[Athos]

That's not what I said. Please go back and read it again and realize that you got it backwards.

My belief is based on evidence. Blind faith is no faith at all, it's wishful thinking. I've asked the hard questions, that's why I went after those sciences I mentioned. You can try to redefine everything I do as faith if you want to, but you're wrong. I'm not a CSI, nor do I play one on television, but I follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's how I ended up where I am.

I'm sorry Dwashbur, but your posts are not evidence. They are evidence in the sense that what Jesus supposedly said has been reported since about 70AD or a bit earlier, but they are clearly not evidence of what Jesus actually said. I'm surprised you can't see the distinction.

Even if we had a manuscript from then (70AD - which we don't), you would still have to prove that Jesus' words are reported accurately. That was the gist of Scott's comments.

To analogize by citing Caesar or Thucydides simply falls flat. Neither book makes claims about God that people believe in today. That's the crux of the matter. It is one thing to believe Caesar's exploits, it is quite another to believe in Jesus being God.

All that is being said is that the belief that Jesus is God cannot be verified empirically. It is a question of faith, not proof.

You're beating a dead horse. When you try to apply rationality (reason, logic) to Jesus' divinity, you simply can't do it. Even if you had a tape recorder recording Jesus' every word, you would still have to prove the truth of what he said.

Belief in Jesus can be (and has been) a beautiful belief. In fact, that belief may be the essential beauty of it. But it is not, nor has it ever been, a provable truth.

Didn't Jesus himself say, "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed". He is talking about faith, not proof. If there were proof, what need of faith?

[dwashbur]

I'm sorry Dwashbur, but your posts are not evidence. They are evidence in the sense that what Jesus supposedly said has been reported since about 70AD or a bit earlier, but they are clearly not evidence of what Jesus actually said. I'm surprised you can't see the distinction.

Even if we had a manuscript from then (70AD - which we don't), you would still have to prove that Jesus' words are reported accurately. That was the gist of Scott's comments.

To analogize by citing Caesar or Thucydides simply falls flat. Neither book makes claims about God that people believe in today. That's the crux of the matter. It is one thing to believe Caesar's exploits, it is quite another to believe in Jesus being God.

All that is being said is that the belief that Jesus is God cannot be verified empirically. It is a question of faith, not proof.

You're beating a dead horse. When you try to apply rationality (reason, logic) to Jesus' divinity, you simply can't do it. Even if you had a tape recorder recording Jesus' every word, you would still have to prove the truth of what he said.

Belief in Jesus can be (and has been) a beautiful belief. In fact, that belief may be the essential beauty of it. But it is not, nor has it ever been, a provable truth.

Didn't Jesus himself say, "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed". He is talking about faith, not proof. If there were proof, what need of faith?

Whoa. You made a flying leap there. We were talking about the likelihood that what we have is Jesus' actual words, or an accurate representation thereof. Suddenly, you jumped off to the question of Jesus' divinity. That's a separate issue.

Whether a document talks about God or not has nothing to do with its historicity or accuracy; you pulled that out of your rationalism. There's not a separate category of history for "secular" and another for "sacred." History is history. If a historical record indicates words and events that mention a supreme being, or mention a claim by someone, or an event that can't be explained by natural means, you cannot legitimately relegate it to a ghetto of its own and make claims for it based on a separate set of rules. Either it's accurate or it's not; that's the question. How about we stick to that instead of making theological leaps that aren't part of the actual discussion?

There's a whole science of historical inquiry surrounding this stuff, but that too should probably go in a separate thread.

Did you read the Robertson book I gave you? If not, then you really aren't addressing the question of historicity. You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach.

And by the way, empiricism isn't applicable in historical science, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody who actually understands both disciplines.

[Athos]

Whoa. You made a flying leap there. We were talking about the likelihood that what we have is Jesus' actual words, or an accurate representation thereof. Suddenly, you jumped off to the question of Jesus' divinity. That's a separate issue.

Whether a document talks about God or not has nothing to do with its historicity or accuracy; you pulled that out of your rationalism. There's not a separate category of history for "secular" and another for "sacred." History is history. If a historical record indicates words and events that mention a supreme being, or mention a claim by someone, or an event that can't be explained by natural means, you cannot legitimately relegate it to a ghetto of its own and make claims for it based on a separate set of rules. Either it's accurate or it's not; that's the question. How about we stick to that instead of making theological leaps that aren't part of the actual discussion?

There's a whole science of historical inquiry surrounding this stuff, but that too should probably go in a separate thread.

Did you read the Robertson book I gave you? If not, then you really aren't addressing the question of historicity. You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach.

And by the way, empiricism isn't applicable in historical science, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody who actually understands both disciplines.

Good grief! I give up!

From long experience, I know that the discussion is over when the other side resorts to insults.

How about this - why don't you just post your position on a new thread, and we can all take it from there?

[ScottGem]

OK, I just did a little bit of research. From what I was able to tell from this, admittedly brief, research is that biblical scholars believe that the gospels you refer to where written from accounts of from John. So there are at least 2 degrees of separation here. There is still NO absolute proof that this was the word of Jesus. Even 70 years is a long time to recall something that was said at the time. Nor did I find total agreement as to what the gospels represent.

Now you make a valid point that many historical accounts from anytime prior to the Renaissance are taken with a degree of faith. But then I never said otherwise. And, in making that analogy, you prove my point.

I have raised TWO issues here. First, that there is no absolute proof that Jesus actually said that the only path to heaven was belief and worship of him as the son of god. I will point out that the gospels and the New Testament were the writings of people trying to establish a new religion. It makes perfect sense to me that they would make it appear the road to heaven was only available to those who believed.

The second issue was that the God, as depicted in the Old and New Testaments would require such a condition. My point was that belief in both issues was a matter of faith, NOT absolute fact. Nothing you have said proves otherwise. If and when you have absolute, irrefutable proof of BOTH those issues, I will be glad to listen to it. Until that time, your belief in the Bible as the word of God is just that, belief! I never said "blind" faith. Obviously the research you have done convinces you. But just as obviously not everyone is convinced by that evidence. I am not convinced and choose to believe something different. I am entitled to my beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours. And, as long as that is the case, I will protest whenever someone posts that they "know" something for which there is not absolute proof.

[dwashbur]

Good grief! I give up!

From long experience, I know that the discussion is over when the other side resorts to insults.

How about this - why don't you just post your position on a new thread, and we can all take it from there?

Where exactly did I engage in insults?

[dwashbur]

OK, I just did a little bit of research. From what I was able to tell from this, admittedly brief, research is that biblical scholars believe that the gospels you refer to where written from accounts of from John. So there are at least 2 degrees of separation here. There is still NO absolute proof that this was the word of Jesus. Even 70 years is a long time to recall something that was said at the time. Nor did I find total agreement as to what the gospels represent.

Now you make a valid point that many historical accounts from anytime prior to the Renaissance are taken with a degree of faith. But then I never said otherwise. And, in making that analogy, you prove my point.

I have raised TWO issues here. First, that there is no absolute proof that Jesus actually said that the only path to heaven was belief and worship of him as the son of god. I will point out that the gospels and the New Testament were the writings of people trying to establish a new religion. It makes perfect sense to me that they would make it appear the road to heaven was only available to those who believed.

In that kind of context, I can see why this would make perfect sense to you. And yes, there's no "absolute proof." I already acknowledged that such a thing is impossible with history, especially ancient, perhaps even pre-printing-press history. Considering that there are still those who deny things like the Holocaust, maybe it's not possible even with recent history. My point is, when you want "absolute proof" you're asking for the impossible. Setting up an impossible truth-condition isn't a valid philosophical method of inquiry, as you undoubtedly already know. The best we can do is examine the evidence and weigh the probabilities. If, after that kind of examination, you come to a different conclusion, I have no problem with that. I just want to be sure we're both playing by the same rules.

The second issue was that the God, as depicted in the Old and New Testaments would require such a condition. My point was that belief in both issues was a matter of faith, NOT absolute fact. Nothing you have said proves otherwise. If and when you have absolute, irrefutable proof of BOTH those issues, I will be glad to listen to it. Until that time, your belief in the Bible as the word of God is just that, belief! I never said "blind" faith. Obviously the research you have done convinces you. But just as obviously not everyone is convinced by that evidence. I am not convinced and choose to believe something different. I am entitled to my beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours. And, as long as that is the case, I will protest whenever someone posts that they "know" something for which there is not absolute proof.

Again, we both know there's no such thing as absolute proof in a situation like this. If you want to nail me on the point that I may have said I "know" something of this type, fine, you got me. The probability is that he said those things, since the evidence points that way, and if he said those things, either he was right or he was wrong. My point was that we can't have it both ways.

The original topic assumes that a) he said it, and b) he was right. We have now taken things miles away from that starting-point, and I'm not sure it's a legitimate thing for us to do. The question was, within that assumed starting-point, what happened to people before Jesus? Perhaps we should let the subject get back to that.

Afterthought: 70 years is not correct. It's more like 40-50 for John, even less for the other gospels, and less than 10 years for the beginning of Paul's work. So the whole New Testament is well within a single generation's time-span.

[arcura]

I Newton,
Jesus said that no man has ascended to heaven.
That does NOT mean that people were not taken to heaven or that their souls were not taken to heaven.
The bible clearly tells us that some were.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

Where exactly did I engage in insults?

How about condescending remarks?

".. should be obvious to anybody who...[whatever].

"If you did not read the book I gave you..." Huh? What the hell are you talking about? You never gave me any book!

"You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach."

Seems like a convenient way to get out of an uncomfortable discussion.

Not all of us here are overwhelmed by your "30 years of study", but I certainly congratulate you for your persistence.

[arcura]

LOL.
That is SOMETIMES the case but not always.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

... And yes, there's no "absolute proof."... The best we can do is examine the evidence and weigh the probabilities...


Again, we both know there's no such thing as absolute proof in a situation like this...

Finally! It was like pulling teeth.

My point was that we can't have it both ways.

Indeed!

[ScottGem]

My point is, when you want "absolute proof" you're asking for the impossible. Setting up an impossible truth-condition isn't a valid philosophical method of inquiry, .

No, not asking for the impossible. I can say; "I know if I drop an object it will fall to the ground" or "I know if I ingest some food it will be digested un my body, with the nutrients being absorbed and the waste expelled" These are absolute truths that we have all experienced. The problem is I didn't set the condition, the OP did. The OP stated; "I know..." something that was impossible for him to "know". That (and only that) was what I objected to. You then wasted our time by trying to prove something you now admit is impossible to prove, thereby validating what I said. Had you approached it differently by saying; "this is why I believe..." I would have reacted differently.

Just as you said I shouldn't judge someone I don't know, n either should you. Don't assume one hasn't taken into account the evidence you have.

So yes, let's return the thread to the OP. My point has been made and verified

[arcura]

Athos,
UIt seems to me that it is standard knowledge that thing of spiritual fail cannot have an absolute proof scientific or otherwise.
But there is some evidence of spirituality out there and there is philosophically some of the same.
However there are those folks in quantum math and mechanics who do claim that their studies and figures do very strongly indicate a supreme being of extremely great intelligence.
So as time goes on just maybe some scientific proof of God may come forth.
Then there's the folks in physics who are now looking for what they call the God particle using the super collider in Europe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

...You then wasted our time by trying to prove something you now admit is impossible to prove, thereby validating what I said. Had you approached it differently by saying; "this is why I believe..." I would have reacted differently.

My point has been made and verified

Bingo!

Please see my Tolstoy quote below this reply.

[dwashbur]

How about condescending remarks?

".. should be obvious to anybody who...[whatever].

Why don't you finish the sentence? It's true.

"If you did not read the book I gave you..." Huh? What the hell are you talking about? You never gave me any book!

Oops. You're right; it was Scottgem I suggested it to. So here you go:

Luke the historian, in the light of ... - Google Books

"You're redefining things according to your own presuppositions. I will not engage in a discussion based on that kind of approach."

Seems like a convenient way to get out of an uncomfortable discussion.

You can call it whatever you like. It doesn't change the truth of what I said.

Not all of us here are overwhelmed by your "30 years of study", but I certainly congratulate you for your persistence.

I couldn't care less if you or anybody else is "overwhelmed." The goal in mentioning it is to show that I've done at least as much homework as anybody else. Let's talk about condescending: anybody who believes something other than you do is just going on faith; the obvious implication is that they haven't really thought it through like you have; that's condescending to the max. My point is that some of us *have* thought it through, and have come to different conclusions than you have, based on evidence and not just on faith or wishful thinking.

[Athos]

Athos,
UIt seems to me that it is standard knowledge that thing of spiritual fail cannot have an absolute proof scientific or otherwise.
But there is some evidence of spirituality out there and there is philosophically some of the same.
However there are those folks in quantum math and mechanics who do claim that their studies and figures do very strongly indicate a supreme being of extremely great intelligence.
So as time goes on just maybe some scientific proof of God may come forth.
Then there's the folks in physics who are now looking for what they call the God particle using the super collider in Europe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

True enough, Arcura. Trying to prove the spiritual by the non-spiritual is a chasing after the wind. That was the point we were trying to make.

I'd be interested in hearing about the folks whose studies claim a supreme being of great intelligence.

[arcura]

dwashbur,
You have been making some very good points.
Keep up the good work.
I like to see them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[dwashbur]

No, not asking for the impossible. I can say; "I know if I drop an object it will fall to the ground" or "I know if I ingest some food it will be digested un my body, with the nutrients being absorbed and the waste expelled" These are absolute truths that we have all experienced.

This really gets tiring. Why don't you address ALL of what I said? I said that IN HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION, IN HISTORICAL SCIENCE, absolute proof is impossible. History by its very nature has to use a different set of rules. Your examples are meaningless for studying history, because an event like the fall of Rome or the Persians taking
Babylon without a fight can't be repeated. Hence, in history there's no such thing as absolute proof, and hence asking for it is setting up an impossible condition. QED.

The problem is I didn't set the condition, the OP did. The OP stated; "I know..." something that was impossible for him to "know". That (and only that) was what I objected to. You then wasted our time by trying to prove something you now admit is impossible to prove, thereby validating what I said. Had you approached it differently by saying; "this is why I believe..." I would have reacted differently.

Once again, the study of history requires a different set of rules and truth conditions. If you can't accept that, then it's your problem, not mine and not the OP's.

Just as you said I shouldn't judge someone I don't know, n either should you. Don't assume one hasn't taken into account the evidence you have.

But you haven't. You have tried to subject the historical evidence to impossible criteria. If you look at it according to the accepted rules of actual historical science, you might or might not come to a different conclusion. But at least the playing field would be level.

So yes, let's return the thread to the OP. My point has been made and verified

Don't flatter yourself. I'm happy to return to the OP's topic, but you haven't verified anything except that history is not a repeatable science, which is a bit like saying "blue is blue." Let's get back to it within the parameters set up by the OP.

[Athos]

Let's talk about condescending: anybody who believes something other than you do is just going on faith;

Dwashbur -- Time to give it up. You've been shown to be wrong (by your own words) and yet you persist.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that those who believe something other than me is just going on faith.

I understand you're being emotional, but you're just digging that ditch deeper.

Be a man, lick your wounds, and trot on home. We've all been where you are now, and tomorrow will be a new day.

[arcura]

Athos,
I read about such folks in Astronomy magazine and the book "Exploring Reality" by John Polkinghorne that goes into that subject. "The intertwining of Science and Religion".
What is interesting is that he is a physicist who was so convinced that he became an Anglican priest.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[dwashbur]

Dwashbur -- Time to give it up. You've been shown to be wrong (by your own words) and yet you persist.

If that's what you need to get through the day, feel free to believe it.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that those who believe something other than me is just going on faith.

Your repeated emphasis on the idea that it's all a matter of faith because history can't give you your precious "absolute proof" carries the clear implication that you have something those with "faith" don't. Whether you mean it that way or not is irrelevant, the connotation is there.

I understand you're being emotional, but you're just digging that ditch deeper.

So, because I ask you to address what I actually wrote rather than taking a snippet out of context in order to "win," that's getting emotional. Whatever.

Be a man, lick your wounds, and trot on home. We've all been where you are now, and tomorrow will be a new day.

This is the guy who calls me "condescending" and "emotional." If that's not condescending, there's no such thing, and it's obviously an emotional outburst. Pot and kettle, my friend. Feel free to have the last word.