www.patheos.com), just as one example. If you like, you could read Richard Carrier on the matter; he is a quite prolific writer and speaker, so you’ll find plenty of material of his online.

As for Pliny and Tacitus I think even mentioning Jesus goes some way to showing His existence. In addition it's very clear that the New Testament is written as an eyewitness accounts and not as mythology. Anyone in the first century could have checked it's claims. It's a text that was entirely falsifiable for about 70 years after Jesus' death. Yet despite the appetite to do so nobody was able to do so. In addition most significantly nobody has produced the bones after the Crucifixion.

Well, Pliny and Tacitus mention what Christians believe; that doesn’t tell us anything about whether Christ existed or not, any more than Julius Caesar validates the beliefs of Gallic Druids by writing about them. We can accept Pliny and Tacitus as historical confirmation of the existence of Christianity in the first century, but no more than that.

It is not clear, I’m afraid, that the Gospels are written as eye-witness accounts; as far as I am aware, they do not claim to be (though the author of John does refer to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’). Indeed, there are passages that could not possibly be eye-witness accounts (Jesus in the wilderness, the agony in the garden, etc). Can I ask, why do you think it is clear that they are eye-witness accounts?

Well, it’s true that nobody writes against the gospels in the first few decades after their composition, but it seems that is because nobody is writing about them one way or another in that time. Paul doesn’t mention them; and as far as I know Justin Martyr doesn’t refer to them at all (though he does use phrases found in some of them, he does not reference them by name, which is odd as it would certainly bolster his arguments if he could refer to eye-witness accounts). It seems that it’s not until the end of the 2nd century that we start seeing sources referring to the Gospels as being authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This alone should be enough to cast doubt on the veracity of the ‘eye-witness’ argument.

I find your last point very odd indeed, Solodeogloria, so I will ask for clarification if I may. Nobody has produced the bones of Christ, so therefore the Resurrection must have been true? Is this the point you are making here?

As for the Slaughter of the Innocents I agree that there are no sources outside the New Testament. However it is an assumption to say that it didn't happen and a dangerous one. Scholars also didn't believe that Nazareth existed but in 2009 they dug up the ruins of the town. There are however many many incidents which are affirmed by outside sources.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Well, if we have only once source, that is not supported by any other source, especially where we might expect the event to register historically (despised Roman client king orders killing of all infants under two years of age in the area), then I think it is quite reasonable to assume that it did not happen. We certainly cannot regard it as historical fact. Why is this dangerous?

I would be grateful if you could list some of the incidents you refer to?

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me, by the way. Just to note, I probably won’t be back online until after the weekend, so please don’t take any silence on my part as a snub.

smacl

Good morning,

Sorry for the late reply, away from the computer for a few days which is always good. Leaving aside the atheist world view, there are many other traditions with very different world views, and even within Christianity we see significant differences in what different branches of the Christian faith hold to be true. Given that these truths, even within the Christian tradition, are often found to be opposition to one another, surely by any correct definition they can only be properly described as beliefs. To my mind, the distinction is very important, as stating something is true also states that anything contradictory is by implication false, and thus begins religious conflict. Living in a multicultural society, is it reasonable to state the beliefs we hold are the one truth and thus any contradictory beliefs are essentially lies?

For what its worth, I would tend to subscribe more to a pluralist secular world view, and in the absence of religion lean towards contextualism from a philosophical standpoint. I don't believe there is a common atheist world view any more than there is a world view held by people that don't follow football. While I understand you are entirely invested in your world view, that in itself doesn't make your beliefs true to anyone other than yourself, any more or less than a similarly invested Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist. To my mind, this in turn makes proselytisation a rather pernicious activity.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I agree that in an atheist worldview the closest thing that you can get to objectivity is a consensus model. This is what philosophers like Jürgen Habermas propose in respect to ethics.

In a Christian worldview objectivity is simply found in the objective God whose objective Word is ultimately binding on all.

This is why I think we shouldn't be thinking about getting anywhere like indioblack. We should use these conversations for understanding. It would take an incredibly good set of reasons in order for me to conclude that the assumptions I hold on the basis of the eyewitnesses are false. Likewise I suspect the same is true for you. I've staked my life on the Gospel being true. You will need very good reasons in order for me to adopt an atheist worldview.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

hinault

pauldla wrote: »

Can you give some examples of this verifiable data, please? Because every time I have this discussion, it usually ends up with the argument for the historicity of Jesus being either an appeal to tradition or an appeal to authority - both of which are fine for belief, but don't make for good history.

Take, as an example, the story of Barabbas. The four Gospels tell as that, as a Passover custom, the people were allowed to select one condemned prisoner to have his sentence commuted. Much to Pilate's surprise, the people call for the release of Barabbas, a notorious bandit or insurrectionist. Reluctantly, Pilate gives in to the demands of the crowd, Barabbas is released, and Jesus is crucified.

Now as history, this is nonsense. First of all, there is no record in any other historical document of there being such a custom. Secondly, it does not fit the character of Pilate as he is presented in Josephus (it seems he delighted in doing all he could to antagonize the Jews). Thirdly, it is difficult to imagine a Roman governor pardoning a 'bandit', 'instigator of riots' or 'insurrectionist'; for the Romans, taking up arms to defy Roman rule was the ultimate no-no, and a governor who issued such a pardon would not be governor for long (indeed, he would probably be tried himself for treason and executed). As history, this story has no legs.

But as en expression of belief, this story is rich with imagery. It is worth noting the meaning of the name Barabbas ('Son of the Father'), and that some very ancient copies of Matthew render the name as Jesus Barabbas. Reading the story, it is hard not be struck by the parallels it presents to the Scapegoat ritual of Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement). Two goats would be presented to the High Priest. One goat, chosen by lot, would be sacrificed to atone for the sins of Israel, and its blood would be sprinkled on the mercy seat in the Holiest of Holies (Matthew, "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children"). The other goat, the Scapegoat, would have placed upon it all the iniquities of Israel and be released to wander the desert (though actually, it was usually pushed off a cliff, as apparently one Scapegoat was inconsiderate enough to attempt to wander back into Jerusalem after one particular ceremony, and this was considered very bad luck indeed. It certainly was for the goat).

So, rich, emotive imagery, using the traditions of Judaism to present the Christian narrative in a way that would be apparent and accessible to 1st/2nd century audiences. But, and this is the point I think is important, not history, and it should not be presented as such.

Name an historian who disputes the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Then we can examine whether or not that historian is credible.

looksee

hinault wrote: »

Name an historian who disputes the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Then we can examine whether or not that historian is credible.

No one was claiming a historian who disputes the historicity of Jesus Christ. What was being discussed was the accuracy of one detail of the stories about him.

You know, a bit like no one disputes that George Washington existed, but he didn't chop down a cherry tree, no matter how many times the story is told. Apparently he did take a swipe at a cherry tree with his ax, but he did not chop it down. Funny how stories get embroidered and exaggerated, isn't it?

solodeogloria

smacl wrote: »

Good morning,

Sorry for the late reply, away from the computer for a few days which is always good. Leaving aside the atheist world view, there are many other traditions with very different world views, and even within Christianity we see significant differences in what different branches of the Christian faith hold to be true. Given that these truths, even within the Christian tradition, are often found to be opposition to one another, surely by any correct definition they can only be properly described as beliefs. To my mind, the distinction is very important, as stating something is true also states that anything contradictory is by implication false, and thus begins religious conflict. Living in a multicultural society, is it reasonable to state the beliefs we hold are the one truth and thus any contradictory beliefs are essentially lies?

Good morning!

I agree that a few days away from the computer is always good!

I agree with you that contradictory belief systems cannot be all true. That's logical. However, it doesn't follow that Christianity is false. Rather, the claims that Christianity makes and the falsifiable events that are recorded for us in the New Testament should be subject to scrutiny. Moreover, atheism proposes assumptions that can be true or false. This also doesn't give atheism the privilege of presuming itself to be a true reflection of reality.

As for different opinions in Christianity, it depends on what they are over. The Bible itself acknowledges that there are matters of secondary disagreement. Paul discusses this in Romans 14 for example. However, there are matters of primary importance, like the heart of the gospel as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15. Again, disagreement on secondary issues doesn't mean that the gospel isn't true.

smacl wrote: »

For what its worth, I would tend to subscribe more to a pluralist secular world view, and in the absence of religion lean towards contextualism from a philosophical standpoint. I don't believe there is a common atheist world view any more than there is a world view held by people that don't follow football. While I understand you are entirely invested in your world view, that in itself doesn't make your beliefs true to anyone other than yourself, any more or less than a similarly invested Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist. To my mind, this in turn makes proselytisation a rather pernicious activity.

I agree that there is no single atheist worldview, but there are a set of assumptions that atheism makes that flow into thinking in different areas. The absence of objective authority, the absence of objective moral reality, etc. Atheism is a philosophical position on the existence of God.

I agree that investment in my belief system doesn't make it true, and I never said that it did, did I? It is the examination of the evidence that we have from the apostles that is the basis of the Christian faith and trust in the Lord Jesus. It isn't "blind" as people continually say. My Christian faith is something I live out with my brain on.

Proselytism isn't "pernicious" if the Gospel is true. It is caring and loving. From an atheist standpoint I don't see how it could be determined to be "pernicious" at all unless you presume that all worldviews have an inherent right to be treated equally. I reject that and I think you should also.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria