Let's talk about god

[jaybird88]

if you consider that the existence of the historical jesus is certain, then you are once more guilty of circular thinking. the historical Jesus is a matter of evidence and the evidence is weak, not non existent, but not conclusive either; the only conclusion is thus that the historical jesus is probable but not certain. Of course the argument that the historical jesus existed with certainty because Jesus is real or because it says so in the bible and the bible is true because jesus is real, is absurdly circular.

exactly what kind of proof are you needing that there was a guy called Jesus? you realize it was 2000 years ago when we was walking the earth and they didnt save his dna, dental, etc to prove to future generations he really lived. people had common sense back then. they probably assumed that if i guy lived and taught and those teachings pretty much influenced most of the known world at the time, then it only makes sense the teacher of those teachings was a real person. the teachings had to come from somewhere.

 

[Magenta]

exactly what kind of proof are you needing that there was a guy called Jesus? you realize it was 2000 years ago when we was walking the earth and they didnt save his dna, dental, etc to prove to future generations he really lived. people had common sense back then. they probably assumed that if i guy lived and taught and those teachings pretty much influenced most of the known world at the time, then it only makes sense the teacher of those teachings was a real person. the teachings had to come from somewhere.

There is more reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for other ancient historical personages whose existence is not questioned by people who believe they are rational and base their beliefs on facts. This has probably been mentioned before Appeal to authority? Why not The OP does it often, though he complains when others do it. There is near universal consensus among historians that Jesus walked this world. Moreover they are largely in agreement over a number of facts regarding His life, and they (this includes atheist historians) likewise reject the Christ myth theory that other "educated" atheists like to promote while they peddle their fantasies. Two events subject to almost universal assent are the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the order of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Any cursory look into this matter would reveal the same to anyone seriously seeking. As I said earlier on, there are those who come to faith by examining the evidence.

 

[Miri]

Taken from got questions web site. Did Jesus really exist.

Answer: Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies
the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible
cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New
Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those
who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than
100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute),
in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place
are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars
(Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them)
were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years
after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily
strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.


It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed
Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally
burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus'
existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed.
These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.


Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in
a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus
can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical
evidences of Jesus include the following:


The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians
of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin
for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius,
chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ)
who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).


Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James,
“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says,
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he
was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive
again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise
man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And
many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples
did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days
after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah,
concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”


Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed
the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).


Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including
the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes
a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.


The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of
Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging
Jewish apostasy.


Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus
was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them.
He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance
of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according
to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by
contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.


Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man,
was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and
lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John,
The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.


In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources:
Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings,
and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus),
but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed,
worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).


There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular
and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact
that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles,
were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they
believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

 

[psychomom]

There is more reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for other ancient historical personages whose existence is not questioned by people who believe they are rational and base their beliefs on facts. This has probably been mentioned before Appeal to authority? Why not The OP does it often, though he complains when others do it. There is near universal consensus among historians that Jesus walked this world. Moreover they are largely in agreement over a number of facts regarding His life, and they (this includes atheist historians) likewise reject the Christ myth theory that other "educated" atheists like to promote while they peddle their fantasies. Two events subject to almost universal assent are the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the order of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Any cursory look into this matter would reveal the same to anyone seriously seeking. As I said earlier on, there are those who come to faith by examining the evidence.

there's not one original copy of Socrates' writings extant.
but no one doubts he lived and wrote.

 

[jaybird88]

There is more reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for other ancient historical personages whose existence is not questioned by people who believe they are rational and base their beliefs on facts. This has probably been mentioned before Appeal to authority? Why not The OP does it often, though he complains when others do it. There is near universal consensus among historians that Jesus walked this world. Moreover they are largely in agreement over a number of facts regarding His life, and they (this includes atheist historians) likewise reject the Christ myth theory that other "educated" atheists like to promote while they peddle their fantasies. Two events subject to almost universal assent are the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the order of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Any cursory look into this matter would reveal the same to anyone seriously seeking. As I said earlier on, there are those who come to faith by examining the evidence.

im sure that there are official historical documents out there but what difference would it make and IMO it woull mean nothing. the tree outside my window is an oak tree, i know its an oak tree cause i been an out door person all my life. but what if a guy with a PHD in horticulture says it was a pine tree and he is the official expert. who would you believe, a guy that has spent 20 - 30 years in the woods studying trees putting his hands on them learning from generations of others that knew trees, or a guy that has spent 3 years in a class room reading about trees and grew up in the city. in todays world most will go with the official tree expert, why, because he has an "official" document that says he is an expert. hands on tree experience is irrelevant.

 

[Karaka]

Brother Justin,

And i hope this will answer the others as well. I wanted to keep my discussions private from now on to avoid being pestered by the likes of B1Davanda, but I'll give it another go with you on the thread, since the discussion can have benefits from and for others.


You refer to the scriptures, I would like to ask you what you think of what I think I understand about the bible which I doesn't seem that controversial to me:


The reality is that we do not have the actual word of God in the Bible, since we do not have the originals and in some places we do not know what the originals said.


There are flat out discrepancies among the books of the NT. Sometimes these discrepancies can be reconciled if one work hard enough at it with pious imagination, but other times the discrepancies can not, in my judgement and according to many serious biblical scholar I've read, be reconciled, however fanciful the explanation. (i.e. : Jesus dies on different days in Mark and John).

Sometimes the differences are not only on small details, but sometimes different authors have completey different understandings of important issues : was Jesus in despair on the cross (Mark) or calm and in control (Luke) ? Did Jesus death provide an atonement for sin( Mark and Paul) or not (Luke) ? Did Jesus perform signs to prove who he was (John) or did he refuse to do so (Matthew) ? Must Jesus folowers keep the law if they enter the kingdom (Matthew) or absolutely not (Paul) ?

Many of the books of the NT were not written by the people to whom they are attributed (Matthew and John) or by the people who claimed to be writting them (2 Peter, 1 Timothy). Most of the books of the NT were written after the apostles themselves were dead, only 8 of the 27 books of the NT are almost certain of having been written by the people traditionally thought to be their authors.

The gospels contain stories that had been in oral circulation for decades before they were written down. This makes it very difficult to know what Jesus actually said, did and experienced. The reality is that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels represents a later understanding of who Jesus was, not a historical account of who he really was.

There were lots of other gospels available to early christians, as well as epistles, acts and apocalypses. Many of those claim to have been written by apostles and those claims are no more or less plausible than the claims of the books who eventually made it in the NT. It makes me wonder who made the decisions of what books to include and on what grounds. Is it possible that books that should have been included were left out and that some that are in the NT shouldn't be in it ?

Important doctrines, such as that of a suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, the trinity and the existence of heaven and hell are clearly not teachings of Jesus, but later inventions of the early church.

As a result of all this, I see the bible as a very human book and christianity as a human religion. It did not descend from on high. It was created, down here on Earth, among the followers of Jesus in the decades and centuries after his death and is radically different from what Jesus most likely preached as an apocaliptyc jewish prophet.

That is why I do not think scriptures are a viable tool to gain certain knowledge of God and that the fundamentalism of a B1Davanda or a Magenta is not justified. I do not know where you stand exactly but you strike me as much more moderate and tolerant (quoting Lewis is a clue for me), so please let me know what you think of all this and how you reconcile it with your claim that revelation increases your faith in God and your certainty. It does the opposite to me. I agree that agnosticism do not refers to belief but to knowledge, I actually appreciate you mentioning that because it was one major point of contention with the others on this thread. But I am definitely farther on the atheist side than the theist side, because I do not find positive reasons to believe in God, in the bible, or in the world.

For example, looking at God's creation, this is a subject I have also looked into in depth, and I think none of the argument from design work, the Kalam doesn't work, fine tuning doesn't work, creationism doesn't compete with biology and geology and cosmology, those are not potent arguments pointing toward the reality of God, unless of course, one takes the existence of God for granted before hand, on faith, and that is, I'm affraid, circular. I realise we disagree on that, but I would be interested in talking with you about what you consider the most potent point that shows that God creation is « clearly seen » and « evident ». I haven't encountered any such argument that hold scrutiny and is not circular, so I would be interested to hear your best one and see if you can make me change my mind.

Another potent reason why I am not convinced about God and Jesus is the problem of evil :
How a Good and loving God could be in control of the world given the miserable lives that so many people, including believers, have to endure ?

I do not see any satisfying answer to that, and that will remain a massive block between me and christianity until I get one.
As for logic, I'm engaged in a very deep and challenging private discussion with another person on this forum about it and I'd rather not get into it again here.

About certainty and doubt, I agree with Voltaire on this Quote :
« Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. »

I took great pain to write at length in previous posts about why I think that is correct (to little notice, I'm affraid), I'm not sure I want to go through it again. I am not convinced that faith brings knowledge. I understand it brings certainty, but I think certainty and knowledge are not the same thing. Certainty is not justified while knowledge is. When you say that your faith brings you certainty, I understand it makes you believe something, not know it. And believing something doesn't make it true. I'm concerned about what is true and I don't want to pretend I know what I don't know, which is what faith sounds like to me.

Hopefully you can bring clarification to me about those matters.

 

[Karaka]

for all the others, please remain respectfull and kind in your answers, i won't respond otherwise, and also please keep to the subject, i can't disperse all over the place like we did before, it is not productive.

thanks

 

[Karaka]

Hi Karaka. I'm new around here and this is the first post I am replying to. I haven't read all of the comments in this thread but I think I've got a good idea of what's been happening. As you have probably realised already, there is no lack of Christians willing to share news about their God with you! I'm glad to see you have an open mind to hearing about Him. Sometimes I think we find it hard to believe in God, even some Christians at times wonder if He is still listening to us (yes, me too!), especially when we feel burdened or like we have trouble seeing the good in the world, for whatever reason. My suggestion is for you to ask God to reveal Himself to you. And He will.

And as someone wrote earlier, the Bible says that if we seek Him with all our heart, we will find Him. If you want to find Him, you will. And He is keen for that to happen! But as I heard preached once, God is a gentleman, He won't force Himself on anyone. He is willing and waiting and longing for you, but will wait until you're ready to invite Him into your life. There is a song called "What if?" (I think), and the lyrics say something like what if you're right, Jesus was just another good guy, and something to do with fairytales...But then it goes on to say... what if you're wrong? What if God does really exist, and you have missed out on knowing Him? What if there's more to life than what we see? What if there is a love like we have never known before? Just ask God!

Lonelynomore,
I thank you for the kind words, but please do not apologize for the attitude of others, you are not responsible for them.
I'm sorry you thought my post was too long, I hope you'll find my answer to Brother Justin interesting and clarifying. Feel free to answer to it as well.

 

[Magenta]

That is why I do not think scriptures are a viable tool to gain certain knowledge of God and that the fundamentalism of a B1Davanda or a Magenta is not justified.

Unfortunately it seems you have deliberately ignored or dismissed
everything that has been said about personal empirical experience
imparting knowledge. You contradict yourself at just about every turn
and prove over and over again that you are not here to learn at all, since
you prefer to repeat your rhetoric over incorporating what has been shared.

The truly preposterous thing about your stance is that you stake certainty
for your beliefs based on lack of knowledge and lack of experience.

Not for nothing do Scriptures proclaim,

The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile...

I realize you put no stock in Scripture and will see that as being disrespectful.
But that is what God's Word says of those like you who deny His existence.
What else does God's Word say for you?

Cynics look high and low for wisdom—and never find it;
the open-minded find it right on their doorstep!

 

[BrotherJustin]

Just saw your post today, Karaka -- I'll respond when I can.

 

[Magenta]

The reality is that we do not have the actual word of God in the Bible, since we do not have the originals and in some places we do not know what the originals said.

The originals are not required when so many copies of the originals exist. By comparing the copies, most of the time it can be determined what the originals actually did say. In fact, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they predated anything already known by almost a thousand years, yet in that great amount of time only seventeen differences were discernable, ten of which were spelling, four were style, and three concerned the use of letters the word light.

In other words, even over great spans of time, no substantive changes occur in the texts of Scripture, and the same still applies today. Those areas left in contention are agreed upon by the experts you like to consult that no basic message of the Bible is affected. As to newer testament texts, as I have already stated but you seem to have ignored or dismissed, there is more reliable, better preserved evidence in more numerous copies that can be cross checked than for other ancient writings or personages. The entire newer testament was completed within a maximum of seventy years of Jesus' crucifixion. That is a late date by some estimates. Still, they are considered to be 99.5% textually pure!

If you are going to dismiss the texts as being unreliable then in order to maintain your intellectual integrity, you would have to reject the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Caesar, and many others. Here is a handy little table you can use a visual aid to help you digest this important fact. https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

 

[Magenta]

Manuscript Support/Evidence for the Bible's Reliability by Ron Rhodes

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now. There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early Church Fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.

The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal

In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants." This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind. But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear. Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.

To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" insteadof "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them. For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.

Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations)we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said. Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said. If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.

The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for otherancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled! There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:

No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies.

The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; theNew Testament boasts thousands.

The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000years for other books. The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.

The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.

From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."

Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early Church Fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early Church Lectionaries (worship books). There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.[Editors Note: This is well before the time of Constantine]

Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible. In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes. The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.

A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran. Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.

From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls [combined] with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work. These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work. The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy.

Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively. http://www.holynameofmaryparish.com/documents/Bible%20reliability.pdf

 

[Magenta]

Many of the books of the NT were not written by the people to whom they are attributed (Matthew and John) or by the people who claimed to be writting them (2 Peter, 1 Timothy).

Matthew and John are considered the source whether you believe they wrote them themselves or not, and they were eyewitnesses to the events contained within. Are you saying here 1.) You do not accept eyewitness accounts? 2) You think Timothy is said to have written the book that many accept as having been written to him by the apostle Paul?

 

[NayborBear]

He wants yer oil, er at the very least? Laughing at ya, as you burn your oil. Much like the 5 foolish virgins. Karaka has no interest in being saved! Figured some of the wiser ones amongst ya'll woulda figured this out by now. He, however does have an interest in gathering "data", on faith principals. So, that he may lean on these for his own conversion?...... Stop deceiving yourselves! Karaka is a master empiricist! These "data collectings", serve no other purpose, then in his forming up algorithms for his "wonderful" computers!! (or, beasities. if you will). For, the less fortunate to worship!!

Actually, I'm quite surprised this thread is still current!

 

[Karaka]

Matthew and John are considered the source whether you believe they wrote them themselves or not, and they were eyewitnesses to the events contained within. Are you saying here 1.) You do not accept eyewitness accounts? 2) You think Timothy is said to have written the book that many accept as having been written to him by the apostle Paul?

Magenta, your ignorance, denial and confirmation bias is not for me to fix.
you can not claim anything in the bible about Jesus has been written by actuall eyewitnesses, that is just not true. if you stick to the evangelist literature about the matter you will never learn anything, it is my old white swan/black swan thing. you only read what confirms your belief and completely ignore the rest. so be it, talking with you is useless. the PDf you copied to me is incorrect on many points; don't take my word for it, check it by yourself by reading the work of non evangelist bible scholars and compare what they say. what i stated in my last post is not controversial. only fundamentalists deny it. be honest and go check for yourself.

Also you claim that I "have deliberately ignored or dismissed
everything that has been said about personal empirical experience
imparting knowledge"

this is laughable. i have written several posts in response to that and bringing arguments and evidence against the validity of your views. you have do nothing but ignoring what i said. why the double standard? why the lies?

i have answered your challenge, you have not responded, just ignored it. it has been going on for a long time, you have repeatedly shown that truth is not what you are after, your selective thinking and your confirmation bias does not make you credible. if you don't see it, then it is your problem, not mine.

Maybe somebody else, a christian, could attempt at showing Magenta that she is not being intellectually honest here. maybe she needs a bit of a reality check from one of you guys.

In any case, I'm through with you Magenta. My last post was addressed at Brother Justin, I'll be waiting for his response, and I'm confident he'll be less close minded and ignorant than you are showing yourself.

 

[Magenta]

Magenta, your ignorance, denial and confirmation bias is not for me to fix.
you can not claim anything in the bible about Jesus has been written by actuall eyewitnesses, that is just not true.

So much for being respectful. At any rate, if you could respond to what I actually said instead of going off on some tangent that has more to do with what you imagined I may have said but did not actually say, you may get better results, but on the other hand I know you are not really interested in the truth, but in propping up your preconceived ideas and pre-existing biases. Okay, that is fine, and to be expected after all. Good luck!

 

[Karaka]

Really Magenta?

Please, can somebody else act as referee here?
Am I being guilty of what she accuses me of or is she guilty of not answering my arguments?
Brother Justin, what do you think?

 

[CS1]

Magenta, your ignorance, denial and confirmation bias is not for me to fix.
you can not claim anything in the bible about Jesus has been written by actuall eyewitnesses, that is just not true. if you stick to the evangelist literature about the matter you will never learn anything, it is my old white swan/black swan thing. you only read what confirms your belief and completely ignore the rest. so be it, talking with you is useless. the PDf you copied to me is incorrect on many points; don't take my word for it, check it by yourself by reading the work of non evangelist bible scholars and compare what they say. what i stated in my last post is not controversial. only fundamentalists deny it. be honest and go check for yourself.

Also you claim that I "have deliberately ignored or dismissed
everything that has been said about personal empirical experience
imparting knowledge"

this is laughable. i have written several posts in response to that and bringing arguments and evidence against the validity of your views. you have do nothing but ignoring what i said. why the double standard? why the lies?

i have answered your challenge, you have not responded, just ignored it. it has been going on for a long time, you have repeatedly shown that truth is not what you are after, your selective thinking and your confirmation bias does not make you credible. if you don't see it, then it is your problem, not mine.

Maybe somebody else, a christian, could attempt at showing Magenta that she is not being intellectually honest here. maybe she needs a bit of a reality check from one of you guys.

In any case, I'm through with you Magenta. My last post was addressed at Brother Justin, I'll be waiting for his response, and I'm confident he'll be less close minded and ignorant than you are showing yourself.

hmm ok The bible and the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses and another eyewitnesses
mark= received from Peter eyewitness of Christ
matt= eyewitness of christ
Luke= received from Paul and Peter an eyewitness
John= an eyewitness of Christ
the word of the prophets that spoke of Jesus 600 years before His coming to earth over 70 all fulfilled
many in His death, burial and resurrection completed. If I understand you correctly Karaka you are saying there is no biblical eyewitness accounts recorded in the New testament? That is not the case

 

[Magenta]

Also you claim that I "have deliberately ignored or dismissed
everything that has been said about personal empirical experience
imparting knowledge"

this is laughable. i have written several posts in response to that and bringing arguments and evidence against the validity of your views. you have do nothing but ignoring what i said. why the double standard? why the lies?

I have told you a number of times I do not necessarily read your long posts, especially if they are not addressed to me. Do you think you bring anything new to the table? Think again. After eight years of talking to atheists and agnostics and polytheists and wiccans and Satanists etc, well, let's just say you bring nothing new to the table. I ask you to perform an experiment on yourself and you give me a link. LOL! You can't even do it, instead giving me some pathetic excuse with an appeal to authority attached while you complain about appeals to authority and argue from ignorance. Round and round we go. Really! Nothing new under the sun, Solomon said. And he was right.

 

[Magenta]

Really Magenta?

Yes, really. I did not say that anything was written by eye witnesses as you would like to pretend. I said Matthew and John are considered the source and that they are eye witnesses whether you accept that they actually wrote the texts or not. Yet that is not what you responded to. You made something up in your mind and responded to that instead of what I actually said.