Cain's wife

Originally posted by @thinkofone
What I can't understand is that if you believe that so much of the Bible is absurd, why don't you simply embrace the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth and pitch the rest? I don't recall you having taken issue with what He taught.

I have debated this point with you already. If some of the Bible is found to be 'not true', then why assume that Jesus is true?

And if I remember correctly, your position is follow the teachings of Jesus, and it doesn't matter if He even existed at all.

Originally posted by @chaney3
I have debated this point with you already. If some of the Bible is found to be 'not true', then why assume that Jesus is true?

And if I remember correctly, your position is follow the teachings of Jesus, and it doesn't matter if He even existed at all.

How do you determine whether or not anything is true?

And if I remember correctly, your position is follow the teachings of Jesus, and it doesn't matter if He even existed at all.

You remember correctly.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
How do you determine whether or not anything is true?

[b]And if I remember correctly, your position is follow the teachings of Jesus, and it doesn't matter if He even existed at all.

You remember correctly.[/b]

Okay........so, let's say that Jesus never even existed, and 'some guy' wrote the words that are attributed to Jesus.

Why follow 'some guy'?

Originally posted by @chaney3
Okay........so, let's say that Jesus never even existed, and 'some guy' wrote the words that are attributed to Jesus.

Why follow 'some guy'?

One more step and you are in sonhouseian territory...

Originally posted by @divegeester
One more step and you are in sonhouseian territory...

I am trying to understand how ThinkOfOne thinks it's okay to follow the teachings of Jesus, while at the same time believing that Jesus didn't even exist. I am curious.

Originally posted by @chaney3
Okay........so, let's say that Jesus never even existed, and 'some guy' wrote the words that are attributed to Jesus.

Why follow 'some guy'?

Since you didn't answer the question, I'll explain how I determine whether or not something is true.

I take a hard look at it and if it hold up under scrutiny, I regard it as true. If under further scrutiny, it doesn't hold up, then I no longer regard it as true.

By and large, the words attributed to Jesus hold up under scrutiny.

So the point isn't to follow 'some guy', but to follow what is true.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Since you didn't answer the question, I'll explain how I determine whether or not something is true.

I take a hard look at it and if it hold up under scrutiny, I regard it as true. If under further scrutiny, it doesn't hold up, then I no longer regard it as true.

By and large, the words attributed to Jesus hold up under scrutiny.

So the point isn't to follow 'some guy', but to follow what is true.

You are saying that the words attributed to Jesus are true. That means the existence of Jesus is also true.

Why then would you also say that Jesus may not have existed at all?

You are making contradicting statements.

Originally posted by @chaney3
I am trying to understand how ThinkOfOne thinks it's okay to follow the teachings of Jesus, while at the same time believing that Jesus didn't even exist. I am curious.

I wouldn't bother being too curious, if I was you.

Originally posted by @chaney3
You are saying that the words attributed to Jesus are true. That means the existence of Jesus is also true.

Why then would you also say that Jesus may not have existed at all?

You are making contradicting statements.

That means the existence of Jesus is also true.

This doesn't logically follow. The words and the concepts behind the words can be true without Jesus having existed.

Why then would you also say that Jesus may not have existed at all?

Actually what I said was that it doesn't matter if Jesus existed. Do you understand the distinction?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b] That means the existence of Jesus is also true.

This doesn't logically follow. The words and the concepts behind the words can be true without Jesus having existed.

Why then would you also say that Jesus may not have existed at all?

Actually what I said was that it doesn't matter if Jesus existed. Do you understand the distinction?[/b]

You then erroneously used the term 'attributed to Jesus'. Attribute implies that Jesus existed.

Originally posted by @chaney3
You then erroneously used the term 'attributed to Jesus'. Attribute implies that Jesus existed.

Actually it doesn't.

For example, you can speak of words attributed to a character in a work of fiction.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Actually it doesn't.

For example, you can speak of words attributed to a character in a work of fiction.

Then here's the million dollar question:

Why should a person follow the teachings of someone who did not even exist?

Originally posted by @chaney3
Then here's the million dollar question:

Why should a person follow the teachings of someone who did not even exist?

Because the words and the concepts behind the words are true and what are important.

Interestingly enough, Jesus recognized this. Here are but a few examples:

John 6
63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

John 14
23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24“He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.

Luke 6
46 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 “But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Because the words and the concepts behind the words are true and what are important.

Interestingly enough, Jesus recognized this. Here are but a few examples:

John 6
63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

John 14
23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone lo ...[text shortened]... the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.

You cannot say that Jesus didn't exist, then go on to 'quote Him'.

If Jesus didn't exist, then 'some guy' wrote those words, and people are following 'that guy', not Jesus at all.

Please make up your mind.

Originally posted by @chaney3
You cannot say that Jesus didn't exist, then go on to 'quote Him'.

If Jesus didn't exist, then 'some guy' wrote those words, and people are following 'that guy', not Jesus at all.

Please make up your mind.

What I said was that the words and the concepts behind the words are what are important. It's not about following the "guy". It's about following the words. The "guy" is irrelevant. The "guy" is just a messenger.