If I get a paper to review that gives a theorem, and as a proof says “we believe” that paper gets shitcanned really fast. 
What if I have faith that Zeus has nothing to do with Satan?
Faith in a ‘fact’ is not the same as faith in a God you know on a personal level. You can’t know ‘that there is no God’ on such a level.
As as for moving the goal posts I was not the one who brought up Zeus.
Again you are putting your faith on a supposed fact. I’m talking about faith in a entity that you know - big difference.
No, you are the one that made the silly statement that faith=proof, then qualified it to mean that only your faith=proof.
OK Let’s look at tis another way. I have no idea what subject you are referring to, but lets just say it’s high temperature string theory astro physics or something like that. Joe Schmo says to you that the alpha dog particle has a reverse spin when it chases it’s tail. OK that theory is ripe for the trash bin. But lets say that Joe Schmo has given you theories before and they always were true, even ones that you once thought were false, but later you found they were indeed true, and you know Joe to be a honest guy and one that (for some reason) can never make a mistake ever.
No; you were the one who changed Zeus into Satan.
What if I have faith in a benevolent sky-being who emphatically denies that he’s the christian God? Suppose for the sake of example that I know him on a personal level.
Well from this you would have faith in him being a benevolent sky-being.
More word games? Fine.
What if I have faith in an all-knowing benevolent sky-being that says the Christian “god” doesn’t exist?
It would still go in the trashcan. Science does not award brownie points for honesty or for being correct on prior occassions. A proof stands or falls on its own merits. It’s completely irrelevant who proffers it. Proofs offered by stephen Hawking and Charles Manson get the same scrutiny. There is no such thing as taking somebody’s word for something in science. You can either support your claims or you can’t. Personal authority counts for nothing. It’s not like religion.
The text in the NT was attempting (or succeeding as the case may be) to apply different OT prophecys about the Messiah to Jesus, one of them being the “virgin birth”, therefore (regaurdless of the greek word used, which at this point I do not know) the intent was to fullfill the OT prophecy… ergo, the intent of the “virgin birth” may not neccisarily have been to imply “hymen intact yet pregnant”. It has also been argued that Joseph had a keen interest in protecting Mary from the laws concerning “out of marraige sex/kids”… again, culture plays a role in both the oral and written traditions.
Again, the key point I am trying to make is that one must consider wether or not the author’s intent was for a “miraculous” event, or simply describing the event. Embelishment of points to further the “legend” of Jesus must also be considered.
I like how the other poster put it, that they were using the best terminology or understanding of the universe as they had at the time… that knowledge certainly doesn’t stand up to comparison of current knowledge.
Went and looked up the greek for Mathew 1:23 (which is almost a direct quote of the Isaah prophecy)
The greek word used is “parthenos”
παρθενος noun - nominative singular feminine
parthenos par-then’-os: a maiden; by implication, an unmarried daughter – virgin.
Even when they weren’t? The Bible is so full of untruths that it doesn’t work for your analogy. But even if it wasn’t, each paper is judged by the evidence inside it, nothing else. Some conferences even disguise the author so that there is no halo effect.
But you were talking about proof, and I was talking about mathematical proofs. Saying that faith and proof are the same shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Voyager was correct, I’m talking about Christians today, not in ancient times. My question is why are modern Christians willing to trust even the most shocking claims of the Bible authors, especially if they wouldn’t believe a similar claim coming from someone today. If you wouldn’t believe me if I said “I saw someone raise the dead” why would you believe an (at best) second hand account from 2000 years ago? I could claim to be speaking “the word of God” too, but I doubt that would do much for my credibility.
kanicbird, the point is that faith alone can’t be proof, because different people have faith in contradictory religions. So clearly at least some people’s faith is wrong.
Of course, “Is faith the same as proof” isn’t really the question I was asking. I’m asking why would someone trust the Bible if they wouldn’t trust a similar account from another source. Someone mentioned faith, so I tried to extend my question to “why have faith in the Bible, when you judge other accounts based on evidence?”
In short: My question isn’t “Why don’t you require more evidence before believing Biblical claims?” it’s “Why don’t you require as much evidence before believing Biblical claims as you do before believing any other claims?”
This virgin birth thing is kind of off topic (I was just mentioning it as one of the many examples of Biblical miracles), but regardless:
Whether the word “virgin” is used, the New Testament seems pretty clear that Jesus wasn’t the son of Joseph or any other man:
“before they came together” seems pretty unambiguous given the context. Unless you’re telling me that phrase and Joseph’s reaction were all a mistranslation.
You are confusing “proof” with “personally convinced.”
A person who is personally convinced of something based on their faith that it is true is uninterested in proof. It is true they are not just hoping, but it is not correct that “faith is equal to proof.”
There may be excellent proof that, despite their faith and personal conviction, they are wrong.
Diametrically opposed convictions, each based on faith, cannot both be correct. It is proof that determines which, if either, is correct.
I’m sorry… I want intending to debate the virgin birth thing either… the point I was making is that, with this as an example, one has to consider the language and culture at the time… other than the narrative that an ‘angel told Joseph that the child was of the holy ghost’, its not ‘miraculous’ that Mary was pregnant before she had been with Joseph, people often use the word "virgin’ in the following versus to mean “hyman intact” when that is not neccisarily what the author intended. Where did that narrative say she had been with “no one at all”… it just said she hadnt been with Joseph.
Hopefully that makes sense… the answer that I was attempting to give to your original question is that ‘I don’t think that all the miracles in the NT were actually miracles in the truest sense of the word, and here is my reasoning behind it’.
I don’t believe you. You have no faith in Zeus, nor is your false belief proof.
Tris
Kanicbird, you are going beyond what the bible itself says about faith when you say that “Faith == proof”… faith is about belief, not proof. Also, being certain of what we believe does not equal proof.
Yes, but I doubt that Matthew was trying to say that Jesus was the son of some other human man. Or that Mary was the sort of woman who slept with men other than her husband. The intent was clearly to say that Mary hadn’t had sex with anyone.
But I agree with the general point that you have to consider the language and culture of the time when trying to understand the Bible. Although with regard to my original question, what’s relevant is that modern Christians (many of them, anyway) believe that Mary had a child before she ever have sex. Whereas the same people wouldn’t believe me if it if I told them my cousin just had a kid without ever having sex – even if I offered the explanation that “it must have been the Holy Spirit.” I’m not saying I’m some paragon of trustworthiness, but you’ve never met the Bible authors, we don’t really know much about their lives, and they weren’t even present for a lot of the events they describe. Why are they trusted so completely?