[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[kuzushi]

There have been a few other things, but mostly it has been claiming that because it says so in the Bible, and people with a faith similar to yours have had similar dreams, you have good evidence for your beliefs. And Statements like "most people agree that Jesus is the way" or something similar, are just patently untrue.
It is not your beliefs that bother me, it is your attempts to make them logical and reasonable that I find a little offensive to logic and reason.

This is the thing, I've not been basing my assertions that Jesus lived and was crucified on the Bible, but people seem not to have noticed. I have quoted the Bible mostly on theological questions and issues relating to salvation, but hand in hand with that I've been trying to show that the essential facts of Christianity are solid and accepted by scholars. Even without the Bible we can piece together the fact that Jesus lived, was crucified, and his disciples believed that he rose from the dead.

For example, I mentioned the St Thomas Christians of Kerala. When the Portuguese arrived in India, they found that there were already Christians living there who trace their history back to the Apostle Thomas, the one to whom Jesus said, "You believe because you have seen, blessed are those who believe even though they have not seen." I don't know as much about these people as I'd like to. They may not even have had access to the Bible, but they knew about and believed in Jesus.

People who think that Jesus never actually existed or that it is all fiction are known as mythicists, and mythicists are frankly not taken very seriously among scholars:
"Virtually all scholars of antiquity dismiss theories of Jesus's non-existence or regard them as refuted.[7][16][20][21][22][23] In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars."

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kuzushi]

Im hardly likely to say Jesus, the son of your God is a fact when your God was invented by man and doesnt exist.

You might say you don't believe that he was divine, but you can still believe that he was a man who lived, preached, was crucified, and had disciples who after his death began to proclaim that he had risen from the dead. Even if you believe that God was an invention, that doesn't mean that the man Jesus was.

 

[BadFish]

You’re possibly/probably aware that the Camel/ eye of a needle thing is referring to a gate in the City Walls of Jerusalem known as the Eye of the needle. So I have always taken it as indicating it’s difficult but not impossible.

The rich man who asked the question of how do I make sure I get to heaven was described as a good man who does everything right. Jesus final answer to him was “give all your money away and come and follow me.”, which the rich man didn’t like. It didn’t say he didn’t do it though. He might have come back………

and I agree about Jacob Rees-Mogg. Maybe secretly he is the most generous philanthropist the World has ever seen, but I doubt it somehow. I remember seeing a clip of him many years ago where he said “I love money”.

I am aware of that yes. My understanding though is that the gate thing is a myth.

eye of a needle gate - Google Search

www.google.com

Several articles here provide evidence for this. And this is why I used this an an example, because the interpretation of the point of a Bible story is used to change the meaning of its content.

Although I do concede that even when something is clearly stated like the 10 commandments they are also ignored.

 

[pastafarian]

You might say you don't believe that he was divine, but you can still believe that he was a man who lived, preached, was crucified, and had disciples who after his death began to proclaim that he had risen from the dead. Even if you believe that God was an invention, that doesn't mean that the man Jesus was.

Until someone turns up with definitive archaeological or physical evidence of the existence of your Jesus i remain unconvinced.

 

[kuzushi]

Until someone turns up with definitive archaeological physical evidence of the existence of your Jesus i remain unconvinced.

Have you looked into the Shroud of Turin at all?

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

You might say you don't believe that he was divine, but you can still believe that he was a man who lived, preached, was crucified, and had disciples who after his death began to proclaim that he had risen from the dead. Even if you believe that God was an invention, that doesn't mean that the man Jesus was.

That’s how cults start ….

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Have you looked into the Shroud of Turin at all?

Yeah, radio carbon dating puts it around medievil period so not sure what your point is.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Inspired by your question, I thought I’d better look through the thread a bit more thoroughly. I wish I hadn’t!
I think you probably know the answer, though, from your own post - intransigent, unerring, factual……..
I am well aware of the concept that for every instance something is stated firmly in the Bible, you will find something somewhere else which will contradict it - that’s a gross over-simplification. I’m all for lively debate, but not of the type which goes on in a thread like this. It is the intransigence and the certainty which gets me, whether it’s from nit-picking stuff about biblical stories (did the shepherds ever meet the angels…. Or whatever - does it matter?) or whether it’s from the “it’s all fairy stories” brigade. I prefer “live and let live”.
And I also have a genuine belief that the vast majority of people are decent, whatever they believe.

This attitude strikes me as both more reasonable and more convincing than 90% of the arguments on this thread.
However being sensible, restrained and reasonable aren't nearly as entertaining for the disinterested observer.
Please keep this in mind when considering your future responses to this thread.

 

[BBassic]

Never thought I'd say this but, I miss Swanny.

 

[kuzushi]

Yeah, radio carbon dating puts it around medievil period so not sure what your point is.

The section of the Shroud that they tested was probably a repair patch. The Shroud was damaged in a fire, and repaired by Poor Clare nuns. According to Ray Rogers, who was the director of the research team that carried out the radiocarbon dating test, they did the test on a piece of cloth that had been inserted into the Shroud. At first he was angry when people made this assertion, but when he looked into it, he realised that they were right.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

The section of the Shroud that they tested was probably a repair patch. The Shroud was damaged in a fire, and repaired by Poor Clare nuns. According to Ray Rogers, who was the director of the research team that carried out the radiocarbon dating test, they did the test on a piece of cloth that had been inserted into the Shroud. At first he was angry when people made this assertion, but when he looked into it, he realised that they were right.

I’ve some straws you can borrow.

 

[kuzushi]

I’ve some straws you can borrow.

So it doesn't bother you that the director in charge of the project said that the test was useless?
He didn't just say it, he devoted the rest of his life to getting the message out that the test needed to be re-done.
Subsequent tests have shown the cloth to date to around the time of Jesus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359904073_X-ray_Dating_of_a_Turin_Shroud's_Linen_Sample

 

[BadFish]

I don't mind if people reject Jesus, but I wish they'd do it honestly, and do so knowing the facts I've just stated here. If they disagree with these facts, that's OK too, as long as they are honest and admit that they are going against the mainstream of scholarship on this matter.

That is very good of you.

Most people on here are not disagreeing with you about the existence of Jesus, to suggest we are is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. The disagreement comes in your interpretation of his life as being proof of the existence of God. You make serveral leaps of faith to get to your understanding and like your rather arrogant and condescending words above that's okay, as long as you are honest and admit that you are taking that leap of faith and faith is required to form your opinion.

Noone behrudeges you your faith (look at the respect for @DavidinSouthampton on here) but it it hard for us to take you seriously when you try to 'prove' that your opinion/faith is fact (all the while telling us that our opinions are leading us to an eternity of hell fire).

It just comes across as arrogant, cultlike and dare I say it, you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

I wish you well but it maybe time to stop trying to save/convert/recruit us and accept that we all think differently, despite what you and your interpretation of your chosen scholars say.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

So it doesn't bother you that the director in charge of the project said that the test was useless?
He didn't just say it, he devoted the rest of his life to getting the message out that the test needed to be re-done.
Subsequent tests have shown the cloth to date to around the time of Jesus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359904073_X-ray_Dating_of_a_Turin_Shroud's_Linen_Sample

A quick glance shows that much of the fabric is 1000 bc so again not convincing. The shroud was replicated in the 80’s using techniques available during the period that Jesus existed only they didn’t use a body.

 

[BadFish]

So it doesn't bother you that the director in charge of the project said that the test was useless?
He didn't just say it, he devoted the rest of his life to getting the message out that the test needed to be re-done.
Subsequent tests have shown the cloth to date to around the time of Jesus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359904073_X-ray_Dating_of_a_Turin_Shroud's_Linen_Sample

Is that the same study you posted earlier that clearly states that more testing needs to be done to corroborate the results?from what I say there were also other dates found in this testing, probably the reason more testing needs to be done .

Again you are being disingenuous with what you are presenting as fact.

 

[BadFish]

A quick glance shows that much of the fabric is 1000 bc so again not convincing. The shroud was replicated in the 80’s using techniques available during the period that Jesus existed only they didn’t use a body.

I pointed to some evidence earlier that the shroud has been recreated but our friend here totally ignored that and kept on with his 'truth' that no-one has been able to recreate it.

A lot of posting and not much reading, I feel.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

So it doesn't bother you that the director in charge of the project said that the test was useless?
He didn't just say it, he devoted the rest of his life to getting the message out that the test needed to be re-done.
Subsequent tests have shown the cloth to date to around the time of Jesus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359904073_X-ray_Dating_of_a_Turin_Shroud's_Linen_Sample

Do you have any comment on this quote from the abstract?
"The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe."

 

[kuzushi]

The shroud was replicated in the 80’s using techniques available during the period that Jesus existed only they didn’t use a body.

Were they able to encode 3D information into the image like with the Shroud?

 

[kuzushi]

Do you have any comment on this quote from the abstract?
"The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe."

All I'm saying is that other tests using modern methods are giving results that don't concur with the 1988 radiocarbon results.

Do you have any comment on this?

So it doesn't bother you that the director in charge of the project said that the test was useless?
He didn't just say it, he devoted the rest of his life to getting the message out that the test needed to be re-done.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

All I'm saying is that other tests using modern methods are giving results that don't concur with the 1988 radiocarbon results.

Do you have any comment on this?

Not really, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything.
Is there a reason the radiocarbon tests haven't been redone on different samples?
I also noticed that the abstract from the x-ray study said that the sample used was from the same area as was used in the 1988 radiocarbon test.