|
Replies: 64
| visibility 3123
|
110%er [3686]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
|
|
|
 |
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103181]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99140
Joined: 2009
|
If you have something to say regarding this subject then say it.***
1
Jun 28, 2025, 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: If you have something to say regarding this subject then say it.***
1
Jun 28, 2025, 10:14 AM
|
|
That’s what he’s doing, why are you acting weird?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103181]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99140
Joined: 2009
|
I'm not called to testify of Jesus to internet articles.
Jun 29, 2025, 12:18 PM
|
|
If someone wants to take the claims for their own take on what the Bible says I'll be happy to search God's Word and my heart and try and see why there seems to be a contradiction.
Have a little respect here and try to say what's in your heart rather than posting links. Show me the contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: I'm not called to testify of Jesus to internet articles.
Jul 1, 2025, 6:27 PM
|
|
The contradictions are literally in the link
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Really good article - spot on. To me it's clear that the very idea
3
Jun 28, 2025, 10:52 AM
|
|
of a creator who created a universe he knew right from the start would be filled with all sorts of things he despised and that would make him angry and sad, whether he had to or because he chose to, and therefore required salvation in the first place is comically flawed from the start. That is my belief, my opinion. Many good, very intelligent people disagree.
It's also clear to me that those people typically accept one of those versions of salvation which hinges on the divine authority of what we now call The Bible. So, when these obvious contradictions and problems arise, they are forced to either ignore it, or come up with explanations that explain it all away in order to maintain their faith. All too often, a rational pursuit of the truth is abandoned and replaced with the objective of defending one's chosen faith.
Assuming one believes there is a creator or "God", it all ultimately goes back to one's concept of God. The one we get in the Bible reflects how ancient men saw powerful men; as wise but powerful, judgemental, often extremely vengeful warrior kings. Throw in some heavenly mystical powers and a dash of love and justice and you've got the God of the old testament. A Jew called Jesus came along and some Jews believed he was the prophesied messiah. His following grew, especially after his crucifiction and resurrection. Thus the beliefs of salvation through Jesus as Christ began, which gave believers a way to be saved from eternity in hell. For some reason, God did not just forgive us, he required a blood sacrifice (as was practiced by ancient Jews). It was God's fix for something in his creation that he despised; a sign of his love and grace.
It's clear to me that there's something bad wrong with that story, and that concept of God, and as it relates to your post, the whole idea of salvation. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22604]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 17820
Joined: 1998
|
Did you have an extra cup of coffee this morning? Regardless TU
2
Jun 28, 2025, 11:03 AM
|
|
For articulating your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
LOL! Actually I did!***
2
Jun 28, 2025, 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103181]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99140
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: You sure are proud of what you've reckoned about God.
1
Jun 29, 2025, 5:04 PM
|
|
I've read a few of your posts now, I'm not sure how you can say that without a hint of irony.
You sure do act like you've got it all figured out. In fact, only one of you seems to be trying to correct people here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [72685]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 25541
Joined: 2017
|
So what do you think happens when you die?
1
Jun 29, 2025, 2:10 PM
[ in reply to Really good article - spot on. To me it's clear that the very idea ] |
|
Curious.
I saw two hangings this week and watched one guy shoot himself in the head at a park. We tried to get him to stop, but after about :20 he did it….so I am a bit troubled by death here lately. Lots of questions running through my mind. Especially when I wake up in the middle of the night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: So what do you think happens when you die?
Jun 29, 2025, 2:17 PM
|
|
geeze man, that's awful, I hope you are surrounded by support. That sounds rough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [72685]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 25541
Joined: 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
I think your body dies and your soul remains with God where it always
Jun 29, 2025, 11:21 PM
|
|
was and always will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 28, 2025, 11:39 AM
|
|
Send a copy to your pastor. He would appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
3
Jun 28, 2025, 12:13 PM
|
|
This is a weird obsession of yours.
Are we supposed to care what a pastor thinks?
They aren’t special
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 28, 2025, 1:53 PM
|
|
Not an obsession. A while back I pointed out to Big Dog that he has the beliefs he posts on here, yet he goes to a fundamental Church. In that conversation, I said he was living a double life. He said he was not. I told him that I bet he would not tell his pastor what he posts on here. He asked me what he had posted on here that he would not want his pastor to know he had said. Now I point out to him what he says on here that he would not want his pastor knowing he said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 28, 2025, 2:52 PM
|
|
I’m aware of this exchange, you following him around and repeating it is weird
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 28, 2025, 7:07 PM
|
|
He says he doesn’t know which posts his preacher would have a problem with. I just point them out to him. I follow every post in the religious forum.
I think it’s weird someone could attend a fundamental church and disagree in secret with most of what the church they attend believes.
That would be like me putting on UGA crap, attending their games, and acting like I was a fan of those b……s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
2
Jun 28, 2025, 8:54 PM
|
|
Do you actually think everyone in your church actually believes it like you do? You have no idea.
Many people attend for many reasons. I don't go regularly, but I most of our family is religious, so I attend sometimes. I went for years after I stopped believing due to what can basically amount to peer pressure.
Your UGA example isn't as weird as you make it out to be. If you lived in and were surrounded by them, it's not that uncommon for people to dress and act the part. It can be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 28, 2025, 9:54 PM
|
|
I live in Athens. Nothing fun about faking being a leg humper.
The vast majority of people I go to church with sare my soteriological values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
2
Jun 28, 2025, 9:57 PM
|
|
It's the same concept as different religions, you'd probably love being a leg humper if you were born into it. It's mostly chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 29, 2025, 12:02 AM
|
|
I was. Family was Ga fans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Nice, we understand anecdotes then***
Jun 29, 2025, 8:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26199]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14952
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
3
Jun 28, 2025, 2:38 PM
|
|
Interesting. Paul once said that if a person is explaining the Gospel, let them.
We have all individually chosen eternity apart from God, deceived to join a rebellion begun before we were created. God paid the ransom for return, something the Enemy can do nothing about. The choice therefore remains with us to return from the rebellion.
Hearing someone try to explain away that truth is as illuminating of it as hearing someone affirm it, like listening to a moon landing denier. Go right ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
3
Jun 28, 2025, 6:47 PM
|
|
You've basically set this up so that if someone addresses the contradictions, they are "explaining away truth," and if they don't, you win anyway. That's not really how arguments work.
There's a reason the moon landing is in history books and the resurrection isn't. One has actual evidence you can verify to back up an extraordinary claim (landing on the moon), the other doesn't. Moon landing deniers ignore documented facts. You're asking us to ignore documented contradictions in the text itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26199]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14952
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
2
Jun 28, 2025, 6:58 PM
|
|
"... the other doesn't." As untrue a comment as one will find anywhere. Believe what you want about Jesus, but the evidence is there, which is why attempts to explain it away reveal it to an open mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
4
Jun 28, 2025, 8:51 PM
|
|
The evidence for the resurrection is testimonial from decades-later believers who didn't even claim to be eyewitnesses, not the contemporaneous, independently documented, physical evidence we have for the moon landing. Roman historians documented far lesser events in detail, but somehow missed the dead rising and walking around Jerusalem.
That's why one has universal historical consensus and the other requires faith. One can be independently confirmed through multiple sources and methods, the other cannot. So yes, 'evidence' exists, but you're falsely equating being a moon landing skeptic with nonbelievers. It's not even close to the same thing.
If anything, claiming supernatural events happened based on decades-later testimonial evidence puts you in the same category as ancient alien theorists or people who believe in miraculous healings at other religious sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26199]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14952
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 29, 2025, 12:35 AM
|
|
That is way misinformed. If that is your understanding, you need to read up on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jun 29, 2025, 8:32 AM
|
|
I suppose if going by standard historical methodology instead of apologetic arguments makes me 'misinformed,' then sure. But saying 'you're wrong, go read more' isn't actually addressing any of the specific points I raised about contemporaneous documentation and independent verification, none of which you've shown to be factually incorrect.
If you think there's evidence for the resurrection that meets the same standards as evidence for the moon landing, then present it instead of just saying 'nuh uh.' Otherwise you're confirming that religious claims require different evidentiary standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Millions of good, highly intelligent people, like CU, share those beliefs.
2
Jun 29, 2025, 10:14 AM
|
|
Any beliefs any of us hold about God or spiritual matters requires a healthy dose of speculation and reasoning based on factors other than hard evidence, and requires an equally healthy dose of faith. By no means does that mean those people (including me) are wrong; it just demonstrates the real truth, which is that none of us can claim to know based on any purely objective examination of the facts. Faith alone is not illegitimate, can be powerful, and should be respected; but to the extent it is based on fact, logic, and reasoning, it is very much open to criticism.
Bottom line though, none of us knows, and we all should remember and respect that, and quit acting as if we do.
Add: I agree that evidence for the moon landing is very different than evidence of the ressurection.
Message was edited by: Smiling Tiger®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Millions of good, highly intelligent people, like CU, share those beliefs.
1
Jun 29, 2025, 12:31 PM
|
|
“ Bottom line though, none of us knows, and we all should remember and respect that, and quit acting as if we do.”
I agree just pointing out the difference in evidence
I don’t fault anyone for believing, if you are convinced you are convinced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26199]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14952
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jun 29, 2025, 4:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: Bible contradictions on salvation ] |
|
If you are willing to discuss this, I would like to highlight a few of your points. You have no greater supporter of your right to your conclusions than me. However, I believe you mischaracterize the nature of the Christian belief:
- You brought up evidence, indicating there is only "testimonial evidence from decades later and no eyewitnesses."
- You rightly differentiate historical evidence from apologetics, but I am not understanding what you are saying there.
- You characterize all testimony as equal, placing the Gospel in the same realm as a Whitley Strieber (abducted by aliens)
- You characterize faith as believing without evidence.
1. There is much more evidence than testimonial. However, some minimal facts regarding the testimony:
- the earliest NT documents by Paul were written in about 47 AD, 15-ish years after the events.
- those letters contain creeds (stating the execution/resurrection) that are dated to 35 AD, 2 years after.
- Paul records a visit to Jerusalem to meet with the 12 (eyewitnesses) to confirm the truth of those creeds.
- Luke, who was with Paul, corroborates that meeting.
- Peter corroborates that meeting.
Atheist and Christian historians agree with this. Therefore, testimony of the Gospel events by eyewitnesses dates to the time of the events. And that is on a few of Paul's letters: we haven't yet discussed the 4 Gospel accounts.
2. I think you know that apologetics is merely the conversational tool of supporting one's positions, while evidence is another matter. Yes, I can and do say that the claim of 'little evidence for the Gospel accounts' is wrong. Yes, I understand that I have to support my claim of evidence, just as you have to support a claim of 'little evidence' ("I haven't seen any" is support only for "I don't know of any"). I am happy to provide that evidence if you like. I can't do it here (too much of it), but am willing to make it available, at my cost if you like.
A string of whatabouts is not examination of evidence, but is the favorite tool of the moonwalk denier. I'm not saying you do that: I'm just observing the content of this board.
3. Even if all the evidence for the NT was testimonial, it is not the same as alien abductees. Abductions, Joseph Smith and Mohammed are all testimonial, but they lack even a small percentage of the corroboration and evidence one would need. The NT has it. Again, am willing to provide it.
4. Superstition is believing something without evidence. Stevie Wonder, a Christian, wrote a song about it to make that clear. Faith, instead, is the trust choice one makes based on what he/she knows to be true. If my wife is inexplicably 5 hours late coming home, I have no thought of her fidelity. I can't prove where she was, but from much evidence I know who she is, so I know where she wasn't. Faith. Therefore, each of us make a faith decision about eternity. A faith decision about that is unavoidable.
So, yes, I am not unhappy with someone asking a whatabout regarding Jesus. An attempt to explain it away illuminates it to an open mind. You and I can disagree about where the evidence points. However, there is evidence, its nature is not as many here characterize it, and Christians do not believe a thing without evidence
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 29, 2025, 5:16 PM
|
|
Happy to discuss, I should have some time later tonight to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 30, 2025, 8:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: Bible contradictions on salvation ] |
|
I'm trying to do your well thought out response justice, so apologies in advance for the wall of text.
You're right that early dating matters. If Paul's letters are from 47 AD with earlier creeds, that establishes when these beliefs developed. I don't dispute that timeline. This evidence is good enough to show people became convinced quickly.
However, early documentation of claims isn't evidence for the claims themselves. The Book of Mormon witnesses actually provide better documentation than resurrection accounts. We have their signed, notarized affidavits with specific details about handling golden plates. Unlike the resurrection, we have the witnesses' own written testimony, not just Paul reporting what others supposedly told him. If witness testimony alone validates supernatural claims, then by that same standard, Mormon claims would be equally valid. Yet most people reject those claims despite the stronger documentation.
Even more telling: the Heaven's Gate cult had multiple witnesses who testified to seeing UFOs and experiencing supernatural phenomena. They were so convinced they died for their beliefs in 1997. The 9/11 hijackers had absolute conviction they were doing God's will. Conviction and willingness to die for beliefs tells us about the sincerity of believers, not the truth of their claims. Throughout history, people have died for mutually contradictory religious beliefs. They can't all be true.
1.Luke traveling with Paul, Peter meeting with Paul, and Paul confirming with Peter, James, and John isn't independent corroboration, it's internal consistency within the same religious movement.
Let's be clear about what evidence we're working with: Paul is doing almost all the heavy lifting here. The Gospels were written decades later by non-eyewitnesses (none of the gospels claim to be eyewitness). Mainstream biblical scholars don't think Peter wrote Peter. Non-Christian sources like Josephus and Tacitus only confirm that Christians existed and had these beliefs, they don't independently attest to supernatural events.
We have zero direct eyewitness accounts of the death and resurrection. What we have is Paul writing about what Peter and James told him they experienced. Even the claim that James saw the resurrected Jesus comes from Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15:7, we don't have James himself writing about it or anyone else independently confirming it. This is fundamentally second-hand testimony from within the same religious movement, with no contemporary sources outside that movement.
2. People sincerely report alien abductions, miraculous healings at Hindu shrines, and prophetic visions across many religions. The question isn't sincerity, it's methodology. What standard do we use to evaluate supernatural claims? The moon landing was itself an extraordinary claim for its time, humans traveling miles through space and landing on another celestial body. But it provided extraordinary evidence to back it up: thousands of photographs, hours of film, rock samples, retroreflectors we can still bounce lasers off today, and independent confirmation from multiple countries including rivals. The resurrection lacks anything close to this level of supporting evidence.
Not to mention, you and I can actually test this evidence ourselves if we really wanted to, we can't do that with the resurrection, which is why it requires a faith component.
3. On your marriage analogy: Your marriage analogy actually demonstrates the problem. You trust your wife because you have direct, ongoing access to evidence. You observe her character, consistency, and behavior patterns in real time. You can test your trust daily through interaction. Religious faith asks you to trust claims about events that occurred 2,000 years ago, reported by people you never met, about phenomena that requires accepting a one-time violation of natural law based on ancient testimony. One involves direct, testable evidence; the other requires accepting extraordinary claims about physics-defying events based solely on testimony from antiquity.
4. You mention "atheist and Christian historians agree," but there's a crucial distinction here. Historians can agree that early Christians believed certain things happened without agreeing that those things actually occurred. This sounds like Habermas's 'minimal facts' approach, the idea that because most scholars accept certain basics (Jesus died, disciples believed they experienced something, early belief formation), the resurrection becomes the best explanation.
The problem is this conflates what people believed with what actually happened. Historians can document that beliefs existed without saying those beliefs were accurate. The same reasoning would force us to accept Muhammad's night journey to Jerusalem since his early followers were equally convinced, or Mormon golden plates since we have better documented witness testimony there. The approach doesn't distinguish between sincere ancient beliefs and actual supernatural events.
The bottom line is, why accept supernatural explanations when natural ones (legend development, religious enthusiasm, psychological factors) explain the same evidence without requiring violations of physical laws?
Also, I'm happy to review whatever evidence you're referencing, though I'm curious why it needs to be sent privately rather than posted here for everyone to evaluate? If it's in the NT, just point me to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26199]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14952
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 2:23 AM
|
|
I will be as brief as I can. You thought through your response sincerely, so I want to address all of it. If I miss something, it is only in trying to keep it short, so feel free to point it out. My numbers do not correspond to yours, but to your points, in order:
1. Correct. I was not saying one item of evidence proves a thing. Evidence stacks up. In this case, people were forming a Christian community, with the eyewitnesses, in the time and place of the events. That is not like aliens, Mohammed or Joseph Smith, all of which are events occurring in secret, no witnesses. Peter's appeal to the crowd was, "You all know it happened, right here, in front of you.
As a fun conversation, I grant that Mormonism claims some witnesses to the golden plates. Golden plates. Aside from the fact that Mormons believe some bash** craziness (you might think the same of Christians, but really, planets and 'sealed' marriages and weird underwear who knows what all), those 'eyewitnesses' dont pass any reliability test. What happened to them is what happens to all collective lies. Which you know.
You are right that conviction does not equal fact. I dont think I refer to sincerity as proof, but that someone believed what they said about where they were, what they did, etc.
2. Three separate documents (Galatians, Acts and Peter), written by different people in different places, at different times, to different people, for different purposes, yet describing the same meeting, is considered to be corroboration. Very few, if anyone, doubt the meeting happened. As you said, sincerity is not really in question. If it is, a claim of conspiracy about who went where has to be supported.
3. Zero eyewitnesses. We somewhat went through that above: the 12 are quoted by Paul via confirmed creed. But as to the Gospels, James and Peter:
- John was written by a "disciple whom Jesus loved". While it became fashionable decades ago to say we cant know who wrote anything, even the Jesus Seminar, of all people, now gives John historically accurate status. Recent scholarship points increasingly to John as the author, but at least an eyewitness disciple, as the document itself claims.
- Peter wrote part of the NT.
- 1, 2, 3 John were written by John, per Polycarp who knew him.
So, "No eyewitness" is not accurate. As to other three Gospels, Luke knew the 12, and 2 were maybe compiled by someone from Q, the oral knowledge of the first Christians. Who were the compilers, and does it matter? Shoddy bios are written while people are alive, while David McCullough won prizes for bios written about people he could not have met. How differentiate one from the other? Will mention below at the end.
4. Correct. There is no scientific evidence for almost any historical truth. If that is one's standard, we dont know Washington crossed the Delaware, for which there is much historical evidence. My initial reference to moon walk deniers was not about evidence, but the fact that the whatabouts by the deniers illuminate the truth. Same with Christianity, for an open mind. There is much historical evidence for it, overwhelming, imo. (Again, see below.)
5. Marriage analogy holds because "faith" is misdefined by skeptics as superstition. Faith is trust in what ones knows to be true. When a Christian uses that word, that is what they mean. You again said Christians lack evidence, but that is the subject we are discussing. Cant assume the premise. Christians believe they trust a real risen savior, not a promise of one. We are discussing evidence for that.
6. No, I was saying atheists and Christians agree Paul wrote certain letters (not all, but the ones I referred to), that Luke wrote a sincere account, etc. If I'm going to say to a skeptic that the NT says x, I am going to use passages secular historians agree to be attributable or true. Conclusion about Jesus is another matter. "Minimal facts" is what two people can agree on in reaching a conclusion, which in that case was that Paul wrote x, in which he said y, which he confirmed with z.
7. "accept supernatural ... violating laws of physics". We again face a presumed premise. If God is not believed to exist, violating physics becomes impossible. If God does exist, or could exist, a supernatural occurrence becomes very possible if the evidence points in that direction. While I agree that the Christian claim has to stand on conclusive historical evidence, to require that evidence to overcome an atheistic view is pointless.
8. Why not share the evidence here. 700 or so pages of small print. "Just point to the NT." Accuracy of current copies vs unseen originals, authorship, position and sincerity of the authors, assessment of accuracy of the accounts, extra biblical factors, archaeology, etc ... it's a lot. I am not saying that everyone will conclude Jesus is Messiah (I know most wont); my only point is that the evidence is solid. If solid, why doesnt everyone admit to that being the case? Another subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jul 1, 2025, 9:12 AM
|
|
Again, I appreciate your thoughtful response, this is fun. I hope this does it justice, but I need to pay the bills so gotta get to work 
1. I actually don't know what you are referring to when you say "That is not like aliens, Mohammed or Joseph Smith, all of which are events occurring in secret, no witnesses. Peter's appeal to the crowd was, "You all know it happened, right here, in front of you."
All of these certainly have witnesses and aren't secret, as evidenced by our knowledge of them. We have better examples though. At Fatima in 1917, around 70,000 people witnessed the "Miracle of the Sun" with newspaper documentation and scientific observers. At Medjugorje, six visionaries have claimed daily apparitions since 1981 with over 40 million pilgrims visiting. Both have far more witnesses and better documentation than resurrection accounts, yet most non-Catholics dismiss them. If witness testimony validates supernatural claims, these have stronger support.
Your "bash** craziness" comment about Mormon beliefs while defending resurrection claims seems inconsistent. Both involve accepting supernatural events that violate physical laws. Why is one set of miraculous claims obviously crazy while another deserves serious consideration?
2. Yes, it's corroboration in the same way as the golden plate witnesses and UFO enthusiasts. I agree we can establish sincere belief. No contention there. I don't claim conspiracy since we have ample evidence that religions form without it.
3. I'll defer to the experts on authorship questions.
4. This doesn't account for the difference in claims though. We have ample evidence of people crossing rivers. If Washington's story claimed he walked across the water, should we just accept that? Even with strong testimonial evidence, the most likely case would be embellishment rather than an actual miracle, unless we already had evidence that water-walking was possible.
5. I'm not sure where I said Christianity lacks evidence since it clearly has testimonial evidence. I'm pointing out the difference in type and quality of evidence, not its absence. Correct me if I misstated this.
6. This conflates scholarly consensus on authorship with validation of supernatural claims though. Historians agreeing that Paul wrote certain letters doesn't mean they agree the resurrection occurred. Similarly, saying "Luke wrote a sincere account" assumes both that Luke was reporting accurately and that sincerity equals accuracy. Most scholars don't consider Luke an eyewitness anyway. The "minimal facts" approach works by finding points historians agree on, but historians can agree that early Christians believed certain things happened without agreeing those things actually occurred. That's the crucial distinction being glossed over here.
7. I don't rule out God or the supernatural a priori. I simply don't see it supported by the evidence. I completely agree that if God exists, resurrections become much more plausible.
I avoid using Sagan's "extraordinary evidence" phrase because it gets mischaracterized. The principle is simply that we should believe claims in proportion to their evidence. If China claimed lunar robot missions in the 1950s, they'd need substantial proof. Today, less evidence would suffice because we know it's possible.
This is the key issue with resurrection claims. We get the claim without proportional supporting evidence, which is why faith must bridge that gap. I'm not saying faith means "no evidence," but it absolutely bridges an evidentiary gap.
8. I'm familiar with much of the evidence and always interested in filling knowledge gaps. Specifically, I'd love to see an example of the non-testimonial evidence for the resurrection you seem to be referencing.
Regarding "accuracy of current copies vs originals, authorship, position and sincerity of authors, assessment of accuracy of accounts, extra biblical factors, archaeology" - I'm already convinced of textual accuracy (copies match early manuscripts), and I defer to scholarly consensus on authorship, including that some are pseudepigraphical.
We need to be precise about "accuracy" though. If we mean our copies match the earliest manuscripts, yes. If we mean that when a manuscript states X happened, then X happened, that depends heavily on the evidence for each claimed X.
What I'd really love to see is non-testimonial evidence for the resurrection. You have my full attention - please point me to an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26199]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14952
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 11:36 AM
|
|
Thank you for a wonderful conversation. I think you have seen that my purpose is not to convince you to follow Jesus (that would be a different conversation), but to show that the "no evidence" idea, or "no eyewitnesses" is incorrect. I think we have done all we can via message board, because we have begun talking past each other, which is not your fault or mine, but the nature of message boards. For instance:
"This conflates scholarly consensus on authorship with validation of supernatural claims though. Historians agreeing that Paul wrote certain letters doesn't mean they agree the resurrection occurred." My point was not that historians agree Jesus was resurrected (though some do). My point was that if secular historians agree certain documents are authentic, we can establish - in the case of Galatians - very early belief in the resurrection by people who were in the place and time, and that this belief was corroborated by the 12. That is one item of evidence. Contrary to "Paul invented Christianity" or "no eyewitnesses", by using documents atheists agree are written by the authors stated in the letters, we can show a contemporaneous belief corroborated by eyewitnesses.
That is one item of evidence. You respond by saying it doesnt prove the resurrection occurred. One point at a time. That one gets put down as an item of evidence. One makes a conclusion from the body of all evidence.
When a witness says in court, "I saw Stagger Lee shoot Billy", no one, certainly not the defense, thinks that proves the allegation. What then follows, in court, is examination of the likelihood that the witness is accurate. Did anyone else see it? What is the character of this witness? What motivations does he have/not have? Was he/she in a position to witness? What were his/her actions before and after the event? What other evidence supports the testimony?
Once all that is done, "All you have is testimonial evidence" is not a defense, because what we then have is historical evidence. You seem to be saying that if a testimony is involved, its all "testimonial evidence". That's not how historical evidence is characterized.
All I was establishing here is that we have eyewitness accounts. That is true. We havent even gotten to all those factors supporting the testimony. I was establishing one item of evidence: i was not saying we had drawn a conclusion. I am not going to summarize here the volumes of evidence.
Similarly, "Yes, it's corroboration in the same way as the golden plate witnesses and UFO enthusiasts." You do not actually believe that. If you do, eyewitnesses to the resurrection are equal to the eyewitnesses of Washington crossing the Delaware, which we know happened. I do think those witnesses are of equal reliability, but I dont think you think so, and I dont expect you to. Instead, we have to examine the witnesses to determine reliability. All of that becomes additional items of evidence. We havent opened that box yet. As I said, its a lot.
If we were talking face to face, I dont think we'd have these issues: they'd be handled with one or two comments as we discussed. I do not believe you intend to do this, but what sometimes happens is:
- Claim of "no, or little, evidence".
- An item of evidence is introduced.
- It is discarded as not proving the resurrection.
- The claim of no evidence is repeated.
No single item proves Stagger Lee shot Billy, but a defense lawyer doesnt want the jury stacking up evidence, so the only shot he's got is to try to not allow any evidence at all to stand. I dont think that's the approach you intend to take. But it happens inadvertently in message boards. So, maybe there is a limit on a message board.
Extra biblical evidence. I am going to divert a little for fun. The answer to your question is in things like: the actions of the 12 and the contemporaneous community: the actions of Jesus' brother, who thought he was nuts before his execution: writings of people like Tacitus and Josephus: execution of some if not all the 12 (people die for a lie, but not for what they know is a lie): etc. But that's boring. For fun: a couple of years ago I came across something intriguing. I'm always the last to know. As you know, the Romans didnt like Christians. Not even a little bit. One of the explanations for existence of Christianity is that the body was stolen, though it was guarded via orders from Pilate. There is an edict from Rome, inscribed in marble and dated to about 45 AD, making it a capital offense to remove a body from a tomb "for wicked intent". Naturally, skeptics make a lot of effort to explain how it was not written to Jews. Granted, there is no proof what the emperor was thinking. But given all the factors, it seems directed at Jews, like, "We aint having no more of that." The empty tomb of Jesus was a thing. Just a fun item, I thought.
I dont know about religions existing without conspiracy, but I know that if Jesus wasnt resurrected, Christianity is a whopper of a conspiracy, a proposal that then has to be defended. Or whatever proposal one has for the existence of Christianity. I do not mind defending the proposal that Mormonism and Islam are lies created by one person. Easy to so. On that, we certainly agree. To offer such a proposal for Christianity and defend it is hard to do. Have any thoughts on that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 1:39 PM
|
|
I appreciate the conversation as well, and you're right that message boards have limitations. Let me try to clarify where I think we might be talking past each other. I suspect this is where we come to an impasse and agree to disagree, totally fair and no harm no foul, but here goes:
"no evidence," I'm not claiming there's literally nothing. I think the evidence is sufficient to establish sincere belief. I think most religions are sincerely held beliefs. What I'm saying is there isn't sufficient evidence to establish an inherently unlikely event as the most probable explanation for what happened.
When I say "no eyewitnesses," I mean we have zero first-hand accounts from anyone claiming to have personally witnessed the resurrection. This reflects both my own study and scholarly consensus that the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses. Paul never claims to have seen the crucifixion or resurrection. What we have is Paul saying he met with people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, which is fundamentally second-hand testimony.
This brings us to what I think is our core disagreement: Can extraordinary claims be established through testimony alone?
The court analogy actually demonstrates my point perfectly. Courts don't rely on testimony alone for extraordinary claims. If those same witnesses testified that the defendant made the victim literally vanish into thin air, no court would accept that based solely on their testimony, no matter how credible they seemed. Why? Because the claim itself requires extraordinary evidence. There is a fundamental difference between benign claims like crossing a river and parting one.
The resurrection isn't just any historical claim. It's a claim that a dead person came back to life, which would be the only verified case in human history. That puts it in the same category as other extraordinary claims that require more than testimonial evidence.
Here's where I think this approach becomes inconsistent: It demands a conspiracy to explain early Christian belief, but doesn't apply that same standard to other religious movements. The early Muslim community formed around extraordinary claims with comparable speed and conviction. Joseph Smith's followers died for their beliefs about golden plates. Why accept one set of testimonial claims about supernatural events while dismissing others?
All of history relies on having precedent for the claims in question. That's why you don't see any extraordinary claims, whether miraculous or just highly unusual, in our history books without corroborating evidence. If we're going to accept extraordinary claims without corroborating that such events actually happen, then we have to accept a lot of others, otherwise this is special pleading.
If we could establish that supernatural resurrections actually happen today, then I think we'd be on solid ground calling the resurrection the most plausible explanation, because now it would be corroborated with known reality. But we're being asked to accept that a unique event happened based on testimony alone, which puts it in the category that requires faith to bridge the evidentiary gap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 2:17 PM
|
|
Why did all the apostles, except John, die agonizing deaths to perpetuate a hoax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5153]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 2:30 PM
|
|
That is what nails it for me!! I’ve said said for years and even taught a lesson on the subject. People will run with a hoax if it benefits them in some way. But to spend the rest of your life in poverty, persecution, and eventually die agonizing death?? All of them? Nah they would have gone back to fishin and said forget this!!
Think about ole Paul. He must have seen something pretty convincing on that road to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 3:14 PM
|
|
There is no difference in behavior when someone is correct and when they are sincerely mistaken; no need to bring up "hoax", I certainly didn't.
Also, you might want to look into the evidence for who got martyred and how. You are currently repeating church tradition. We only have direct evidence for 2 maybe 3 of them.
We certainly don't have strong evidence that they all were martyred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5153]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 3:40 PM
|
|
No, I was not accusing you of hoax. Just responding to the post Reynolds made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 4:02 PM
|
|
oh this was for him not you, tigernet's format can be confusing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5153]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
Jul 1, 2025, 4:20 PM
|
|
Yes it can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5153]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Bible contradictions on salvation
1
Jun 28, 2025, 3:18 PM
|
|
Well one thing is certain. Theodore Drange need not debate any longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20311]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible
3
Jun 28, 2025, 7:42 PM
|
|
It did provide one man's philosophical review of why "works" is what it takes to be save. The author, despite all of his degrees and higher learning, failed in providing anything other than an opinion piece and then provided an advertisement for "Humanism" at the end of the article.
The author has certainly found the "apple of his eye" in philosophy and humanism. BTW, even the demons believe, and tremble. They will not be in heaven when it is all said and done either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3686]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible
1
Jun 29, 2025, 12:47 PM
[ in reply to The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible ] |
|
In another thread a poster defended a contradiction by giving a different answer on Jesus from salvation.
How does this do anything but confirm the contradiction?
If two different books by two different authors have Jesus answering the question “how do you inherit eternal life” differently, that is a contradiction unless one clears it up by adding more to what Jesus said.
There is no other way to harmonize it. If Jesus is truly alive why doesn’t he come down and speak again and clear it up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible
Jun 29, 2025, 12:54 PM
|
|
The answers given did not contradict each other.
One was given to a self righteous hypocrite and one yoa seeker. Both. Correct answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3686]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible
Jun 29, 2025, 1:15 PM
|
|
How do you know he was a self righteous hypocrite, and even if he was, could he not be saved by putting his faith in Jesus?
Why didn’t Jesus give that answer?
Even when he said ok you’ve kept the commandments, he didn’t follow with faith is still required, he added another work which was giving to the poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible
Jun 29, 2025, 4:51 PM
|
|
The rich young ruler said he had kept the law. Jesus knew he hadn't. Jesus told him sell all you have because He knew it would expose that the ruler had not kept the law because the ruler loved money more than God. He chose his money over following a direct command from God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3686]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible
Jun 29, 2025, 10:14 PM
|
|
“Jesus knew he hadn't”
Your entire position depends on this one statement being true. That Jesus was god and he knew the thoughts and desires of this person. You start with a premise that changes the meaning of the passage. If you take that out and just go by what it says, Jesus literally says that the way to heaven is through keeping the law and caring for the poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3686]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible
1
Jun 29, 2025, 1:18 PM
[ in reply to Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible ] |
|
Further, the writer of Matthew doubles down on this in the goats and sheep passage with Jesus saying it’s how you treat people that determines your eternal faith.
The only way you can harmonize this with your beliefs is to say Jesus was speaking figuratively and not literally. But that is making the passage say what you want, not letting Jesus, or the writer of Matthew, speak for himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible
Jun 29, 2025, 4:52 PM
|
|
Jesus did not say how you treat people determines your salvation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103181]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99140
Joined: 2009
|
Jesus speaks through the Holy Spirit He promised.
Jun 29, 2025, 1:20 PM
[ in reply to Re: The article did not provide any contradictions found in the Bible ] |
|
He has never said 'No,' when I ask a question though often He says 'Wait.' I got use to it and declare I asked a question yesterday and expect an answer soon.
God delights when I ask a question. He gets a kick out of making me wait because He, and I, know that the longer I wait the more secure that Q and A will be in my heart.
God will answer all your questions too if you'll affirm that you accept His Son as Savior and Lord. You're gonna have to shed that pride and obstinace and humble yourself to submission. One act and He will open your eyes, the act of humility once will endure forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
How about asking him why he included so many things he hates
Jun 29, 2025, 2:55 PM
|
|
in his creation, and get back with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103181]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99140
Joined: 2009
|
God did not creat sin.
Jun 29, 2025, 4:42 PM
|
|
God hates sin. He is Holy and wouldn't create evil. You will know that Adam and Eve exercised the freewill God gave them by choosing of their own accord that which God forbid them.
We've have exhausted this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: God did not creat sin.
1
Jun 29, 2025, 4:58 PM
|
|
Isaiah 45:7
King James Version
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
And we agree, that he created all of this, and knew exactly what would
Jun 29, 2025, 8:09 PM
[ in reply to God did not creat sin. ] |
|
happen, including sin and evil, and it follows that it's his will and his desire that they exist. So, according to you, he wants things he doesn't want. Unless, of course, you claim that these things exist against his will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
It's only "exhausted" to the extent you can't admit the problem with your
Jun 30, 2025, 11:17 AM
[ in reply to God did not creat sin. ] |
|
belief.
He is Holy and wouldn't create evil.
Using the same logic and assumption about God, He also would not create us knowing from the start that most of us would spend eternity in hell. That would be cruel, even if he does give us a way out, because he knows so many will not take it. Still evil and cruel by allowing any of us to spend eternity in hell.
And here's the problem with your claim: When God created all of this, he was faced with a choice - create us knowing many or most of us would spend eternity in hell, or not. He CHOSE to do it. You are playing a childish game by insisting that God HAD to do it that way, and that the infinite creator that transcends space and time HAD NO CHOICE, therefore relieving him of any responsibility. Either God is in control, or he's not. Either God wanted this or he didn't. Somehow, you are claiming that God wants things he doesn't want (evil, sin, etc). Either God's creation is flawed, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7293]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11318
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: How about asking him why he included so many things he hates
Jun 29, 2025, 4:59 PM
|
|
>Evil is an abstract concept, not a tangible thing.
I agree
Evil is an abstract concept, not a tangible thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
And we are just pawns, or characters in a video game that exist only
Jun 30, 2025, 11:41 AM
[ in reply to Re: How about asking him why he included so many things he hates ] |
|
for God's pleasure. We are nothing more than a means to an end.
You may be right, but that's not the God I believe in, nor would such a God be worthy of my love or respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 64
| visibility 3123
|
|
|
50
