Well, after breaking 2000 comments on the previous thread, I think it’s time to move to a new one. Feel free to continue the conversation here.
Also, I want to make a note about future posts. The tone on this blog for the last month or so has been decidedly different than what it used to be. While that’s definitely made things interesting, I’d like to move back to a tone more in line with the way things used to be. So going forward, I want the comments on all new posts to remain civil. We can all make our points, and I expect to see a wide range of opinions. But I don’t want to get into name-calling and bashing when we can’t all agree on particular issues. Let’s try to stay focused on the points and not get side-tracked with personal stuff. Let’s also keep each comment substantive so we don’t rack up so many comments in such a short period of time that it’s hard for everyone to keep track.
If you don’t feel like you can participate within those guidelines, then feel free to continue posting within this thread (and any future “Kathy” threads, if they’re needed), because I won’t be enforcing any guidelines here. But if you want to comment on any other posts, you’ll need to abide by the rules I just laid out. Otherwise, your comment will be subject to deletion, and after a warning, you might find yourself banned from at least that thread, if not the entire blog.
If there are any questions, let me know.
Thanks
Finding Truth 
My understanding is that Christianity teaches that we are all prideful sinners. There is no difference between a pastor, and the man down the street in that regard except what they receive.
People only become saints through receiving what Christ has done for every one of us. If we didn’t need saving, we wouldn’t need a Saviour. And I understand this Saving us is not necessarily because we are murderers or robbers, but because we all at certain times share innate desires to chose our own selfish ambitions and pleasures to the detriment of others.
Jesus teaches us to love others, and then gives us the capacity to do so by modelling this through His own sacrifice for all of us. He followed through with what He taught. And through this He gave us the opportunity to be washed clean and given grace and mercy, as He teaches us to give grace to others. That’s my understanding anyway.
William, thanks for taking the time to consider my question
LikeLike
So my understanding is that its the power of God that empowers, its not that we are to earn our way to God. Its that God transforms us through receiving His sacrifice.
LikeLike
“I can’t even bother reading the rest of your post.” – You’re lying again, Mike, you read it all, but don’t have a response for the rest, so it’s easier to deny reading it. Nice save, but, as usual, fooling no one. Oh, and I really don’t post for your benefit, it’s largely for others to see you for what you are, and they do.
LikeLike
““I can’t even bother reading the rest of your post.” – You’re lying again, Mike, you read it all, but don’t have a response for the rest, so it’s easier to deny reading it. Nice save, but, as usual, fooling no one. ”
actually Didn’t . Might later when I have time. Keep you posts shorter and I might bother with them until then. Sorry any person that can’t admit a “mount” is where it is is just too dishonest to prioritize higher.
LikeLike
Ron, RE: “TB still hasn’t explained why a small hamlet of people intimately familiar with the circumstances of Jesus’ birth and promised messiah-ship would become outraged by his teachings.” – the answer’s simple, little Mary wasn’t the first girl to get knocked up and blame it on a god. The people of that small hamlet, if it existed in the alleged Yeshua’s time, quite likely WERE “intimately familiar with the circumstances of Jesus’ birth,” circumstances that had nothing to do with a messiah-ship, more like rolling around in a haystack with some village lad, then old Joseph coming along and saying, “Well, she’s damaged goods, but I’ll do you a favor and take her off your hands –“
LikeLike
Ruth, theere was only about a 3% literacy rate in the whole country. The elite of Jerusalem were taken to Babylon, and returned speaking Aramaic. Any Hebrew-speakers remaining, were largely NOT among the elite and consequently, on odds alone, were likely illiterate, therefore pseudo-Matthew would have had no reason to have written for an audience that couldn’t read his words. The better-educated would have certainly been familiar with Aramaic, and a large percentage of those, with Greek.
LikeLike
@ Arch,
I guess that’s what I was asking. If these were Greek-speaking people, using a Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew word for branch might not have had much meaning. It would have made more sense to have used the Greek word for branch if that’s what Matthew/pseudo-Matthew was going for, since the Greek word would have also been used in the Septuagint text that it was supposedly referencing.
I’m just thinking this through, really; not making an argument.
LikeLike
Ruth, RE: “@ Arch,
I guess that’s what I was asking.”
I sent Neuro a URL for you to consider, as I didn’t want to clog up Nate’s page. Check with her.
LikeLike
Ark, RE: “Check your list. You missed two archaeological studies including one peer reviewed that says it was occupied in the first century.” – here’s something for you to ask Mikey, considering that he CLAIMS not to be reading my comments – how many sources swear that Nazareth was in place when the prophets lived, the ones that pseudo-Matthew says prophesied that Yeshua would live in Nazareth. UNLESS, of course, Mikey asserts that not only did the prophets prophecy that Yeshua would LIVE in Nazareth, they were also predicting that Nazareth, not in existence then, WOULD have, by the time old Yesh was a young’un.
And ask him where, in the OT, he finds Nazareth mentioned —
LikeLike
@ Arch,
Thanks! You’re more than welcome to mosey over and drop the link in the latest post on my blog if you want as well, but I’ll definitely check with Neuro.
…here’s something for you to ask Mikey, considering that he CLAIMS not to be reading my comments – how many sources swear that Nazareth was in place when the prophets lived, the ones that pseudo-Matthew says prophesied that Yeshua would live in Nazareth. UNLESS, of course, Mikey asserts that not only did the prophets prophecy that Yeshua would LIVE in Nazareth, they were also predicting that Nazareth, not in existence then, WOULD have, by the time old Yesh was a young’un.
I don’t think Mike is asserting that any prophets prophesied(say that three times fast) that Yeshua would live in a place called Nazareth. If you follow the link he gave, I think he’s asserting that they prophesied that Yeshua would be called NZR(the Hebrew word for branch(shoot of Jesse). And that Nazareth sounds in the Greek close to the pronunciation of the Hebrew word NZR(netzer). That’s why I’m asking why Matthew would use a Greek word that sounds like a Hebrew word when the audience might not even recognize the significance of the Hebrew word. And I’m having trouble understanding why, just because the Greek word might sound like the Hebrew word, it would have anything at all to do with the prophecy of Yeshua being a branch when Nazareth doesn’t mean branch(at least I couldn’t find that it does).
LikeLike
From everybody’s favorite resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28title%29
It is possible that the name of the town of Nazareth was derived from NZR.
I have another question regarding whether or not Nazareth existed in the 1st century:
Matthew was written (ostensibly) sometime between 70 and 110 A.D. If the town didn’t exist during the 1st century how did the writer reference it?
LikeLike
Let me make a correction in something I said:
And that Nazareth sounds in the Greek close to the pronunciation of the Hebrew word NZR(netzer). That’s why I’m asking why Matthew would use a Greek word that sounds like a Hebrew word when the audience might not even recognize the significance of the Hebrew word.
Having thought through this a bit I realize that Nazareth isn’t a Greek word. It’s the name of a town. But I still don’t know what significance that might have held for people who most likely didn’t widely employ or even know Hebrew. Especially if these people used the Greek Septuagint which used the Greek word for branch that sounds nothing like the Hebrew word.
LikeLike
For me, this nazareth discussion is fascinating, but when i was a christian, it would not have been one of the points that made me sit back think about the credibility of the bible.
and taking a tangent, I dont quite understand mike’s or kathy’s position that we’re the ones who are biased when it’s typically the religious people who who search for any and all possible (and i use that term loosely, because their god is capable of the impossible, thereby making anything possible for their god only) resolutions when it comes to their religion, but then dismiss all other religions or all other philosophies without much of a thought – never considering that that religion’s followers may search for any and all possible resolutions for their own religion, while dismissing others (including christianity) without any real thought.
Of course, now that I’m beyond that struggle, I see more and more of these little things as being quite obvious and abundant – I just dont think that mike or kathy will, especially if they still maintain that they are the unbiased or objective ones.
LikeLike
The arguments for and against there being a first century Nazareth have raged for ages.
What can be said is this:
What paltry archaeological finds have been recovered nothing leads to suggest there was a City, Town or even village at the time of the biblical character of ”Jesus of Nazareth”
No, I do not think the character, Jesus of Nazareth existed, this being a narrative construct.
Though there may well have been an itinerant escatological preacher running around Galilee during this time?
I have little interest in the gospels as historical documents and Luke’s description of the City of Nazareth is about as erroneous as one will find; not least his mention of a synagogue!
Also, the closest ”çliff” is around 2.5 kilometers distant and who would drag a blasphemer such a distance when all they had to do was stone him?
It makes no sense.
Furthermore, if my kid was being assaulted by an angry mob ”Multitude” I would be there defending him.
Furthermore, if this place existed then it was so small the number of inhabitants would not likely have exceeded a couple of hundred people and a fair number of these would have been family – brothers sisters, cousins , aunts uncles etc. And where were they during the life-threatening situation?
All of this relies upon a supposition that the bible is correct and we are expected – almost without question – to fit the evidence to match the tale…simply trim a bit here, trim a bit there, ignore this and ignore that.
Well, proper history and not theological history as governed by theologians and those with a heavy vested ( and often financial) interest, does not work this way and neither do proper historians.
The Nazareth Village project is a case in point and is worth multi-millions of dollars in tourist revenue.
If the Bible get’s the archaeology wrong, ( it does) the geography wrong,( it does) and the simple basic description wrong, ( most definitely) then how the hell are you supposed to trust anything it says in this or any other issue?
Example: When ‘Jesus’ cast a demon into that herd of swine, without a second thought about animal welfare or financial recompense for the farmer, which then subsequently committed Porcine-Suicide by jumping of a cliff, do you now how far those pigs would have had to run?
Go check…they would have had to be damned fit pigs!
LikeLike
Ark, surely the demons who took control of the pigs gave the swine super-pig abilities. If you cannot disprove the super-demon-swine, then it must be true so they clearly could have easily run twice as far as they did.
That’s one of the problems, the religious dont need evidence, because god can do what he wants and he doesnt have to leave evidence nor does he have to use physical laws to do his work.
However, god can leave evidence if he chooses to and he can use physical laws if he wants to.
we can know that muslims are evil because they kill people and since we know that god quit telling people to kill people in the OT, the muslims must be wrong for doing it today.
Jesus said a seed must die before it can grow, but “die” doesnt mean “die” just “not moving around” and since seeds dont move, jesus was right to say they “die.”
and NYC was destroyed on 9/11 and wil not be rebuilt. I believe nostradomus predicted this: http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2012/05/did-nostradamus-predict-the-911-attacks-2095955.html
Really, if this is what we’re doing, it makes discussions difficult.
LikeLike
@William.
And here you have aptly demonstrated the point of fitting the ‘evidence’ to the story.
I have always maintained that before a Christian makes any claims, they must first demonstrate the veracity of the divinity claim of Yeshua.
After all, this is the bedrock of their belief upon which everything they claim rests.
Until they are are prepared to do this, they are simply piddling in the wind.
LikeLike
agreed
LikeLike
Ratamacue,
“Thanks, Kathy.
In priority order, I’d say (1) my martyrs comment, and (2) the numbered summary of your reasons for believing (4th to last paragraph here).”
“I say: Citation(s) needed. In particular, I not been presented with sufficient evidence to believe your claim 2. (Moreover, I think there is more required to consider it as evidence for your case–as described in the first article linked below.)”
Yes, I still intend to do this.. for myself as well as for you and other readers here..
I’ll do this ASAP.
In reference to your “die for a lie” article..
It’s also very long, time consuming.. I’ve read some of it.. which gives me a good
idea of the whole..
1st point:
The argument that the Gospel testimonies were written later.. not as “daily news”.. and the author argues that that gives “opportunity” for tampering etc.
This is true.. the opportunity is there.. same as it is for most ANY historical documentation we have.. whether written immediately after the event or decades later. This is speculation.. it’s supposition.. it’s not a valid argument for what is actually the case (either way). So, at that point, what is needed is evidence of contradiction etc.. and ESPECIALLY key is, MOTIVE.. motive for the implied deceptions/ lies of the Bible. Again, I didn’t read the whole article, but is this addressed? Has a motive been speculated along with all the other speculation? I often find this to be absent when atheists make their accusations. I’m aware of some of the individual motives that are supposed.. but ultimately, the unavoidable contention is that it’s one big lie.
The article goes on to give very weak arguments like..
“In fact, to some extent, these unknowns hurt this claim. Paul, writing first about them, claims Christ appeared to more than five hundred at the same time. (1 Cor. 15:6) Matthew admits that some actually saw this resurrected person but doubted. (Mt. 28:17) Doubted about whether it was he, whether he had died, or whether it was a vision or not is unclear. The author of Acts, writing last, concedes within a few months of this appearance, there were only 120. (Acts 1:15)
Simple math tells us 500 seeing –120 believers = 380 believers that doubted! In other words, on this argument, 3 out of 4 believers would not die for the lie—they did not believe in a physical resurrection!”
1 Cor. 15:6 and Acts 1:15 don’t support the accusation that 500 became 120.
and here…:
“Or another. Tacitus recounts Nero blaming Christians for the burning of Rome (64 C.E.) and then persecuting them. Whether the Christians recanted, or did not would not make a whit of difference. They were being the “fall-guy” for the blame of a crime. Traditionally Peter was killed during this persecution. How would that provide him an opportunity to absolve himself, and avoid dying for a lie?”
All of these examples, including this one show lack of objectivity. It completely ignores that these people chose to follow Christ… in a place where it was dangerous to be a Christian. They didn’t hide their faith.. they spoke out.. knowing it was dangerous to do so. These are silly arguments.. they address isolated incidents.. not the norm of Christian martyrdom… it ignores all the martyrs who DID REFUSE to recant.. and who were killed because of that.. none of these arguments addresses those people.. why is that? Because of bias.
This is another failed attempt by atheists to discredit some of the most powerful testimony for the Truth of Christianity. And I’m sorry but I find it detestable for anyone to do this, there is nothing wrong with questioning.. but when it turns out that there really is nothing to actually support taking away what they did, it’s inexcusable to continue to try to discredit what they did…. again, it’s the ultimate testimony. Yes, there are people who give the ultimate testimony for ridiculous things.. they are not the same as those who died for Christ… the specifics, especially the REASONS, are fundamentally different.. and people who are without bias, who apply objectivity will acknowledge this.
This is as far as I got with this article.. the lack of objectivity tells me I don’t need to read the rest.. again, if you want to pick out a couple of the best points.. particularly/ PREFERABLY those that show objectivity.. I’ll check those out.
LikeLike
Ratamacue, cont..
Also, can you just repost the 2nd point? I’m not sure which paragraph you’re referring to..
LikeLike
This is a conversation that’s simply never going to end. It all comes down to a difference in perspective.
Those of us who aren’t Christians are viewing Christianity as something that could either be true or false, though probably false since it talks about things which require miraculous or divine intervention. Nevertheless, if the evidence is strong enough, it could be demonstrated that its claims are true.
For hardcore believers, however, Christianity is true by default. To even consider that it might be false, Christianity must first be disproven to them. This is a pretty high barrier to cross, and I think it’s why we all have such trouble understanding one another.
That’s why when we look at something like the prophecy of Tyre, I see it as clearly being unfulfilled. Mike and Kathy disagree. But the reason we see this differently is that I don’t think God would give even seeming discrepancies in his word, whereas Mike and Kathy will give it much more benefit of the doubt than I will. Each person has to make up his or her own mind as to which approach is best.
John Loftus coined the phrase “outsider test for faith,” which is the idea that if people want to know if their beliefs are true, they should try to approach their religion as though coming across it for the first time. Instead of giving it the benefit of the doubt (which is very natural), they should try to approach it skeptically to see if they still find it persuasive. It’s not an easy thing to do, but I think the approach has a lot of merit.
Anyway, I think it’s this difference in perspective that has us all looking at the same evidence with one side saying “nuh-uh” and the other saying “uh-huh.” After 3800+ comments, if we haven’t gotten past that point, we’re not going to. So the one thing I can agree with Mike on is this: can’t we all just shut up and move along now? 🙂
LikeLike
Nate,
I definitely agree. I don’t think it’s going to suddenly become a productive conversation if all either side can manage to do is claim bias if the other doesn’t agree with their conclusions.
Shutting up and moving on. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks Ruth
BUT please don’t think you have to shut up and move on! Everyone’s still welcome to comment — I was just sharing how I see it.
LikeLike
Maybe you do a post that requires a specific response from the believers?
How about a concise post concerning the divinity claims of Yeshua?
LikeLike
“For hardcore believers, however, Christianity is true by default. To even consider that it might be false, Christianity must first be disproven to them. ”
Sorry Nate your strawmen mischaracterizations hold no weight. I would not be a Christian if there were no evidence. SO the lie that that is my or our position is just that – a lie
“That’s why when we look at something like the prophecy of Tyre, I see it as clearly being unfulfilled. ”
and we see a mainland Tyre that has been scraped into the sea and one that never will be rebuilt precisely as prophecied. You ignore that in favor of your “all” anything called “tyre” eisigesis. The fact that you see it the way you see it does not mean that we hold to no evidence and merely claim that Christianity must be disproven first. You make positive claims about contradictions that don’t hold up to scrutiny so that may be confusing you. Yes those have to have proof for them because they are positive claims about contradictions
“But the reason we see this differently is that I don’t think God would give even seeming discrepancies in his word, whereas Mike and Kathy will give it much more benefit of the doubt than I will.”
Pure Silliness. “Seeming” is a matter of subjective analysis. Claiming that a text must pass some test based on a subjective evaluation of what anyone supposed it “seems” is ludicrous. Its not us giving the benefit of the doubt it you imposing your own illogical belief system that everything must be easy and require no study because God is involved.
“John Loftus coined the phrase “outsider test for faith,” which is the idea that if people want to know if their beliefs are true, they should try to approach their religion as though coming across it for the first time.”
and People do this all the time. its why the majority claim that they believe in God even after decades of being taught materialism in schools.Its why people come from other religions and backgrounds and accept Christ. You are actually on the side of those that oppose this approach because if most people looked around them and saw the world they would see design naturally and not claim as atheist leaders that its real “designoids” that just looks designed.
Your caricature that everyone was as you are from a family that was Christian and therefore none of us have in fact come looking from the outside to begin with continues to be wrong generally and wrong in regard to me as my parents were the last to come to Christ – because I encountered Christ first – from the outside.
LikeLike