|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Barrier | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Theodoric writes: ...and Stile's arguments don't hold up. I have gone to another thread as suggested by Stile. Stile has already defeated that crap. I can easily say why goodness exists. I do not have to rationalize. My life is immensely joyful because goodness exists. I and a lot of people like me try to bring goodness and happiness into this world, every day.See how easy that was. How about you move this to the thread that is not off topic? I think we will have fun with this. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
GDR writes: As we have for virtually every historical record from 2000 years ago. Don't be silly; we have various amounts of evidence from zero to lots depending on the subject. As far as this Jesus guy is concerned there is almost nothing.
The accounts were complied to be believed. Not evidence. (And, just for interest, so was the book of Mormon)
Paul in his letter to the Corinthians tells how he was writing this while there were still eye witnesses alive. Hearsay.
He obviously had contact with the eye witnesses. He may have met people who say they met Jesus. Paul never met the man he wrote about. Terrible evidence.
Intelligent life exists. Why. You can detail how we evolved but so what. Not evidence. (And certainly nothing whatsoever to do with resurrection and all the rest of that stuff.)
You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. That's just desperate and you know it.
We both have our beliefs that aren't answerable by the scientific method. Irrelevant (and wrong).
If you were God and had the choice between bringing about life as we know it or shelving the whole project what would you do? False choice. What's wrong with creating heaven on earth? Or heaven in heaven? Why torture your entire creation?
We at least have a world where God's created creatures have the capacity to mitigate some of the suffering. You just can't answer why this all loving, all powerful god has to create death and suffering can you? (It's an unfair question of course, no believer ever could.)
Also the Christian message is that ultimately this world will be renewed and suffering won't be a part of it, which makes all of this a work in progress. Your god is no better than a bad programmer releasing faulty software that takes thousands of upgrades to get almost ok? You're kidding? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
Oh please! By what standard can you exclude the gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters as not being historical? There are no historical reports of this.The only reports on these, not historical reports, are from the your bible. You cannot use the bible as evidence for itself. There is no independent, historical evidence for any of these events. They were independent accounts of events that occurred in the first century and were extensively publicized. If there was any credible denial of the events, they would have been brought up immediately and been effective. But that didnt happen. Even enemies of Christianity of the time (your independent sources) did not deny many of the events that were reported. As for just an example of prophecy, both destructions of Jerusalem we're written about in some detail well before the events occurred. How did that come about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
Tangle writes:
LOL! So, let's ignore all the Christian writings of the first century. Why again? Oh, cause you don't like them. Great reason. Despite the accounts becoming pretty common knowledge by the second century and nobody writing to dispute that he was a historical figure. As far as this Jesus guy is concerned there is almost nothing. Fine, don't like Christian writings? Then contemporaries Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny all attest to him being a real person. Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
You cannot use the bible to corroborate itself. Show me some independent sources. There are none. Why do no writers or historians of the day make no mention of this character? The gospels and acts are not historical documents. We have no idea who wrote them. We have no idea what their provenance is.
You mention Paul. Why does he not mention anything about the life of Jesus. He does not refer to any biographical details and does not use any of the gospel teachings to support his own teachings. Palestine was a back water. Jesus was not presented as a historical figure until at least 40 years after the supposed execution. It was a minor cult for the first couple hundred years. You might want to try more than PRATTsFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
As I said before you cannot use the bible to corroborate itself. All of the 1st century Christian writings are anonymous except for 7 of the Pauline epistles. Paul makes no mention of the Jesus as a historical entity.
Despite the accounts becoming pretty common knowledge by the second century and nobody writing to dispute that he was a historical figure.
But then again you have no evidence to support this do you?
Then contemporaries Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny all attest to him being a real person.
They were not contemporaries and they do not attest to him being a real person. Remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Care to support your assertions with evidence?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
Oh please! By what standard can you exclude the gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters as not being historical? It is fiction.
They were independent accounts of events that occurred in the first century and were extensively publicized. If there was any credible denial of the events, they would have been brought up immediately and been effective. But that didnt happen. Even enemies of Christianity of the time (your independent sources) did not deny many of the events that were reported. More fiction.
As for just an example of prophecy, both destructions of Jerusalem we're written about in some detail well before the events occurred. How did that come about? And still more fiction.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
GDR writes: Paul in his letter to the Corinthians tells how he was writing this while there were still eye witnesses alive. He obviously had contact with the eye witnesses.Theodoric writes: Please provide the passage. I don't think it says what you think it says. From 1 Corinthians 15 quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
wookie8 writes: LOL! So, let's ignore all the Christian writings of the first century. They can be ignored as evidence because they're simply anononymous stories of fictional events that have nor independent corroboration.
Why again? Oh, cause you don't like them. Great reason. I like many of them, they contain some good ideas. Though none of them are original. But whether you or I like them or not is irrelevant to whether they are discussing real events that actually happened.
Fine, don't like Christian writings? See above.
Then contemporaries Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny all attest to him being a real person. Did you think I didn't know about these people? To save you time, here's the full list with the reasons why they provide insifficient evidence
quote: Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki That's the sum of all the available 'independent' evidence for simply the existence of someone called Christ. It's entirely unpersuasive but tells us nothing at all about whether the things he's supposed to have done or said are true.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Yes. The passage I assumed you were referring to. This does not say that any of these people were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus or his crucifixion. This states that these people had a vision of the Jesus character. Nothing more. Nothing about where the crucifixion was, who the 500 were or when. Remember Paul is the same guy that said that he has learned of Jesus from no person, just divine revelation. Galatians 1:16, Ephesians 3:4-5. In Romans 1:2 and Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul talks about how scripture is the source of his knowledge of Christ and Salvation. He was not talking about the Christian gospels. They were not written for decades after his death. He was talking about the Hebrew bible.
Setting that aside, why does it conflict so much with the gospels and acts? Why is it if Jesus was a historical figure does Paul not mention any of that history? Nothing about the miraculous birth of Jesus, or his famous career, astounding miracles, bold new teachings, circumstances of his death. Nothing about Bethlehem, Nazareth or even Jerusalem and its ties to Jesus.There are no writings from the Jerusalem church or anyone that claimed to be a personal disciple of Jesus. Everything we know about the leaders of the Jerusalem church, Cephas/Peter, James and John comes from Paul. Paul says absolutely nothing about any of them or anyone else traveling around with Jesus. Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling, formattingFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 661 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
WookieeB writes:
The same standard that we use to conclude that Ian Fleming's books are not historical.
By what standard can you exclude the gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters as not being historical? WookieeB writes:
Ian Fleming's books were independent accounts of events that occurred in the twentieth century and were extensively publicized.
They were independent accounts of events that occurred in the first century and were extensively publicized. WookieeB writes:
There was no denial of Ian Fleming's books because nobody pretended they were historical.
If there was any credible denial of the events, they would have been brought up immediately and been effective. WookieeB writes:
Even Pravda didn't deny many of the events in Fleming's books. See above - nobody pretended they were historical. Even enemies of Christianity of the time (your independent sources) did not deny many of the events that were reported. So the standard is the same.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Theodoric writes: Yes. The passage I assumed you were referring to. This does not say that any of these people were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus or his crucifixion. This states that these people had a vision of the Jesus character. Nothing more. Nothing about where the crucifixion was, who the 500 were or when. Here is what I quoted: quote:Certainly you can reject all this as a fabrication or whatever you like but arguing the way you have done here makes no sense. No where in the scriptures is there a mention of anything but a physical Jesus after the resurrection. Also visions aren't experienced by 500 people at the same time. Theodoric writes: No. Another shat in the dark that is wrong. From Acts 9: Remember Paul is the same guy that said that he has learned of Jesus from no person, just divine revelation. quote: Theodoric writes: How does it conflict?
Setting that aside, why does it conflict so much with the gospels and acts? Theodoric writes: Primarily Paul's letters are written to the early churches. They were already Christians and got that stuff. Paul is writing as a theologian and writing about things like unity in the church, what that should mean to their lives.
Why is it if Jesus was a historical figure does Paul not mention any of that history? Nothing about the miraculous birth of Jesus, or his famous career, astounding miracles, bold new teachings, circumstances of his death. Nothing about Bethlehem, Nazareth or even Jerusalem and its ties to Jesus. Theodoric writes: Another shot in the dark and another blank. Try reading the book of Acts. There are no writings from the Jerusalem church or anyone that claimed to be a personal disciple of Jesus. Everything we know about the leaders of the Jerusalem church, Cephas/Peter, James and John comes from Paul. Paul says absolutely nothing about any of them or anyone else traveling around with Jesus.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
If you were following we were talking about Paul and his writings. You should know that since you are the one that quoted Paul. As we have no idea who wrote Acts or when it was written, it cannot be used as a historical source. You might want to rethink your post because I made it very clear I was talking about Paul and his writings.
Since the writings af Acts are decades after Paul and they conflict with Pauls we can ignore them. Again. We are talking about the writings of Paul, not Acts. So. Wrong. Read what Paul wrote not what you want him to have written.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 861 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
It is said you can not reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 861 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
That is all depends on how you define 'historical'. They are historical documents, in that they are ancient, but that does not mean they are an accurate relaying of information. You could call 'Gone with the wind' a historical book, but that does not mean Scarlett O'Hara actually lived.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024