Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



4/05/2018 3:57 am  #41


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

119, just curious, are you ethnically jewish? Were you born a jew, is your mom jewish?

Last edited by Miguel (4/05/2018 3:57 am)

 

4/05/2018 5:57 am  #42


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

Raised catholic. Long-time atheist. Flirted with various christian denominations. And eastern stuff. I've never met a religious Jew (accept online.) I know many secular ones. Some think it's endearing when I encourage them to follow Torah. Others, not so much. I wouldn't dream of converting. I can barely follow seven laws.

Maybe this is bad advice. Then it's biographical. The only way to test any philosophic TOE (theory of everything), which is what a "religion" claims to be, is by trying it on. Does the universe make sense in those terms? Can it answer questions? This is a weird place for me. I'm not naturally "religious." My default state is nihilism. POE uber alles!

I've had to switch stereotypes of the Jewish people: the enlightenment atheist for this. I prefer the latter. My advisor was the former, possibly a bad influence. He studied under Quine, Putnam, Malcolm, Dretske, ad infinitum. He said he had two bona fide religious experiences in his entire life. #1 At a funeral a man cried out for his lost wife "Why did you take her from me HaShem?" My advisor realized, for the first time in his life, that some people really believed in G-d. #2 Later in the service it dawned on him that this man was not the only one.

So was Hilary Putnam a Theist? Anyone?

Story about Quine. For particularly stupid comments & questions he'd say "That would have never ocurred to me."

Last edited by 119 (4/05/2018 9:26 am)

 

4/05/2018 4:54 pm  #43


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

119 wrote:

I posed a challenge there: What ontological status did the Torah have for Jesus? Was he a rabbi of a religion that did not represent the Will of A-mighty G-d or not? Did he believe in an unreliable Torah of dubious accuracy, that he allegedly promised never to abolish? (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus did not "believe in" anything about God and his design. He KNEW (in his human intellect) all those truths directly because He enjoyed the Beatific Vision - in a higher degree than that of the Seraphim of Is 6:1-3 - from the moment of his conception, and in the Beatific Vision He saw all those truths directly.

119 wrote:

[You do not know] whether HaShem took the Children of Israel -- His "firstborn son" -- out of Egypt, or whether there was really a national Revelation, or whether the Book of Numbers lied about the census G-d commanded.

I hold the spiritual truth of all those narratives, with certainty of faith, as interpreted from the NT.

I hold their historical truth,
-- first, with certainty of faith, to the degree that the faith in God and Jesus requires me to hold it,
-- then, in addition to that, and as changeable opinion, to the degree that historical plausibility according to the current state of science indicates.

Thus, e.g.:

- The faith in God and Jesus requires me to hold the historical factuality of the creation of a first couple of human beings, but does not require me to hold the historical factuality of the chronologies in Genesis. So I hold, with certainty of faith, that Biblical Adam existed and that he was either Y-Chromosomal Adam or a patrilineal ancestor thereof (i.e., that all extant human beings descend patrilineally from him), but I do not hold that he lived a few thousand years ago. Rather, I provisionally accept current scientific estimations that he may have lived 250,000 - 300,000 years ago.

- The faith in God and Jesus requires me to hold that there was a revelation to the people of Israel, but does not require me to hold that all of the Torah, and particularly the Deuteronomy, was written by Moses at Sinai. Particularly when that would contradict the Torah itself.

- The faith in God and Jesus does not require me to hold the historical factuality of the statement that 603,550 men "from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war," plus their women and children, departed Egypt. So I am free to believe that a smaller number actually did, and Richard Elliott Friedman's hypothesis that they were the Levites seems for now highly plausible.

119 wrote:

Who do you think canonized the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim? [...] How do you know all those prophets you're always quoting were the Real Deal? Cuz the catholic church said so?!

Yes. Starting with Jesus as Head of the Church, since He quoted some of them Himself as divinely inspired Scripture, following with the Apostles quoting other books in their NT writings, and ending with the pronouncement of the divinely-assisted (according to a promise by Jesus) Church Magisterium on those books not quoted directly in the NT.

119 wrote:

How would they know?

By the assistance of the Holy Spirit, a statement which I hope you will not take as opportunity to blaspheme against Him.

119 wrote:

The Christian claim that the NT has the same status as a document dictated by G-d, which was never canonized, is absurd.

Of course the NT does not have the same status! It has a much higher status!

119 wrote:

If you're quoting Jeremiah to prove your religion has the new covenant, you can't point to your religion as the source of Jeremiah's authority.

And this why I decided to post again, because this brings us back to the OP question "Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?".

The truth of Christianity is NOT based on argumentation on how greatly it fulfills such and such passage of the Torah, the Prophets, or the other Writings. This not said just by me, but by the foremost Authority in Christianity:

The Lord Jesus Chirst said and the Apostle John wrote:

"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me. But if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and may understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (Jn 10:37-38)

"If I had not done among them the works that no one else has done, they [those who rejected Jesus] would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." (Jn 15:24)

Rather, the truth of Christianity is based:

- on historical evidence of an unequivocal divine intervention in history, particularly resurrecting several people through a Servant of His and, above all, resurrecting the Servant Himself, and

- on the presupposition that God would perform such an unequivocal exercise of his exclusive power only to lead people to truth and good. In other words, that God is truthful and good.

119 wrote:

Regarding G-d raising Jesus to some glorious state, I don't trust whoever wrote the NT. Period. If they're lying to me about the contents of the TaNaKh, why should I trust what they're saying about anything? I haven't addressed this issue directly because I've been positing, for the sake of argument, that Jesus had miraculous powers, which are not unheard of in Jewish history.

Now at long last you are talking sense and there is some hope you will get to the truth some time. Because otherwise this would be the summary of your position, including its outcome:

Postulates:

- Torah ontic comprehensiveness: the Torah contains all truths about God and his design, so that any proposition about God which cannot be deduced from the Torah is necessarily false and points to a false god.

- No limit on the degree of divine power exercised to support the claims of the false prophet of Deut 13:1-5, and no restriction in the character of the sign involved.

Case study: the founder of Islam.

- No new revelation on God. Similar food laws. No problem with Gentiles resting on Friday and praying towards Mecca.
- No miracles, so he is not the false prophet of Deut 13:1-5.

Verdict: he can be the prophet like Moses predicted in Deut 18:15-19, only for Gentiles.

Case study: Jesus.

- Major new revelation on God.
- Major miracles.

Verdict: he is the false prophet of Deut 13:1-5.

Hey, it all fits!

- The false prophet predicted that he will rise from the dead on the third day, and HaShem cooperated to support his claim and resurrected him to continue the test on the faifhful! But I stand firm clinging to my view of the Torah...

- The false prophet predicted that his followers would work miracles like he did, and HaShem cooperated to support his claim and worked the miracles of Catholic saints to continue the test on the faithful! But I stand firm clinging to my view of the Torah...

- The false prophet predicted that those who reject him will go to hell, and HaShem cooperated to support his claim and sent me to this fire to continue the test on the faithful! But I stand firm clinging to my view of the Torah...

Err... HaShem, will the test last much longer? These flames are really unbearable!
 

Last edited by Johannes (4/05/2018 5:19 pm)

 

4/05/2018 9:07 pm  #44


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

Johannes wrote:

The truth of Christianity is NOT based on argumentation on how greatly it fulfills such and such passage of the Torah, the Prophets, or the other Writings.

Then why have you been quoting them? Why is the NT busting at the seems with them? Why didn't you lead with this disavowal?

Here's the pattern:

Christian: Jeremiah 31 says new covenant!
Non-christian: That doesn't mean what you think. The NT authors are playing fast & loose with their eisegeses.
Christian: Doesn't matter. That's not why we believe anyway.
Non-christian: You're throwing spaghetti at a wall, hoping some sticks -- I mean becoming all things to all men.
Christian: Quit blaspheming the holy spirit or you'll go to hell! Derp. 

Johannes wrote:

Of course the NT does not have the same status! It has a much higher status!



Because it says so! Who's on first? Third base!

You're putting words in my mouth about Islam and the summary of my position. That's unsanitary.

Johannes wrote:

and worked the miracles of Catholic saints



I suppose it would be blasphemy to question any of them. (Over 100 miracles with this saint alone, though none involving oozing statues.)

Johannes wrote:

These flames are really unbearable!

Knock knock
Who's there?
Jesus. Let me in.
Why?
I'm going to save you.
From what?
From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in.

If you can complain about G-d "setting a trap for the faithful" so can I. Why would He use terms like "everlasting," "forever," "eternal," "for all your generations," if He really meant "until my son performs miracles and changes everything"? How is that not a trap for Torah True Jews? Why tell them not to deviate to the left or to the right? They follow the commands in a national Revelation and get framed for deicide. Nice!  

Last edited by 119 (4/06/2018 4:42 am)

 

6/23/2018 6:55 pm  #45


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

Yes, I must say I agree. The Dark Ages might have been called by that name, not only because there is lack of historical evidence, but also because of the fact that the church left the general society in darkness and ignorance... The two might also be somehow relative

 

6/23/2018 9:55 pm  #46


Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?

MichaelChicy wrote:

Yes, I must say I agree. The Dark Ages might have been called by that name, not only because there is lack of historical evidence, but also because of the fact that the church left the general society in darkness and ignorance... The two might also be somehow relative

Haha. What do you mean "darkness and ignorance"?

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum