Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Name just one "historical fact" in scripture.

Why?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why?

Can't do it can you?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Can't do it can you?

I can do that and much more...but again, why? Would it make a believer out of you?

But what I won't do anymore is cast anymore pearls before swine. Nothing personal.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I can do that and much more...

So prove it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Would it make a believer out of you?

Look up the Bill Nye vs. Ken Hamm debate. The big question of the event was "What, if anything, would change your mind?" Hamm's answer was nothing! Nye's answer was evidence!

But you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. Your claim is there are historical facts in scripture. That these facts were "recorded," i.e., written down by witnesses. Rather than demand that you list all such "facts" I ask for only one, which would save both of us a lot of time.

And yes. Sufficient evidence would change my mind.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Too bad you are allergic to comparative studies. You misunderstand the original definition of "understand"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/understand

understand (v.)

Old English understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably literally "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand (v.)). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from Old English under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (source also of Sanskrit antar "among, between," Latin inter "between, among," Greek entera "intestines;" see inter-). Related: Understood; understanding.

When one stands "under", one attempts to see the foundation of things. Where they originate.
Typically complex ideas are not stand alone.
There are always connections.

Standing beneath, or under different religious beliefs is not necessarily your "syncretism". Which right off the bat assumes....an artificial merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions and religions. Without a thorough proper study of those others ways, you and boxcar are at a disadvantage, and can not assume that there are no commonalities that are the more fundamental reasons for religious and spiritual beliefs.

Originally a lain term, mostly a Christian concept, "syncretism", I think was A term to cast doubt on the value of eclecticism.

Whereas.....

Comparative religion is the branch of the study of religions concerned with the systematic comparison of the doctrines and practices, themes, and impacts (including migration) of the world's religions

I've been comparing and contrasting the most important things all my life.
Syncretism, eclecticism...the point was that the composite proposes that the original was deficient. We'll differ in regards to the Christ event, which is all we're both really saying.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Look up the Bill Nye vs. Ken Hamm debate. The big question of the event was "What, if anything, would change your mind?" Hamm's answer was nothing! Nye's answer was evidence!

But you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. Your claim is there are historical facts in scripture. That these facts were "recorded," i.e., written down by witnesses. Rather than demand that you list all such "facts" I ask for only one, which would save both of us a lot of time.

And yes. Sufficient evidence would change my mind.

No...you are entirely self-deceived. There is only one thing that would change your mind: The efficacious call of Christ.

And Hamm's answer was dead on the mark. A true child of God will never fall away because he can't! Nothing whatsoever could ever separate one of God's own children from His love. Nothing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So prove it.

You left out the rest of my post. You are not worth me trying to buck the biblical principle I stated.

But fear not! For all that "sufficient evidence" you crave for is forthcoming. There are no skeptics in either heaven or hell.

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by Actor

There are very few "historical facts" in scripture. What you deem to be "historical facts" are either pure fiction, legend (i.e., cannot be confirmed), or taken from other sources.

Yes, there are some skeptics like you that say the Gospels are not good enough and do not give us enough information, blah blah blah.

If you raised the bar that high and consistently applied it to the whole ancient world, you would have almost nothing left. You would almost have no history to write about. We would know a little bit about Ceasar, Augustus and Alexander, but about everybody else would disappear.

The New Testamant early history is extremely well documented and enjoys external corroboration.

There are legal criteria for adjudicating documentary evidence such as the 4 Gospels. To see in any courtroom this would be admissable testimony.

[porchy44]

sorry Typo error. "New Testament" in previous post

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Yes, there are some skeptics like you that say the Gospels are not good enough and do not give us enough information, blah blah blah.

If you raised the bar that high and consistently applied it to the whole ancient world, you would have almost nothing left. You would almost have no history to write about. We would know a little bit about Ceasar, Augustus and Alexander, but about everybody else would disappear.

The New Testamant early history is extremely well documented and enjoys external corroboration.

There are legal criteria for adjudicating documentary evidence such as the 4 Gospels. To see in any courtroom this would be admissable testimony.

Good post! In what other "holy or religious" book is the death of an entire religion predicted and then comes to past within the set time limit stipulated in the prophecy!? Even the writer of Hebrews predicted that the first covenant (Mosaic Covenant in the context of the passage) was growing old and ready to disappear (Heb 8:13)! It was absolutely necessary for the "first" covenant to disappear so that only the New Covenant, which is infinitely superior to the first, was left standing.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Yes, there are some skeptics like you that say the Gospels are not good enough and do not give us enough information, blah blah blah.

If you raised the bar that high and consistently applied it to the whole ancient world, you would have almost nothing left. You would almost have no history to write about. We would know a little bit about Ceasar, Augustus and Alexander, but about everybody else would disappear.

The question is not how much is known but how much can be corroborated. Quite a bit about Caesar, Augustus and Alexander can be corroborated from multiple sources and the sources can also be corroborated.

Originally Posted by porchy44

The New Testamant early history is extremely well documented and enjoys external corroboration.

Really? Can you point out just one source of such external corroboration?

Originally Posted by porchy44

There are legal criteria for adjudicating documentary evidence such as the 4 Gospels. To see in any courtroom this would be admissable testimony.

No, it would not be admissible. Testimony can only be given by a living witness who can be cross examined.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I've been comparing and contrasting the most important things all my life.
Syncretism, eclecticism...the point was that the composite proposes that the original was deficient. We'll differ in regards to the Christ event, which is all we're both really saying.

How can you, not knowing the nuts and bolts of all the other ways, traditions and ways?
You said...

I am seriously uninterested in the bulk of arguments that I would answer differently than Boxcar in most cases (e.g., [Christ] the embrace of suffering vs. [Eastern mysticism] meditative release from suffering, remember? Why should I jump in and revive our conversation?).

The embrace of suffering, versus release from suffering, are of secondary concern to the eastern mystics and Christian mystics alike..

The "mysticism" of both were of major concern. Mysticism can not be theorized without doing. The surface of religion can be verbally dissected no end. And that's how the vital forces of those teachings are diluted.

I believe you tend to intellectualize away the essence of all ways, by not directly immersing yourself in practical approaches. I realize you are not boxcar, but without each of you seeing and appreciating how much ego and (little) self-pride, interferes with the "father", it is tough looking upwards towards the divine.

A common concern among all religions is how to, and remember how to, look upwards. Once you get beneath and under the apparent surface differences more subtle connections are seen. A "Judeo-Christian" analysis of eastern non-abrahamic ways can not be successful.

As I said, Jesus is the only way for Christians. However Jesus is only a name for a larger principle called by other names in other ways. That is the major concern and indeed the mystery.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Neither are the historical facts recorded in scripture! And I'm not responsible for Luther's actions.

The hard, cold, irrefutable fact that God, through the instrumentality of Rome, utterly destroyed the Judaism of the Mosaic Covenant as punishment for their apostasy, which they ultimately expressed when they delivered up Christ to Rome on bogus charges. No temple -- no Judaism!

Why are you not confronting the sordid accurate, documented history of Christianity's 2,000 year old antisemitism?

I am pointing out not all "vehicles", even within one religion or teaching, are equally valid.

Obviously you have no leg to stand on, or you would say not say "history is drivel"

Why did we get a mind to discern things? Should we not use it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Why are you not confronting the sordid accurate, documented history of Christianity's 2,000 year old antisemitism?

I am pointing out not all "vehicles", even within one religion or teaching, are equally valid.

Obviously you have no leg to stand on, or you would say not say "history is drivel"

Why did we get a mind to discern things? Should we not use it?

Only a tiny segment of Christians were antisemites. Yet, if you read the NT, most especially the Book of Acts, you'll find that the Jewish religious establishment vehemently hated the disciples of Christ's church just as much as they hated their Messiah! They relentlessly persecuted Christians wherever they went throughout the Roman Empire with the gospel. In fact, they were largely responsible to stirring up Rome against Christians, just as they used Rome to murder their Messiah!

And by the way, I never said history was "drivel". I said your posts were.