Cranmer’s blog has an article today about gender ideology in the classroom. Frequently demands for “tolerance” and “acceptance” in the context of non-traditional gender and sexuality views amount to calls for adoption of a viewpoint, not simply calls for politeness and understanding.
These demands are an assault upon conscience itself – and we ought to be wary of them. The defence of conscience was a major factor in the Wars of Religion – a lesson that cost Europe millions of lives. Our societies in the West are now at risk of abandoning this lesson.
The conscience answers to God. While it can be malformed, as St Paul concedes, that does not excuse a person from acting in a manner contrary to his conscience. To do so is sin. The conscience must be reformed through proper reason and revelation, by voluntary acceptance of new propositions for the right reason – not simply in order to obtain some pleasant experience.
While we may attempt to persuade people to change their views, we cannot force them to do so. Attempting to invade and sack the sanctum of conscience is a serious sin. This is where our society stands today. For all its talk of “inclusivity” and “tolerance”, it is really excluding people and attempting to brainwash those who resist. These efforts come ultimately from the spiritual realm. They are resistance to the Gospel and to the return of Christ.
The Bible calls us to expose the darkness by shining a light on it. This means refusing to alter our consciences for the wrong reasons, explaining the truth to those who will listen, and leading quiet, peaceful lives that demonstrate the sincerity of our beliefs and commitment to Christ.
All Along the Watchtower 
” politeness and understanding” you can ask me for, not that I must accede. On the other hand: ” “tolerance” and “acceptance”. “Well tolerance, to an extent one can expect, although it may well come with a topping of derision. But acceptance is not in my power to give, you need to talk to the boss about that, las I heard, he said no.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely. I swear these days it’s like living in an insane asylum and the lunatics are running the place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It does, so often.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does error have rights? A “well-formed” conscience is a good guide while a malformed conscience is not . . . though one may find some solace in that they are invincibly ignorant and thus cannot be held accountable for their sin. However, in this whole gender confusion epidemic doesn’t this violate even natural law and observable truth? is 1 + 1 = 3 because somebody wants to believe this? Error has no rights and it is not merciful or polite to ratify somebody in their errors. To do so is to be complicit in their sins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well. error itself is to be corrected, naturally. I am thinking in general terms first, under principles of charity and scepticism: given that someone can be uncertain because of a lack of knowledge, there are situations where it is wrong to make him do something he believes to be wrong. Paul’s example is food offered to idols: one Christian believes it is fine to eat it, and another does not. There is a right answer to this question, but it is unkind to force the other to do what he thinks is a sin.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Would it be unkind to ‘no longer walk with these people’ after they have been corrected? . . . to put them outside of the Church if they do not accept even the correction of the Church? Being civil to those outside of Christian communion is one thing but in no way does God have to tolerate (or does His Church or its members) their errors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree that we must use appropriate disciplinary in a church context. My overall argument is that the “acceptance” crowd basically do not respect the principle of conscience in their opponents but demand it for themselves, making them hypocrites.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That, of course is true and we see it in the civil hate crimes and hate speech legislation developing throughout the world at the moment though error has no rights . . . which makes the legislation itself non-binding on its citizens . . . at least those who still believe in Christ. Better to go to jail for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake than to acquiesce to the errors and abject lies of a degenerate society, legislators or politicians.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suspect we will have to pursue (pace Chalcedon) a Benedict option. We will have to withdraw from society given the overwhelming stranglehold on our institutions these minority groups have.
LikeLiked by 2 people
. . . or be imprisoned or martyred for Truth. You cannot sit with eyes closed, fingers in ears and mouth sewn shut and thus appear complacent with error . . . for silence is a form of assent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Granted, but I was thinking of the injunction to flee. Sometimes we are presented with opportunities of escape and I would not wish to give hard and fast rules on what a Christian should do, other than to say, “Do not deny Christ!” St Paul escaped from Thessalonica, for example, and Christ told His disciples to flee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a time and a season for everything under the sun . . . just as there was for those Christians who instead of fleeing Rome sang as they were led to their savage deaths in the coliseum. Most apostles fled the Romans at the Crucifixion of our Lord but one risked all. I know the one that I would rather have been.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Quite – I leave it to each person’s conscience to determine what should be done in a situation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As long as we don’t pull a Peter “I don’t know the man” routine. I’m not sure we’ll get the same second chance to affirm our Lord three times to atone for our previous cowardice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely and I personally prefer, given the opportunity, to expose false arguments and claims and assert the truth. My reticence has generally come from the teaching that we should not pick or indulge arguments where to do so is more likely to put someone off the Gospel, especially if we ourselves would be exposed as hypocrites. Unfortunately, this still leaves the poor Christian with the difficulty of knowing whether he is faced with that sort of situation or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As the divide between society and Christianity widens the dangers of bridging the chasm escalates. I just don’t want Christians to be left of the wrong side of the divide without any recourse left for their safe passage. God will provide a way though for that is our Faith and our Hope in such times.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry I blasted your last post Nicholas. Obviously, it’s not the first time John and I have discussed such matters, but the methods of discussion often evolve into disingenuous; instead of the truth being a motivating factor, the motivation is to make us look foolish instead of actually convince us that our points are wrong.
That’s something I don’t accept.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No worries, Phillip. It’s good of you to fight the good fight.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but if your defence of the indefensible makes you look “foolish” (in your eyes, at least), then I’m afraid that’s your problem, not mine. Pointing out the problems in your worldview is nothing but pointing out the problems in your worldview. If you fail then to adjust your thinking to reflect reality, then the blame for any discomfort you feel in the future rests squarely on your devotion to demonstrably flawed arguments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And for what it’s worth, I don’t think you looked “foolish.” You’re clearly very bright, and I appreciate your approach. If I can identify one, your problem—at least with the Jewish origin tale—is in clinging desperately to some hope for historical veracity, which simply isn’t going to come. Your secondary approach, that of seeing the entire tale as a wisdom story, is bang on target. It lacks physical revelation of course, but you can still claim revelation through the story itself. And that’s fine. It works. It’s also the position adopted by virtually all non-Orthodox Jewish rabbis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, I didn’t think I looked foolish. I do think you think I’m foolish, which if you don’t, that’s great.
I do find value in discussing things with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You used the word foolish. I’d say more ‘incoherent’ 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
fair enough, I suppose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Splendor of Belief— – TheCommonAtheist
If your “God” is real, and if he does not like “homosexuals” isn’t that for “him” to judge, not you. The only thing wrong with “homosexuality,” as far as the bible is concerned, is that “homosexuals” cannot replenish the earth by having children. Otherwise their lives sre no different than yours. You insinuate they shouldn’t enjoy a little pleasure by having sex with others of their own gender? You enjoy sex with others, don’t you? Why can’t they?
The thing is, sex is no more important go them than it is to you! Life is about feeling good about what one does. Peoplei with gender “issues,” as you call them, have no issues with you, as long as you do not judge them. Your “god” said “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” “”Judgment is mine!” So why are you judging anyone but yourself. Only you and your “god” know what you afe guilty of, and that should be what worries you, not what others do.
“Love thy neighboyrs as thyself.” I hear no love in your arguments!
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/
If I am to love you and others then I (and I would argue that God) would want to warn them to avoid that which is not in their best healthy; mentally or physically. Love is not to tell your kids to do whatever feels good to them; take heroin, drink yourself into oblivion or any other licentious behavior. And if already addicted to these behaviors, as a parent who loves their child, I would do whatever I could to get them to stop destroying their lives. The above link explains the lifestyle as well as any.
LikeLike
Not to mention Christians who are homosexual but resist their urges on the grounds that they see no valid reason to overrule Scripture or natural law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. All men could do well if they simply followed the most fundamental reason for human life itself:
FIRST PRINCIPLE AND FOUNDATION
Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.
The other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him in attaining the end for which he is created.
Hence, man is to make use of them in as far as they help him in the attainment of his end, and he must rid himself of them in as far as they prove a hindrance to him.
Therefore, we must make ourselves indifferent to all created things, as far as we are allowed free choice and are not under any prohibition. Consequently, as far as we are concerned, we should not prefer health to sickness, riches to poverty, honor to dishonor, a long life to a short life. The same holds for all other things.
Our one desire and choice should be what is more conducive to the end for which we are created.
This is also echoed in one of the first questions asked in the early Catechisms: “Why did God make us?” Answer: “God made man to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy forever with Him in the next. God made us for Himself. The end of man, as of all creation is the glory of God; to manifest the divine perfections, to proclaim the goodness, majesty and power of God.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting that the site and story I linked to above has been taken down; I wonder why. However, there are interviews and videos, posts that cover some of that content still on line. Simply Google: Joseph Sciambra Surviving Gay Barely
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes there are innocent explanations. Other times, a person has lost access to a platform because his or her views are inconsistent with those of the publisher or funder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know. That was my first thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for publishing my comment. When I have looked at your suggestion I will get back to you.
LikeLike
I tried your suggestion, but only saw the title section. It came with no text.
But I have had many gay friends in my life, and while a few had trouble surviving, once they came out their only problems were surviving the beatings they took from religious bullies. Left to their own devices, they enjoyed life as much as any person could.
The ones who started life as christians had the hardest time, because they were told over and over they were abominations, and they should just change themselves. Much easier said then done. How can anyone expect you to change who you are, to deny who you are? That is not life, that is human-made hell.
Can you please tell me why you feel the need to attack the way people live? (By you I mean christians, and muslims. But you can also tell me for yourself, if you like. Attack can be verbal, physical, or spiritual.) How does what someone else does in the privacy of their own bedroom affect anyone else?
As for people destroying their lives with alcohol and other drugs, I think you will find more christians do that than non-christians, especially in those who happen to have been born white. As a retired addictions counsellor, I cannot count the number of addicts who asked me to pray with them. I could not, of course, being atheist, but I listened to many pray in front of me. And their god invariably let them down. They needed spiritual healing, not religious healing. Even those who were upstanding citizens in their communities, including religious authorities, they needed spiritual healing too, healing they could not get from the bible. They needed to have people hear them without judgment, help them without judgment.
I try to accept all people, not for who they are, but for who they can be. And it is not my place to tell them who they can be, or should be. Acceptance is easy, if one does not judge. People are people, with human strengths, and human weaknesses. Turn their weaknesses into strengths, and they start to heal. Tell them they are wrong, and they cannot heal.
LikeLike
Its really easy; judge the sin and not the person. Judge their actions if they are self-destructive or destructive to society as a whole. If you don’t believe there is evil and therefore no good since these things are values that are given man from God then evil is no worse or better than good. It is all relative. If you believe in a God, the only Truth and Good, then in order to be truly happy is to know, love and glorify Him in your life so as to be happy within Him forever. If you don’t believe then morality is simply a man made pact of laws to keep us from killing each other off the face of the planet rather than to abide with the natural law that God placed in every heart. So yes, as a believer, I want everyone to live forever in heaven rather than throw away the purpose for their gift of life. You only get this one life to utilize . . . so if I truly love my fellow human beings on this earth, I will gladly tell them when what they are doing is forfeiting their rightful inheritance. Again, judging people is wrong but judging actions and seeking Divine Justice for those who may benefit from it is a form of true charity. As I said before, what kind of love would I have for my child if I let him do whatever he wanted to do without pointing out the evil and teaching the child that which is good? That is not love nor charity. And thus the atheist has not ears to hear in matters of morality and thus there are always those who oppose the Social Kingship of Christ. It is a great divide which cannot be breached until the unbeliever comes to believe. That is why we are talking past one another and most probably always will.
Somebody removed the site and that is interesting. But if you Google Joseph Sciambra and Surviving Gay Barely you can find bits and pieces of his story in many places and also videos of him speaking on the subject.
LikeLike
Sin is a religious concept and has no validity outside of this specific context.
LikeLike
An electron is a concept of energy (whatever that is) holding together as a bundle (by what?) and is a component of every atom which makes every molecule which is what we call matter. If even at the basics you have to believe in something; even you atheist believe in what you cannot describe nor understand. But you get all in a twitter when someone believes in God . . . since we cannot prove it by science though you cannot prove science by science either. You have to believe it.
LikeLike
This does not change the fact that sin is a religious concept and has no bearing upon those who are not religious. To use it as an argument is simply nonsense.
LikeLike
Your nonsense is another’s belief and their nonsense is your belief. It is that simple. If God exists and the 10 commandments are given to us from our Creator then we are obliged to live accordingly. If you do not then you hold to a position that has no provable reality to base itself on (the same thing you want to attribute to the Believer). So it is germane.
One is as ethereal as another. You believe in one dataset and I believe in the other which actually turns the scientism that you believe into a subset of my belief . . . not the other way around. So in my mind you are impoverished; I having a great respect for science and yet understand that the subset does not define the set that allows for it to even exist in the first place.
LikeLike
”If ”being the operative word, and evidence strongly suggests this is simply mythological nonsense.
And semantics and waffling rhetoric wont save your argument either.
Sin is an (invented) religious concept and is meaningless outside of the stricture of faith.
LikeLike
That would be like saying that ‘instincts’ are meaningless yet they are written into the DNA of every creature. A bird just hatched sticks his rear-end over the edge of the nest to defecate so that he will not die of disease and will build a nest that nobody has taught to them.
Right and wrong are written in our hearts like instincts. I prefer an ordered life and not a disordered one though moralities change, scientific knowledge grows, as we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.
It seems that you and others like you are like acorns that have lost their reverence for the oak tree that gave them being. Believers retain their collective memory. So it has been and will continue to be for all ages.
LikeLike
Aside from your somewhat poetic turn of phrase I am inclined to concur. However, It is known as evolution. You may have heard of it?
LikeLike
Never heard of it, of course!
At the age of 72 I have found the principles of faith in God and the restraints on human injustice and bad behavior the most positive and hopeful life to lead. I have observed families with and without faith for many decades and the demonstration of a happy and rewarding life (not necessarily monetary) are to be found only in those with Faith and the discipline to attempt as best they can to fulfill their call to holiness and submission to Divine Providence. There is no reason to try to explain such to somebody who has never embraced this or who found it too restricting and not enough self-centered to fulfill their earthly desires whatever they may be. The miserable remain miserable and the joyful will continue to love and praise God and attempt to live in accord with His desire for us.
If you wish a discussion of evolution this again is a fairytale with some interspersed truths sprinkled on top to make it seem logical. Do tell me how the first primordial female animal emerges that makes eggs and a male animal that produces sperm evolved at the same time and in the same part of the ocean and just happened to run into one another and form another creature by some kind of coming together? It couldn’t have been instinct as they were the first creature to have done it.
LikeLike
Tomes of prose like these tend to meander very quickly and one loses focus amid all the waffle.
Let’s rather stick with the Sin thing shall we?
LikeLike
By sin you mean God and Creator which, naturally would be the source of our distinction between good and evil. Sin is only a moral subset of God and His existence. So try to follow the logic or do I need to spell it out in much longer and more metaphysical tomes. I have tried to keep this as simple as I can but you seem to want to keep your eye on subsets rather than to focus on the prime mover of all these subsets that are part of life.
LikeLike
I have no belief in your god, therefore the doctrine has no bearing upon me at all.
LikeLike
Or at least you don’t think so. But for believers it is precisely you and people who think like you who are in need of our love and help.
LikeLike
Then demonstrate the veracity of your claims.
It is that simple ….
The ball is in your court.
Off you go.
LikeLike
If you were following along without my having to spell out every detail then you know that nothing under the sun will answer or attempt to answer that which relies on faith . . . and thus it is for every belief under the sun . . . including your own.
LikeLike
No. I have no ”faith” in the sense you understand it.
Please don’t try to Strawman now, okay?
LikeLike
Is the inner snowflake coming out again?
Lets get down to the heart of this whole thing: you and your atheistic trolls came here because we do not ban you and we all are believers. What, pray tell, is the nobility in your arguments? What do you gain? Is it to hopefully pull someone from the faith? If so, your intentions themselves are evil. On the other hand, for those of us who believe what is our gain and what is the nobility of our arguments? To save your soul. You tell me why you hold the superior ground.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never once did I consider I could ever convince a Christian blogger to deconvert.
Based on the evidence, you enjoy the interaction as much as I do.
So one is prompted to ask, who is trolling whom?
If you consider you motivation to be noble then at least have the integrity to present evidence for your claims.
Remember, you believe that what’s at stake is my soul.
Surely, if you are sincere then it should be a simple matter of being open and honest and present the evidence to support your claims.
Well, are you open and honest?
LikeLike
Am I open and hones. Obviously far more than you.
I enjoy the prospect of debunking those who attack the Church of Christ who gave His life for our Eternal Salvation. So you got something right. Where does your enjoyment in this propogate from?
Back to evidence again and the answer never changes: faith and belief are not things to be proved by some mathematical formula by nature of their very meaning of words. We observe, we find a way to make sense of a fallen world and we find hope and love in the promises of Christ. What do you have? A worldview without meaning and no teleological end other than the grave and worms devouring your corpse. And morality becomes useless and meaningless in you solipsistic existence. Its all about your comfort; whether it is to show off your skill in debate of to satisfy your own desires. Something is always very narcissistic about the atheist; they all seem to self-centered and they all end up with a life that accomplished nothing regarding the true dignity of man which received from God alone.
LikeLike
You see, you immediately devolve into polemic and thinly veiled insult
It’s probably best you keep this for your bible classes or proselytizing.
I have no need of it.
I am not asking for mathematical formulas or anything close.
Simply put forward the evidence that you possess to demonstrate the veracity of the claims you continually make.
YOu can stat with sin, as this is where our dialogue began.
I reiterate provide evidence.
LikeLike
That is where you started the dialogue and I explained that it is only a subset of the belief in God.
Maybe this will help though I am doubtful:
THE MODERN ATHEIST
“As all men are touched by God’s love, so all are also touched by the desire for His intimacy. No one escapes this longing; we are all kings in exile, miserable without the Infinite. Those who reject the grace of God have a desire to avoid God, as those who accept it have a desire for God. The modern atheist does not disbelieve because of his intellect, but because of his will; it is not knowledge that makes him an atheist…The denial of God springs from a man’s desire not to have a God – from his wish that there were no Justice behind the universe, so that his injustices would fear no retribution; from his desire that there be no Law, so that he may not be judged by it; from his wish that there were no Absolute Goodness, that he might go on sinning with impunity. That is why the modern atheist is always angered when he hears anything said about God and religion – he would be incapable of such a resentment if God were only a myth. His feeling toward God is the same as that which a wicked man has for one whom he has wronged: he wishes he were dead so that he could do nothing to avenge the wrong. The betrayer of friendship knows his friend exists, but he wished he did not; the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.” __ Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Words of wisdom if you would take them to heart.
LikeLike
Again, provide evidence for your claims.
LikeLike
Why? You do not accept reality nor do you accept the meaning of words: faith, sin, God, hope, charity and I am sure you might find that there is nothing that you would not demand evidence for even with the use of your own life experiences and common sense. It is a catch 22 scenario which I turned back on you and you cannot evidence a singe thing in the world that you could do the same with. So it is absolutely a worthless question.
LikeLike
Only worthless as you are unable t provide evidence for your claims.
All you have is faith.
Remember Hebrews 11.1?
Of course you do, and this is all you have.
No evidence.
LikeLike
All I have is faith. Amen to that for with faith all things are possible. Without faith there is no reason for my life on earth. Why among animals are we the only one’s to even ask the question; “what am I here for’? Are we really just like other beasts of the field. We are born then we die and then nothing? Or do we have a purpose to fulfill and goal that we are pointed toward? A teleological end that we all long for. Even you, though you won’t admit it, have this desire but have by choice stopped searching.
LikeLike
Excellent! You finally acknowledge that all you have is faith. Not evidence.
I wonder why it took so long for you to admit this?
Anyway, now that this is out of the way it is clear that the Doctrine of Sin is a man-made construct and has NO BEARING upon those who do not believe in your god.
Phew!
LikeLike
Nor do you. I admitted this from the beginning and told you that you too live a faith and a belief that unbelief and no faith is the Truth. Prove it.
So it didn’t take me long but it is taking you a very long time to admit that you cannot prove your belief either and yet you hold the arrogant position that it is the right belief without any proof whatever.
You jump to conclusions when you say that Sin is man-made construct when I have told you several times now, natural law has been placed in our hearts from something. That something or Someone, we call God. I believe that Christ came to earth as man and accept that His teaching is the teaching of God since He Himself is God.
Deny it all you want but all of this has been given you and yet in the reverse you have not produced an iota of evidence that the contrary is true.
LikeLike
I do not live my life by faith and especially in the way you understand the word. To suggest this — again… suggests you are being disingenuous.
Lack of belief in gods is based solely on the total absence of evidence for them.
Feel free to present some.
Again, the notion of sin is the belief it is a transgression of your god’s law.
You first have to demonstrate your god exists. Then you have to demonstrate that this ”sin” – the claimed laws of your god were actually transmitted/communicated by you god.
So, your work is cut out for you, it seems ….
Methinks it would be best you get cracking,
LikeLike
Again how do you live your life? I know you don’t believe in faith especially the way I understand the word. What do you have faith in? Your own internal lights perhaps. By rejecting cultures, history, collective memories and the need for man to find meaning in life beyond simply surviving?
How do you understand faith or belief? This is mine:
Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Belief: belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something
What is your definition? From the descriptions above you state that it is a transgression of God’s Law; that I first have to prove the existence of God (which I told you was the foundation of your question) and that the sins were communicated by God. You just simply discarded the definitions of faith and belief altogether and keep banging on about things far too sublime to be proved . . . and in fact the basis of all our knowledge built upon those which are widely accepted cannot be used for yo are looking for a PROOF of God (and you can prove nothing of your propositions) and then you demand that I second guess the Decalogue or the words of Christ which I accept on faith? How foolhardy.
Give me a proof first of something you believe or a proof that what I believe is false.
Maybe you should get cracking yourself, methinks.
LikeLike
My beliefs are not relevant to this thread.
My only issue was with the evidence you had for the claims you were making.
We have …. finally established there is no evidence.
I don’t feel the need to embark on another tangent.
However if you wish to open another thread, write a post make a point and we can discuss it.
But please bear in mind, that my only interest in maters of theology and its related topics is any evidence which may support them.
To date I have never been presented with any.
LikeLike
Your beliefs are as relevant as are ours . . . why are you exempt? Evidence . . . my ass. You know that there is no evidence that can be given outside of the demonstrations and the historical record of peoples; including an unbroken line of a set of beliefs that has lasted 2000 years without being overturned though the world has gone through myriads of change. That is because Divine Truth is always truth it is not malleable.
What you mean to say is that now you finally have understood what the meaning of faith and belief are.
What would be my motivation for taking the 3 of you trolls down another avenue where you can simply disrupt and pretend play the old game of “prove it” whilst disregarding the plain usage of words. You must be joking.
LikeLike
Yes, faith is acceptance of something without any evidence.
Which is the exact description of your Christian worldview.
I am not suggesting you must start another thread. I was merely trying to keep the focus of your original claim rooted in this post.
Why would you consider me any more of a troll than you? In fact why would you consider either of us a troll. I donpt think you are. Evasive and somewhat disingenuous, but not a troll.
You wrote a post on an open forum. I commented asking for evidence you went ballistic ranting in and on one polemic after another, when you could have saved us all the trouble by admitting up front that your belief is not based on evidence but faith.
I would have accepted this and left it at that.
LikeLike
You evade the invalidity of your premise . . . that one can answer anything with the type of specificity that would ‘make’ someone accept God. Nothing more than His appearance in some miraculous vision would do for you; and in which case there is no need for faith. I could give ‘evidence’ if you would accept some of the martyrs, seers and apparitions or miracles that are attested to. Fatima would be the largest and closest to our own time; witnessed by thousands. But this is not what you are asking for is it? Not at all because you would never accept it as evidence.
LikeLike
In truth I have absolutely no idea what would convince me.
As you claim your god is omnipotent and omniscient I would never deign to ”speak for your god”, and take it as a given that he would know exactly what it would take to convince me.
I am curious, however, how you arrived at the conclusion that you know of this god?
LikeLike
A simpler thing would be to turn your whole ‘validity’ business on its head. Please prove to me anything at all which is undeniably real and valid. Your choice . . . take anything at all and prove it to me.
LikeLike
I am under no obligation to demonstrate anything. You are the one championing your god and the baggage you bring along with it.
If you wish to gain any sort of credibility then demonstrate the veracity of your claim/s.
In this instance – demonstrate the veracity of ”sin” …. sorry should I have used a capital S?
LikeLike
And you are the one championing an immaculate conception for humankind that required no creator.
I can no more gain credibility with you than you can with me. Your baggage is your incoherence and loss of order and memory.
Sin is simple. You look at the evil in the world and sin is quite obvious. But to prove it I would have to prove that even I exist or you exist. How would you argue against a Buddhist who says that this entire life is nothing more than the dream of Buddha. Everybody believes in something yet it seems that you are trying to tell me that you believe in nothing . . . which I do accept. You cannot find one thing in all of creation that you can prove and show complete veracity unless you fall back on a principle or set of principles which you have chosen to believe. That remains true for everyone. I choose to believe in God, hope in God and to love for Love of God. How do you order your life? or is there any order to your life which seems highly unlikely? So simply give me a principle you hold has true and prove it to me . . . you have asked me to prove my principles to you so why shouldn’t you be able to do the same?
LikeLike
Are you truly denying evolution?
How does devolving into insult in any way strengthen you argument for ”sin”?
Indeed it is. It is a fabricated religious concept, the primary tenet being anything that transgresses the law/s of your god.
I do not believe in gods, yours or any other, based solely on the complete lack of evidence for gods.
Thus, I am not bound by your argument.
Once you can demonstrate the veracity of your god claim then we can explore the relevance of the Doctrine of Sin.
LikeLike
If you know not that there is an existence of good and evil then you will never believe that the Doctrine of Sin exists no matter what I do. If you have never experienced love of another how is someone to explain to you that it exists? But then the very fact that men seek the good and shun injustice and evil seems to be a collective part of human development though there are always those who throw in with the opposite ordering of their own nature. It is disordered and thereby evil.
Sin is only a single aspect of regarding that which is right and wrong as we are informed of this by grace. And yes, the real question that you are asking is ‘can you prove that there is a God?’ for that is origin of a Doctrine of Sin as Christians hold it. It is also part of natural law. So yes, I every right to ask you to disprove sin or to prove something else in this whole cosmos without God and by any means at your disposal. You cannot do it and want to say that I am dodging your question. You simply do not want to explore the depths of what you are quick to make sound like foolishness. If you were to simply say that there are more questions than there are answers you might be getting closer to the Truth.
LikeLike
Once again, the Doctrine of Sin is a man-made religious construct that states sij is any form of transgression against the laws of your god.
It has no bearing upon those who do not believe in your god. Unless you are being purposely obtuse I am struggling to understand why you are finding this so difficult to grasp?
LikeLike
If I believe that God is your creator as well as mine then of course in has a bearing especially for those who do not believe in God. They are the one’s most in need of God’s Grace. To watch another human being willingly destroy his soul or to inherit eternal torment should be that which any Christian is loath to stand by and watch with indifference. And I am also struggling to understand why you find this concept so difficult to grasp.
LikeLike
And resorting to polemic really is a waste of time and effort.
As you seem convinced of your position and (apparently) have grave concerns for the individual’s well-being, (spiritual and otherwise) it is incumbent on you to demonstrate the veracity of the claims you espouse.
Otherwise your rhetoric has no more meaning and is no more binding on me than someone damning me in the name of Odin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What can you possibly know of how I live my life and how I show the veracity by word or deed? Nothing.
You keep coming back to veracity where belief resides beyond proofs. That is the meaning of the word. In the end you have a choice to believe what you think or what makes the most sense and which has guided men through the annals of time and your take on truth, though always there in a minority, is still the most accepted trait amongst people even if their beliefs are flawed. Men need guidance and what better guidance than God becoming man to save us from our disordered lives?
What is fruitless is to keep banging on because what you believe has no more veracity or demonstrates anymore proof than does those who are Christians and hold to the foundations of modern society though the cracks and fissures are rife now with the ascendency of those who no longer respect or give value to the beliefs that were the foundation of society itself, justice and morality.
Live as you will and accept the consequences thereof. The ultimate end for unbelief (which believes . . . even in their own unbelief) is anarchy and a total breakdown of order. I pity those who wish to live in such disarray without rules or standards to abide by . . . other than opening up the legality of their own licentiousness and freedom from the present laws.
LikeLike
Proofs are generally reserved for maths and the like.
I am only concerned with evidence.
You have not put forward a shred of evidence for a single claim /assertion you have ,made.
That you have to resort to pithy polemic and subtly veiled threats demonstrates more clearly than anything that you have nothing to support the nonsense you continually espouse.
While acknowledging this is your platform ….as they saying goes …. put up or push off!
LikeLike
Read the 5 demonstrations by St. Thomas Aquinas if that is all you are looking for: easy to Google.
LikeLike
I have. The book sits on my shelf. So what? We are looking for evidence here.
Please, feel free to offer some … any time you like?
LikeLike
No you are looking for proofs . . . which I have challenged you to provide me a proof of anything that you believe and you find yourself at a loss. The lives of believers and unbelievers is another demonstration though you won’t accept that since you think your life is very fulfilling without having any lasting roots. You simply want to introduce doubt in the minds of others whom you jealously wish could enjoy the peace and tranquility of living in an ordered cosmos.
LikeLike
No, I’m not.
All I am asking is for you to provide evidence of your claims.
Nothing more, nothing less.
LikeLike
You discount the 5 demonstrations of St. Thomas Aquinas so just leave it there. What more can I add to a perfectly sound mind making excellent logical points on the subject. You simply want me to make up my own. I don’t need to do that as I have access to intellects far beyond my own to rely on. You, on the other hand, have nothing to rely on except your own unbelief and some wild notion that there is some magic bullet to make you believe. There is a magic bullet but you will never accept it: pray that God gives you the grace to believe.
LikeLike
They are not logical points at all but arguments based on presuppositional beliefs.
He does not provide a shred of evidence.
His argumentation is as hollow as CS Lewis lunatic liar or lord.
LikeLike
Oh really. When do you see something moved that did not have a prime mover? You simple life experiences belie the argument of ‘presuppositional beliefs’.
LikeLike
Again, they are arguments based on a presuppositional belief. There is no evidence for a prime mover.
Tell me, do you actually understand what evidence is, Scoop?
LikeLike
Yes, if I am hit by a rock on the back of the head I am sure that 1 of 2 things happened. It fell from the sky, building etc. or somebody threw it at me. That is evidence and not all evidence will add up to what you mischaracterize as evidence . . . because I accurately tell you what you mean by evidence which is proof. Circumstantial evidence, and demonstrations taken from our knowledge of the world and things we know is not presuppositional nonsense. If we presuppose that someone threw the brick we have a rather good evidentiary case that this was in fact the case.
LikeLike
Again, you are arguing from a position of presupposition.
This is not evidence.
LikeLike
That’s ok, I can imagine what it is he has to say.
However, who says we only have one life to live, one chance at eternity. If your god is a loving god, he would not give a living being only one chance to get it right. If you want everyone to join you in heaven, then grant them many lives to learn the proper way to believe. Except, the proper way to believe is to disbelieve. You will find that out in a future life.
I love how those who believe in divine justice can think they are the only ones who know how to live properly. That is an exercice in arrogance. Atheists do not go around killing and hurting, now do they.
First, we don’t give away our resonsibility to anyone else, we take responsibility for our actions, and we learn what kind of actions we are willing to take. In another group of comments you or someone discusses the correctness of the golden rule. Let me retranslate the golden rule for you into modern English, if I may:
I will do unto others only that which I would willingly allow others to do unto me.
Do you see the differences? I take responsibility for my actions, not tell others how to do things. The limits I set on my actions are conscious thoughts, not some unconscious unthoughtout order I take from someone else. You are willing to hurt other living beings because your god told you it is good to do that. Therefore anyone else could hurt you because you have given others that permission by your own actions. I accept that others can do things to me that I don’t want them to do, but I refuse to treat them the way they treat me. I think about how I would want to be treated, with respect, and thus I give respect to others. I do not give anyone the right to hurt me, so I do not hurt other living beings willingly. If you call this morality, which I call responsibility, where would that leave you?
I have to go now, but I will try to finish these thoughts later. Life is calling…
LikeLike
Do you really think that you are the arbiter of how God should act and treat His Created beings? For you it might seem to make sense that we all get to do this over and over again but that is merely your subjective wish. And it is not a democracy. If I build a clock and it doesn’t keep time then it is a bad clock and I will throw it away. If it keeps perfect time I may treasure it for the rest of my life.
And if you think that prisons are not filled primarily with non-believers you are dreaming.
Is telling someone that they are acting in a way that is a danger to themselves, spiritually, morally, mentally and physically that this is somehow hurting them? It is an act of True Charity not the false love of unfettered tolerance. It seems that today tolerance is more important than common sense.
Well, have a nice life then.
LikeLike
I do have a nice life, thank you. I don’t need anyone telling me how to live, I figured that out for myself.
Notice how you are not being very loving, not at all. Throw me away because I do not believe as you. Tell me lies because I see the world as it is, not the way you want it to be. Of course jails are filled with christians and non-christians alike, but you are perfect, so you cannot see. You are blinded by your perfection.
Bullshit on that. You are shaking in your boots, unable to think for yourself. The year is 2019, but you want it to be year 0000, when life was straightforward. At least you think it was straightforward, but it never has been, never will be. Life is complex, and complicated. There are so many things to learn, and according to you, so little time to learn them. It must be a nice fantasy.
My apologies for my mini-tirade. I am not out to hurt you. Or even to lead you into sin. There is no sin. There are only hurtful thoughts, and you wouldn’t want to hurt me, I know. That is for your loving god to do. But I am not afraid. There is no god to fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have freewill as we all do to do. You seem to only read between the lines you want to fictions and cannot see between the lines the underlying argument. Who threw you away . . . how many times do I have to repeat what real Charity consists?
Who said that I was perfect . . . or is that just another snarky comment and part of your effort to accuse me of using ad hominem attacks on yourself. I didn’t do that but besides that I did not take you for a snowflake that gets hurt so easily.
At 72 there is not much that causes me to shake in my boots. I’ve seen more than you could probably even imagine but then my bio is not part of this supposed conversation. You simply want to impose your unbelief in sin and deride those who do believe. It is, quite frankly a very boring argument.
Well, you will know fear of God soon enough. Life is short.
LikeLike
Not unbelief, non-belief. There is no god, there is no sin.
If I rea lly thought you were perfect, why would I have you shaking in your boots. But you sound like you think you are perfect, reading between the lines. No matter, you have your beliefs, I have mine. Never the twain shall meet. If there is a hell, I shall enjoy meeting you there. Lucky for you there isn’t one.
LikeLike
How lovely . . . and how brightly does your agenda shine forth for your true purpose: a troll that is intent of weakening faith and dragging to hell additional souls for Satan. Good for you. At least your purpose is known.
But I do hope you regain your senses and I pray for my own salvation as I do for yours.
And its funny how your silly last line is unprovable and how you have faith and hope that it is true.
LikeLike
You throw around accusations as if everyone is supposed to believe them. Well done. I don’t need faith to know there is no god, but you need to have faith there is one god, and only one! How can I work for some satan when there is no satan? That makes as little sense as a god does.
You have no idea what my true purpose is, but it is not to annoy people like you. My purpose is to help create a better life here on earth, and in the cosmos that you have no idea even exists. Heaven, earth, hell. That is what your bible teaches you. What about all the other worlds, other galaxies, other universes, other dimensions, other…? All those other places we cannot even imagine sitting here on earth? You have no imagination of your own, only the one your predecessors gave to you, god in heaven, satan in hell.
And thanks, but you have no right to pray for my salvation! Besides the fact it will never happen so you are wasting your time, I wouldn’t want it even if you could save me. Being a pompous ass is not my idea of being a good person. I would rather burn in hell for eternity than sit somewhere worshipping some terrorizing dictator just because he created me. My parents created my body, but my spirit came into being of its own accord 4.7 billion years ago, and I have been learning ever since. Your 72 years are not even a blink for me. You might be a couple years older than me in this incarnation, but in spirit you have billions more years and lives to go to catch up. which you will some day, whether I try to save you or not. And I have no desire to save you, that is up to you on your own time and schedule, except your schedule is not written in stone.
As for helping your son, or whoever, to fix their life, who do you think broke it? You did, feeding all your guilt to a child too young to understand what the hell you are talking about. Creating fear where there should be joy. And then being proud of it, too proud to say you are sorry. As I said before, arrogance.
No, I don’t know you, not personally, but I know people like you. Fortunately I am not one of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How’s that working for you? Have you made the world a better place yet? Because from my viewpoint this world is getting worse by the year.
What about all the rest of the galaxies etc. . . . does that negate a God of all? Prove it.
Well that is the same conclusion Saul Alinsky came to: he did say that he would rather be in hell than heaven so that he could be among the people he identified with. So good luck with that.
And also good luck with all your reincarnations that you seem to think is reality. Prove that one to me, please.
Who broke people’s lives is a hypothetical that changes depending on the person in question. I don’t know why one becomes an atheist, a homosexual with AIDS or a prolapsed colon, or a drug or alcohol addiction etc. But that does not mean that I don’t want them to a mend their lives or that I won’t give up on them. Obviously you think that they should not be afraid of such obvious evils in their lives and live in joy. I think you have misrepresented licentious, momentary pleasure for true joy.
It is funny how liberals love to peg a tag like arrogance on their opponents though they themselves project their own narcissistic bias and self-centeredness on others. So your wasting your breath if you think that I am either shocked or hurt at such foolish accusations. I recognize that I, as are most of us, flawed with a certain amount of arrogance present but at least we know that we cannot overcome these faults without God’s grace and we do at least try to overcome these shortcomings . . . whilst you revel in yours.
LikeLike
You are right, I revel in my arrogance. You, Scoop, cannot come close to me in understanding life at its most basic. You demand that I prove things, because you know that you have no proof of your god or anything he supposedly professes. So you try to turn the tables, and demand I prove my beliefs. I’ll prove mine when you prove yours.
Have I bettered the world. That’s kind of hard when you are hell-bent on destroying it. But I try, not through force or convincing anyone I am right, but by the way I live. You see, I have no need to be right, whereas you do. Your eternity depends on it. I can be wrong, and all that happens is I die, and never live again. As it it, my ego dies, and my mind dies, but my spirit lives on. I call it my spirit, but I actually belong to it. I am its plaything here on earth. It lets me run free, but at the same time it monitors me, but not in a controlling way. I can look into well-lit spaces, but I can also look into dark corners where few venture. And by dark I do not mean evil, only places that are hidden from common view. Places where wisdom is hidden, where true learning occurs…
Yeah, I’m putting you on, but how much? I am giving you fodder for your hate-mill. How far are you willing to come with me?
“Prove it!” The pot calling the kettle black. The irony! Have I, in this whole conversation, asked you once for proof of anything? I deny your beliefs, but why would I ask you to prove anything. We both know you can’t. So why should it matter if I can? You give me “knowthing” new to hang my hat on. Same old same old. Same shit, same pile. You are stuck in a rut so deep you can’t even see that the world is passing you by. There is so much to learn, but why should you? You already know all there is to know.
Yeah I’m arrogant. I live with real joy, not some, excuse the pun, Trumped up feeling you are told is joy, but is really wishful thinking. I’d wash my hands of you, but I am having too much fun stomping on you, so it’s my feet I’d really have to wash.
This wasn’t my intention. I came across your blog, or whoever’s blog this is, by sheer coincidence, which is like saying your god brought me here. But why would he bring me here, not to help me, that is for sure. I am beyond help, as far as religion goes. So maybe he brought me here to help you!
Prove it, you say. There is nothing to prove. Literally. Nothing. No thing. No god.
I dare you to not write me back anymore! There is nowhere new for this conversation to go. Why waste your time?
Because you can’t resist…
LikeLike
Having a meltdown are you?
LikeLike
Only for you. Only for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly what is there to ”mend” if one is an atheist or a homosexual?
LikeLike
Those two would be a good place to start.
LikeLike
Fair enough … but what exactly is there to ”mend”. Please be specific?
LikeLike
I’d be interested to hear his answer.
It’s a good question.
LikeLike
I doubt he will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ambiguity is easy, but it does tend to get a tad awkward when explaining the details.
We’ll see. I hope he does. I’d be interested in hearing the answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frankly I find this kind of talk troubling and a major flaw in the golden rule. “Treat others the way they want to be treated” would be a higher law than do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It doesn’t bode well in a religious setting we’re self deprecating submission to an archaic and immoral (by today’s standards) book is the capstone of the beliefs. We can do better than that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re treating “golden rule” in isolation to other guidelines from Jesus. Also, How one acts is not necessarily isolated to their own particular person. For example, those on the cultural left tend to view speech, questions, and thought as offensive to the degree that they have people thrown out of events by the police on public property. You can find these from various youtube videos, if you want to see it in action.
If we take Luke’s Gospel, it’s hard to understand your idea of self deprecating submission to an archaic and immoral (by today’s standards) book is the capstone of the beliefs. especially when one views the Neo-puritan of the secular culture as the alternative :
27 “But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your cloak do not withhold your coat as well. 30 Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. 31 ¶ And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 ¶ But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
The irony here is that mercy is paradoxical. If mercy is offered; it requires an offense or sin to be acknowledged. And our secular society has no place for ‘sin’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Phillip
Bearing in mind the advancements made in scholarly assessment of the gospels can you tell me exactly how you know what are the authentic, if any , sayings and teachings of Jesus?
LikeLike
On a strictly secular historical level, the authenticity would be similar to other ancient biographies. The consensus more or less estimates various verses from Mark’s Gospel are authentic.
I don’t hold necessarily to the consensus viewpoint, as I date the gospels much earlier from a literary analysis of Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles much in the same manner that the consensus of scholars use the prophecies of the destruction of the temple to give it a later date to the Gospels.
Naturally, with that being said, in the context of Jim’s comment, which saying are authentically Jesus wouldn’t matter to the conversation. What we’re looking at specifically is what is considered Christian canon and what have Christians for most of their existence understand as authentic teachings from Jesus. Thus, it’s important to take the Gospels as whole when attempting to frame how a belief system is formed by their followers not Jesus himself.
So your question is a non sequitur in regards to the actual conversation. Thanks.
LikeLike
Whatever the specific topic of conversation,if it relates to the biblical character Jesus then surely it is in the interest of all concerned that the veracity of the text is established?
As you mention authenticity you must surely be aware in this case that very few of the words/sayings which have been traditionally attributed to Jesus are considered authentic.
How do you deal with this? Faith?
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter to Jim’s particular point.
I don’t need to deal with anything because I think there’s just as much historical reliability in the Gospels and thesis on an earlier date for the Gospel’s then the consensus, as I’ve explained. If you want to read more about these particular theories, Brant Pitre is a Catholic scholar who writes in detail on the topic. If you’re really interested on how anyone would deal with the consensus of secular scholars, take a look at his work. Naturally, if you call into question the historicity of the Gospels, you may as well wipe clean all of ancient historiography.
LikeLike
The veracity of the text always matters
otherwise we might as well be discussing Harry Potter’s novels.
You raise the point of Luke and Acts. Surely you are aware that Acts is regarded as little more than historical fiction?
Therefore you can see the futility in quoting this as a reliable historical source.
Thanks, but these days, I generally avoid scholars with a Christian bias. However, if you would like to summarize his most pertinent argument, then please, go ahead.
Oh, I don’t call into question they are valuable historical documents. What is NOT reliable is their content.
LikeLike
“You raise the point of Luke and Acts. Surely you are aware that Acts is regarded as little more than historical fiction?”
That statement is quantitatively false, even a simple google search serves to find historical facts of the Acts of the Apostles are far more in favor of fact than wrong. Furthermore, it even gets some details correct where secular histories drop the ball.
“Critic scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann, Alexander Wedderburn, Hans Conzelmann, and Martin Hengel still view Acts as containing valuable historically accurate accounts of the earliest Christians.”
LikeLike
Yes, such a search will reveal this. Which is why I used the term Historical Fiction.
You really should read more closely before shooting off a comment.
LikeLike
I’m enjoying watching you squirm here! Ha! The whole comment here about historical fiction is nonsense and more attempts at saving face.
Got got in your own deceptive debate rhetoric.
LikeLike
Squirm? My dear Phillip, your entire worldview is based upon faith, yet you continually try to justify it as if it were fact.
You couldn’t make me squirm on this subject even if you had Jesus standing next to you holding you hand
LikeLike
Then, by your own admission, there’s no need to have the conversation.
LikeLike
Again, there is every need as you are fim in the belief that your Christian worldview is fact based on evidence.
All I am trying to do is get you to present that evidence.
Feel free …. the floor is yours.
Why not begin by telling me what was the evidence that convinced you?
LikeLike
You’re making no sense…we’ve been talking about this whole time what is considered evidence… whether scholars have a consensus or not. I presented a scholar, who would be better qualified to explain it, but, again, you don’t care about actual conversation.
LikeLike
Evidence is what we are discussing.
Feel free to present some to support your Christian worldview.
LikeLike
I’ve presented plenty, you just ignore it, call into question it’s historicity, even when critics acknowledge its history, and then ask for evidence.
You’re a broken record.
LikeLike
No, you have only presented claims. Not evidence.
Let me help you. You cannot use the Gospels or any part of the bible and claim this is evidence.
LikeLike
We’re literally discussing the historicity of documents and their criticism. If you cannot use parts of the Bible as evidence, you cannot use Tacitus, the Vespasian healing, and others who also have miracles in their text, the foundation of your synthesis of data is fundamentally flawed which forces you into circular reasoning.
LikeLike
Other than the historical fiction aspect, there is nothing outside the bible to support the claims it makes.
For example, you are surely not going to claim veracity for Adam and Eve, Noah’s Flood or the Exodus, so on what grounds do you claim veracity for anything else?
The onus is in you to demonstrate the veracity of the claims they make and thus you must present evidence.
So far you have failed to do this.
So, once more.
Present evidence.
LikeLike
The Bible isn’t a single book, so your point is flawed. Again, if this is your position, never quote Tacitus again.
LikeLike
Oh, please don’t be so damn pedantic, Phillip. We all know the bible isn’t a single book.
And your version(Catholic) is different from others .
So, now that you have exhausted all of your rhetoric ( I sincerely hope so!) are you finally going to step up to the plate and present some evidence?
Why not start with the evidence that convinced you?
Or are you a Catholic, indoctrinated from childhood?
Okay, But in all fairness I consider the passage in Annals is either hearsay or interpolation.
Tacitus never mentions anything about Jesus, Christians or Christianity in histories which might be considered a bit odd, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Evidence presented, back to circular reasoning?
It’s okay, calm down, I know you’ve been caught in deceptive rhetoric.
Also, There’s a plethora of other ancient sources you can’t consistently quote anymore too. Just so you’re aware.
LikeLike
Try to understand something Phillip.
Unless you can support the assertions you make about the bible and its contents they remain claims, not evidence.
As I said before, why not reveal the evidence that convinced you? This would be a good start. unless of course you were indoctrinated from childhood)
Why not begin here?
LikeLike
We’ve had the discussion before, I am one of three in my family and the only practicing Catholic. In college, at a secular university, I was convinced by the historical evidence that the Gospels fit the historical model of all other ancient biographies.
So, again, evidence represented that we’ve been discussing all afternoon…
LikeLike
Ah, so not really evidence then.
What were the emotional factors involved?
LikeLike
Did I need a miracle or something? Nope. Was I poor? Nope. Did I not have friends? Nope. Was I drug addict? Nope. In fact, I was playing rock music and having a good time for the most part.
Sorry, I don’t fit your generalizations.
I compared the Gospels to other ancient documents and said they carry just as much historical weight.
LikeLike
Well, that is your opinion, and you are of course entitled to it.
One is forced to question if you were having such a good time why you were inclined to embark on such a comparison in the first place?
LikeLike
It was the assignment in class at secular university.
LikeLike
You don’t need to stress it was a secular university, you already said.
So you considered the bible was on a par – great.
Aside from stories such as Adam and Eve Flood and Exodus of course (to name three of the more prominent tales) which are considered myth.
But this is not what Christianity is all about is is it Phillip?
The miracle tales, especially the resurrection and ascension are not regarded by secular historians, neither the notion of Original Sin or salvation etc.
So, on what basis did you consider there was any veracity to these supernatural based aspects?
LikeLike
All books of the Bible are written for sake of salvation, so whether they are myth, works of fiction, historical, philosophical their telos is for that end.
The Gospels from their witness accounts. The accounts of disciples of the Apostles like Irenaus and Clement of Rome, the deposit of faith becomes historical witness unto itself.
LikeLike
Once more, on what basis did you consider there was any veracity to these supernatural based aspects?
LikeLike
The Apostles’s witnessed it and their disciples Irenaus and Clement carried on the despot of Apostolic witness. It would be much in the same manner that there’s a spot in my town that Daniel Webster have a speech, I don’t see his footprints or a video of his speech, I believe the witness testimony.
LikeLike
That is a claim
For goodness sake, how many more times?
You have not provided a single piece of evidence.
Have another go ….
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I have a degree in history. I hold that a document written by Irenaus and Clement is evidence. So, if you can’t accept that then end the conversation. Because whether it’s from them or Abraham Lincoln, I considered it documented in the historical record, now from there we can judge its truth, but to claim it’s not evidence is either disingenuous or ignorance.
Stop with your circular reasoning, it’s awful, all day you’ve conceded the argument to me. Doesn’t it tire?
LikeLike
That is a christian perspective and is not the position of secular historians.
Again you have provided no evidence for any biblical claim and certainly nothing that ”the Apostles witnessed it” or even that they existed.,
You are obviously struggling to understand what evidence actually is.
Let’s try again.
As there is no evidence whatsoever for the foundational claims of Christianity, what was it that convinced you of the veracity of these claims?
And more pertinently what was t that convinced you that you were a sinner and required salvation?
LikeLike
Those are considered historically written documents by those men who knew the Apostles for one Clement is named in Acts!
Again, the mythicism of Apostles not existing is outlier. Heck, there’s even a pretty good description of the crucifixion of Peter in John!
If you don’t accept witness testimony of any who by their nature would be believers by their proximity, you’ve eliminated any evidence conveniently to consider.
You were beaten about it only mattered what Christian thought Jesus was taught. See Jim’s original comment.
You were beaten that those who critique Acts consider it history. Eg. Ludemann.
You were beaten on why the Gospels are to be considered history compared to secular historical biographies.
You were beaten on the rhetoric of argument when I cornered you on the consensus of Jesus as a historical figure when you weren’t forthcoming and I was on consensus arguments.
You couldn’t pigeonhole me into a generalization of a how normally people come to be Christians.
You were beaten on what is considered actual historical evidence.
I’d be tired of taking all those losses you have today.
LikeLike
Wrong. There is no evidence for the claims you make regarding the foundational tenets of Christianity..
You cannot use the bible as a source as you cannot independently support it.
There is no witness testimony and you have failed to provide evidence.
The bible is not a historically reliable source.
No secular historian considers the gospels to be eyewitness testimony.
So, once more, what was the evidence that convinced you of the veracity of the biblical tale of the Resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth and that you were sinner and required salvation.
LikeLike
There is eyewitness accounts. To say otherwise is secular bias BS. There’s mixed authorship with the thousand of Gospel manuscripts, which is evidence to their authorship. Two of them are not eye witnesses and one other wasn’t considered a higher tier Apostle.
There are books in the Bible that are historically reliable. Jerusalem exists right? The expulsion of the Jews? Pilate? Caiphas? Etc.
If the secular historian accepted the evidence, wasn’t a likely victim of university group think, they most likely wouldn’t be a secular historian, they’d be a Christian historian and you’d no longer count them as reliable—it’s laughable!
LikeLike
Provide evidence to substantiate this claim.
This makes no sense. Even if there were millions of manuscripts this is not evidence of the identity of their authorship.
I remind you of the term Historical Fiction. A ficticious tale interwoven with historical fact. This is a near enough definition of the bible.
I ask you once again. Your surely do not consider the tale of Adam and Ever Noah’s Flood or the Exodus as historical fact? SO why anything else that pertains to your faith?
Your last paragraph is self defeating as to become a Christian one must suspend critical thinking and accept supernatural claims.
No genuine historian accepts supernatural claims.
Once more. What was the evidence that convinced you of the veracity of the Resurrection and that you were a sinner and needed salvation.
LikeLike
Oh the irony of the walls of faith you’ve had to build to keep from admiring viable evidence.
LikeLike
It isn’t evidence. What is the matter with you?
You have failed to substantiate a single claim.
LikeLike
I’ve answered all these questions multiple times tonight either take them or not.
LikeLike
Broken record also means that what you’re doing is called “circular reasoning.”
LikeLike
Principle findings of the 10-year long Acts Seminar:
1) The Acts narrative is worthless as history of first century Christianity, but quite informative as history of second century Christianity;
2) it provides us no reason to believe that Christianity began in Jerusalem — the Jerusalem centre of the faith was a myth created for second century ideological reasons;
3) some of its characters are fictional and their names symbolic;
4) Acts was created as a type of Christian “epic” (coherent and literary throughout, not a patchwork quilt of diverse sources) and as such, we have reasons to believe, is no more historical than Homer’s or Virgil’s epics;
5) the author did, indeed, know of the letters of Paul;
6) and finally, one of its main reasons for being written was to counter Marcion’s “heresy”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, all the critical scholars that I mentioned would reject this assessment.
See you later.
LikeLike
The names of the scholars involved
Rubén Dupertuis
Julian V. Hills
Perry V. Kea
Nina E. Livesey
Gerd Lüdemann
Dennis R. MacDonald
Shelly Matthews
Milton Morehead
Todd Penner
Richard I. Pervo
Thomas E. Phillips
Robert M. Price
Alan F. Segal
Christine R. Shea
Dennis E. Smith
F. Scott Spencer
Hal Taussig
Joseph B. Tyson
William O. Walker, Jr.
L. Michael White
Stephen R. Wiest
Sara C. Winter
Take it up with them…
LikeLike
Oh yeah, I mentioned Ludemann in one of my names above, you can read it. Yeah, take it up with him.
LikeLike
I’m just showing you the scholary *consensus* on Acts, which contradicts your earlier claims.
Honestly, I couldn’t think of a more boring subject.
LikeLike
Except, as Ludemann is a prime example, you’ve generalized what they hold to fit your view of what is agreed upon in the consensus. he claims that Acts is to be considered history.
For example, It’s quite common knowledge that Acts gives an account of with expulsion of the Jews, that was long doubted in secular history that was verified in Acts.
At all of the stuff you guys present, in all the comment boxes, your ideas on Acts is simply dead wrong at best and malicious at worst.
LikeLike
Like I said, take it up with the scholars who say you’re wrong.
The subject does not interest me.
LikeLike
Ludemann, who you mentioned, wouldn’t say I’m wrong, so I’m okay with it.
LikeLike
And what I said specifically on Acts is those critics of Acts hold its historical value as history like Ludemann. So, it doesn’t contradict any earlier claim, rather you’ve contradicted yourself. You guys must take straw men classes on how to generalize and misrepresent people’s positions.
LikeLike
Personally I’m of the opinion that Jesus was a metafictional devise used by 1st Century crisis cultists to impart doctrinal messages. A story within a story, a literary tool used to increase audience engagement. These stories were then misinterpreted by Paul (either accidently or deliberately) and then ‘sold’ into the northern diaspora, exactly where the early church started.
This rings true to me, but whether it is or not doesn’t really bother me. Whether Jesus lived or not, I’m not at all bothered. The fact that he didn’t know basic regional history, and said absolutely nothing new, original, or even vaguely useful is proof enough to me that he, if he did live, was just a wandering mystic: a dime-a-dozen crisis cultist.
LikeLike
All of what you said could be taken from evidence and shaped into a narrative. The difficulty, of course, in ancient Judaism was quite familiar with failed Messiahs, and yet this particular one’s followers or those who propagated his story didn’t seem to mind his supposed ‘failure’.
I’m sure not convincing to you, but since you mentioned the dime a dozen comparison.
LikeLike
Failure?
Errrum, are you forgetting the whole “defeated death” part of the story?
LikeLike
I was presenting it from your view using irony…
LikeLike
No you weren’t.
But carry on.
LikeLike
Huh? Did you not notice quotes in ‘failure.’? You would say a dead messiah failed. I would say one who defeated death would not… but, of course, I didn’t mention that knowing that it wouldn’t be considered but again applied quotes.
Most serious guy at the party again…
LikeLike
Here is the longer 10 principle findings:
1. The Author
The author did not simply stitch together a grab-bag of various collected sources and had no interest in preserving or conveying genuinely historical information. He was an accomplished storyteller (the editors add “theologian” as an alternative to “storyteller” — they write “storyteller/theologian” — but I wonder if that would be offensive to theologians today who insist that they be respected as genuine historians, not storytellers! 😉 ) who was in complete control of his material and could turn it to whatever ideological message he wished to convey.
2. The Date
Acts was written in the early decades of the second century. The significant point to note here is that the consensus had long held that the dual work of Luke-Acts was a product of the 80s. What overturned this view for the Seminar Fellows was the “foundational work of Richard Pervo and Joseph Tyler”. Some readers will know I have discussed the works of both these scholars in depth across many posts on Vridar. (See the Index of Topics in the right margin of this blog to locate the relevant archives.)
Among the implications of this new date is that we can no longer think of the author as a companion of Paul and the work itself cannot be considered reliable testimony of the mid first century.
This conclusion has significantly undermined a vast segment of Acts scholarship that has relied on the 80s dating. (p. 2)
3. Letters of Paul were used by the author
“Groundbreaking studies by William O. Walker and others” (some of which have been referenced in posts here) have demonstrated the likelihood that the author of Acts did indeed know of the letters and theology of Paul even though they are not made explicit (sometimes even contradicted) in Acts. This is even more likely given the second century date since the letter collection of Paul was becoming known from around 100 CE.
4. Apart from Paul’s letters, no other reliable historical source can be identified
Once Acts is dated in the second century, and is determined to have used the letters of Paul, then virtually all previous scholarship on the sources of Acts has to be rethought. (p. 2)
Here we come close to the methodological arguments of Thomas Brodie that I have been recently covering. We also come within bull’s eye range of the methods I have discussed repeatedly on Vridar. Previous theories of the sources of Acts have been (in my view) convoluted and ideologically constrained. Those earlier theories have been
primarily based on the ‘remarkable’ correlation of the story of Acts with the letters of Paul.
This notion has been girded by assumption that the author was a companion of Paul and participated in some of the narrative’s events. Once we move Acts to the second century many problems and questions are resolved. “Background material or literary models” were found by the author in Josephus, Homer, Vergil, the Septuagint (LXX). These were not sources of the story itself, however.
5. Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity
The Acts Seminar has shown through multiple studies that the entire Acts narrative of Christian beginnings in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7) has little historical value. This is a significant challenge to most theories of Christian origins. (p. 3)
I look forward to the day when more scholars (for similar methodological reasons) will conclude that Christianity itself did not originate with a handful of followers of Jesus being persuaded that their “Gospel/historical Jesus” had been resurrected. Can we hope that some will take the studies of the Acts Seminar on this point and continue to follow through and apply the methodology to that next question?
6. Acts not an independent source for Paul’s life and mission
Rather, the use of Paul’s letters as a source for Acts is
sufficient to account for all details of the life and itinerary of Paul in Acts. (p. 3)
How simple and elegant. (A few older posts here have given examples of this, though I had not suspected that the letters could account for “all details” as stated here.)
Significance: Scholars must now rethink how they reconstruct the career of Paul without any reference at all to Acts. (I can imagine most conservative scholars simply dismissing these Westar Fellows as hyper sceptical radicals, unfortunately, and will draw upon the same old fatuous excuses to avoid grappling with their arguments in any depth.)
7. Acts is modeled on the epic and related literature
This is not a new idea, as pointed out in the Report. What is new to the Acts Seminar
was to make this model much more functional in making hard decisions about the historical reliability of the story told in this way. (p. 3)
I have not found such conclusions “hard” to reach, myself. But then I have not invested my career in this business. To my way of thinking, if details in a narrative have an obvious rhetorical rationale and are nowhere else attested, then the simplest conclusion is that the details are entirely literary. That does not mean they may not also be historical at some point, but it does mean we have no valid rationale for assuming their historicity — until further evidence turns up.
8. Character names are created as a story-telling device
This conclusion is contrary to the common scholarly idea that when names are “preserved” in a story then they are probably based on real persons. (I have always seen this as a naive idea, especially given the way so many names, both of persons and toponyms, are clearly puns related to the theological or narrative theme being relayed.)
However, we have found that names in ancient narrative literature often had symbolic meaning appropriate to the stories in which they were found. This means that the name would therefore have been created by the author to lend verisimilitude to the story. The same phenomenon is found in Acts. (p. 3)
Is this a slippery slope? Where will it end? What will we do those symbolic names like those of the disciples themselves, and other people and places in the gospels, not to mention (according to one classicist at least) the symbolic character of the very name of Jesus himself.
9. Acts is an ideological story
It has long been understood by many that Acts is composed to promote certain ideological agendas.
What is different is the rigor with which the Seminar applied this approach. We found that the ideological goals invariably emerged as the primary key to much of the content, form, and structure of the stories in Acts. (p. 4)
I find statements like this somewhat dismaying. One of the reasons for some of the conflict that exists between a few scholars and sceptical lay folk on the internet is that among the lay readers are intelligent and reasonably well educated people who are asking why scholars don’t apply certain principles, findings and methods consistently. There seems to be so much “ad hocery” in the literature. Methodological rigour is too rarely applied consistently and consistency of argument is rare. There are always the convenient exceptions and departures that preserve the basic constructs of the overall (Acts-Eusebian) model of Christian origins. Ehrman has recently complained that critics seem to have endless time and energy to ague point after point after point after point. That to me sounds like he is tired of being asked to defend arguments against even lay readers who can identify the inconsistencies and convenient exceptions. Rather than have the courage to face up to their methodological inconsistencies too many seem to resort to appeals to their “extensive training and credentials” and to the lack thereof of those who pester them with inconvenient questions.
10. Acts must be presumed nonhistorical unless proven otherwise.
This is a reversal of the approach of many scholars in the past: that Acts can be assumed historical unless proven otherwise. This is the cumulative result of the above findings.
Surely such a conclusion ought to suggest something more. Surely it highlights that it is unsafe to simply assume a document that looks prima facie something like history can be assumed to be basically historical unless proven otherwise. That’s nonsense for so many reasons that I have elaborated upon repeatedly in the past. Historicity requires an examination of provenance, genre, and independent supporting testimony. I know of no exceptions in any non-biblical field of historical studies and I do not believe Biblical studies has a valid claim to being exceptional.
LikeLike
Here is the longer Ten Principle Findings (I’ll provide the link if you ask):
1. The Author
The author did not simply stitch together a grab-bag of various collected sources and had no interest in preserving or conveying genuinely historical information. He was an accomplished storyteller (the editors add “theologian” as an alternative to “storyteller” — they write “storyteller/theologian” — but I wonder if that would be offensive to theologians today who insist that they be respected as genuine historians, not storytellers! 😉 ) who was in complete control of his material and could turn it to whatever ideological message he wished to convey.
2. The Date
Acts was written in the early decades of the second century. The significant point to note here is that the consensus had long held that the dual work of Luke-Acts was a product of the 80s. What overturned this view for the Seminar Fellows was the “foundational work of Richard Pervo and Joseph Tyler”. Some readers will know I have discussed the works of both these scholars in depth across many posts on Vridar. (See the Index of Topics in the right margin of this blog to locate the relevant archives.)
Among the implications of this new date is that we can no longer think of the author as a companion of Paul and the work itself cannot be considered reliable testimony of the mid first century.
This conclusion has significantly undermined a vast segment of Acts scholarship that has relied on the 80s dating. (p. 2)
3. Letters of Paul were used by the author
“Groundbreaking studies by William O. Walker and others” (some of which have been referenced in posts here) have demonstrated the likelihood that the author of Acts did indeed know of the letters and theology of Paul even though they are not made explicit (sometimes even contradicted) in Acts. This is even more likely given the second century date since the letter collection of Paul was becoming known from around 100 CE.
4. Apart from Paul’s letters, no other reliable historical source can be identified
Once Acts is dated in the second century, and is determined to have used the letters of Paul, then virtually all previous scholarship on the sources of Acts has to be rethought. (p. 2)
Here we come close to the methodological arguments of Thomas Brodie that I have been recently covering. We also come within bull’s eye range of the methods I have discussed repeatedly on Vridar. Previous theories of the sources of Acts have been (in my view) convoluted and ideologically constrained. Those earlier theories have been
primarily based on the ‘remarkable’ correlation of the story of Acts with the letters of Paul.
This notion has been girded by assumption that the author was a companion of Paul and participated in some of the narrative’s events. Once we move Acts to the second century many problems and questions are resolved. “Background material or literary models” were found by the author in Josephus, Homer, Vergil, the Septuagint (LXX). These were not sources of the story itself, however.
5. Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity
The Acts Seminar has shown through multiple studies that the entire Acts narrative of Christian beginnings in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7) has little historical value. This is a significant challenge to most theories of Christian origins. (p. 3)
I look forward to the day when more scholars (for similar methodological reasons) will conclude that Christianity itself did not originate with a handful of followers of Jesus being persuaded that their “Gospel/historical Jesus” had been resurrected. Can we hope that some will take the studies of the Acts Seminar on this point and continue to follow through and apply the methodology to that next question?
6. Acts not an independent source for Paul’s life and mission
Rather, the use of Paul’s letters as a source for Acts is
sufficient to account for all details of the life and itinerary of Paul in Acts. (p. 3)
How simple and elegant. (A few older posts here have given examples of this, though I had not suspected that the letters could account for “all details” as stated here.)
Significance: Scholars must now rethink how they reconstruct the career of Paul without any reference at all to Acts. (I can imagine most conservative scholars simply dismissing these Westar Fellows as hyper sceptical radicals, unfortunately, and will draw upon the same old fatuous excuses to avoid grappling with their arguments in any depth.)
7. Acts is modeled on the epic and related literature
This is not a new idea, as pointed out in the Report. What is new to the Acts Seminar
was to make this model much more functional in making hard decisions about the historical reliability of the story told in this way. (p. 3)
I have not found such conclusions “hard” to reach, myself. But then I have not invested my career in this business. To my way of thinking, if details in a narrative have an obvious rhetorical rationale and are nowhere else attested, then the simplest conclusion is that the details are entirely literary. That does not mean they may not also be historical at some point, but it does mean we have no valid rationale for assuming their historicity — until further evidence turns up.
8. Character names are created as a story-telling device
This conclusion is contrary to the common scholarly idea that when names are “preserved” in a story then they are probably based on real persons. (I have always seen this as a naive idea, especially given the way so many names, both of persons and toponyms, are clearly puns related to the theological or narrative theme being relayed.)
However, we have found that names in ancient narrative literature often had symbolic meaning appropriate to the stories in which they were found. This means that the name would therefore have been created by the author to lend verisimilitude to the story. The same phenomenon is found in Acts. (p. 3)
Is this a slippery slope? Where will it end? What will we do those symbolic names like those of the disciples themselves, and other people and places in the gospels, not to mention (according to one classicist at least) the symbolic character of the very name of Jesus himself.
9. Acts is an ideological story
It has long been understood by many that Acts is composed to promote certain ideological agendas.
What is different is the rigor with which the Seminar applied this approach. We found that the ideological goals invariably emerged as the primary key to much of the content, form, and structure of the stories in Acts. (p. 4)
I find statements like this somewhat dismaying. One of the reasons for some of the conflict that exists between a few scholars and sceptical lay folk on the internet is that among the lay readers are intelligent and reasonably well educated people who are asking why scholars don’t apply certain principles, findings and methods consistently. There seems to be so much “ad hocery” in the literature. Methodological rigour is too rarely applied consistently and consistency of argument is rare. There are always the convenient exceptions and departures that preserve the basic constructs of the overall (Acts-Eusebian) model of Christian origins. Ehrman has recently complained that critics seem to have endless time and energy to ague point after point after point after point. That to me sounds like he is tired of being asked to defend arguments against even lay readers who can identify the inconsistencies and convenient exceptions. Rather than have the courage to face up to their methodological inconsistencies too many seem to resort to appeals to their “extensive training and credentials” and to the lack thereof of those who pester them with inconvenient questions.
10. Acts must be presumed nonhistorical unless proven otherwise.
This is a reversal of the approach of many scholars in the past: that Acts can be assumed historical unless proven otherwise. This is the cumulative result of the above findings.
Surely such a conclusion ought to suggest something more. Surely it highlights that it is unsafe to simply assume a document that looks prima facie something like history can be assumed to be basically historical unless proven otherwise. That’s nonsense for so many reasons that I have elaborated upon repeatedly in the past. Historicity requires an examination of provenance, genre, and independent supporting testimony. I know of no exceptions in any non-biblical field of historical studies and I do not believe Biblical studies has a valid claim to being exceptional.
LikeLike
Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed?
LikeLike
Are you specifically referring to the character as depicted in the gospels?
LikeLike
The details don’t matter. Was there a historical Jesus of Nazareth teaching about the Kingdom?
LikeLike
Au contraire, Phillip!
In fact, the Devil is in the detail, is it not?
I have no idea if there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth teaching about the Kingdom.
And, quite frankly neither do you.
The passage in Annals seems to suggest that someone called Chrestus was crucified by Pilate for sedition. This seems plausible.
LikeLike
I do know that the consensus of scholars do believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth that taught a variation of the Kingdom of God.
So, you’re outlier, perhaps a mythicists?
How do you deal with that? Faith?
LikeLike
Yes, you do know about the consensus. How odd that you only acknowledge scholarly consensus when it suits:
” I don’t hold necessarily to the consensus viewpoint, as I date the gospels much earlier ”
You really ought to watch out for that hypocrisy, Phillip as it has a tendency to bite one in the arse.
That there may well have been an apocalyptic preacher who got himself crucified for sedition is plausible
The character, Jesus of Nazareth as reflected in the gospels i s a narrative construct for whom there is no evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How ironic that you ignore the consensus when it suits…
LikeLike
Oh and the “hypocrisy’ actually bit you.
I acknowledged the consensus and explained why I disagreed with it.
You, on the other hand, ignored the consensus—intentionally—and attempted to present your own outlier theory as matter of fact.
I have no issue with anyone looking at this and determining which one of us are integrable, but I’m sure you’ll try to save face someway.
LikeLike
Ignoring the consensus is not disagreeing with it. I merely presented the person of Jesus from a different perspective.
LikeLike
“I merely presented the person…from a different perspective.”
Reminds me of Hoffa to RFK, “I don’t recall…”
Or another legal technique, “So far as I know…”
Yes, the point of it is that, again, I was forthcoming with the information, I knew you knew the information and you withheld it attempting to direct the conversation in your favor. Instead, since I’ve seen your game quite often, I played a move ahead knowing the rook would take your king, as you’d play your pawns ahead assuming I was ignorant of the moves of the game.
LikeLike
The consensus states that the character Jesus of Nazareth existed.
I stated the character Chrestus as featured in Annals is plausible.
However, to reiterate, the character Jesus as depicted in the gospels which has no evidence whatsoever to support it, is quite obviously a narrative construct.
LikeLike
So you’re
Saying, the consensus, disagrees that Jesus, as he did in the Gospels, taught a variation of the Kingdom of God? Whether moral or eschatological, which is what scholars actually do debate about the what specially is meant by the kingdom teachings?
LikeLike
@
While there are undoubtedly points of agreement among scholars and historians, there is no genuine consensus regarding the character Jesus of Nazareth. and in all likelihood there never will be.
,
LikeLike