dodge!!!!! nice platitude. interpreting the bible is obviously not simple. interpretations of what exactly the path to jesus entails vary widely because almost all Christians including you pick and choose what to take literally and how to apply it, generally through the filter of your own personally derived notions of morality and what your own common sense will allow.
Laughing? It's easy to mock and poke fun I guess since you haven't seen; but if I'm right; I highly doubt you would be laughing. Nice try though.
I wouldn't be changing my mind about the nature of god if he exists and was actually the god described in the bible. He would still be a cruel sadistic genocidal megalomaniac that I would never be able to willingly love or worship even if threatened with hell. It is fortunate he doesn't exist, yes. It's fortunate hungry underbridge dwelling trolls don't exist, too.
Believing in Christ is simple. It's the following part that gets people tripped up. Nonetheless, it's a decision.....one that you seemingly want no part of.
He mentioned many Jesus' but none that you could tie to the gospel myth, or the myth of a god man who incarnated as his own son to be crucified for the sins of humanity. If you keep peeling away the layers of the Jesus myth you're not left with anything.
you were talking about interpreting the bible in your prior posts, not belief. genuine belief is compelled by evidence. it is not a decision.
Maybe, but I don't think that's necessarily considered an established fact even among secular scholars, and I'm wary of giving apologists ammunition by claiming it is. The main reference is certainly dubious.
Despite how well someone might interpret the Bible, or not (some folks can barely read), it boils down to a pure and genuine faith. That's it. To be honest, I wouldn't have had to read one word in the Bible, yet still be saved......that is if I simply put my trust in Jesus after hearing about what He has done for me. In fact, the same happened with the sinner on the cross next to Jesus. Faith, really, has nothing directly to do with evidence. Doesn't mean, though, that it's not consistently bolstered in my life through confirmation upon confirmation. Hebrews 11:1 states, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." The entire chapter of Hebrews 11 goes over some of the elements of faith. The fact that there are a number different translations is virtual semantics. My comments regarding The Message vs. other translations were merely in response to Sly's direct questions on the subject.
If the bible is the word of god, who are all these blasphemers that think they can improve upon it? God has been around for what, eternity right? And his word already needs a more modern take? He's been working on his manuscript for infinite forevers, and then some weirdo yahoo swings in and "interprets" it for him??? Unbelievable, I'd send that dude to hell for sure, the stones on these assholes
So you get to decide "genuine belief" by your terms? It should be said "I believe this is the evidence that pursued me" What you believe is evidence can be very different than what pursueds another. Example: one could say they love a woman because of these factors. Another sees those factors and disagrees they are measurements or evidence of that love. But the other can't know for sure that the person truly loves, therefor; they are just using their perception. You are just using your own perception and blanket all other beliefs to that perception.
It was pretty much universally known as a forgery by scholars since the 1800s. It wasn't until the fairly recently that the idea that it was a mixture has bubbled up to the surface. But this camp is comprised mostly of christian apologists and theologians. The Josephus forgery has been well dismantled. Arguing whether something is an "established fact" is a distraction since none of this isn't really falsifiable, all you can do is look at the evidence at hand. Here's a snippet from a 19th century book, Christian Mythology Unvieled, that outlines the argument: "Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'" (CMU, 47)
I was just responding to the statement that I am choosing not to believe. I don't have a choice. love as you are using is too vague to be objectively evidence-based. if you define exactly what you mean by the term it is measurable.
How about war? How about foreign policies? Maybe we can discuss capital punishment? All of which has many in disagreement.
ok cool. I have seen a few secular scholars argue that it could be a mixture, but not a typical sentiment apparently.
we were talking about belief in a claim about objective reality (jesus is god etc.), not subjective moral issues.
