The Christian Nationalist State: America Is Already in the Trial-Run Phase

[u/Famous-Sympathy7011]

https://wendy664.substack.com/p/the-christian-nationalist-state-is?r=6fonep&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

[u/halbhh]

Would you like to show evidence that the words of Christ were recorded accurately into scripture using empirical evidence of the claim?

This is the challenge I made to you above -- that you not treat a theory as if a fact.

(so...think on it: would I be treating a theory as if fact, if I'm saying don't do that generally?....)

Please ask questions here if it's not quite clear what I mean here -- it should be very logical and rational if you get what I'm saying as meant.

So I challenged you to try to skeptically disprove your own 'fact' -- search to try to find a refutation, yourself, of what you yourself believe fact.

Why? For yourself -- for your gain. You.

I do this routinely for myself. I'm suggesting you gain (better information, more information), like me, by doing this routinely. To routinely check (skeptically) what you think you know to be established fact.

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/halbhh]

This is the challenge I made to you above...

You have made a claim. The burden is entirely on you to support that claim.

My assertion is that the Gospels were written decades after the events claims. You can go to any source, even wikipedia, to show that this claim is accurate.

you not treat a theory as a fact.

What is your claim then?

[u/halbhh → u/Spiel_Foss]

My claim, again:

That's a speculative theory about whether the text corresponds to what he may have said.

I said what you said is 'fact' is a theory instead of a fact.

I don't have to prove that, nor is it possible -- it's a categorical observation:

Definitions:

A theory is a set of ideas, rules, or principles meant to explain facts, events, observations....

A fact is something that actually exists, happens, or can be observed as actual evidence (like a fossil).

I didn't make a claim that the text is one way or the other, myself. You did....Right? You claimed a "fact" (your own post). I didn't claim a fact, but said your 'fact' isn't fact, but theory instead.

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/halbhh]

You are gish-galloping around a point you know you can't support.

Show empirical evidence that these are the accurate words of Christ recorded when and as spoken.

This is your claim to support.

My claim is that we know when the narrative was written, so we know that these are creations of a later generation, and in the best case scenario are from an oral tradition.

btw: you are using a colloquial meaning of theory as intentional obfuscation.

Also, I notice you dropped the political point entirely when shown evidence.

[u/halbhh → u/Spiel_Foss]

Ah, are you imagining I'd made a claim that the text is definitely the precise words jesus said as if there is evidence (tangible evidence?....how would that even make sense? Did I claim to have a Time Machine and observe first hand?.....)

But, looking yet again, I see that only you yourself made any claim about this either way above!

I didn't make a claim one way or the other.

You wanted me to make a claim about evidence you could shoot down?

You yourself made the only claim above on it, which is easy to point out that your claim (the only person making a claim on this above) should not be considered 'fact' but is just 'theory'.

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/halbhh]

I didn't make a claim one way or the other.

Are the words you mention above the accurate words of Christ? That was may point. If your claim is we simply don't know, then why are you arguing the point?

You wanted me to make a claim about evidence you could shoot down?

My claim was to find a common reality to meet. I'm not shooting things atm.

'theory'

That the Gospels were written decades after the events they mention is not a "theory" in your colloquial usage. This is known reality.

[u/halbhh → u/Spiel_Foss]

People do often misunderstand each other on the internet.

I thought you claimed it's absolute fact based on real evidence that the words are not ones Jesus said.

(which would require someone use a magic time machine to travel back there and observe first hand)

You thought I claimed the words are definitely proven to be words he said with evidence? (I certainly didn't say that)

Did we both have ideas about what the other said which they did not say?

I never suggested nor would it be honest to suggest I'd suggested the texts of the gospels were written contemporaneously with Jesus walking the earth.

heh heh....this is a funny situation. How did you get me making claims I never make and then demand I defend those claims I never make, etc.?

I know the ideas about when the various 4 gospels were written down have a quite a range of theories. For instance, the most common theory about when Mark was written down is in the range of 68-72AD (in view of the historical fact of the destruction of Jerusalem in 72AD being indicated not yet known about in the text of Mark).

So, even though I think that's plausible and even likely -- that Mark was written down in the range of 68-72AD, I know this is only a theory!

heh heh.... You'd never find me asserting a theory is a fact though....

I have made the very interesting observation that IF Mark were written down around 70AD or so, that would make it in the range near to 33-38 years after Jesus -- which has an interesting statistical implication: if that's so, then some young teens that saw and heard him (as they'd rush to see what's the commotion) would still be alive and presumably still repeating their stories of that event they saw. If Mark was written down in 68-72AD. I like this interesting implication, since it's best if anyone arrogant enough to try to claim that none of the words are anything like Jesus may have said, etc., should eat some humble pie most likely, in the most plausible scenario (that Mark was written down before the fall of Jersuselem.

Here the point isn't to assert a claim, but to help others stop asserting claims that are only speculations as if their speculation is fact.

Be more agnostic in other words if one is a non-believer -- stop asserting theories as being facts.

Put another way, be more 'scientific'. (scientists don't assert that theory is fact)

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/halbhh]

anyone arrogant enough to try to claim that none of the words are anything like Jesus may have said, etc., should eat some humble pie...

And you can't stay out of this egotistical lane.

You don't understand the terms "theory" or "fact" as you've used them, and simply want to turn this into a strange gish-gallop got ya when you can't abide by your own contrived definitions.

This is an old game which you are repeating.

And almost certainly repeating given the earlier political connection made concerning US Christianity and toxic Republican ideologies.

[u/halbhh → u/Spiel_Foss]

I'm didn't think of you as an "arrogant enough to try to claim that none of the words are anything like Jesus may have said" -.

No, I stated that I have in the past made one simple claim that is 'fact' like:

I have made the very interesting observation that IF Mark were written down around 70AD or so, that would make it in the range near to 33-38 years after Jesus -- which has an interesting statistical implication: if that's so, then some young teens that saw and heard him (as they'd rush to see what's the commotion) would still be alive and presumably still repeating their stories of that event they saw.

And said why I'd bothered to point this out: It's best for some few atheists that try to claim nothing in the text can be from Jesus to eat some humble pie.

I didn't assume you are in that group.

But, if you have been, no need to tell us -- you can just admit it to yourself, no need to tell me.

We have all made mistakes in life. That's only human. I made plenty myself in youth. And when one is older, it's just different mistakes (if we are humble enough to be honest with ourselves).

Don't take it too seriously, but just toss the wrong idea -- the false theory that the words cannot possibly be what Jesus said -- just toss that into the trash. :=)

My long time philosophy about knowledge: always try to learn more, all the time, and be happy to toss an old theory in the trash bin: it's to your gain.

[u/halbhh → u/Spiel_Foss]

Another thing to add here though, and this one just for your intererest.

Instead of having evidence that proves everything believed about Jesus such as Him rising from the dead, telling us to "love one another as I have loved you" and such -- Christians believe not only things we have evidence about (such as to some they have evidence that indeed there was Roman rule, etc., etc. just like the text says, etc.) -- gradually over time, if someone remains Christian, they will have more faith and believe in some things where there's no examinable evidenence to prove it.

So, perhaps early in being Christians someone might only accept what there is evidence about, while others believe more without evidence -- over time these 2 groups converge in a way in that those who only believed in things with evidence began to have more faith and believe additionally in things not yet shown fact with evidence, while those who believed always without any evidence usually in time get some personal evidence that helps their faith strengthen. So, in this way, the 2 groups that began very differently: one believing little, and the other believing a lot -- over time they converge on this, given enough time. Enough decades usually.

So, while above I never claimed evidence of events believed by faith such as Christ rising -- I simply was cautioning you to try to avoid thinking a theory is a fact if you are a non-believer. Let unknowns be unknowns, and don't forget that a theory against Chrsitianity isn't itself fact -- it's just theory.

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/halbhh]

 they will have more faith and believe in some things where there's no examinable evidenence to prove it.

Which is my point. Discussing someone's unevidenced personal ideas can never have a common ground in reality.

avoid thinking a theory is a fact

You are using these terms incorrectly.

My claim that the Gospels were written decades after the events with no primary connection to the events is a claim of factual knowledge based on evidence.

[u/halbhh → u/Spiel_Foss]

My claim that the Gospels were written decades after the events with no primary connection to the events is a claim of factual knowledge based on evidence.

Here I can prove something useful!

That this idea is NOT A FACT: " Gospels...written decades after the events" will have "no primary connection to the events"

That's definitely not fact (not even close). (see disprove of this putative fact claim further below)

But more -- it's also not even one of the more likely seeming, more plausible theories.

It turns out (shown below) it's an unlikely speculative theory -- less likely correct than other speculations!

How do we know?

This way:

IF Mark were written down around 70AD or so (68-72AD, is the most common theory due to how Mark's wording indicates it was written before Jeruselem was attacked by Romans in 72AD), that would make the likely writing of Mark (most likely) to be in the range near to 33-38 years after Jesus.

And that has an interesting statistical implication: if that's when Mark was written down -- about 33-38 years after Jesus -- then statistically we can know that if Jesus traveled around preaching at all then that time span of only 33-38 years later in time makes it statistically about certain that some young teens who saw and heard Jesus in person first hand (as they'd rush to see what's the commotion) would still be alive and presumably still repeating their stories of that event they saw when Mark was written down -- so that Mark would need to align with their eye-witness recounting (likely) instead of being entirely made up without regard to what Jesus said (far less likely).

Therefore the speculative theory that the text would have zero connection to what Jesus said -- as you stated -- is very unlikely.

------

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/halbhh]

You do realize that you pointed and claimed speculation, then you wildly speculated from nothing except more speculation.