he doesn't consider anything that disagrees with him as evidenceSam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TexasScientist said:MadvillainBear20 said:TexasScientist said:4th and Inches said:TexasScientist said:4th and Inches said:TexasScientist said:4th and Inches said:xfrodobagginsx said:
How do you figure it's been debunked?
ScIeNcE!
He will write you a bunch of things that are the greatest wisdom of men to tell you how it and all other things related to supernatural things arent real.
Science is the explanation of the natural, it is a surprised to nobody that they have trouble explaining the supernatural
I'll take science over mysticism every time.
We live in the natural world (reality). You can't explain something that doesn't exist, except to give it a name: supernatural. Supernatural = nonexistent.
I have had experiences that cannot be explained by your science.. were they non existent?
You have a limited world view based on what you know and that is ok. Maybe one day, you will know more..
I used to believe like you, I didnt grow up in the church. Now I know more..
I would suggest that your experiences most likely can be explained. Even your fire tunnels. Science has been continuously closing the gaps that you insert a god for explanation.
Limited world view based on what you know? I think you have that backwards. Science seeks to answer questions about the unknown. Religion purports to know the answer before the question is even asked.
as I said before, you are set in your opinion and I am steadfast in mine for very personal reasons that I have not been asked by the Holy Spirrit to share.
We can just agree to disagree.
Enjoy your weekend!
We can do that, and you enjoy yours also.
Who is Jesus to you? Because if Jesus is who He claimed to be, that changes everything about the old and New Testament.
We don't know for sure what he claimed to be. Assuming he existed, which I believe is likely, I think the most you can say about him is that he likely was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher, who believed the end times were at hand, much in the vein of John the Baptist. He likely found himself at cross-purposes with the Roman government, and was executed. Everything else is the subject of theological lore, legend, and collection of fragmented writings written in the style of that cultural period, and written down (mostly decades later) by individuals (mostly unknown) who had a theology to advance. That semi-cohesive message has been curated and selectively advanced over other competing theology by those successful in the politically forming church hierarchy. That's a simplistic picture in a nutshell based upon critical textural and historical scholars, as opposed to theological apologetic attempts to read/interpret their theological agenda as historical fact. All we have are the words of Christianity that were written years later by educated Greek writing theologians after the religion began to take hold and grow.
The alternative to your view is that everything that the Bible says about Jesus is all true.
In fact, most historians agree that the following are considered well-attested historical events:Thus, making it perfectly reasonable to believe that their testimony, which we know is preserved in the writings of the New Testament, is all true.
- Jesus was crucified, dead and buried;
- his tomb was empty days later;
- his disciples fully believed they saw the risen Jesus;
- they went on from there boldly proclaiming his resurrection, even at the risk to their life and liberty.
Well attested historical events? No. I think most historical scholars, as opposed to theologians, would say some of your bullet points were to some degree probable, with the caveat that they are stories written from lore and legend with a theological purpose and agenda. Often questioned or deemed legendary, critical scholars note the gospels were written decades after the events by non-eyewitnesses, drawing on earlier traditions, calling into question the literal accuracy of conversations and narratives.
Well, you think wrong. No rational historian doubts the crucifixion, death, and burial of Jesus. The actions of the disciples after their witnessed resurrection, which is well documented, is as much a historical attestation as you're gonna get to the fact that they saw the empty tomb, fully believed they saw the risen Jesus, and that they boldly proclaimed his resurrection. Paul, who wrote his letters as early as a one decade after the witnessed resurrection, writes of these things, having full and close contact with the direct eye witnesses themselves. So does the non-disciple Luke, who wrote his gospel as early as 50 AD, and who also had direct contact with eye witnesses. Hardly accounts that are based on "lore" and "legend".
Your problem is that you eliminate these as historical references because of your faulty presupposition that since they speak of the resurrection, by default they are not reporting objectively but rather they are manipulating or even manufacturing out of whole cloth those stories because of an agenda. You are only making your own assumptions, rather than taking an intellectually honest approach to history. Today, we have NO OTHER account in ancient history as well preserved in texts as the accounts surrounding Jesus, in number of manuscripts, early dating, and textual consistency and purity.
Not so fast. You're saying things I didn't say. I said he was likely executed, which could have been crucifixion. The problem for you is none of the writers of the Gospels, or even Paul were eyewitnesses. They are writing from what they have heard, decades later.
As do all historians.
Except historians use critical scholarship in assessing historical events and lore, taking an a posteriori approach, as opposed to a theologian's a priori initial premise of assuming what is written is fact.
What you're saying is that religious authors are biased. Again, so are all historians.
In fact I would argue that you are more biased than any of the NT authors. Because their faith didn't rest entirely on one text (or any text, necessarily) they could accept some and reject others. They were capable of looking at a particular text and weighing its credibility without endangering their beliefs. In your case, to accept even one account of the supernatural would turn your worldview completely upside down. Your beliefs require you to reject all religious texts as unreliable by definition, and you do so religiously, as it were. Far from being critical, it's a method of analysis that completely insulates you from unwelcome evidence and guarantees the expected conclusion. You know the answers before the questions are even asked.
True historical scholarship doesn't start with preconceived notions. Scholarship examines objective empircal evidence to draw conclusions of what is historical fact. Everything else is discredited. The NT authors are not modern historians. That's one reason why what they wrote has to be taken in the context of who they were and their agendas.
I am biased, based upon my iquiries. But, I don't claim to be a historian. But I will tell you that I'm open to being wrong. Give me empirical objective evidence for any of the supernatural claims, and if I find it convincing, I'll change my mind. I would be happy to believe in certain parts of the supernatural, immortality for example. So far, science (all of it) and critical historical and textural scholarship compel me to believe otherwise. Religions just don't hold up to objective scientific or historical scrutiny. They always require belief in something without objectivity. I came to these conclusions, progressively, as a practicing Christian.
Would you agree, then, that historical claims of supernatural events are not per se unreliable or invalid?
The problem with your premise is there is objective evidence for the supernatural. Historical claims do not equal reliability. They are historical claims, nothing more. Christian theological claims of the supernatural fail on the same grounds that other religious supernatural claims throughout history, including those contemporaneous to the emergent Jewish sect of Christianity.
You don't consider historical claims to be evidence?
Many of us are failed in this way, we lean om our own understanding
