Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Bucky Ball]

I was talking about Jesus. However, on the personal evidence side, I think that one is justified in believing in ones experience if 1) you expect the experience as part of a larger worldview and 2) you trust that those around you are not lying to you about their similar, but individualized experiences.


I don't use faith to think that Jesus supernaturally made the man walk. I infer it from the evidence and the context. "Reason" is the application of all the known facts--not just the physical evidence. Say the story was accurately related. Jesus at first only forgave the man his sins. The religions leaders were highly agitated at this because only God can forgive sins. Jesus said, "what is easier, to tell a man his sins are forgiven or to tell him to take up his bed and walk? So that you all will know that I have the power to forgive sins, take up you bed an walk." (paraphrased). It is actually unreasonable not to make the conclusion that Jesus was or had supernatural help. Notice in a story like that, faith would be the result, not the necessary precursor to belief.

I don't believe there are the gaps that you do. I read the NT like it was written and like it was received by the early church. I am not saying my evidence compels you to believe like I do. Not at all. Like I said 20 times already, the NT is part of a cumulative case.

To your first point, well that explains a lot. I don't trust anyone. If I'm being honest I don't trust anyone ever, however I'm aware of how that makes people feel so sometimes even though I know I shouldn't I lie to protect their feelings. Even at the age of 6 I didn't trust anyone. I expect lies and dishonesty. I am aware that is unusual, and not particularly biologically healthy as it puts a lot of strain on the body knowing that you have no true allies in the world. That no one has ever, nor will ever be on your side. But I would rather be honest with myself than manipulated.

As for personal evidence, I mean I don't think it's a question of whether it should be convincing or not. It is convincing to you otherwise you would not be convinced of it yes? It is meaningless to others, or should be. Maybe it should be meaningless to you too, however you're going to do what you want, and I'm not going to fuss about that. Pointing out that personal experiences are not always what you think they are and may not be valid justifications for one's beliefs while factually accurate has likely never helped anyone to point out. Why? When I tell you that you are wrong, you double down. Specifically you @SteveII have done this here in this thread. You have been wrong about things and refused to even question why anyone would point it out to you. And in justifying your wrong positions at times have made even worse errors. Now we all make errors, I've given you far more wiggle room from me than you've been willing to give from you, but that is after all a hallmark of religious conditioning.

Whoa there. I don't remember you showing me I was wrong in one point--and definitely not one that matters. If you think that telling me about some opinion written by some "scholar' as to what really happened, and that somehow is telling me I am wrong, you are mistaken. I can trot out 20 times as many scholars to tell you why I am write. I don't do that. My beliefs are not fringe--with most of them going back to the beginning.  

You can resort to insults if you want, however you need to demonstrate or deal with the argument as it's presented first, or risk falling into an Ad Homonym attack. I say this because you've made that specific error today. I'm not offended, or hurt, or threatened by it. I frankly don't even care, my point is you missed my points entirely and are shadow boxing with your own imagination at this stage rather than the people you're interacting with. I've tried to bridge the gap because we're clearly talking past one another. It appears you don't care.

Either that or you're just another dishonest theist.

Think I'm wrong? Show me.

It took 10 pages just to get you to stop mischaracterizing my list. Now that you stopped doing that, you are confused on what an inductive argument is (addressed in the most recent post).

As to your second point.... it's irrelevant. You think a person walked on water. Why  you think it, how you got there matters very little. You'd do well to watch the videos I linked. You are demonstrating gullibility and rationalization of the highest order. That you think we should take this seriously is absurd. We do not, and we will not. Pull your head out of your ass and you'll see why. That says nothing about your beliefs, only that you should be capable of telling me exactly why your claim justifiably gets dismissed by people like me. You don't seem so stupid as to be incapable of understanding this.

Your argument amounts to

1. You don't agree with me and the "scholars" where I got my opinions from.
2. Therefore you are gullible and rationalizing (among all the other condescending things you have called me and my beliefs.

That's it!! You would think there was more to it with all these long posts. But that's it. That's all you have. That's all you ever had if you ignore all the definition problems. This is so very weak. I know every single major argument atheists put up against Christianity--easily a thousand hours of study and debate. You picked the weak--ass one to undergird you over-the-top condescending opinions, assertions and remarks. Not impressed.  

Edit: just saw your last line. Yup pretty much. I get that you think based on this cumulative case that you can believe that Jesus walked on water from inference or whatever else. Tell me, do you think animals evolve over time, do you think the earth is round, and do you think the flood happened, and how old do you think the universe/Earth is, and can you describe to me the firmament. Where is it exactly? And why should one take the walking on water more seriously than these other claims made in the same book (more accurately collection of scraps of documents which were copies of copies of stories written in ancient times when people still thought blood letting was a good medical practice....)

Wait, somehow I have to believe everything in Genesis is literal or I can't believe in the NT??? That's the best example of a red herring that I have seen in a while.

Again with the "same book" error. Genesis was written a 1000 years before the NT. HOW in the world can that be considered the same book?

Many Christian Fundamentalists, including millions of Baptists, believe the ENTIRE Bible is the inerrant word of God, not just the part you cherry-pick.
(Genesis was not written 1000 years before the NT).
You might consider getting an education in the Bible.