In reply to Kathulos (msg # 113):

Wow, Kuthulos, that's horrible.  I'm really sorry you had to experience that.  Out of curiosity, have been to any sort of therapy or counseling to discuss it?  If not, there are people who specialize in helping people come to grips with horrible experiences like that, and you might find it helpful.  Definitely not trying to tell you what to do, just thought I'd mention it, since you said you still suffer to this day.  Obviously it's not something that one ever just 'gets over,' but there may be ways to help deal with that suffering you still feel.  (Unfortunately I'm not a therapist or a counselor, so can't really tell you what those ways are).

Yeah, i see a therapist.

Cool, cool, good to hear.

So this came up in the Atheism vs. Theism thread, and while I'm very interested in it, fully exploring it is very off-topic for that thread. So I'm transplanting it here:

Actually, Jesus's death and resurrection is predated by quite a number of others, all of whom are the child of God, and also themselves God; Tammuz, Ra, Osiris, Dionysus. All of these predate Christianity, and many of them predate Judaism. Several of these claimants we believe to have been living, historical figures (not in this list, but the full list). In fact, the death and rebirth of the king was a major artifact of several middle-eastern cultures well before the Jews rolled in. The major difference with Christianity is that we know the names of the people who penned the story.



Our imaginary evil god, like our good god, experiences a degree of knowledge and understanding wholly beyond our capabilities. In other words, we don't have the abilities to understand why EvilGod created free will; we can only have faith he has an (evil) plan.

So actually talking about real people here for a moment ...

I was raised Catholic. I was never really given an opportunity to question it until I got into college. I did work with RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults), and I am tremendously impressed with these people who, for whatever reason, went against the 'easy' answer to choose what they believe to be the true religion (I believe TitL went through a conversion as well? So super kudos on that; it's something I wish I had.)

Now looking at it, things do seem to lose their luster; Christianity does have a few things other religions lack, but one of the biggest ones is Constantine (who I couldn't put up as a paragon of virtue). I do believe there is a supernatural, but it's bigger than what I've been taught. And looking at our sordid history ... I find it extremely difficult to agree that 'God is good' while also accepting the perfect Word of God documents how God ordered rape and murder.

So why believe in Christianity?

Heath indicates he's personally experienced a miracle. That's awesome! Of course, it's not very share-able. I do also find it ironic that Heath is the one person who keeps assuring people that they need to have faith despite a lack of evidence. I've also had a tremendous experience, but it went the opposite direction. In a capricious universe, it's just one of those tragedies that happen. But in a world ruled by a just God ... well, it's God's choice that it happens that way. And I can't honestly give more weight to God giving a good thing to Heath than a bad thing to me.

So yes, if God truly wants me to be in a relationship with Him, and God has perfect understanding, then God knows what the 'deal-breaker' is. If I was in a relationship with God, then God took the position of the abusive spouse.

Sorry this is a bit more personal and longer than I normally permit myself. But it's a real question that, to this day (10 years later) I can't come to grips with. I'm still open to God. I took Heath's BoM challenge. I've read my catechism. I pray (albeit, infrequently). God is welcome to give me a sign whenever He cares to. But at this point in my life, I'm more inclined to give Tammuz a chance.

Jesus is the only one that is proven. He existed, eye witnesses testified to his life and death and resurrection. He is the only one that did what He did. No one else did what He did.

I understand there are others that make various claims, but they are not supported, nor accurate with facts.

Free will? Free to do what? Have hope in a good God?

Very well put.  Sums up my own feelings well.

Because it's true. It's the only one with prophecy and historical accuracy, with eye witnesses to these events.

There can only be a handful of options with christianity. Jesus was either the Son of God, or crazy or a liar. Now, if a liar, why did the eye witnesses agree to it? If crazy, why did people admit to witness events when it mean their suffering to admit to it?


So what happens after we die?

Oh, please.  Buddhism has a more accurate historical record.  Jesus could also have been a myth, an amalgam of many esoteric Jewish mystics common to that day.  There are no records of Jesus written during his time.

Ok. Why would you feel that buddhism which does not record historical events is more accurate? Are you meaning you think the bible has much of history wrong, and that is what makes buddhism more accurate?

Jesus could have been a mythical figure, but that would be unreasonable considering the evidence.

When it comes to ancient records, Jesus has the most amount of information, within the quickest amount of time. These records are within the timeframe people who witnessed these events were alive, and could have disagreed vocally with the records, since they saw Jesus, and could have read and refuted the records if they were untrue.

Evidence wise, it is the more reasonable position that Jesus existed.

SO firstly, I'm going to infer that your reason for believing is that you understand there to be objective historical evidence in support of Jesus's resurrection, so everything else follows from that. And that's fine -- if you want to bow out, I totally respect that.

The reason I say that is because I am a little concerned that this conversation will get more hot and personal than most, and I really don't want anyone to feel hurt or picked on. Heck, I'll put on my moderator cap ...

Keep it cool, everyone. No one is keeping score, the points don't matter.

Okay, so that's out of the way. Coming back around ...

There are quite a few prophecies in the Bible. For the sake of keeping things simple, I agree it's important to focus on the resurrection of Jesus, since he's pretty much the lynchpoint here.

[skippable]
There was a historical character named Jesus. In fact, there were quite a few of them. Jesus was a popular name at the time. There were also a lot of mystics in the desert. John the Baptist is one you know, but there were PLENTY more. Heath is happy to support this, if you'd like more evidence. As it happens, the vast majority of them have been forgotten, but Jesus's message has pretty clearly stuck. So accepting that there was a historical mystic named Jesus is pretty easy; just like accepting there is current a lawyer named Robert is pretty easy.

However, the important part isn't that there was a guy named Jesus, it was that he did miracles, and died and rose again.
[/end skip]

But here's where it gets hazy ... the only real testimony (that I'm aware of) of these miracles, or of Jesus's resurrection, is the Bible itself. This isn't Jesus's fault; Jesus and almost everyone else of the time was illiterate. But the Romans don't have any records of his miracles. They don't have any records of his resurrection. AFAIK, they don't even have records of his death. If I'm wrong, PLEASE show me, because my discovery of this was pretty shocking for me.

As for the Bible as evidence ... recognize that the Bible was assembled at the council of Nicea, centuries after Jesus's death. A group of bishops picked through all of the stories of Jesus, and chose which ones they believed are fact. There are very many testaments about Jesus which say he died and never came back, or that he never died at all. Why did they choose the gospels where Jesus was resurrected and not the others? There's a lot of reasons for that, but a pretty important point here was that they really wanted the Church to be successful. These were men of faith, who already believed the resurrection was a fact, who wanted other people to believe in Jesus (just like you do), and who had the opportunity to choose which stories they'll laud as historical fact and divine writings to support that, and which stories get tossed into the dustbin of history.



Yes, Evilgod gave us the freedom to hope for a good God. Why would Evilgod give us that apparent blessing? Who knows. It's a divine mystery! (But it's probably terrible, because Evilgod is evil.)

Oh, quick comment I forgot to put in the last comment;

Since historical support and witness testimony is so important to you, why aren't you Mormon? Heath has done an excellent job providing research on the witnesses to Joseph Smith, the prophecies they've had and we've seen achieved, etc. Speaking honestly, I'm a little floored by how well-supported the background is, and if I were to have a conversion moment, I think LDS would have a pretty strong argument. Is there a reason you believe the four witnesses in the bible, but not the 12 in the BoM?



This isn't quite correct. Remember, there's two thousand years between Jesus and you. So the options include (but are not limited to):

1) The witnesses were misquoted/lied
2) The witnesses never existed, and were created/embellished for someone else's purposes
3) Jesus was saying one thing, but the witnesses totally flubbed it (even Jesus basically said 'you guys aren't getting it!' several times in the Bible)

etc.





I believe that Tammuz will embrace my life essence and bring it back to the earth, to be reborn in the eternal cycle of splendor.


More seriously; I really DO want to believe in Christianity. I believe being part of the flock pushes people to be better. I want to be inspired. I want to have certainty of what happens after I die, or after my parents die. I am on your side, and I really WANT YOU to convince me. What I'm writing aren't intended to derail you, it's the issues that have already derailed me, and I'm hoping you have better answers than I do.

You know, I often need reminding how much of my faith used to hinge on a singular source material (the Bible) that basically had almost no other corroborating evidence.  Though I would discuss Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny etc, I really am astonished at how little they add to the historical accounts overall now.

I was also a William Lane Craig follower (for those who knows him), in that I thought he had answered all that there is to answer.  While I still think he's a brilliant 'debator' (his skills as a debator are really amazing even if I don't agree with his end points any longer), time has done a number on many of the more traditional Liar, Lord, Lunatic type cookie cutter responses that used to be my main talking points.

Assembled at the council, yes, but the letters that were assembled were around at that time when the people who saw Jesus live and die, and raise from the dead.

It seems a little funny to say "Well, we have a bunch of reliable letters, historically, and spiritually, so let's put them together." is a reason to not take them seriously, just because others already recognized them as authoritative.



Look at the letter of Acts. It mentions the history of the early church, including the deaths of some worshipers, but not some important events, such as the death of Peter, or Paul, or the destruction of the temple. So clearly, since the book of Acts is meant to detail the early church, and yet not contain important events, then the book was written before those events took place.

This should mean that the book of Acts was written before 62AD.

Now, the book of Acts is just a continuation of the book of Luke. Which means if the book of acts is written before 62 AD, then Luke is written even sooner.

And since the book of Luke is written sooner, we're likely talking in the 50's AD at the minimum.

More so, it is believed that Luke and Mark go their sources from an earlier document, called the Q document.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...ry/hypothetical.html

Now this Q document, if earlier than Acts and Luke, this is placing details or events in a very early timeframe within Jesus' death.

Everyone knows what can happens after hundreds of years of an event being recorded. We hear about various religions where there have a good that can dance on a head of a pin, or lift planets on their back of their shell.

But the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are written about very quickly.

Let me give you an example of what can happen to a myth after 20 years.

Do you remember back in the 90's when Nelson Mandela broke out of the prison he was housed in?

And Loreena Bobbit cut off her husband's foot while he slept. The doctors sewed it back on though.

Or how about When Princess Diana died in the plane crash? There were numerous sighting of Princess Diana at the Royal Castle, and that she healed the lame and sick after her death.

Did any of that fool you Kat? You were alive for all of those events, and have read accounts of them decades after the real events. You didn't get fooled, why is it reasonable to assume that the evidence is unreliable in a similar scenario? An important person, influential, and memorable in a event that is memorable.

People were still alive who saw the events, and could read the accounts after. There were people alive who could have said otherwise if it did not happen.


Historical accuracy says the ones that are in the bible have been verified, and are accurate.

The way the books of the bible are written are not of fairy tales, they include details that would make the writers look weak, such as showing their failures, details about names, locations, events as they happened.

Look at the book of Acts. In chapters 1-15, Luke uses the context about them, and he when referring to Paul, but in 16 and on, Luke uses us, and him. Identifying exactly when he traveled with Paul, just as the events occur.

They did not write the events as myth.

Clearly you would agree with me that something that is true, cannot be untrue at the same time. So we have to start tossing some stuff out where there's a clear disagreement. Example, either there is only one God, or there isn't. Those other testaments we can go over one by one, but from my own experience and research, I have never seen a single article that stood the test outside of the bible.

So if you are looking at the Word of God, some things that would make sense to look for is accuracy. Having clear errors should discount a testament as being from God.

Example, the apocrypha has lots of errors, locations that are wrong, events that are not true, so should not be part of the bible. They can be useful, but not from God.

Except they referred to the four gospels pretty early, far earlier than the bible existed. The people recognized the four gospels before any councils were involved.

I have looked into the LDS, and quite frankly, the LDS is untrue, and I can show some obvious inconsistencies. The historical track record of the LDS isn't so good either.


I am fine in going over details if you like.

But there's isn't two thousand years between Jesus and the witness reports. Twenty to thirty years apart from multiple sources.

It's pretty hard to mix this up, Jesus performed miracles in front of many people. Jesus was crucified in a public place. Jesus was seen after his death. His disciples performed miracles.

If they lied, then they died for a lie. Kat, would you be willing to be tortured to prevent from a lie being found out? So assuming you might not even be willing to die to tell a truth, why assume someone else would die for a lie?

So 1 is out of there. It's not even reasonable. You wouldn't do it, so why assume anyone would?

If the witnesses never existed, why mention the names of people who did exist during those events specifying locations, and events that could have been denied if untrue?

So 2 is not a very solid stance. When lying, you do not give out things that would show you are lying.

And last, if the writers made a mistake, and only though Jesus was walking around after His death, then all of the writers are deluded, and the crowds that followed Jesus only pretended to be healed, and only pretended to see Him perform miracles.

That doesn't seem reasonable to have everyone have the same mass hallucination at the same time.

So 3 seems a bit far fetched.

I'd have to say that it is more reasonable to assume that Jesus is God, or crazy or liar than to have multiple writers mistaken, or crowds of people seeing the same hallucination at the same time.

All right, we're discussing the historical accuracy of the gospels and acts, yes?  They aren't even internally consistent.  Jesus has two wildly-diverging geneaologies, for example.  If they can't even get their stories straight (especially on verifiable history, like a genealogy) what makes you think they got the rest right?

Jesus had two genealogies because one tracked it through both the line of Joseph and the line of Mary. Since Mary and Joseph are not brother and sister, there should be two genealogies. Having two different writers coming from different perspectives is evidence that did not work together to come up with a story, but rather evidence they wrote as they observed the events.one writer did the cultural line, while the other wrote of the blood line.

Which is what makes it unique in that regard. When they failed, they included that because that is what happened.

I started writing a nice, long reply, then read the rest of your post and realized you addressed most of my points :P READ FIRST, WRITE SECOND! I'll try again.

I'm glad I took a break anyway; I started responding in the form of 'why TitL is wrong', which is goofy. It doesn't help me to convince TitL is wrong; what helps me is to share the things which are killing me, and let him share his view on why I'm wrong (if I am). So thank goodness for little miracles ;)

But I do want to address a few quick points before continuing on.

edit: The points are not quick, sorry. There's a TL;DR summary at the bottom.



I am not very familiar with the historicity of Acts, so thank you for bringing that up. However, Acts of course does not document the life of Jesus so much as the events after.

I'll accept that Acts was written in 62AD (more or less), and that Luke was written prior, because I just don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise. However, I don't buy that Luke was written in 50AD. It certainly didn't take 12 years to write Luke. And doing some research on my own, most biblical scholars don't think that either. So I'm content leaving the authorship of Luke at around 60-62AD (more or less).

Which is still quite a number of years.

I'm also familiar with the concept of the Q document. But this is where things begin to get scary.

If the author of Luke (let's call him "Luke" for simplicity's sake, although his identity isn't clearly proven), as well as "Matthew" and "Mark" (same caveat) got their information from Q ... that means none of it is primary source material. *MAYBE* Q is the primary source, but we have no idea. We don't know who Q is, or where he (she?) got his information from. So my three points earlier apply at this lynchpoint. The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts were excellent Christians around the date 62AD (more or less), but they weren't the actual apostles alive with Jesus (if they were, they'd all be around 80, more or less, and still hangin' around and writing books. Pretty unique for 'peasant, 62AD, busy wandering disease-ridden communities talking to strangers who largely hate you'.)

So we have a good chunk of the Gospels are, at best, secondhand by people who were never there.

John is the anomaly of course, but we don't know anything about who the author is. That it was John the Apostle would be awesome, but there's no concrete evidence to support that. We do know the gospel was written about that same period (62-100AD).

Whether you accept John is a first-hand account or not depends a lot on whether you already accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. If you're questioning one, you question the other, so you can see what a pickle I'm in.



Going back to Q though, since you didn't even bring up John :)

So this is at least a second-hand source. So I'll ask you about what can happen to a myth ... has anyone ever told you about something that happened, but when you actually look it up, it turns out totally differently? I've got some far-removed uncles living in Germany. I wonder what their view of the events of 1950-1980 is like (30-60 years ago).




When you show that 30AD had CNN and news archives, I'll accept your examples :)

But you bring up a great point, and here's one of the questions that really bugs me.

Jesus doing miracles was BIG NEWS. And he touched some pretty influential people. People who were wealthy and literate. Yet outside of the few (four?) sources you've quoted, plus a handful of others, there really isn't much documenting it. There's no Roman government document saying 'so-and-so has rejected worship of Jupiter, as his daughter was risen from the dead by some Galilean'.

Nor is there a record of Herod killing all of the male babies in Bethelehem. Or of the departure of three great kings or wise men from their homes following an astrological portent.

I know that period is a big grey blotch when it comes to news; something I myself have been arguing. But it would seem to me like the Romans, who loved them some records, would have *something* on the point.



The other point I need to bring up is the Gnostics. They have a history much like the Christian Church we all know and love; existed in the same period, had gospels from around 62AD (Gospel of Thomas), claimed direct inspiration from God was guiding them. But they got curb-stomped following Nicea. I've read the Gospel of Thomas. I really like it. So why was Thomas not included, but these other ones were? It's not based on historicity. If you accept the historical evidence for Luke, you have to accept it for Thomas. You can't just say "FIRST! LUKE IS IN FIRST OUT WITH THOMAS!" And since Thomas doesn't disagree factually with the other Gospels, but rather in philosophy, it looks like there were theological, not historical scholarship reasons for its exclusion.


What I come away with is, there's a big period with not enough records. These guys say they knew a guy who knew a guy who did some major miracles. But these guys over here ALSO knew a totally different guy who did miracles (there were a lot of mystics at the time, many of whom had lots of followers). And the government officials over here don't know anything. If you already accept that that third guy really did do miracles, everything is peachy. But if you don't make that assumption, it gets tough to separate one account from the other.






I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. You're saying if I put a date on something I write, it can't be a myth, it must be a historical record?





You're speaking to a Trinitarian. That's a pretty terrible example.




So can we discount books which have factual errors? (I'm looking at you, locusts with four legs.)



*whew* That went on a little longer than I intended, but the TL;DR point is this:

The period in time is full of mystics with "witnesses" who claimed they did miracles. If witness testimony is all you have to build on, we're in trouble.

The period is also pretty scarce on supporting written records. There are a handful, mostly in the Bible. Four witnesses agree on something, twenty disagree, and limited corroborating evidence? We're in trouble. (BTW, I don't consider references to other events as 'corroborating evidence'. Saying "I was at Obama's inauguration, when I magically raised the dead" doesn't make my story true.)

The records we do have we don't know much about. All of them are at LEAST 30 years after the fact - a full human generation, and the Synoptics are at LEAST second-hand. We can't positively identify any of the authors of the Gospels. Q could be anybody; we have no idea. We're in trouble.


Then we have the elephant in the room; the OT. The OT has plenty of innacuracies, and copies plenty from earlier myths in the same area. Plus the OT is full of God being a total sociopath on people. Had Jesus said "the Jews are wrong, I'm starting fresh", my position on Christianity would be very different. But the fact that we don't just accept the life of a brilliant, compassionate, amazing man, but a historical records of four thousand years of genocide, massacre, slavery, and abuse makes Christianity a bitter pill.


Oh, yes, I would love to hear your issues on LDS, but in the LDS thread (and perhaps you'd prefer this thread slow down first.

Hey guys!  Sorry to not have replied sooner, but this part of the week I have a bit less time to post.

Anyway, very interesting stuff you've brought up, Katisara.  I have to admit, the idea of "wanting to believe" isn't something I can directly identify with.  I can relate to wanting something to be true (when you currently don't think it is), but the phrasing "I want to believe" seems to imply its at least somewhat different than just that.  but both you and Dolous have made similar comments about that, so perhaps it just seems strange to me, and not to anyone else?  I was thinking about this idea earlier today, and trying to remember ever "wanting to believe" something, but the closest I could come up with was having wanted to like something that I didn't actually care for.  So anyway, one thing that I would ask, is there a difference between "wanting to believe" and "wanting something to be true" for you, or do you mean basically the same thing?

Next issue:  I think TitL is right in that the reason one should believe in christianity would need to be "that it's true."  But it doesn't sound like you think it's true (and I would agree).  So for as far as that goes, it seem like we'd all agree that you currently shouldn't believe, but TitL will try to convince you that it's true and if he's successful we'll all agree that you should believe.  That much is probably obvious, but sometimes stating the obvious can be useful.  Anyway, I think most/all the stuff TitL is bringing up is stuff that you've given some thought to, and I think that the line of argument he's making isn't likely to convince you (though it's always possible he's got some piece of evidence we haven't heard of), and it sort of sounds to me like you're more looking for a justification of some of the less savory stuff in the OT as much as for historical evidence at the moment.  Sort of a "I like what Jesus says, and I want what he's saying to be true, but I just can't square it with all the crazy stuff God is said to have done in the OT" kind of thing.  Is that a fair observation on my part, would you say?  If so, it might be worth moving the discussion of historical evidence for/against the bible to one of the other threads, and focussing on the other issues here?

The next thing I've been noodling on the last few days since I read your first post, was that you said something along the lines of "I believe in the supernatural but..." or something like that.  What, in particular, do you believe in that regard?  That might be a better place to start.  Rather that focus on what you don't believe (and why you're dissatisified with not believing it), start with what you do believe, and build up from there?

Which brings up the next point, which is what about having a religion attracts you?  It's clear you'd like to be part of one, but there are many different aspects of religions that people can be attracted to.  Is it the social aspect?  Is it the sense of purpose religions can give?  Is it the comfort in times of trouble aspect?  Is it a sense of awe at something bigger than yourself?  What is it that you feel like you're missing out on by not believing?  Knowing that might help you figure out what you should do about it, whether that be finding another religion, or finding non-religious sources of the things you're wanting.

Sort of related to that, and to my first point, and sort of just a complete tangent is something that I picked up from Buddhism several years back.  I liked I lot of what I learned about Buddhism, but I felt it fell flat when it came to the mystical stuff like karma and reincarnation, etc.  But one thing that I found really profound (and very useful for me) was the idea that suffering comes from inside us, and basically boils down to us wanting the world to be different than it is.  Sometimes there are things we can change, and the suffering gives us a reason to do something about it, but other times the world simply is the way it is, and our suffering is purely self-inflicted and unhelpful.  I would put wanting there to be a God when there really is none in that category.  It might make sense to wish things were different, but all the wishing in the world won't actually change it, nor will anything you'll ever do, so beating yourself up about it isn't helpful at all.  And realizing that it's not the world making you suffer, but rather you making yourself suffer by wanting the world to be different, can be somewhat liberating, because it really makes you think "hey, why am I making myself miserable over this?"  Or, at least I found it to help in such cases, and maybe you will too.

The tl;dr version is:  Perhaps stop focussing on the fact that christianity isn't looking the way you want it to, and instead consider what it is you want, and figure out what can be done to get it?

Speaking for myself, I used the term 'wanting to believe' but meant 'wanted it to be true'.  They are distinct I suppose, but I certainly meant the truth portion, as the belief aspect is just a byproduct of it being true (for me).

It's okay. I can't speak for TitL, but I'm normally okay with limiting my posting to 1 hour ;P

(This week is very quiet though.)

As a head's up, because I expect TitL does keep pretty busy, I'll note that there's nothing here I'm expecting him to respond. So if he wants to skip, that's fine.




Firstly, I'm going to assume when you say true you mean 'factually true' (or if you prefer, objectively true :P ). When we're talking about philosophy and religion, there are truths which aren't based on physical things you can touch.

So yes, it would be nice if it were factually true. If Jesus et al. are factually true, it makes it much easier to believe.

But no, I don't require factual truth. Spiritualism, a belief in something greater, have a lot of benefits for people. Religion is also very good at exploring the human condition; something science has not done a very effective job of explaining yet. There's a degree of self-knowledge that comes with studying religion that I haven't found anywhere else.

But then that's the clincher. Firstly, most churches are basically social clubs. The average church-going Christian does not seem to be especially more charitable, smarter, or saner than anyone else. Plus, there's the list of God's actions which seem to go the other direction from moral behavior. So even if true, I'm not getting the benefits from Christianity one might expect given what's written on the tin.



Ironically, if TitL did prove that God is true (and is responsible for all of the acts in the OT), it might be grounds for me intentionally going the other way. However, should Christianity be false, it's not the responsibility of some sentient entity still hanging around; just business as usual among the tribes of 4000 BC.

(So yes, thank you for stating the obvious. I don't know how I managed to disagree with all of it.)



TitL is bringing up some minor points I wasn't aware of (or had forgotten), so I do appreciate his sharing. But yes, even if he proved God were true, it brings a whole load of other issues based on God's reported behavior.



I'm a big fan of Joseph Campbell and Jung. I recognize that religions and myths have a lot of metaphor which, regardless of their factual truth, provide a tremendous amount of knowledge and tools in understanding ourselves, our place in the world, etc.

Plus, the supernatural is just cooler. I'm not going to avoid the 13th floor, but if I'm repainting the patio anyway, I'll paint the ceiling blue.

The social aspect is also pretty major. My family is very Catholic. Obviously, being Catholic has some tangible benefits to me.

I have done some reading on Buddhism. I feel like I've never had too much trouble with suffering. Being part of that 1% in the richest period in the history of Earth is probably part of that :) But Taoism struck some major chords with me. As it stands, I read everything, try to soak up everything, but I don't especially "believe" anything.

I think Christianity could hit a chord like that, but in the practice I've seen, it doesn't. I'm *extremely* excited about Pope Francis, because he seems to be reversing that trend. If that trickles down, maybe I'll feel some of that draw again.
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:34, Thu 16 Jan 2014.

Only problem was that the gospel of Thomas is not written by the the disciple Thomas who was with Jesus. The gospel of Thomas references many of the books of the new testament that was already accepted. It could only reference them if they were already well established. Additionally, there's strong evidence it was written after a specific church in Syria had made changes for their own version of the bible, which is suggestive the Gospel of Thomas was not written to record the events of Jesus, but rather to record their view of the 2nd century Syrian church.

Here's a video by Lee Strobel who's done a lot of research on this particular issue. It's 7 minutes, and rather interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...ed&v=hDwy2Xp0eQ0




I think it's reasonable that with the details included in the bible that they were eyewitnesses, or talked with eyewitnesses.

And if they did witness these events, why lie and remain in that lie where they suffered through jail, and torture, and death?

If a robber held me at gun point, and told me to say I hate my wife or die, I'd likely lie and say I hate her. I wouldn't be willing to die some something note true, so why do you think it's reasonable that someone would be willing to be tortured for a lie?






No, I'm saying they are written as events witnessed, and include details to show accuracy of the events. The way they are written do not look as if meant as myth.

In that culture, they counted legs differently. The locust had four legs for walking, and two more for jumping.

The jews would have not had the same classification we use today. (Which makes sense, don't you agree?)

Leviticus 11: 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.

The locust had four legs for creeping or walking, and jointed legs about their other four feet, which are for leaping.

Looking at words in verse 22, the other insects it mentions are all jumping insects.

You're kidding, right?  Both genealogies clearly say Joseph, not Mary.  Which means tbhey cannot both be literally true.

Sorry, but the bible as history doesn't work.