Merkley observed that those skeptics who either scoff at the historical reliability of the Gospels or reject them outright as "myth" do so without much, if any, regard for the nature of history in general and the contents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in particular.

That's not true. The crossing of a river is a doable thing. It can be demonstrated.

Can you demonstrate the existence of a talking snake? Can a man live in the belly of a whale, (for three days)!

There's a difference between historicity and myth. Yes, the history can certainly be wrong as it is usually written by the victors or whoever is in power. But to say a man rose from the dead and bodily went up into...

Merkley observed that those skeptics who either scoff at the historical reliability of the Gospels or reject them outright as "myth" do so without much, if any, regard for the nature of history in general and the contents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in particular.

That's not true. The crossing of a river is a doable thing. It can be demonstrated.

Can you demonstrate the existence of a talking snake? Can a man live in the belly of a whale, (for three days)!

There's a difference between historicity and myth. Yes, the history can certainly be wrong as it is usually written by the victors or whoever is in power. But to say a man rose from the dead and bodily went up into the sky to heaven? Such an incredible claim requires extraordinary proof because it's not an event that could actually happen in the natural world. And we've been far into, and above the sky. No heaven but the metaphor.

I took a walk today. That's believable.

I sprouted wings and flew into the clouds never to be seen again. That's not so believable is it? Why isn't it?

See the difference?

I believe it because someone wrote it down. Hmmm, Fiction is written too.

Religion is a society control created and continued by power hungry people.

The reason religion is under so much fire recently is because world-wide communication has broken the hold on the societies and science has found mainstream news. People are learning more and more about the 'nature' of their world and the facts are giving rise to questions the religions never anticipated.

The myths of the gospels were designed to give people the 'thrill' in their belief system. Science kills the thrill. You can't say you shot the moon with your gun when everyone knows the nature of the moon, projectiles and gravity. Even i...

I believe it because someone wrote it down. Hmmm, Fiction is written too.

Religion is a society control created and continued by power hungry people.

The reason religion is under so much fire recently is because world-wide communication has broken the hold on the societies and science has found mainstream news. People are learning more and more about the 'nature' of their world and the facts are giving rise to questions the religions never anticipated.

The myths of the gospels were designed to give people the 'thrill' in their belief system. Science kills the thrill. You can't say you shot the moon with your gun when everyone knows the nature of the moon, projectiles and gravity. Even if 10 men went to their deaths to say you did, it still doesn't make it fact.
We know of the cults that died thinking aliens were coming for them. They believed it so much, they died for it.
Some myths have some basis in fact, most fiction have some basis in imagination.

@rvnurse2b

10 men died martyrs deaths because they SAW the empty tomb( and their friend ALIVE after death).No one paid them, it was not in style for them to believe it, they gained NOTHING from it.

Why would they make it up?

Not one single person wrote anything about a Jesus Christ the Messiah during the time of Jesus. I'm afraid your witnesses are simply a part of the story. A story, by the way, told many times BEFORE the time of Jesus!

These historical details can be found in other ancient writings form many sources.

Yes, the bible has "some" historical details, names of places, stories about stories. But not one single person who lived duri...

@rvnurse2b

10 men died martyrs deaths because they SAW the empty tomb( and their friend ALIVE after death).No one paid them, it was not in style for them to believe it, they gained NOTHING from it.

Why would they make it up?

Not one single person wrote anything about a Jesus Christ the Messiah during the time of Jesus. I'm afraid your witnesses are simply a part of the story. A story, by the way, told many times BEFORE the time of Jesus!

These historical details can be found in other ancient writings form many sources.

Yes, the bible has "some" historical details, names of places, stories about stories. But not one single person who lived during the "time" Jesus supposedly lived, wrote anything whatsoever about him or anything he supposedly said. Nothing!

I'm sorry. Those witnesses are simply a part of the story. You can't use the story to verify the story.

Not one single person wrote anything about a Jesus Christ the Messiah during the time of Jesus. I'm afraid your witnesses are simply a part of the story. A story, by the way, told many times BEFORE the time of Jesus!

But not one single person who lived during the "time" Jesus supposedly lived, wrote anything whatsoever about him or anything he supposedly said. Nothing!

Sure there is. There is Matthew, John, Jude, and Peter who are first hand witnesses. There is Paul, Luke, and Mark who wrote about Jesus and were alive during the time of Christ and knew the above mentioned witnesses. The witnesses are part of the Gospels because they are witnesses of the events t...

Not one single person wrote anything about a Jesus Christ the Messiah during the time of Jesus. I'm afraid your witnesses are simply a part of the story. A story, by the way, told many times BEFORE the time of Jesus!

But not one single person who lived during the "time" Jesus supposedly lived, wrote anything whatsoever about him or anything he supposedly said. Nothing!

Sure there is. There is Matthew, John, Jude, and Peter who are first hand witnesses. There is Paul, Luke, and Mark who wrote about Jesus and were alive during the time of Christ and knew the above mentioned witnesses. The witnesses are part of the Gospels because they are witnesses of the events that took place. The events in the Gospel took place only once, so therefore could not have been told previously.

Those witnesses are simply a part of the story. You can't use the story to verify the story.

Why can't witnesses be used to write about certain events? Do they have to be written by anybody else other than the eye witnesses?

Can you demonstrate the existence of a talking snake? Can a man live in the belly of a whale, (for three days)!

The title of the clip refers to the Gospels in particular which are the books in the Bible known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The books of Genesis and Jonah can be discussed as well in more detail, if you'd like. Throughout the Bible there are many miracles that took place and these events can not be demonstrated because they are just that, miracles, supernatural events. They can not be duplicated by natural means because they transcend the ordinary.

But to say a man rose from the dead and bodily went up into the sky to heaven? Such an incredible claim ...

read more»

Can you demonstrate the existence of a talking snake? Can a man live in the belly of a whale, (for three days)!

The title of the clip refers to the Gospels in particular which are the books in the Bible known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The books of Genesis and Jonah can be discussed as well in more detail, if you'd like. Throughout the Bible there are many miracles that took place and these events can not be demonstrated because they are just that, miracles, supernatural events. They can not be duplicated by natural means because they transcend the ordinary.

But to say a man rose from the dead and bodily went up into the sky to heaven? Such an incredible claim requires extraordinary proof because it's not an event that could actually happen in the natural world.

Why isn't the eye witness' narrative sufficient? The extent they went through in order to proclaim what they have seen is extraordinary.

@Efrain Alvarado

There is Matthew, John, Jude, and Peter who are first hand witnesses. There is Paul, Luke, and Mark who wrote about Jesus and were alive during the time of Christ and knew the above mentioned witnesses. The witnesses are part of the Gospels because they are witnesses of the events that took place.

When the devil took Jesus up to the mountain top and made certain offers, there was a verbatim conversation. Only these two were present.

Which of your "eye witnesses" transcribed that conversation as a biblical narrative?

Did Jesus personally author any of the bible? Did the devil?

The only "eye witnesses" were Jesus and the devil. So where did this conversat...

@Efrain Alvarado

There is Matthew, John, Jude, and Peter who are first hand witnesses. There is Paul, Luke, and Mark who wrote about Jesus and were alive during the time of Christ and knew the above mentioned witnesses. The witnesses are part of the Gospels because they are witnesses of the events that took place.

When the devil took Jesus up to the mountain top and made certain offers, there was a verbatim conversation. Only these two were present.

Which of your "eye witnesses" transcribed that conversation as a biblical narrative?

Did Jesus personally author any of the bible? Did the devil?

The only "eye witnesses" were Jesus and the devil. So where did this conversation come from?

Rehashed myths from prior Pagan cultures! I think I showed you the Zeitgeist (the movie) and asked that you view part 1. You said "it means nothing."

I guess if historical fact means nothing, then what does stories UN-supported by fact mean?

These people you claim as witnesses are simply a part of the story!

----
The Bible as History: How God Got It Wrong

Take a look at the supporting link, (There's no evidence for any of it.), in the article.
----

But let's face it; you cannot allow yourself pay attention to facts that disagree with your belief. You are indoctrinated to accept authority as truth, instead of truth as authority.

But if you believed in the bible as TRUTH, you'd believe the words of Jesus. "Whatsoever ye shall
ask in
my name that will I do."

"if Jesus could keep his promise,
there would be today no misery in the world, no orphans, no
childless mothers no shipwrecks, no floods, no famines, no disease,
no crippled children, no insanity, no wars, no crime, no wrong!"

"Can the followers of Jesus move mountains, drink deadly
poisons, ... or work greater miracles than are ascribed
to
Jesus,
as it
was pro

@swirlinator

Religion is a society control created and continued by power hungry people.

What selfish means did Jesus and His followers achieve, by proclaiming their beliefs?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

So why make a false accusation? Assumptions are not facts. Jesus accepted His death on the cross. His followers did not receive fame, riches, or power by proclaiming their beliefs. On the contrary, they attained imprisonment, torture, and death for their God. Proof enough that their faith was not for power.

But do you really believe the issues of religions today are what Jesus would back?

He did establish a visible Church: Mt 16:18 and gave ...

@swirlinator

Religion is a society control created and continued by power hungry people.

What selfish means did Jesus and His followers achieve, by proclaiming their beliefs?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

So why make a false accusation? Assumptions are not facts. Jesus accepted His death on the cross. His followers did not receive fame, riches, or power by proclaiming their beliefs. On the contrary, they attained imprisonment, torture, and death for their God. Proof enough that their faith was not for power.

But do you really believe the issues of religions today are what Jesus would back?

He did establish a visible Church: Mt 16:18 and gave authority to His Apostles: Mt 16:19, Jn 20:21-23.

The coldest fact of all is that the religions in the world today are not practicing what Jesus preached.

Amen to that.

If I were to choose a religion I would choose Jesus but his teachings are nowhere to be found.

Sure they are. Jesus did not come to fail His mission on earth and leave us wondering what to do. He sent His followers to teach His teachings and promised to be with them always: Mt 28:16-20.

Just twisted versions warped to meet the agendas of power hungry people.

Some of it is, but not all.

@AcesLucky

Which of your "eye witnesses" transcribed that conversation as a biblical narrative?

Does it need a witness to be true? It is certainly possible that Jesus Himself spoke of the event to His Apostles. The assertion that everything needs a third party to make it believable is irrational.

The only "eye witnesses" were Jesus and the devil. So where did this conversation come from?

The conversation took place between Jesus and Satan.

Rehashed myths from prior Pagan cultures! I think I showed you the Zeitgeist (the movie) and asked that you view part 1. You said "it means nothing."

How so? Give me an example. I said that I have not see...

@AcesLucky

Which of your "eye witnesses" transcribed that conversation as a biblical narrative?

Does it need a witness to be true? It is certainly possible that Jesus Himself spoke of the event to His Apostles. The assertion that everything needs a third party to make it believable is irrational.

The only "eye witnesses" were Jesus and the devil. So where did this conversation come from?

The conversation took place between Jesus and Satan.

Rehashed myths from prior Pagan cultures! I think I showed you the Zeitgeist (the movie) and asked that you view part 1. You said "it means nothing."

How so? Give me an example. I said that I have not seen the movie.

Take a look at the supporting link, (There's no evidence for any of it.), in the article.

The article is about the Exodus, not the conversation between Jesus and Satan.

But let's face it; you cannot allow yourself pay attention to facts that disagree with your belief. You are indoctrinated to accept authority as truth, instead of truth as authority.

Am I to accept your statement regarding that the witnesses are only fictional characters in the "story"? What evidence do you have for your assertion?

But if you believed in the bible as TRUTH, you'd believe the words of Jesus. "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do."

"if Jesus could keep his promise, there would be today no misery in the world, no orphans, no childless mothers no shipwrecks, no floods, no famines, no disease, no crippled children, no insanity, no wars, no crime, no wrong!"

That is the classic argument of the problem of evil and suffering. I can define your concern by refering to Augustine of Hippo. His dilemma is formulated like this:

If God is all-good, He would will all good and no evil.

And if God were all powerful, He would accomplish everything He wills.

[i]Bu...

But if you believed in the bible as TRUTH, you'd believe the words of Jesus. "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do."

"if Jesus could keep his promise, there would be today no misery in the world, no orphans, no childless mothers no shipwrecks, no floods, no famines, no disease, no crippled children, no insanity, no wars, no crime, no wrong!"

That is the classic argument of the problem of evil and suffering. I can define your concern by refering to Augustine of Hippo. His dilemma is formulated like this:

If God is all-good, He would will all good and no evil.

And if God were all powerful, He would accomplish everything He wills.

But evil exists as well as good.

Therefore either God is not omnipotent or not all good and or both.

Is this what you are referring to?

Can the followers of Jesus move mountains, drink deadly poisons, touch serpents, or work greater miracles than are ascribed to Jesus, as it was promised that they would do?

Wanting to do these things is futile. There is no rhyme or reason to desire to do such things. In Jn 14:12, if we keep the verse in context, we are able to see Jesus speaking to His disciples about the house of the Father. He describes about how there is a place for them, how to gain entrance, and of the role of the Advocate or Holy Spirit. While speaking of these things, Jesus mentions to ask Him anything in His name. In context, we see Him speaking of salvation therefore, whatever we ask of the Sav...

Can the followers of Jesus move mountains, drink deadly poisons, touch serpents, or work greater miracles than are ascribed to Jesus, as it was promised that they would do?

Wanting to do these things is futile. There is no rhyme or reason to desire to do such things. In Jn 14:12, if we keep the verse in context, we are able to see Jesus speaking to His disciples about the house of the Father. He describes about how there is a place for them, how to gain entrance, and of the role of the Advocate or Holy Spirit. While speaking of these things, Jesus mentions to ask Him anything in His name. In context, we see Him speaking of salvation therefore, whatever we ask of the Savior that is adverse to the interest of salvation, we do not ask in His (the Saviors) name. If we ask Him for things contrary to salvation, He will not grant it for us because it is contrary to His nature.

Jn 14:18

What happened on June the 14th and 18th?
(Kidding)

Next time you got to church, sit in the back and watch the people in your congregation carefully. Watch the pastor's reaction to distractions. Also go early and watch the action in the parkinglot, Afterwards watch people leave, watch where they go.

Watch how the less fortunate ones dress and how they are treated. How less fortunate are they compared to the general public of the area. What if something the pastor says strikes a note with you. Do you get offended and then shrug it off? Watch peoples reactions when the offering plate is being passed. Is i sacrifice or a bill being paid?
I have. I stopped going to ch...

Jn 14:18

What happened on June the 14th and 18th?
(Kidding)

Next time you got to church, sit in the back and watch the people in your congregation carefully. Watch the pastor's reaction to distractions. Also go early and watch the action in the parkinglot, Afterwards watch people leave, watch where they go.

Watch how the less fortunate ones dress and how they are treated. How less fortunate are they compared to the general public of the area. What if something the pastor says strikes a note with you. Do you get offended and then shrug it off? Watch peoples reactions when the offering plate is being passed. Is i sacrifice or a bill being paid?
I have. I stopped going to church when I was told that my sunday best wasn't good enough. I lost faith in my church and then found all the ones I tried afterward had the same atmosphere. A bunch of sunday christians. The only time most of the people are christian is when they are doing their face saving in church on sunday. Or they are doing something against their nature to gain praise on sunday.
I've tried 30 or so churches in multiple cities, towns and communities.
I chose spirituality where I am true to myself.

I've lost faith in the people of religion not in God.

Say you were up all night with your sick child. You fell asleep at 5am on the sofa and you didn't have your laundry done. You awake and you are running really late. You wash your face and hands and straighten your clothes and hurry out the door with your family. You get to church and sit in the back so your ill child doesn't disrupt the conregation. You know most of the people and they wish you well but you get the hairy eyeball. Should you have stayed home? Perhaps little jonny should have stayed with a sitter. He starts to cough, cry or fidget. Hairy eyeballs turn and gaze at you, you feel embarrassed, yeah, should have stayed home. H...

I've lost faith in the people of religion not in God.

Say you were up all night with your sick child. You fell asleep at 5am on the sofa and you didn't have your laundry done. You awake and you are running really late. You wash your face and hands and straighten your clothes and hurry out the door with your family. You get to church and sit in the back so your ill child doesn't disrupt the conregation. You know most of the people and they wish you well but you get the hairy eyeball. Should you have stayed home? Perhaps little jonny should have stayed with a sitter. He starts to cough, cry or fidget. Hairy eyeballs turn and gaze at you, you feel embarrassed, yeah, should have stayed home. Here comes the plate...Shoot, forgot your wallet, you pass it on. The hairy eyeballs find you again. Ok, its over, shake a few hands and apologise to everyone...nobody is talking to you, you go home and fall on the couch, need sleep.
Next week, you look better, jonny isn't sick, its all normal....but is it?

@Efrain

I asked:

Which of your "eye witnesses" transcribed that conversation as a biblical narrative?

Does it need a witness to be true?

Your question doesn't provide an answer, it tries to change the subject. Who was the eye witness to this narrative, Efrain?

To quote you (from above): "Why isn't the eye witness' narrative sufficient?" (How sufficient with no witness at all?)

It is certainly possible that Jesus Himself spoke of the event to His Apostles.

Is it really possible that a devil offered the earth as a bribe, to the "owner" of the entire universe? (Only by people so ignorant of the magnitude of the universe could such an offer be possi...

@Efrain

I asked:

Which of your "eye witnesses" transcribed that conversation as a biblical narrative?

Does it need a witness to be true?

Your question doesn't provide an answer, it tries to change the subject. Who was the eye witness to this narrative, Efrain?

To quote you (from above): "Why isn't the eye witness' narrative sufficient?" (How sufficient with no witness at all?)

It is certainly possible that Jesus Himself spoke of the event to His Apostles.

Is it really possible that a devil offered the earth as a bribe, to the "owner" of the entire universe? (Only by people so ignorant of the magnitude of the universe could such an offer be possible.

First century man fits that description. They had no clue about the magnitude of the universe, nor the earth's position in it.

I said that I have not seen the movie.

I may have you mistaken with another person. My apologies.

The article is about the Exodus, not the conversation between Jesus and Satan.

Used as an example about the inaccurate historicity of the bible. If the things we CAN check out for accuracy turn out to be wrong, on what basis shall we believe the supernatural things that cannot?

Am I to accept your statement regarding that the witnesses are only
fictional characters in the "story"? What evidence do you have for your
assertion?

The story itself is fictional (give or take a few historical changes, such as places and names of some tribes to update it).

The life of Jesus, for instance. Or, the life of Moses.

The Jesus story, for instance, is just the latest in a long series of sun-god's born of a virgin who rose from the dead after being buried for three days. There are dozens that predate Christianity.

@E

That is the classic argument of the problem of evil and suffering. I can define your concern by refering to Augustine of Hippo. His dilemma is formulated like this:

If God is all-good, He would will all good and no evil.

No sir. Again, you attempt to rephrase and redirect. No. The statement by Jesus is: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do."

It has NOTHING to do with god's ability or will to do good. It has EVERYTHING to do with a promise that a prayer in the name of Jesus, according to Jesus, WILL BE DONE!

It has nothing to do with the reference to Augustine of Hippo.
---

Can the followers of Jesus move mountains...

I...

read more»

@E

That is the classic argument of the problem of evil and suffering. I can define your concern by refering to Augustine of Hippo. His dilemma is formulated like this:

If God is all-good, He would will all good and no evil.

No sir. Again, you attempt to rephrase and redirect. No. The statement by Jesus is: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do."

It has NOTHING to do with god's ability or will to do good. It has EVERYTHING to do with a promise that a prayer in the name of Jesus, according to Jesus, WILL BE DONE!

It has nothing to do with the reference to Augustine of Hippo.
---

Can the followers of Jesus move mountains...

If we ask Him for things contrary to salvation, He will not grant it for us because it is contrary to His nature.

Sorry. None of it is in context to salvation! He's talking about WORKS. Further, he reaffirms it many times in different ways, but the MEANING in each is the same.

Besides, if he wanted it to mean what YOU said, he would have said that. But he didn't. He said what he said because that's what he meant. See:

Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Mattew 18:19 and James 5:15-16.


John 14:12-14

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].

---

Your pretend context card (salvation) doesn't work. Either the promise is true... or it's not. The words are too clear to be "contexted" into a different meaning. They mean what they say!

@swirlinator

Next time you got to church, sit in the back and watch the people in your congregation carefully.

Watch how the less fortunate ones dress and how they are treated. How less fortunate are they compared to the general public of the area.

I stopped going to church when I was told that my sunday best wasn't good enough. I lost faith in my church and then found all the ones I tried afterward had the same atmosphere.

Let me begin by saying that if you dictate your faith on behalf of what others think of you, then your priorities are not quite in order. Jesus repeatedly exhorted us to seek praise from God and not from men. While you were c...

@swirlinator

Next time you got to church, sit in the back and watch the people in your congregation carefully.

Watch how the less fortunate ones dress and how they are treated. How less fortunate are they compared to the general public of the area.

I stopped going to church when I was told that my sunday best wasn't good enough. I lost faith in my church and then found all the ones I tried afterward had the same atmosphere.

Let me begin by saying that if you dictate your faith on behalf of what others think of you, then your priorities are not quite in order. Jesus repeatedly exhorted us to seek praise from God and not from men. While you were chastised by the congregation did you at any time think of the glorification God bestowed on you because you suffered for the sake of worshiping Him? Mt 5:11-12.

With that note, Jesus said He came for the sick, not the healthy: Mk 2:17, Lk 5:31-32. Those who were unmerciful towards you are probably well in need of the Physician, more than they realize it themselves. Mt 9:10-13 we see Jesus among sinners and is ever present among a sinful congregation. If you should focus on His presence and not among others, you will know He is there.

Your question doesn't provide an answer, it tries to change the subject. Who was the eye witness to this narrative, Efrain?

There is no eye witness recorded mentioned in Mt 4.

Is it really possible that a devil offered the earth as a bribe, to the "owner" of the entire universe?

Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the earth in Mt 4:9. These kingdoms must have not have honored God as sovereign ruler, therefore not belonging to Him. There is a basic notion that you do not realize about God, mainly that God does not coerce people into serving Him. God is love and love is not forceful against one's own will. Jesus' purpose on earth was not to rule nations on a po...

Your question doesn't provide an answer, it tries to change the subject. Who was the eye witness to this narrative, Efrain?

There is no eye witness recorded mentioned in Mt 4.

Is it really possible that a devil offered the earth as a bribe, to the "owner" of the entire universe?

Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the earth in Mt 4:9. These kingdoms must have not have honored God as sovereign ruler, therefore not belonging to Him. There is a basic notion that you do not realize about God, mainly that God does not coerce people into serving Him. God is love and love is not forceful against one's own will. Jesus' purpose on earth was not to rule nations on a political level.

Used as an example about the inaccurate historicity of the bible. If the things we CAN check out for accuracy turn out to be wrong, on what basis shall we believe the supernatural things that cannot?

http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Exodus.htm

Is the author Daniel Lazare of your article a scholar of any type?

The Jesus story, for instance, is just the latest in a long series of sun-god's born of a virgin who rose from the dead after being buried for three days. There are dozens that predate Christianity.

Famous writer atheist turned Christian, C.S. Lewis calls it "myth become fact". If there are myths scattered throughout the ancient world with similarities of Christianity, doesn't it make it more likely to be true? The more fore shadowings of an event, the more likely an event will happen. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0071.html

@ AcesLucky

It has NOTHING to do with god's ability or will to do good. It has EVERYTHING to do with a promise that a prayer in the name of Jesus, according to Jesus, WILL BE DONE!

Sorry. None of it is in context to salvation! He's talking about WORKS.

You would have to read all of chapter 14 of John's Gospel to see Jesus is speaking of salvation. But let us see what Jesus meant when He speaks of works in Jn 14:12.

The works He speaks of are found in the next chapter Jn 15, which are the works that produce good fruit. The works are the ones we produce when we abide in Him, mainly Jn 15:27. To testify of Him, remain in Him and to bring others to Him.

The Bea...

@ AcesLucky

It has NOTHING to do with god's ability or will to do good. It has EVERYTHING to do with a promise that a prayer in the name of Jesus, according to Jesus, WILL BE DONE!

Sorry. None of it is in context to salvation! He's talking about WORKS.

You would have to read all of chapter 14 of John's Gospel to see Jesus is speaking of salvation. But let us see what Jesus meant when He speaks of works in Jn 14:12.

The works He speaks of are found in the next chapter Jn 15, which are the works that produce good fruit. The works are the ones we produce when we abide in Him, mainly Jn 15:27. To testify of Him, remain in Him and to bring others to Him.

The Beatitudes in Mt 5 are the fundamentals of being in the state of producing fruit. In Mt 25:35-46 we see the works we are called to do, which when we perform them, we observe the two greatest commandments 22:36-40. The Church reiterates these works and are defined as the corporal and spiritual works of mercy: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm.

The works Jesus speaks of are not those of evil, obviously. Jesus Himself never performed any evil works so that is out of the question. And the works can't be those that gain nothing. Otherwise they are mere spectacular works like a magic trick or used for personal profit. Satan temps Jesus in Mt 4:6-7, for no apparent reason other than to show off. Or when Simon Magus asked for the Holy Spirit for personal profit in Acts 8:8-24.

On a side note, allow me to refer you to this site: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm paragraphs 109-119 in particular, for understanding Scripture. For example, in Mt 17:19 Jesus is speaking in hyperbole. It is an example of an anagogical verse as opposed to a literal verse.

@Efrain

Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the earth in Mt 4:9. These kingdoms must have not have honored God as sovereign ruler, therefore not belonging to Him.

?? (That's an interesting concept.)

But the question of who was the witness to the event equals...? So how could the story be related verbatim?

There is a basic notion that you do not realize about God, mainly that God does not coerce people into serving Him.

?? That too is an interesting concept. Under threat of eternal hell, one is not coerced?

God is love and love is not forceful against one's own will.

Is the old testament god the same as the one you're talking about?

I...

read more»

@Efrain

Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the earth in Mt 4:9. These kingdoms must have not have honored God as sovereign ruler, therefore not belonging to Him.

?? (That's an interesting concept.)

But the question of who was the witness to the event equals...? So how could the story be related verbatim?

There is a basic notion that you do not realize about God, mainly that God does not coerce people into serving Him.

?? That too is an interesting concept. Under threat of eternal hell, one is not coerced?

God is love and love is not forceful against one's own will.

Is the old testament god the same as the one you're talking about?

Is the author Daniel Lazare of your article a scholar of any type?

Ah. I'm talking about things we can verify, not who's doing the writing. The truth of something is not dependent on who's making the claim, but the veracity and verifiability, of the evidence.

Here's a claim: The Christian universe (approx. 6-10K years old) is factually false. Notice " I " am making the claim. Now, I invite you to check out the evidence which can be verified.

Verify from here, and then from wherever else you like. The information is not true or false because I presented it, but because it is verifiable and open to verifiability.

Now given that information... Did it change the belief in the universe being 6-10K years old?

If there are myths scattered throughout the ancient world with
similarities of Christianity, doesn't it make it more likely to be true?

Nope. Ask Apollo and the thousands of other gods. Is it true that the world is flat? Is the earth the center of the universe? Myths persist until we know better.

It has NOTHING to do with god's ability or will to do good. It has EVERYTHING to do with a promise that a prayer in the name of Jesus, according to Jesus, WILL BE DONE!

Sorry. None of it is in context to salvation! He's talking about WORKS.

And to these, your bottom line is "Jesus is speaking in hyperbole. It is an example of an anagogical verse as opposed to a literal verse....?"

Talk about changing context! No Efrain. One might suppose that a god man would say what he meant, instead of saying what he didn't mean in hopes that others will read a book written after he said it, to find out what he REALLY meant, to the people he was saying it to.

He sp...

It has NOTHING to do with god's ability or will to do good. It has EVERYTHING to do with a promise that a prayer in the name of Jesus, according to Jesus, WILL BE DONE!

Sorry. None of it is in context to salvation! He's talking about WORKS.

And to these, your bottom line is "Jesus is speaking in hyperbole. It is an example of an anagogical verse as opposed to a literal verse....?"

Talk about changing context! No Efrain. One might suppose that a god man would say what he meant, instead of saying what he didn't mean in hopes that others will read a book written after he said it, to find out what he REALLY meant, to the people he was saying it to.

He spoke about doing "works" of magic like he did. For the purpose of salvation or not... Can you do do the "works" that he supposedly did? Can any Christian, as promised?

James 5:15-16 Jesus says..

"And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up."

How many children have died because the parents believed this promise? (When taking the child to a hospital would have cured them?)

Try telling those parents that the word of Jesus is just "anagogical" hyperbole.

It sounds to me like nothing more than apologetics trying to find an excuse for why Jesus' promises don't work. Change the context, call it metaphor, hyperbole, parable, anything but what it actually says.

How come what it actually says... doesn't work? Your honesty knows the answer. But right now, you give more weight to your faith than your honesty. (But only because your faith has you believing you'll be rewarded for it. You fail to see the punchline.)

So how could the story be related verbatim?

Verbally.

Under threat of eternal hell, one is not coerced?

I suppose one could be but their faith would be skeptical. The greatest saints are moved by their love of God, not by the fear of hell.

Is the old testament god the same as the one you're talking about?

Yes indeed.

I'm talking about things we can verify

So am I. Lawrence H. Schiffman, in his article, is referring to actual evidence of the verifiable event known as the Exodus.

Now given that information... Did it change the belief in the universe being 6-10K years old?

I never even tried to make such a cl...

So how could the story be related verbatim?

Verbally.

Under threat of eternal hell, one is not coerced?

I suppose one could be but their faith would be skeptical. The greatest saints are moved by their love of God, not by the fear of hell.

Is the old testament god the same as the one you're talking about?

Yes indeed.

I'm talking about things we can verify

So am I. Lawrence H. Schiffman, in his article, is referring to actual evidence of the verifiable event known as the Exodus.

Now given that information... Did it change the belief in the universe being 6-10K years old?

I never even tried to make such a claim. This claim made by a minority of Christians, is not doctrine. It is unreasonable to believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Because a few Christians have made this claim is proof that Christianity is false.

Nope. Ask Apollo and the thousands of other gods. Is it true that the world is flat? Is the earth the center of the universe? Myths persist until we know better.

Quoting from C.S. Lewis' essay "Myth Become Fact"

All the myths of mankind's primitive religions were expressions of a deep yearning — the deepest yearning — in mankind's consciousness, namely that the mysterious transcendent God would come into intimate contact with mankind, and do so in such a way that He would repair the damages made by mankind's sinfulness, and would grant to mankind a safety that would last forever.

Christianity, rather than being one myth alongside many others, is thus the fulfillment of all previous mythological religions. It is a myth, like the others, but this time a myth that is also a fact.

Unlike the myths you referred to, this myth (from Websters 1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon) called Christianity is verif

Except for the fact that the person involved with the conversation was able to transmit this event to others.

Then let's go ahead and verify this event; and that it was transmitted to others.

(After all, you said Christianity is verifiable!) Great! Let's do it.

Let's ask Jesus to corroborate this event. We'll both contact Jesus today and compare notes. If Jesus tells you exactly the same thing he told me, then we can be assured of the answer. "I hereby give Jesus permission to give me his answer."

So go ahead and on your next post, quote the exact words Jesus told you. Ask him to point out a "thing" that happened at that event that no one else could possibly know and wa...

Except for the fact that the person involved with the conversation was able to transmit this event to others.

Then let's go ahead and verify this event; and that it was transmitted to others.

(After all, you said Christianity is verifiable!) Great! Let's do it.

Let's ask Jesus to corroborate this event. We'll both contact Jesus today and compare notes. If Jesus tells you exactly the same thing he told me, then we can be assured of the answer. "I hereby give Jesus permission to give me his answer."

So go ahead and on your next post, quote the exact words Jesus told you. Ask him to point out a "thing" that happened at that event that no one else could possibly know and was never in the bible. Like, the color of the eyes of one of the angels that helped him afterward, but let HIM (Jesus) pick the "thing".

That way he can tell me the same "thing" without you or I being able to know in advance what that thing was going to be.

And if when we compare notes, it turns out to be exactly the same "thing" then we will know that the information we're getting from Jesus is true (or at least from the same source called Jesus)! Agreed?

Good! You said it was verifiable (and that the person involved was able to transmit this to others...)! That means this poses no problem! Great!

So were you being honest when you wrote this? Or faithful? It doesn't matter. We'll find out tomorrow when we compare notes!

I would agree with you that any similar event could not be verifiable if the person in question did not exist to speak of such an event.

That was an honest answer. We'll find out on our next post if that was the case!

Jesus communicated the event to His followers. They in turn imparted this information with others. This information has been transmitted in time up to the present day of which we are able to receive. You and I have received it. Whether you deny that you have received it, is a different matter altogether. I can verify I have received it because I can speak of it. I can verify you have received because you have quoted from it. Is this incomprehensible? Are you so adamant against Christianity that your ability to reason is hindered to comprehend such a simple concept?

This myth:

(Etymology: From Ancient Greek μύθος (mýthos), “‘report, tale, story’”) mythos (plural mythoi)
1. A story or set o...

Jesus communicated the event to His followers. They in turn imparted this information with others. This information has been transmitted in time up to the present day of which we are able to receive. You and I have received it. Whether you deny that you have received it, is a different matter altogether. I can verify I have received it because I can speak of it. I can verify you have received because you have quoted from it. Is this incomprehensible? Are you so adamant against Christianity that your ability to reason is hindered to comprehend such a simple concept?

This myth:

(Etymology: From Ancient Greek μύθος (mýthos), “‘report, tale, story’”) mythos (plural mythoi)
1. A story or set of stories relevant or having a significant truth or meaning for a particular culture, religion, society, or other group.
2. Anything delivered by word of mouth: a word, speech, conversation, or similar; a story, tale, or legend, especially a poetic tale.
3. A tale, story, or narrative, usually verbally transmitted, or otherwise recorded into the written form from an alleged secondary source. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mythos)

is verifiable because Jesus and His followers were trustworthy and reliable. Capable of transmitting events truthfully.

I can verify I have received it because I can speak of it. I can verify you have received because you have quoted from it. Is this incomprehensible?

Changing the conversation again. Sad.

We can verify we heard the story. But is that what we were supposed to be verifying?

By now it's obvious. You cannot verify the account, and certainly not through Jesus, whom you said was able to transmit this event to others. Apparently not.

You said: "Unlike the myths you referred to, this myth called Christianity is verifiable."

I guess an ancient myth can be taken as true as long as someone is still willing to tell the story. And that counts as verification? If so, it makes al...

I can verify I have received it because I can speak of it. I can verify you have received because you have quoted from it. Is this incomprehensible?

Changing the conversation again. Sad.

We can verify we heard the story. But is that what we were supposed to be verifying?

By now it's obvious. You cannot verify the account, and certainly not through Jesus, whom you said was able to transmit this event to others. Apparently not.

You said: "Unlike the myths you referred to, this myth called Christianity is verifiable."

I guess an ancient myth can be taken as true as long as someone is still willing to tell the story. And that counts as verification? If so, it makes all other myths true too.

OK. I guess verification wasn't going to happen. No surprise, really. People have been taught to accept authority as truth. Basic control of the masses.

Perhaps one day instead, you'll accept truth as the authority. Challenge if things make sense. And then TEST them, like we just did, to see if its true.

@Willhelm

I started where you said start. And right away in the very first paragraph, it BEGINS with some very serious assumptions, such that if I took those assumptions to be true in the first place, I certainly wouldn't need to read the rest of it.

You see, I do not assume the bible was written by god or inspired by god. (It doesn't have what I consider the "intelligence" of a god-produced work.)

No knowledge from that book goes beyond the knowledge of the people that wrote it. God's knowledge should be FAR beyond the cultures of that time. And in my opinion, god can't be stupid.

There are too many stupid things, even attributed to god, and certainly too many immoral things attributed...

@Willhelm

I started where you said start. And right away in the very first paragraph, it BEGINS with some very serious assumptions, such that if I took those assumptions to be true in the first place, I certainly wouldn't need to read the rest of it.

You see, I do not assume the bible was written by god or inspired by god. (It doesn't have what I consider the "intelligence" of a god-produced work.)

No knowledge from that book goes beyond the knowledge of the people that wrote it. God's knowledge should be FAR beyond the cultures of that time. And in my opinion, god can't be stupid.

There are too many stupid things, even attributed to god, and certainly too many immoral things attributed to god.

And I haven't even begun to talk about Jesus.

So why don't you point me to something where I don't have to sacrifice my own integrity. Start me with some verifiable facts that can be built upon from there.

There are a few assumptions I am willing to make. ( It doesn't make them true, just that I'm willing to make them so they need not be eliminated in your choices. )

1. IF there is a god, s/he must not be stupid.
2. IF there is a god, it's not required that s/he be the creator of the universe. (It is not imperative that the universe had to have a creator.)
3. IF there is a god, it's not required that s/he be able to do the impossible (absolute-omnipotent). [That eliminates things like: can god do something that god can't do?] And...
4. IF there is a thing we call god, it must at least be conscious; otherwise it's just mechanical nature.

Just trying to help, AL.. It seems that if you truly want to have a dialogue with Christians about what Christians believe and why, then I trust that you might be interested in immersing yourself in the basis of those ideas. You see, it seems every time you begin a dialogue about God/Atheism it always comes down to anti-Christianity or an argument about Christianity. For some reason you tend not to stay focused on the issue of Theism. You always want to insert your opinion on Christianity. So, I thought you might be interested in some sources.

If, on the other hand, you want to just argue about theism, then the issue of Christianity should not be really relevant to you. I gue...

Just trying to help, AL.. It seems that if you truly want to have a dialogue with Christians about what Christians believe and why, then I trust that you might be interested in immersing yourself in the basis of those ideas. You see, it seems every time you begin a dialogue about God/Atheism it always comes down to anti-Christianity or an argument about Christianity. For some reason you tend not to stay focused on the issue of Theism. You always want to insert your opinion on Christianity. So, I thought you might be interested in some sources.

If, on the other hand, you want to just argue about theism, then the issue of Christianity should not be really relevant to you. I guess I am just amused that you always want to argue about what you do not believe in rather than what you DO believe in. That is strange.

We all have faith that we assent to that is based on our knowledge and interpretation of the evidence that knowledge provides us. You arrive at a different faith and that is fine. When you cannot see the illogic of your arguments or the irrelevence of your points, then take a step back. Skepticism is one of the most worthy of human attributes. Cynicism is just crass arrogance that presupposes that you are the beginning and end of all things. If that is the case, then you do believe in God and you suppose yourself to be God.

You cannot verify the account, and certainly not through Jesus, whom you said was able to transmit this event to others. Apparently not.

We can verify we heard the story. But is that what we were supposed to be verifying?

Two things. Apparently Jesus was able to transmit the event because you have admitted to receiving the account itself.

Secondly, to clarify your argument for you, the issue you have is not with the ability of Jesus to transmit events to others because we have seen that it is possible but your skepticism actually lies with the integrity of Jesus and/or His followers. The question you should be asking is whether they were honest in their ...

You cannot verify the account, and certainly not through Jesus, whom you said was able to transmit this event to others. Apparently not.

We can verify we heard the story. But is that what we were supposed to be verifying?

Two things. Apparently Jesus was able to transmit the event because you have admitted to receiving the account itself.

Secondly, to clarify your argument for you, the issue you have is not with the ability of Jesus to transmit events to others because we have seen that it is possible but your skepticism actually lies with the integrity of Jesus and/or His followers. The question you should be asking is whether they were honest in their accounts. Should it not?

The truth of something is not dependent on who's making the claim, but the veracity and verifiability, of the evidence.

If so, do you require evidence for whatever someone relates to you?

I guess an ancient myth can be taken as true as long as someone is still willing to tell the story. And that counts as verification? If so, it makes all other myths true too.

No. Events are not verifiable only because someone is willing to speak about them. They are verifiable because we gather all evidence to deem it possible.

We do not gather only some evidence and decide it false without relying on the remaining evidence. Scientists who study a subject do not rely on minimum amount of data but rather gather as much as possible for accuracy. Similarly, we can do Christianity and ourselves a discredit when we feed our pretexts against it by refuting small aspects of it without understanding or trying to understand the whole.

@E

You keep twisting and turning to change the subject. The subject is not whether we can trust Jesus or his apostles.

The subject is how a private conversation (between Jesus and devil) can be narrated when there was no witnesses.

Your claim was that Jesus "must have" transmitted the information (since it's there), and since Jesus is trustworthy, it must be true.

I have shown, by experiment (by testing if something claimed is true) that Jesus either did not or could not transmit information (in the present now). You, of course thought he could.

If Jesus existed and has the omnipotence and omni-awareness you believe, why didn't he simply answer you? We could have put this claim to rest ...

@E

You keep twisting and turning to change the subject. The subject is not whether we can trust Jesus or his apostles.

The subject is how a private conversation (between Jesus and devil) can be narrated when there was no witnesses.

Your claim was that Jesus "must have" transmitted the information (since it's there), and since Jesus is trustworthy, it must be true.

I have shown, by experiment (by testing if something claimed is true) that Jesus either did not or could not transmit information (in the present now). You, of course thought he could.

If Jesus existed and has the omnipotence and omni-awareness you believe, why didn't he simply answer you? We could have put this claim to rest easily, and I for one would be a great convert!

But what happened?

Reality happened! Your claim that god talks to you didn't work when it came to an objective answer, something you couldn't make up in your own mind.

Would you like to try it again?

Let's go for an answer that would benefit mankind! Something you have no way of knowing yourself, but Jesus would know easily! Would you like to try again?

I think you know in your "honesty" that it won't happen.

The difference between truth and faith... will once again be revealed.

@ Aces

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. It is possible that Jesus transmitted the event verbally to His immediate followers, the Apostles. The Apostles in turn, related the event in written form to others. In this present day, we have the event narrated to us in this written form, specifically the Gospel according to Matthew chapter 4.

I have shown, by experiment (by testing if something claimed is true) that Jesus either did not or could not transmit information (in the present now). You, of course thought he could.

Something so plain to see, obviously from my own perspective, is that Jesus very well relates information to us in the present time definitively in thi...

@ Aces

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. It is possible that Jesus transmitted the event verbally to His immediate followers, the Apostles. The Apostles in turn, related the event in written form to others. In this present day, we have the event narrated to us in this written form, specifically the Gospel according to Matthew chapter 4.

I have shown, by experiment (by testing if something claimed is true) that Jesus either did not or could not transmit information (in the present now). You, of course thought he could.

Something so plain to see, obviously from my own perspective, is that Jesus very well relates information to us in the present time definitively in this written form. If a person's own testimony is related to others by others then at what point does it cease to be the original person's testimony? To deny this is to say for example, that any written record of one's speech is not that of their own.

If you require that Jesus speak to you directly in some form confirming that the event took place, then do you require other historical figures to relate information to you directly as well?

If Jesus existed and has the omnipotence and omni-awareness you believe, why didn't he simply answer you? We could have put this claim to rest easily, and I for one would be a great convert!

For one thing, God would not submit to blackmail. God would like you or anybody else to convert out of trust and love otherwise it would not be a true conversion. The beloved does not require the lover to perform spectacles to prove their love but rather observes their demeanor.

Also it would be difficult if not impossible for the beloved to accept the love of the lover, if the beloved is obstinate against the love. Charity/love (agape) is a matter of giving and receiving.