|
Replies: 102
| visibility 604
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
How Do We Know that the Bible Is True?
2
May 16, 2023, 8:19 AM
|
|
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/how-do-we-know-that-the-bible-is-true/ How Do We Know that the Bible Is True? A number of Christians have tried to answer this question. Unfortunately, not all of those answers have been as cogent as we might hope. Some answers make very little sense at all.
I'm trying to challenge my own thinking on the topic, so I figured I'd look up some arguments.
This starts out pretty good, he lays down some logical arguments saying why you can't just tell a non-christian to believe the bible because the bible says it's true, also that it's not convincing to say that you just believe by faith, but then he basically ends the whole thing by saying that bible is true because it is the standard by which we understand everything else (aka it's true because it says it is).
Can someone point me to an article that doesn't use the bible is true because it says it is argument?
|
|
|
|
 |
Tiger Titan [48992]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 45325
Joined: 2002
|
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "true"??
1
2
May 16, 2023, 8:40 AM
|
|
its not a history book (at least most of it isnt) and was never intended to be so.
Church doctrines and theologies existed in various forms prior to the canonization of the Christian Texts and Hebrews frequently debated what constituted cannon beyond the Pentateuch.
My understanding is that church fathers selected text for inclusion based on 1) how the text fit with their doctrine and theologies of the time; 2) how old the text were believed to be; and 3) who the author was believed to be. Other texts, including other epistles, gospels, and Hebrew text were excluded and in many cases banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
2
May 16, 2023, 9:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
2
May 16, 2023, 12:53 PM
|
|
Asking if the Bible is true is like asking if the library is true. The answer is yes, and no, and maybe, depending on what one is looking at in the library, or in the Bible.
The backdrop of the OT and NT is history. A LOT of history. The Bible is not a collection of maxims and prophesies floating out of context. Everything in it has context, so it's saturated with history, though the history isn't the point.
The OT is a collection of stories about the Hebrews ongoing relation with Yahweh. And it's not consistent. Because it was written by multiple people at multiple times from multiple perspectives.
I'm reading Samuel right now, and there are at least three (that I've found) ways that Saul (the first King of Unified Israel) was anointed to be King. First, by Samuel, the last judge, in secret; second, by Samuel in public; and third, by the people after a great battle.
Now, he could have been anointed three separate times in three separate ways, or, three separate factions could have justified Saul's kingship in three different ways - one as the selection of Yahweh, one as the section of Samuel, and one as the selection of the people. Each of those three ways has historical political fingerprints on it. Then the question becomes "why tell all three ways?"
Well, if one is trying to create or maintain a nation, every group needs to have a stake. It's not unlike allowing Southern states to have slavery at the forming of our nation, even though the North had less interest in slavery. Or, letting southern states have Confederate monuments in the wake of the Civil War. If you want to bring diverse people together, concessions and arrangements must be made. Telling the same story in three slightly different ways appeases three different groups.
The NT is about the new covenant, and a new relationship with Yahweh, and Jesus. The history is always there, in the background. But the story is about understanding who, and why, and what this guy Jesus is all about? Was he the Messiah? Why did he die? What happens next? Again, there are disagreements and varying opinions all through the NT. Did he intend for gentiles to hear his message? Or just jews? What did he think about women in leadership? And then there's the whole history of Paul and others spreading the word in Act and his letters.
So "true" is tough to pin down in a mini-library. A lot of the Bible is boring genealogy. But it has purposes. Like tracking who owns land, and the credibility of claimants to crowns and messiahs. But a lot of the Bible is also allegory - like being eaten by a big fish. But the underlying purpose, in all the stories and in all the history, is man's relationship with that which he cannot fully understand - God. The Bible is a millennials long effort to try and explain, and understand that.
To ask it it's "inspired" would take a separate answer from every separate person who wrote, assembled, redacted, and propagated it. Only they know if God told them to do it, or they chose to do it on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
2
May 16, 2023, 1:48 PM
|
|
> To ask it it's "inspired" would take a separate answer from every separate person who wrote, assembled, redacted, and propagated it. Only they know if God told them to do it, or they chose to do it on their own.
Sure, but that's not what is being claimed by churches today or many Christians on this board... in fact, you will be told you will get brutally tortured for eternity if you don't believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 16, 2023, 3:06 PM
|
|
As with anything, there are as many opinions are there are people. That's just my take on the Bible. Others have differing opinions. In the end, you can look around at what others are doing, or have done historically, but you'll have to decide for yourself what you believe.
>in fact, you will be told you will get brutally tortured for eternity if you don't believe that.
Lol. Just because someone says this or that doesn't mean it's true, or even false really. It might be true for them and false for you. As I've said, if God exists and is omnipotent, he can come to you one way and to someone else another way. He can tell one person there is a hell, and another person there isn't hell. In fact, if he exists beyond the realm of the universe as we understand it, I suppose he could even make hell exist for one person and not for another. What's to prevent him?
I don't know if I'll ever get to it because there's so much cool stuff in the Western tradition, but check out the other half of the world someday. It's pretty eye-opening to see religions built around enlightenment rather than faith or obedience. Just a totally different vibe. There's plenty of philosophical cross-over, like hell being a state of mental and spiritual existence rather than a physical place. But they're all descriptions of the unknown, from people trying to get a grip on what no one really knows for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: ...or you could just ask people who know God...
2
May 20, 2023, 10:05 AM
|
|
I have, all I get is that you just have to believe or listen to a voice that's not there?
I've been told there is no empirical scientific evidence for anything supernatural but that I just need faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Re: ...or you could just ask people who know God...
1
May 22, 2023, 3:43 PM
|
|
How many testimonies of witnesses to a rape, murder crime would it take for you to find the accused guilty?
Do you find Christians lack truthfulness, dependability or sincerity?
With a hose of witnesses to a crime who testified under oath would you say they were delusional?
LOl, hose should be host
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 17, 2023, 7:49 AM
[ in reply to Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"*** ] |
|
“ But a lot of the Bible is also allegory - like being eaten by a big fish. ”
A large portion of Christianity, mainly in this country, claims that story actually happened and is not allegorical.
Jesus seemed to be believe it actually happened himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3925]
TigerPulse: 65%
35
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
3
May 19, 2023, 9:11 PM
|
|
I wonder why any Christian would think this was allegory. If a Christian can believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection, foundational beliefs of Christianity, why is it so hard to believe God can suppress the digestive process of a fish for three days?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 20, 2023, 2:43 PM
|
|
Good point.
But why would god want to do that? You'll probably answer that god can do what he wants so I'll go ahead to my next question...
Why doesn't god do these kinds of things today?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3925]
TigerPulse: 65%
35
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 21, 2023, 6:16 AM
|
|
I don't think it would matter if God did something like that today. There were those in Jesus's day present when he performed miracles and still didn't believe. If God performed a miracle today (I suspect He does) there would be those who would refuse to believe or accept it.
I'm reminded of a debate between an athiest and theologian regarding the existance of God. The theologian asked, "If astronomers detected an astroid was going to strike the moon at a particular time, and every telescope on earth was aimed at the moon to watch the event, the collision occurs and after the dust settles, clearly written on the surface of the moon is, "I am God," would you then believe?" The athiest responded that he would first need to elminate all the potential natural causes for that.
I think that's where a lot of people are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 21, 2023, 8:45 AM
|
|
That's such a weak argument. You are telling me that there is a God who created people who find it hard to believe he even exists?
Remember, we didn't create ourselves, so we could not have created our own nature.
> There were those in Jesus's day present when he performed miracles and still didn't believe.
No, this is an error filled book that claims this happened. It is not definitive proof that it did.
It's super easy to say, this totally miraculous thing happens, you just wouldn't believe it if you saw it. It requires no effort, and it's not falsifiable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3925]
TigerPulse: 65%
35
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 21, 2023, 4:10 PM
|
|
I don't think anyone finds it hard to believe God exists. He has made it apparent to everyone. Everyone knows Gods exists. Many reject Him or have chosen to live their lives with no regard for Him, so they can justify living without His authority. This isn't the same a belief He doesn't exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 21, 2023, 4:24 PM
|
|
I do think there is something outside the physical world that we see. I don't think the bible is the answer to what it is though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 21, 2023, 4:38 PM
|
|
This is where I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 23, 2023, 3:47 PM
[ in reply to Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"*** ] |
|
> I don't think anyone finds it hard to believe God exists. He has made it apparent to everyone. Everyone knows Gods exists.
I was curious if that's what some religious people thought. It's not true though, It definitely has not been made apparent to me and I don't know that God exists.
Do you think everyone who doesn't believe the same thing you do is just lying? Just curious.
If I knew God existed, I would be a religious person. If I knew Jesus was the messiah, I would be a Christian. But, I don't know either of those things and it definitely isn't obvious as you are claiming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"***
1
May 21, 2023, 4:22 PM
[ in reply to Re: I would say "true" as in "inspired word of God"*** ] |
|
Well maybe that atheist asked that question but I wouldn't. I don't know of an event that has happened on earth that has no natural explanation like that.
Furthermore, why would god offer substantial proof to just one generation of people in the first century and then make everyone else rely on faith?
There'd be a lot more people in heaven if they were witnesses of miracles and someone rising from the dead. Surely you don't disagree with that statement...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: I suppose it depends on what you mean by "true"??
1
May 16, 2023, 12:16 PM
[ in reply to I suppose it depends on what you mean by "true"?? ] |
|
>its not a history book (at least most of it isn't)
This I'll have to disagree with
>and was never intended to be so.
This I'll agree with, with some conditionals
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
I have offered you several, you have read none.
2
May 16, 2023, 2:19 PM
|
|
That is very fine. You are free to believe whatever you want. I do not believe your premise that you are challenging your own thinking, but what you believe is nevertheless only your business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: I have offered you several, you have read none.
1
May 16, 2023, 2:33 PM
|
|
> I have offered you several, you have read none.
Not true, we literally had in depth discussions about some of them. If you sent one that does not rely on the circular argument of believing the bible because it says it's true, then yeah, I missed that one.
> I do not believe your premise that you are challenging your own thinking,
I really don't care. You don't argue in good faith, and you often don't answer the question I asked anyway. I don't have much interest in discussing what the meaning of "is" is with you again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
We literally did not.
1
May 16, 2023, 2:59 PM
|
|
You responded to one article, one I offered not as evidence that the bible is true, but that the naturalistic assumption as presently stated has some statistically insurmountable obstacles. Your research on that article confirmed that this is the case: one quoted scientist did reject the idea that those obstacles proved intelligent design, but did so by assuming an external influence, in his case an assumed multiverse. An infinite multiverse, in fact. IE: that flaw in naturalism exists (he helped point it out), unless answered by inserting his assumed multiverse.
The references I provided looking directly at the bible, you have not investigated. Which is fine. You dont have to. I just dont believe your "I'm just investigating" schtick.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: We literally did not.
1
May 16, 2023, 3:27 PM
|
|
> I just dont believe your "I'm just investigating" schtick.
I'm curious what you think I'm doing, then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Trolling.
2
May 17, 2023, 9:25 AM
|
|
My consolation is that you might actually read the scripture posted here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Trolling.
2
May 17, 2023, 10:17 AM
|
|
I mean, if I was pointing out how stupid I thought you guys were and stuff like that, I could see it.
I think you guys just take this topic deeply personal (for obvious reasons). If I disagreed with you this much on the football forums, "trolling" wouldn't even enter your mind.
This is one of the reasons I distrust religions, they don't like being questioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Your objections are systematic.
2
May 17, 2023, 3:56 PM
|
|
You even offer baited question for discussion knowing that all you're doing is pampering your intellect and building your ego. I suspect consciously you consider arguments as entertainment. I consider that trolling.
I however, share truths I believe I've discovered in God's Word. While it's most likely that I'm far behind other Christians in these concepts it suits me to share them and see what others have to say about them. Although, I'm also guilty of trolling sometimes. My response of 'You mean like Evolution,' certainly qualifies as a troll post due to the fact that only God can changes a man's mind about such a spiritual belief. That statement is not given with intent to have you dispute it but to ensure other Christians here that I know my intellect is far insufficient to persuade others and that only God can convict a man's heart of sin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Your objections are systematic.
2
May 20, 2023, 10:09 AM
|
|
> You even offer baited question for discussion knowing that all you're doing is pampering your intellect and building your ego. I suspect consciously you consider arguments as entertainment. I consider that trolling.
There is zero doubt that these discussions are entertaining, that's kinda the point of a forum. Call it trolling if you wish.
Does it pamper my ego? I don't think so, but the fact that there doesn't seem to be any sort of concrete evidence that anyone can point to for literally anything supernatural does build my confidence that the natural explanation is the best one we have.
I mean, people still disagree with middle-school level biology (evolution) and not because the facts don't support it.
You don't hear religious people railing against other hard sciences, but they do for the one that appears to conflict with their beliefs. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Belief in a multiverse takes more faith than belief in God.
2
May 17, 2023, 9:24 AM
[ in reply to We literally did not. ] |
|
I am impressed with the minds of those who can rationalize the existence of this world by belief that there are an unknown number of other worlds. Although, the concept is not original, it's scriptural.
The concept of eternity is the foundation of those thoughts for without the concept of eternity surely man's mind would not conceive enough time and space to allow for the vast number of universes to exist such that one of them could have life occurring naturally. Thus, given enough time and enough space anything can happen. Like a monkey typing randomly and producing the entire works of Shakespeare, right? Well, given enough time and space.
Oh that we had that much faith in God!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Belief in a multiverse takes more faith than belief in God.
2
May 17, 2023, 10:26 AM
|
|
> Belief in a multiverse takes more faith than belief in God.
I'm not personally persuaded by the multiverse theory, because it seems fundamentally unknowable, but I do think it's the most straightforward interpretation of the Schrodinger equation (aka the Copenhagen interpretation).
I don't see how it takes more faith to believe in one infinite thing than another, though... at least with the multiverse theory, we can point to a convincing reason as to why it might exist.
Also, people used to think it was crazy that there was more than one planet. Then we realized there were multiple. Then we realized we were in a solar system, which was just one part of the galaxy. Then we realized that there were uncountable galaxies. It's not that crazy to think that there are more universes than (although I find the infinite argument dubious).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Evidence of God abounds.
2
May 18, 2023, 9:12 AM
|
|
Men who hate are becoming men who love, those who mistreat and abuse have become gentle. Millions upon millions of lives have changed and those changes are deemed by all mankind to have become better lives because of faith in Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Evidence of God abounds.
2
May 20, 2023, 10:24 AM
|
|
Ok but the opposite happens as well, do we just ignore those because they don’t fit the narrative?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Who is 'WE?'
2
May 16, 2023, 2:26 PM
|
|
Half of the Christians in America don't believe the Bible is truth. Those of us who walk with God know by His Spirit that His Word is Truth.
The rest of you are our responsibility to reach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Who is 'WE?'
1
May 16, 2023, 2:36 PM
|
|
I applaud your willingness to answer pretty much anything I post, but man, you rarely answer the question.
> Those of us who walk with God know by His Spirit that His Word is Truth.
I know you didn't read the article because it addresses this exact claim and says it's not a convincing argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Why would I waste time reading something I know is a lie?
1
May 17, 2023, 9:17 AM
|
|
You should know my responses by now. We've been on this merry-go-round for a while. You know I barely consult the versions in rare cases and use the KJ exclusively.
I give your questions respect by responding. Would you rather I not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Why would I waste time reading something I know is a lie?
1
May 17, 2023, 10:32 AM
|
|
> I give your questions respect by responding. Would you rather I not?
No. I enjoy talking to you.
> You know I barely consult the versions in rare cases and use the KJ exclusively.
I did notice that you use it, but wasn't aware that it was exclusive. Why KV only?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
The KJ has a depth which is exclusive to me.
1
May 17, 2023, 4:06 PM
|
|
An example is that Jesus' prayer says 'Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.'
For decades I believe that simply meant that upon Christ's return and when He had set up an earthy kingdom that only then could God's will be done on earth. That was short sighted of me to assume a complete understanding of that one sentence.
After years, maybe decades of spiritual growth I realized that God's will could and should be done in the hearts of believers. I suppose that understanding would have happened using the versions but I know the KJB is dependable.
Maybe it's just that 'It works for me,' or just that I'm attached to it and I won't risk dependence upon anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: How Do We Know that the Bible Is True?
2
May 16, 2023, 2:45 PM
|
|
I did enjoy the article, though I had some issues with it. I could probably go on and on even more, but these are the things that really caught my attention.
>Moreover, the Bible is uniquely authentic among ancient literary works in terms of the number of >ancient manuscripts found and the smallness of the timescale between when the work was first written >and the oldest extant manuscript (thereby minimizing any possibility of alteration from the >original).
I’m pretty sure this entire statement is incorrect. I can’t speak to the East but in the West the Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies and belief systems are far better documented than those of the Levant. “Uniquely authentic…in terms of number and timescale” is an unusual phrase I can't quite figure out. Overall, the passage also seems to show a lack of understanding of how the OT and NT were created.
>The excavation of Jericho reveals that the walls of this city did indeed fall
>as described in the book of Joshua
Debatable, and a good discussion. Even the reference provided says “If God did use an earthquake to accomplish His purposes that day, it was still a miracle since it happened at precisely the right moment, and was manifested in such a way as to protect Rahab’s house.”
Well, I’m not sure we know which house was Rahab’s, and if it survived, and if God used an earthquake then it wasn’t trumpets: “when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat” – Joshua 6:20. At least, no earthquake is mentioned in the story.
I think the most intriguing proposal Kenyon made though was the idea that Jericho may not have even been occupied, as a city, at the proposed time of Joshua’s campaigns. It’s a great topic with a lot of unknowns that we’ll have to look into later on.
>A number of passages in the Bible predict future events in great detail.
To the article’s credit, the footnote here backtracks on the definitiveness of the statement. But if one is going to hedge in the footnotes, why make such a bold statement at all?
>The Bible also touches on matters of science in ways that seem to go beyond what was known to >humankind at the time. In Isaiah 40:22 we read about the spreading out (expansion) of the heavens(the >universe).
Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”
This actually reflects the Jewish cosmology of the time. Earth was circular, but not spherical. Covered by a dome. That doesn't reflect a modern understanding of the universe, but one contemporary with when the Bible was written, and when the only viewpoint available was from the surface of the earth itself.
>The spherical nature of the earth and the fact that the earth hangs in space are suggested in Scriptures such as Job 26:10 and Job >26:7 respectively. The book of Job is thought to have been written around 2000 BC—long before the nature of our planet was generally known.
Job 26:7 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Both verses are also consistent with the ancient Jewish cosmology, that is, without a modern understanding of the solar system. Pic above.
>They have suggested that the predictive prophetic passages were written after the fact, much later than the text itself would indicate.
Not necessarily. The fulfilment of the prediction may be in error, or, the prediction simply may not have come true yet.
>There can never be an exception to a law of logic because God’s mind is sovereign over all truth. We can know laws of logic because we are made in God’s image and are thus able to think in a way that is consistent with His nature (Genesis 1:27). So, when we take the Bible as our worldview, we find that laws of logic make sense.
Here I think the argument goes really astray. Along the lines of basing an argument on an unproven assertion.
>Only the Christian worldview can make sense of the universal, exceptionless, unchanging nature of laws of logic.
And here.
>The unbeliever has only “blind faith” but the Christian’s faith in the Bible makes knowledge possible.
It feels like the writer is using faith to co-op logic here. An interesting argumentative technique.
>Since only the Bible can make sense of the standards of knowledge, it may seem perplexing at first that people who deny the Bible are able to have knowledge.
Ok, I laughed here.
>God has “hardwired” knowledge of Himself into every human being, such that we all have inescapable knowledge of God. However, people have rebelled against God—they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). People go to great lengths to convince themselves and others that they do not know what, in fact, they must know. They are denying the existence of a God who is rightly angry at them for their rebellion against Him.
When I was an Atheist I would have simply used the same argument in reverse.
“People go to great lengths to convince themselves and others that they know what, in fact, they cannot know.”
That thought methodology is not a very good tool for proving something if it can be flipped right on its head.
God may or may not exist, but the above method of reasoning gets one no closer to either answer. It simply works both ways depending on whether one's initial declaration is "God exists, therefore..." or "God doesn't exist, therefore..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: How Do We Know that the Bible Is True?
1
May 16, 2023, 4:30 PM
|
|
>Can someone point me to an article that doesn't use the "bible is true because it says it is" argument?
Here's an argument for God, rather than the Bible, you might find interesting. It's from a guy named Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury around 1100AD (though he was born in Burgundy, in southern France).
I like him because he said (paraphrased): "Now that I have professed my faith, it is my duty to rigorously challenge exactly what it is I have said I believe, including all the potentially awkward implications or conclusions."
Sort of a pre-scientific method testing of religious dogma, as odd as that sounds. Whatever one wants to call he, he wasn't the kind of guy to say "it is that way because that's the way it is."
He wrote a bunch of books, including one that was requested by his fans, called Cur Deus Ho mo, or "Why God became a Man."
"I have been requested by many that I would hand down in writing the proofs of a certain doctrine of our faith, for they say that these proofs gratify them. This they ask, not for the sake of attaining to faith by means of reason, but that they may be gladdened by understanding and meditating on those things which they believe; and that, as far as possible, they may be always ready to convince any one who demands of them a reason of that hope which is in us."
Nice, huh?
Here's Anselm:
His proof of God is called the Ontological Argument, and it goes something like this:
1) A thing that exists is superior to a thing that doesn't exist.
An actual car is superior to the idea of a car.
Actual Car>Idea of Car
2) But a thing that exists both in reality and as an idea, is superior to a thing that exists only as an idea.
Actual Car + Idea of Car> Idea of Car
3) The most superior thing one can possibly THINK of is God. Omniscient and omnipotent. All-powerful.
That's the cap. The upper limit. Nothing more superior can be thought of.
4) But if God existed only as an idea, I could still imagine a something greater, Actual God + Idea God.
5) But I can't go any higher. I can't imagine "Super God." And so since the greatest thing I can think of is Actual God + Idea God, Actual God + Idea God must be reality.
6) Therefore, God exists.
It's pretty clever thinking, and I like it. But there are of course, counter arguments. Anyhow, it's something to chew on that involves the potential limits of thought, and their impact on the possible existence of God, as opposed to "it just is cause it is"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
He is smarter than me, one of a large majority,
2
May 16, 2023, 5:51 PM
|
|
so I dont mind saying I don't understand that idea. But it does seem to refer to an obvious starting point atheists, and some believers, do not seem to want to adopt:
If God exists, he would be greater than, and exist outside of, any creation: therefore, we can conduct no test in this universe that proves his existence. There are only two ways he can be seen: (1) evidence he leaves in the creation and (2) his interaction with us, which is at his discretion. IE, we can't poke into whatever is outside this.
That is an obvious truth, it seems to me. Hold that thought for a sec.
In any debate about any almost any proposal, each side has both pros and cons. No honest discussion fails to recognize both, and any conclusion is in view of both.
In this case, one proposes God exists. The starting point would necessarily be the one above, would it not? The evidence would necessarily fall into the two above categories. Both sides should have no trouble accepting this.
However, when actual discussions start, the atheist's reaction is, in my experience, to allow no single observation within either of those two arenas to be seen as valid. Rather than weighing the totality of the evidence in each category and concluding what he/she likes, the rebuttal is to deny each individual point. Therefore, the atheist circles back to demanding what would not be possible even if God does exist, a repeatable scientific test: several well known atheists have said as much.
I don't understand Ontological enough say why that relates to this, other than to say that for some reason it seems to.
Edit: All the above refers to evidence as provided one person to another. That He exists in the relational experience of those who know Him is valid proof for them, and is available to all.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: He is smarter than me, one of a large majority,
2
May 16, 2023, 10:14 PM
|
|
>I don't mind saying I don't understand that idea
Lol fair enough. What he's doing is essentially building a logical structure with a deliberate hole in it. The same thing often occurs in science.
When black holes were first theorized, the "proof" was through their absence, as odd as that sounds. A great analogy, maybe by Stephen Hawking himself was this:
Imagine walking into a giant ballroom with all the lights out. You see several lovely ladies in white dresses, all swirling around. But because the lights are out that's all you can see. But you can judge that because they are swirling, they must have a partner who is swirling with them, and holding them, else they would fly across the room and into the walls as they spin about.
If one could flip the lights on, one would see a partner in a black tuxedo for every woman in a white gown. But with the lights off, one only sees half of every duo on the dance floor, because the black tuxedos are lost in the dark. That's how black holes were initially "proved", through the absence of their visibility, but through the effect they had on their partners, galaxies instead of lovely ladies.
Similarly, when the Higgs Boson was discovered a few years ago, it was by also by filling in a gap. Scientists had constructed an theoretical instructional matrix, sort of like a periodic table. It was simply a tool for organizing various sub-atomic particles by characteristic. Think of the Hollywood Squares, except that it's missing Paul Lynde in the middle. Scientists said "There HAS to be something in the middle square. Our matrix, that we created, doesn't make sense with only 8 squares. It's a 3x3 Matrix! So there has to be a 9th square.
For 40 years they proceeded with that hypothesis, because the technology simply didn't exist to create the particle that would fit in that center square. But with the new supercollider, they finally filled the center square. They found, or made, the missing piece. It does exist either way. But they backed into the answer by saying "If the other 8 squares exist, the 9th must as well." So they didn't just "discover" it by chance. They went looking for it specifically, and in fact made the tool to find it, and created it. So whether their description of the 3x3 matrix is eternally accurate remains to be seen. What happens when they discover a 10th sub-atomic particle that doesn't fit into a 3x3 grid?
Anselm is kind of doing the same thing. He's building logic structure and saying "It must be this way, and since it is this way, X must be true." In his case he's building a tower of "superiorness", and at each tier of the tower, 1 through 4,"existence + idea" is greater than just "idea." One is the bottom, 4 is the top:
5. Idea of Super God. (This thought is out of bounds, since nothing greater than God can be conceived.)
4A. ............<<<< This is Anselm's Gap, Just like the Higgs Boson Gap. Something MUST be here!
4. Idea of God
3A. Existence of Man + Idea of man
3. Idea of Man
2A. Existence of Cat + Idea of Cat
2. Idea of Cat
1A. Existence of Worm + Idea of Worm
1. Idea of Worm
So Anselm created a logical structure, his logical structure, and used the gap in it as proof that God must exist, because the gap must be filled.
So to your conception:
>If God exists, he would be greater than, and exist outside of, any creation: therefore, we can conduct no test in this universe that proves his existence.
I'd say that is one way of explaining God, but not necessarily the only way. For instance, in another post I mentioned that Hindus, and even western philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, propose that God IS the universe, and pervades us all. God as separate from the universe is very much in the Middle East tradition.
One doesn't see that concept at all, really, in the Old Testament. But by the New Testament that idea was taking hold in small ways. It's thought that that is one of the reasons that the Gospel of Thomas, who traveled in India, was excluded from the Bible - because he was a little "too" Eastern in his thoughts about God.
Consider verses like these from the NT:
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? -1 Cor 3:16
So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith - Eph 3:17
That's not just God interacting with you. That's God living INSIDE you. A big philosophical difference from the usual Old Testament western tradition. And about as close as one will find to God being nature, himself. Two very different ways of looking at God. 1)God creating and controlling nature vs. 2)God being nature.
>There are only two ways he can be seen: (1) evidence he leaves in the creation and (2) his interaction with us, which is at his discretion. IE, we can't poke into whatever is outside this.
Yes, within the context of your initial assertion of "If God exists, he would be greater than, and exist outside of, any creation:" I'd agree with that completely. If he's external to creation I'd think those would be the only ways for us to recognize him. But if he's internal to creation, that is, God is creation itself, that might lead to different possibilities.
>All the above refers to evidence as provided one person to another. That He exists in the relational experience of those who know Him is valid proof for them, and is available to all.
In my opinion this is perhaps the strongest evidence of all, although it wouldn't necessarily be considered "proof" in a scientific sense. Once simply knows, what one knows, ja know? And if God has come to someone, I'd think they know it without a doubt. That's why I generally believe anyone who says God came to them, in whatever way, through whatever religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
Okay, that does explain it. I'll have to think about it
2
May 17, 2023, 12:08 AM
|
|
awhile to see if I actually grasp it. It has been one of those things I keep in the "Later" bin, which is overflowing. Oh, alright, it's the only bin I have. I'll get a "Got it" bin when I have something to go in it. You've put it in a way I can try to adopt.
About God and universe as one ... pantheism ... All i know about the history of it is that it was prevalent at the time Abraham left Ur. Thomas Cahill wrote a series of histories, one of them about the founding of Judaism and its effect on Western philosophy. He starts with Abraham still in Mesopotamia, describing the religious/philosophical culture that existed in that time (from extra-biblical sources), the intent being to contrast that with what Judaism then instilled, and why God did that. Pantheism was the basic idea of the time.
Not being an historian, I cant account for all occurrences of pantheism, but it seems to come during periods of what we in the west might call amorality, what the OT describes as "every man did what was right in his own eyes". Could be wrong about that correlation. Regardless, pantheism does seem to me to be humanity creating itself as God.
This would be in contrast to the Eph and Cor references, which describe Jesus (or the Spirit) living in us. In the NT, this is not a thing a person is born with, but is a result of being 'born again". The NT idea of God living in us is the opposite of pantheism, I think. I know you were not suggesting otherwise; I am simply contrasting that to pantheism. It would be an example of #2 evidence, God interacting with us.
But yes, the only "proof", if one insists on that word, is this relational transaction having taken place. It is not proof to another person, but is to the one in whom it happened, so to the skeptic the believability depends on the credibility of that one. And even that requires discernment: no one is anywhere near perfect, or even 'good', so one has to either know what that person was before and after that transaction, or see an unmanufactured repentance that supersedes imperfection. Morality and doctrine can be learned: repentance cannot, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Okay, that does explain it. I'll have to think about it
1
May 17, 2023, 12:37 PM
|
|
>Thomas Cahill wrote a series of histories
Yes, I'm familiar but haven't read them...Gift of the Jews is the one I think you are referencing. The idea of cyclic vs linear history I believe.
>I can't account for all occurrences of pantheism, but it seems to come during periods of what we in the west might call amorality
Yes, there are traces pantheism it all over and at many different times. And yes, the roots go all the way back to primitive animism - attributing a soul to everything...rocks, trees, etc.
>This would be in contrast to the Eph and Cor, which describe Jesus (or the Spirit) living in us
>The NT idea of God living in us is the opposite of pantheism, I think
I actually see it as sort of transitional, though I haven't taken the time to assemble evidence in the documents. But it's a concept I'm chewing on. It's the times and places that cultures merge that cause transitions. Like when the Greeks, or Persians, moved into the Levant, and influenced Judaism with Greek philosophy and Zoroastrian dualism.
Thomas going to India might have had that effect. Just like George Harrison learning to play sittar when the Beatles spent their time in India and several of their songs reflecting that influence. Norwegian Wood is a perfect example. So in the East, one has a more pantheistic tradition, and in the West, a clear line between God, nature, and man.
In fact, in contrast to God "being" the earth in some eastern thought, God curses the earth in Genesis. Gen 3:17-"Cursed is the ground because of you." That's about as far apart philosophically as one can get, lol.
But then in the Gospel of Thomas, Verse 3, one finds this curious merger:
[Jesus said] those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven...But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you
So that seems to me like a blend of East and West. Jesus isn't saying "You ARE God, and you ARE the Kingdom, but he's also not saying "The Kingdom is totally separate from you and you have to go there." the phrase "the Kingdom is within you" feels like halfway point between the Eastern and Western understandings of existence.
>It is not proof to another person, but is to the one in whom it happened
I agree completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
You know, I think you are right: Cahill does mention
1
May 17, 2023, 4:08 PM
|
|
cyclical vs linear life during the of Ur. It does seem as though that is often a part of pantheism.
It seems to me that this idea - everything being God - cannot be said to be a biblical one:
- Jesus said, "It is good for you that I leave, because when I do I will sent one like me." That is one sentence of several pages (John 14 - 17) in which Jesus discusses the role of his Spirit. He is clearly describing a 'person', and a point in time, not a concept.
- Much of the rest of the NT deals with the role of that Spirit in the daily lives of followers of Jesus.
- Jesus told Nic, "You must be born again." That this requires an act of will by the recipient is a central theme of the NT.
I am not arguing that a person can't take a pantheistic view of God. I'm just saying I don't think it can be held with a NT view. Not to mention the fact that if I am a part of God, as opposed to his creation, he and I both are very poor examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: You know, I think you are right: Cahill does mention
1
May 17, 2023, 8:51 PM
|
|
Yeah I agree it’s not Biblical. I was using the Book of Thomas as an example of material that was possibly excluded from the NT for exactly that semi- pantheistic flavor, either in large or small doses. NT is definitely a different concept of God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: You know, I think you are right: Cahill does mention
1
May 21, 2023, 3:11 PM
|
|
Is the gospel of Thomas considered to be written by him or even someone close to him?
All I've ever read on it was negative from christian apologists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: You know, I think you are right: Cahill does mention
1
May 21, 2023, 3:11 PM
|
|
Fordtunate Son
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: You know, I think you are right: Cahill does mention
1
May 21, 2023, 4:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: You know, I think you are right: Cahill does mention ] |
|
I think like most Gospels, there's a chance that it was written by who it was named for, but also a chance it was not, or is from a group of writers.
In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, it's a collection of sayings and parables rather than a story, so it could easily have been added to over time. Sort of like Psalms. So it's also a possibility it was started by Thomas, and then added to by others.
In short, no one really knows either way for certain, and there are few markers or dates to give clues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: He is smarter than me, one of a large majority,
1
May 17, 2023, 9:28 AM
[ in reply to He is smarter than me, one of a large majority, ] |
|
>If God exists, he would be greater than, and exist outside of, any creation: therefore, we can conduct no test in this universe that proves his existence. There are only two ways he can be seen: (1) evidence he leaves in the creation and (2) his interaction with us, which is at his discretion. IE, we can't poke into whatever is outside this.
> That is an obvious truth, it seems to me
I think it's reasonable to assume he would exist outside any creation, much like we would exist outside an AI simulation and we would be limited to any evidence the creator chose to give us.
I don't agree that the evidence can't be testable in principle, though. For two reasons:
1. If it's not testable/verifiable, what kind of evidence is it really?
2. If it's not testable, that means the creator chose not to make it testable.
> In this case, one proposes God exists. The starting point would necessarily be the one above, would it not? The evidence would necessarily fall into the two above categories. Both sides should have no trouble accepting this.
My issue here would be that the starting point should be the evidence and then drawing the conclusion from that. For example, with evolution, it was evidence first then the conclusion that it happened. I don't think it's reasonable to "propose God exists" without evidence.
> However, when actual discussions start, the atheist's reaction is, in my experience, to allow no single observation within either of those two arenas to be seen as valid. Rather than weighing the totality of the evidence in each category and concluding what he/she likes, the rebuttal is to deny each individual point. Therefore, the atheist circles back to demanding what would not be possible even if God does exist, a repeatable scientific test: several well known atheists have said as much.
Isn't this having it both ways, though? If you say one of the ways to show God exists is "evidence he leaves in creation", then what is the problem with the demand that you back it up?
What is the evidence in creation?
> (2) his interaction with us, which is at his discretion.
For this point, I agree, that is a subjective experience that isn't testable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
Re: He is smarter than me, one of a large majority,
1
May 17, 2023, 10:59 AM
|
|
- Maybe confusing 'test' with 'evidence'. Evidence can result from a test, or it can be observation of existing conditions or data. There is much evidence my car was produced in 1965, but no test I can perform that proves it. That evidence is 'verifiable': is there to see. All 'scientific' tests are reproducible, but most truth is not the result of such tests.
- A proposal is not an assumption, unless it is a starting point in a discussion about something else. One can alternately say, "Let's discuss whether God exists": same thing.
- There is much observable evidence (referenced previously) for God's existence. The atheist, rather than considering the volume and weight of it, disallows it, demanding 'scientific' (reproducible on demand) tests. By definition, we cannot devise a physical test to reach beyond the physical. The atheist demands a condition that cannot be met even if God exists.
The atheist is free to draw his conclusions that way. But that's what he's doing. I do not think I have ever tried to convince an agnostic/atheist on this board to believe otherwise; if so, was rare and in context of that conversation. Instead, I typically respond to some version of 'there is little/no evidence God exists', which is simply an untrue statement. What one concludes is his own business.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: He is smarter than me, one of a large majority,
1
May 17, 2023, 1:01 PM
|
|
It's kind of why I'm hung in the middle.
There's a whole range of phenomena outside of the physical. But how does one test for them?
I don't think anyone would deny that love exists if one has ever felt it. Or remorse. They both will physically tear your body apart, yet they are not physical themselves. But what test is there to "prove" them?
I could probably fill myself up with endorphins to get a similar physical reaction to love, but love is far more than physical. It's one of the greatest drivers of human history, yet you can't measure it on a scale, or give its dimensions.
It's the same with honor, or courage, or anger, or shame, paranoia, deja vu, or a whole host of phenomena that "exist", outside of the physical world, and that most people recognize, yet there is no way to quantify them physically.
I'd put God on that side of the ledger, so to speak. Most people in history have felt "something", at some time, by whatever definition of God they used, to try and explain what they just can't explain. But how can one get a grip on it? Particularly if it's outside of the physical world, and not given to the normal scientific tests for proof such as replication, etc. The Great Mystery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
One cant test for most of what one knows.
1
May 17, 2023, 3:52 PM
|
|
I am not referring to concepts like love, though is true for that too. How many truths does one hold, and how many decisions are made each day, based on facts which cannot be submitted to scientific tests? Most of them, I think.
Whenever I ask an atheist what evidence he would need, the answer almost always involves (1) a thing he can do that will generate an outcome and/or (2) a new physical manifestation. #1 is irrational because no physical test can reach beyond the physical. #2 expects God to do something he might not do, is under no obligation to do, and has already done (the latter is the Christian proposal, which then can be tested on its own).
This is no obstacle to understanding whether he exists, or understanding most truth. "Scientific method" (basically reproducible tests to confirm hypotheses) came into use around 1900. When most people use the word "science" today, that is what is meant. We are even taught that 'scientific method' is how science is done. However, 'science' in the broader sense, which is observation/empiricism/logic, has been used since, who knows when ... BC most likely. Was nothing known to be true before 'scientific method'? Evidence which can be subjected to rational thought is everywhere. No scientist would claim to believe nothing that cant be found via a reproducible test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: He is smarter than me, one of a large majority,
2
May 17, 2023, 4:07 PM
[ in reply to Re: He is smarter than me, one of a large majority, ] |
|
> - Maybe confusing 'test' with 'evidence'. Evidence can result from a test, or it can be observation of existing conditions or data. There is much evidence my car was produced in 1965, but no test I can perform that proves it.
Fair enough. I agree that there isn't any testable evidence for God (that we know of), so we'll stick with just evidence. Which I do, btw, agree exists. I just don't think it's very compelling. All religious texts are evidence for said religions.
> - A proposal is not an assumption, unless it is a starting point in a discussion about something else. One can alternately say, "Let's discuss whether God exists": same thing.
Again, fair enough
> - There is much observable evidence (referenced previously) for God's existence. The atheist, rather than considering the volume and weight of it, disallows it, demanding 'scientific' (reproducible on demand) tests. By definition, we cannot devise a physical test to reach beyond the physical. The atheist demands a condition that cannot be met.
I mean, I'm halfway through this guy right now, so far at least, he's used circular references back to the Bible. I'll report back if that changes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-uBpMMlgDM
> The atheist is free to draw his conclusions that way. But that's what he's doing.
Honest question, do you not think you are ignoring the volume and weight of the evidence (including hard testable physical evidence, btw) for evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
Sounds fun. When you want to point out what sounds
1
May 17, 2023, 4:13 PM
|
|
circular to you, point it out. Would be fun to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
I have now seen that talk. If you were at the halfway
1
May 17, 2023, 8:27 PM
[ in reply to Re: He is smarter than me, one of a large majority, ] |
|
point when you made your first comments, he had not yet started on his 5 points. At that point he was still making intro remarks, some of which assumed reliability of the NT, so you might have thought of that was circular, but of course that wouldn't be the case in that situation. Is like me saying to an IPTAY audience, "I have three points of evidence that show Dabo is the best FB coach in the last two decades. But before I get to that, lemme tell you something about Dabo....". In those intro remarks I might say things that assume Dabo is better than Knute Rockne, which is okay: I haven't gotten to my three points yet.
Anyway, as to his 5 points, I saw nothing questionable. It is true that those 5 events are generally considered to have happened by skeptics/atheists and believers alike. There was little opportunity for circular reasoning, because conclusions are left to the hearer. He could do a good talk on why those 5 things support a rational decision that the resurrection occurred, but he simply said, "Here they are." The underlying question in most of these threads is, "Where is the evidence?" Those 5 existing together is a small portion of the evidence pie, to be sure, but it is that.
Oh, about evidence for evolution, maybe you think I have said something I haven't. All I know about this subject is:
- adaptation (micro evolution) seems obvious. Big horses today used to be tiny.
- Animals/plants that exist now did not always exist. Was it macro evolution?I am not aware of a fossil record that shows how the transitions occurred, only that they occurred.
That's about as much as I know about evolution. I am not rejecting any viewpoint, because imo it is irrelevant. If God had life develop that way, or not, it's his decision. As to how life first began, before evolution, the naturalistic assumption that rna randomly formed from protein seems statistically impossible unless an outside influence is inserted: many atheists assume an infinite multiverse. But that is not evolution. Evolution maybe needs it's own board, like a biology board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: I have now seen that talk. If you were at the halfway
2
May 18, 2023, 10:12 AM
|
|
> That's about as much as I know about evolution. I am not rejecting any viewpoint, because imo it is irrelevant. If God had life develop that way, or not, it's his decision.
It may be true that a God used evolution, but I don't see how it's irrelevant because it doesn't square with what the bible claims (humans being created in their current form just a few thousand years ago).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
Yes, that is how the argument between evolution/anti
1
May 18, 2023, 3:42 PM
|
|
evolution starts. But that is an argument not between evolution and Genesis, but between evolution and people who believe the first child of God picked himself up off the dirt, as a adult, 5000 years ago.
But that view of the timing and nature of mankind is not universally held. I would guess it is not even the majority view. Some people, for instance, believe that the process of creating the universe began six 24 hour periods prior to that. That would not be a majority view today. Most Christians accept a Big Bang sort of beginning, and see the following verses as very consistent with a billions year process: it is remarkably accurate on that account, though that is not the intent. Likewise, biologically, we all seem to have come from one woman who lived in northern Africa.
I happen to know that one can state on a term paper at Dallas Theological Seminary, or any seminary, one's opinion that Genesis does not intend to describe mankind as starting with one physical person 5000 years ago, and he/she will receive no deduction, or extra points, for that opinion. There is not a required "Christian" opinion on that.
So, to assume one has found a 'gotcha' question there would be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Yes, that is how the argument between evolution/anti
1
May 19, 2023, 8:17 AM
|
|
> Most Christians accept a Big Bang sort of beginning,
I believe you, but that honestly surprises me. My anecdotal experience has been that most believe genesis to be literal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Most Christians don't believe the Bible is God's Holy Word.
1
May 19, 2023, 4:27 PM
|
|
I am not among that group.
I don't know how old the earth is and trust nothing in this world to reveal that to me. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. There is no mention between that event and the first day.
If man is older than ~6K years then the genealogy between Jesus, Adan, Abraham and David is inaccurate somehow. If I were going to rationalize away that genealogy I'd be intent on changing God's Word to suit me, science and most Christians. I'm not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Most Christians don't believe the Bible is God's Holy Word.
1
May 20, 2023, 10:37 AM
|
|
> If man is older than ~6K years then the genealogy between Jesus, Adan, Abraham and David is inaccurate somehow. If I were going to rationalize away that genealogy I'd be intent on changing God's Word to suit me, science and most Christians. I'm not!
See, if it hinges on this, that just cements it for me that it's not true.
Man has definitely existed (far) longer than 6K. The modern #### sapiens species is close to 200k years old. There were other human species, such as the Neanderthals, that lived alongside us as recently as 40k years ago (you almost certainly have Neanderthal DNA!)
This fact is not in question at all. It seems pretty clear which one is correct to me (the one that we have hard scientific physical evidence for). A scientist doesn't have to tell me that "it's indescribable, and you have to experience it", she can just say "here's the evidence".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Yeah, I've heard all that from my youth.
1
May 20, 2023, 11:39 AM
|
|
I remember a time when Darwin's theory still had its roots in the 'fact,' that he had slaughtered ~130 Aborigine natives and sold the world on the 'fact,' that blacks were the missing link between man and monkey. Thus and thereby did he prove man evolved from a lower species in that he had the 130 skulls which looked 'almost human,' to prove it.
The entire theory was based in a lie and I believe it is the very lie man believes in the last days which is spoken of in Revelation. You're suppose to embrace a self righteous attitude when reading this and dismiss me as a spinner of fables.
I doubt you can find an accurate record of Darwin's original sales pitch but even as a child in the 1950 I refuse it because I lived among blacks who couldn't attend my school but were welcomed in my grandparent store and at their homes and in the yards of both races to play marbles and other childhood games.
I'm not surprised that even the Word of God, just like ever other discovery is twisted to 'prove,' the theory of evolution.
Are we having fun yet? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Yeah, I've heard all that from my youth.
1
May 20, 2023, 2:38 PM
|
|
Do you think evolution hinges at all on Darwin? It would have been discovered sooner or later anyway. He wasn't aware of the entirety of the fossil record, and definitely had no idea about DNA.
Darwin could be the biggest fraud on the planet, it doesn't change what we know about evolution now.
> The entire theory was based in a lie and I believe it is the very lie man believes in the last days which is spoken of in Revelation. You're suppose to embrace a self righteous attitude when reading this and dismiss me as a spinner of fables.
Revelation barely made cannon and clearly wasn't written by whomever wrote the Gospel of John. It's also very clearly mythical. Have you read it? God is sitting on his throne, breaking seal after seal and unleashing catastrophe after catastrophe on earth? Giant bugs attacking people? People getting tortured but can't even die to escape it?
Yeah, THAT clearly sounds non-fiction and the fossil/DNA record is clearly made up (eyeroll)
> I doubt you can find an accurate record of Darwin's original sales pitch but even as a child in the 1950 I refuse it because I lived among blacks who couldn't attend my school but were welcomed in my grandparent store and at their homes and in the yards of both races to play marbles and other childhood games.
You are the one trying to make evolution racial, not me. I don't give a crap what Darwin had to say on the subject.
> I'm not surprised that even the Word of God, just like ever other discovery is twisted to 'prove,' the theory of evolution.
You have it exactly backwards, my man. You twist scientific reality to conform to ancient writings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Re: Yeah, I've heard all that from my youth.
1
May 21, 2023, 2:05 PM
|
|
"You are the one trying to make evolution racial, not me. I don't give a crap what Darwin had to say on the subject."
I'm not one of those who bought into the theory after seeing 'proof,' evidenced at the expense of 130 dark skinned people.
"You have it exactly backwards, my man. You twist scientific reality to conform to ancient writings."
Nope, I'm ignoring science which is infected with humans and therefore is far from complete. You can accuse me of being like flat earthers in my belief, but that's looking past the 'science,' of the day which persuaded everyone that the earth was flat.
The greatest scientist of his day was Archimedes who explained gravity by saying smoke rises because because that's where it belongs and rocks fall because that's where they belong.
Consider in you will that our understanding of science remains in the primitive stage. Our understanding of this physical world doubles about every 25 years. By extrapolating toward the future everything we know today will be comparable to Archimedes in just a hundred years so shortly hereafter.
Of all that is knowable about our universe what is your estimate of what percentage of all knowledge we have now? I think fans of science are full of themselves because they compare their knowledge to man of the past without consideration of how much they don't know.
Yes, my education didn't help my common sense a bit. You're claim that your education was much superior to mine is a dig being that I quit high school in 1970 and didn't get a college degree until 1988. My graduating class in high school had about 75 grads and the entire school only a a few hundred kids. It was a tiny town in rural Tennessee with a population about like Liberty, SC now.
It took the Bible educate the fool out of me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: Yeah, I've heard all that from my youth.
1
May 21, 2023, 3:20 PM
|
|
You and CUintulsa® always seem to convenietly ignore Fordtunate Son's post that cast doubt on the bible as divinely inspired. This is one of those cases. If the bible wrongly describes the universe, it couldn't possibly have been inspired by the creator of that universe could it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Yeah, I've heard all that from my youth.
May 21, 2023, 4:34 PM
|
|
Well, keep in mind though that sometimes, how something is described has as much to do with who it is being described to as to what it is.
For instance, if one is describing sex to a child, they might talk about storks and birds and bees. Later on, when they are older, they might discuss basic biology. And still later on, they might get into medical terminology, dna, chromosomes, etc.
So if there is a God, he may have explained the universe in a way that a person in 1000BCE could easily understand, given the concepts and tools those people had available to them. It's a possibility, at least. Sorting through literal, vs figurative, and why and where each is used, is tough sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
I did not dismiss...
2
May 22, 2023, 3:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: Yeah, I've heard all that from my youth. ] |
|
Fordtunate Son's many post of that graph. I've pointed out many times the perversion of the OT during the 420 years of silence. Being that the graph was generated on the believes of post OT Hebrews I dismiss it as a perversion of the facts.
They've attempted to show a literal version of the symbolic words which distorted the many verses of the Bible which compare God's creation to a flat earth which only has a firmament above it. No such literal description is included in God's Word.
Before the Dysphoria Hebrews had God to guide the thoughts of their hearts. When they departed from the Law beginning with Solomon's reign the fail to hear God speak, thus are those days between testaments called "The Silent Time."
There is little a carnal mind can perceive of the scripture. The simple understanding that there is one God and His Son Jesus our Christ are the only spiritual understandings the carnal (without the Holy Ghost) can appreciate and comprehend.
I dismissed that graph as being a produce of carnal mind's conceptions of Holy Words. I have not ignored it. Fordtunate doesn't argue with anyone so we've not bumped heads about this. I have not attacked his understanding because I'm persuaded that he is being 100% honest in his assessments that Jews know more about their writings than anyone.
He has not contradicted me because he knows I am 100% right about my belief because I have a different perspective. God is my reference to these matters which I often reiterate.
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: I did not dismiss...
2
May 22, 2023, 4:27 PM
|
|
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.
I would agree a lot of the descriptions in the bible are hard to decipher.
I think that's why it bothers me so much when people have such dogmatic beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
It's not as if many of us don't struggle to differentiate...
1
May 22, 2023, 5:51 PM
|
|
between the literal and symbolic nature of much of the Psalms and other prayers of the Bible.
You'd think the Jewish Priest and Rabbis are the authority on the OT but even their text condemns them for being hard hearted and stiff necked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: I have now seen that talk. If you were at the halfway
2
May 18, 2023, 11:21 AM
[ in reply to I have now seen that talk. If you were at the halfway ] |
|
The problem with his arguments, and all apologists use these same arguments, is he constantly compares the New Testament to other historical figures and religions.
Just because there is more historical evidence for early christianity and Jesus doesn't mean he actually rose from the dead.
Obviously a large group of people believed Jesus rose from the dead. There have been plenty of people that believed all sorts of crazy things throughout history.
We see people blow theirselves up in the name of Allah. That doesn't make the Koran true.
We see people drink cyanide in the jungle. That doesn't mean a spaceship picked them up.
The early christians believed Jesus would return in their lifetimes. We have attestation of that in the New Testament.
Guess what? It didn't happen. We are still here.
Case closed. Christianity is a false worldview.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
I have been told to not answer a fool according to his own
2
May 18, 2023, 3:02 PM
|
|
folly, but I have been known to violate many of the laws of man, and not a few of the almighty, so here goes ($1 to Buster Scruggs):
Habermas did no such thing in listing those 5 historical events. All agree those 5 happened, and not because the bible records them.
Some of the first believers may bave been prepared for him to return in their lifetimes. Jesus had said this would not be the case. Regardless, their faith was not based on that expectation, which was 'divinity, death, resurrection'.
Logic by TBD:
- Lester believes his wife, Ida, is returning from a trip Thursday.
- Ida doesn't arrive on Thursday.
- TBD: "Ida doesn't exist."
Yes, some people hold wrong beliefs.
TBD: "Your belief is therefore wrong too. But mine is not."
I'm sure that will just generate more nonsense. Go ahead.
https://youtu.be/g_XLQDeYqpE
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: I have been told to not answer a fool according to his own
1
May 19, 2023, 1:26 PM
|
|
"Some of the first believers may bave been prepared for him to return in their lifetimes. Jesus had said this would not be the case."
Where did Jesus say this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
LOL. Dog ate your homework?
1
May 21, 2023, 11:49 AM
|
|
"The vitals of this one appear unpunctured. Sloppy shootin' on my part. I'll leave the coo de grass to the vultures and the gila monsters.
https://youtu.be/bGLvsinjbwI
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
Not some, many were expecting the end of the end in...
3
May 22, 2023, 4:22 PM
[ in reply to Re: I have been told to not answer a fool according to his own ] |
|
their immediate future, their lifetimes. We've talked about this a couple times but you continue to ignore those discussion. Probably because they confound one of your contentions.
Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians. Chpt 2:
"1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."
The confusion came from remembering and hearing about half of what Jesus had to say about the coming of the Kingdom of God. Though it was a time before they received the Holy Spirit they failed to reexamine all of Jesus' teaching on the coming of The Kingdom.
Matt 6:
"4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
Yet even John the Baptist told the Jews that the Kingdom of God was at hand. The confusing is a result of the misunderstanding between the first and second coming of Christ. He was taking His first lap at the time He came to John to be baptized.
Jesus' death facilitated the kingdom and His resurrection brought God's Spiritual Kingdom to mankind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The end of my life will be my end of time(s). Same with you and everyone else. A simple search of obits shows us that time ends now for many each day. Paul's issue with the people is that their interest in finding Christ in the flesh might lead to their deception, imo. That is my personal opinion and I have no scripture to support it.
However, if a man lives like he would be facing God Who would hold him accountable at the end of every day his life would be much different for the rest of that day. All we get is one day at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103006]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99004
Joined: 2009
|
I spent most of my adult life believing that Jesus would...
1
May 19, 2023, 4:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: I have now seen that talk. If you were at the halfway ] |
|
return during my lifetime. I'm starting to understand that at 70y/o the probability is being reduced daily. However when I soon close my eyes for the last time then Jesus will be there to walk me through the valley of the shadow of death.
I'm thinking, what does it matter? You're only one heartbeat and one breath away from eternity too. If you passed away today would you walk that valley alone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
What do you mean by 'from the bible'? They were events
2
May 18, 2023, 2:33 PM
|
|
recorded in the bible, but they are events which atheists agree happened. They are considered historical occurrences, and not simply because the bible records them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: What do you mean by 'from the bible'? They were events
2
May 18, 2023, 3:02 PM
|
|
So the events discussed were: "homologia", the creeds embedded in the New Testament texts, Paul's conversion, the conversion of James, and Paul's visit with Peter and James three years after his conversion."
So, I mean, I agree that those are probably historical occurrences, I just misread the video description I guess. I thought it was going to be 5 facts that proved the resurrection happened.
I didn't hear anything that would make me think anything supernatural happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
We may be saying the same thing here, but as I remember it
1
May 18, 2023, 3:26 PM
|
|
the five were:
1. Jesus's brother, cynical of Jesus during his life, became a Christian after his death.
2. Homologia (divinity, death, resurrection) defined the faith from the very beginning.
3. This formed the basis for the first community of believers (creeds).
4. Paul, a killer of Christians, became one within two years of Jesus's death.
5. His conversations the 12 occurred several years later, and confirmed the common understanding.
All this happened before "John" was written.
Yes, he just laid those out there, and ended. If one is looking for a 20 minute proof for the resurrection, there is not one available: the subject and the evidence for it is too broad for that. Those five instead address a number of issues raised by skeptics, among them:
- "Christianity" as we know it developed over time
- Paul invented it
- many beliefs about Jesus coexisted until councils cobbled together a bible of their liking.
- documents like "Thomas" are just as valid.
- ancillary expectations (ie, he would return soon) show a variety of central tenets, some false.
There are a number of others, I'm sure. So, sure, that alone is not proof. Establishing historicity is not a simple process. This is one slice of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: We may be saying the same thing here, but as I remember it
2
May 18, 2023, 3:58 PM
|
|
Ok, well that makes the intention of the video clearer to me then.
> Yes, he just laid those out there, and ended. If one is looking for a 20 minute proof for the resurrection, there is not one available
Ok, so I'm not missing something obvious here, then.
- "Christianity" as we know it developed over time
I think this depends on which timeframe we mean. If you mean from when they started writing the NT to now, then yeah. If we mean the time period after Jesus' death until they started writing, then I think there is plenty of opportunity for it to develop.
His followers were probably in shock that he was killed, and then had to make sense of his death.
- Paul invented it
I don't think he invented it, but he may have been the first to put together an understanding of Jesus' death that made sense to people.
- many beliefs about Jesus coexisted until councils cobbled together a bible of their liking.
I'm not a scholar, so I can't speak intelligently to this, but aren't there apocryphal gospels and other manuscripts that almost made the NT? I'm not saying it was "cobbled" together, but it does sound like there were competing ideas.
- documents like "Thomas" are just as valid.
If that's the one I'm thinking of, it does indeed have some wild stuff. Like the cross itself walking out of the tomb and speaking!?
- ancillary expectations (ie, he would return soon) show a variety central tenets, some false.
Doesn't he say he would return before some of them tasted death?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
All that is right. What those five are referring to is not
1
May 18, 2023, 6:16 PM
|
|
the idea that application of the homologia would not develop over time. Or course it did; much of the NT is about that. But some critics attempt to say that the basics of Christianity, the homologia itself, developed over time. He is showing that secular history shows this to not be the case. Why is that important? It shows that the homologia resulted from something that happened at a point in time, and was not a theological or philosophical development.
If it occurred at a point in time, and that point is at or near the time of Jesus's death, one has to consider what might have caused it, and one cannot look forward in time for that explanation: the history all agree to prevents that speculation. It is a very important starting point in assessing the historicity of the NT. Those 5 events all but preclude sociological/philosophical explanations.
What Jesus said was, "There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” Several things would fit that better than his return:
- his resurrection
- the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2, which was his promise in John 15-17.
The latter would get my vote. One of the last things he said was, "When my Spirit comes to you, you will receive power to be my witnesses...". The similar wording would give it my vote. When he comes again, his kingdom will already be here. Has been since he left, imo.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: All that is right. What those five are referring to is not
1
May 19, 2023, 12:38 PM
|
|
> If it occurred at a point in time, and that point is at or near the time of Jesus's death, one has to consider what might have caused it, and one cannot look forward in time for that explanation: the history all agree to prevents that speculation. It is a very important starting point in assessing the historicity of the NT. Those 5 events all but preclude sociological/philosophical explanations.
Sure, but I think the decades before the NT was written is plenty of time for there to be many takes on what happen and for one to prevail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
Are you choosing to not understand?
1
May 21, 2023, 11:32 AM
|
|
When the documents were written is not the issue. The question is did the resurrection occur. Atheists agree those 5 events actually occurred, for a number of reasons. If it happened the documents are reliable. What is it you are not getting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Are you choosing to not understand?
1
May 21, 2023, 1:17 PM
|
|
I definitely don’t understand how those 5 events prove the resurrection occurred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
I definitely understand you are choosing
1
May 21, 2023, 6:54 PM
|
|
to not understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: I definitely understand you are choosing
1
May 21, 2023, 6:59 PM
|
|
1. Jesus's brother, cynical of Jesus during his life, became a Christian after his death.
2. Homologia (divinity, death, resurrection) defined the faith from the very beginning
3. This formed the basis for the first community of believers (creeds).
4. Paul, a killer of Christians, became one within two years of Jesus's death.
5. His conversations the 12 occurred several years later, and confirmed the common understanding.
For the sake of argument, let's say all of those are true; how exactly does that prove a resurrection?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
I didn't say those alone prove it.
1
May 22, 2023, 2:56 AM
|
|
Habermas mentioned 4000 pages. McDowell's "Evidence ..." is not light reading. But I didn't post that video. I think you did. It shows what it shows, not what I say it shows.
What it shows - what the speaker says it shows - is that it answers one objection ubiquitously (if that is a word) raised by skeptics: "The basic faith (divinity, death, resurrection) came late in Christianity, several decades if not a century after 33 AD. This is not what the contemporaries believed Jesus said." To make that claim, one has to throw all available dust in the air regarding authorship/date of the documents, disregarding the evidence for more traditional authorship/dating.
Fine. So Habermas says, "Okay, forget what I think about those issues. Let's look only at what atheist scholars will agree to regarding the events of 33 to 36 AD." He then goes through 5 such events, events even atheists believe happened. For instance - this is not one of those 5 - atheists believe a man named Jesus lived, and most will believe he was executed by the Romans. Not just because the bible says so, but because of the surrounding circumstances, extra biblical references, etc. If they agree on those two things, what else do they agree on?
Those 5 things, among others, for the same reasons. So, if the general consensus is that those events are historical - they actually happened - what we know is:
- The tenets of the faith did not develop over time.
- They came into existence at a point in time.
- This time was at - or at the very least, very near - Jesus's death.
We can start there, knowing Christianity was not a religous/sociological development, but a new belief that began at a point in time, one held by a large and growing number of people who were contemporaries of Jesus. The above objection is completely invalid and proven wrong. From that point, we can begin to look at the issue of what this event or circumstance might have been.
We thus have a starting point for evidence for the resurrection, because for the 5 to not be proof one does have to offer an alternative to the Ocam's Razon explanation: If contemporaries of Jesus believed the homologia, they saw the homologia happen. What are the defensible alternatives?
Can you see that the matter of when, say, "John" was written is not an issue here? Yes he describes a "high Christology", and yes he wrote it 60 years after Jesus - everybody knows this, nobody is forgetting it, no reminder is needed - but this "Christology" (divinity, death, resurrection) can be shown to exist, asking only atheists, long before he wrote about it in biographical form. When he wrote it is irrelevant to those 5 events.
This not only answers your question, but if you look above you will see that this is a repeat. This question was already asked and answered. You really do ask questions that go in circles. You seem to refuse to think in a straight line. This happens so frequently, and so quickly, that if I had to check a box I would say you are doing it on purpose. I would be embarrassed to argue otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: I didn't say those alone prove it.
1
May 22, 2023, 7:52 AM
|
|
> I didn't say those alone prove it.
Yeah, nothing ever seems too.
> This not only answers your question, but if you look above you will see that this is a repeat. This question was already asked and answered. You really do ask questions that go in circles. You seem to refuse to think in a straight line. This happens so frequently, and so quickly, that if I had to check a box I would say you are doing it on purpose. I would be embarrassed to argue otherwise.
I think you need to remove the "i" in your username.
> We can start there, knowing Christianity was not a religous/sociological development, but a new belief that began at a point in time, one held by a large and growing number of people who were contemporaries of Jesus.
Yeah, that doesn't follow for me. How it can be definitively said that it's not a religious/sociological development when there was plenty of time before the first accounts were written doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think that objection is "completely invalid or proven wrong".
> We thus have a starting point for evidence for the resurrection, because for the 5 to not be proof one does have to offer an alternative to the Ocam's Razon explanation: If contemporaries of Jesus believed the homologia, they saw the homologia happen. What are the defensible alternatives?
Maybe I'm missing something, but how do we know that the contemporaries believed the homologies? The NT was written decades after his death. There was plenty of time for people to be confused/shocked by Jesus' death, and then try to figure out a reason why it must have mattered.
It would be one thing if the disciples were writing down the homologies while Jesus was still alive. Then we'd actually know that Jesus realized he would be crucified and raised again. But correct me if I'm wrong, we don't have that at all. We have accounts written afterward which easily could be formed to fit whatever the new narrative was after he died.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
Ah, down to that. Okay. It's not questions you like, but
1
May 22, 2023, 11:24 AM
|
|
answers you hate. Language reveals ones limits, and we've uncovered yours. No more circles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Ah, down to that. Okay. It's not questions you like, but
1
May 22, 2023, 11:58 AM
|
|
This is a tiring shtick. If you can't or don't want to respond to my rebuttals, then don't.
Pointing out flaws in your argument isn't "hating answers" or "going in circles".
> Language reveals ones limits, and we've uncovered yours.
You can't even intelligently defend your own position. You claim supernatural stuff happens and then, when pressed, you beat around the bush and never get to the point. It's always "well no, this doesn't prove it on its own, here is another tome of apologetic literature".
If you believe something on faith, that's great, just that, though; don't act like there is any concrete evidence for anything supernatural and then never pony up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
None of which you will become familiar with, even
1
May 22, 2023, 12:14 PM
|
|
"forgetting" the answers you do receive. Really, you have your mind made up. Fine. I have said several times that I have not tried to convince anyone on this board to choose a religious view. I do respond to comments that say there is no evidence, or that Christianity is not a rational, historical belief. I'll reference all the evidence one needs about that.
Yes, you talk in circles. Your 5th question repeats the 1st one, even though the 1st one has been answered. That is either trolling, a chosen bias, or simple inability to think linearly. I cant say which, and haven't.
This is where you make a personal insult. You opened the morning at the top of the page with one. TBD logs on to inform us of who he's mad at that day, and you hate Christians. It's okay. We know.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: None of which you will become familiar with, even
1
May 22, 2023, 12:35 PM
|
|
> This is where you make a personal insult
Buddy, that is your thing. I'm just giving it back to you.
Go back and look at how you end most of your interactions with me.
> TBD logs on to inform us of who he's mad at that day, and you hate Christians. It's okay. We know.
I think you just get mad when challenged. Disagreeing and asking questions is not hate (I realize the religious do not like that historically). I don't post things that say Christians are dumb/stupid, I ask legitimate questions in the religious forum.
> I do respond to comments that say there is no evidence, or that Christianity is not a rational, historical belief. I'll reference all the evidence one needs about that.
Historical belief, as in, some of the people/places existed and some of it is historically accurate? Sure. Historical, as in we should believe the supernatural bits? The evidence does not show that, and that's what you seem to be claiming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
Started with a lie, ended with another circular
1
May 22, 2023, 1:13 PM
|
|
argument. I can see you don't understand what those are, so here is how one works:
"...is historically accurate? Sure. Historical, as in we should believe the supernatural bits? The evidence does not show that, and that's what you seem to be claiming."
Follow with me here, again. There is no evidence that can be reproduced that 'scientifically' proves a supernatural event. If one does happen, there will be no scientific evidence for it. A man can have his broken leg supernaturally healed on the operating table, people standing there, and there will be no scientific evidence for it. The testimony will be overwhelming, but no "proof". Even the before/after xrays are not proof. There is always a 'yes but', and it can't be reproduced. With me so far? Lets don't go over this part again.
So, lots of truth is known by the evidential - not scientific proof - process. Almost all of it, actually. Washington crossing the Delaware. The only way the normal evidential tests, which are very rigorous - "tomes", one might say - do not point to the resurrection is to start with your beginning point: evidence doesn't show a supernatural event. It can't, can it?
You: There is no evidence for the resurrection.
Me: Here is more evidence than one can assimilate in a month.
You: I won't read it, but the little bit I have found in this video, while historical, doesn't show a that a supernatural event occurred.
Circular, by definition. I will agree that more evidence is needed to conclude that the resurrection occurred, but your returning to "evidence doesn't show supernatural" is circular.
And that is fine. You can hold onto that starting assumption. Just say it. But to continue to accuse me of the one who doesn't "provide proof" is, well, I'll put it this way: You are not good at this. You are missing both the available data and the desire to progress linearly. You don't recognize a logically invalid position. You do not seem to be aware that you have chosen a position for which there can be no discussion. "Supernatural requires proof" is a position that cannot be discussed. It is your position. Fine.
No charge for that. Glad to do it. But can I ask one thing? Let's don't have to go over that again.
TBD is even worse, but similar. I still suspect you are the same person. That, in case you are wondering, is an actual insult. If I insult you, you'll know it. But you can go insult fuller again if you want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Started with a lie, ended with another circular
1
May 22, 2023, 1:39 PM
|
|
The problem here is that you are too pedantic. Yes, we did indeed already establish that there is no scientific test for the supernatural, that't not what we are discussing here.
You claim that there is the same standard of evidence for the resurrection that there is for other historical events, like there is for Washington crossing the Delaware. You have not provided that and AFAIK it doesn't exist.
> You: There is no evidence for the resurrection.
Me: Here is more evidence than one can assimilate in a month.
You: I won't read it, but the little bit I have found in this video, while historical, doesn't show a that a supernatural event occurred.
You're right, I'm not going to read all the apologetic material you send me. I looked into them, read reviews and saw what they were. All of them have had an agenda and are not interested in anything other than proving their religious views as valid.
> Circular, by definition. I will agree that more evidence is needed to conclude that the resurrection occurred, but your returning to "evidence doesn't show supernatural" is circular.
Read what you wrote again, very carefully, and ask who is being circular.
So you can concede that more evidence is indeed needed to conclude the resurrection occurred, but then say I'm being circular by claiming you haven't provided it?
> And that is fine. You can hold onto that starting assumption. Just say it. But to continue to accuse me of the one who doesn't "provide proof" is, well, I'll put it this way: You are not good at this.
Yawn.
> "Supernatural requires proof" is a position that cannot be discussed.
Um... what?
So, when you say "christ rose from the dead".
And I say, where is the proof?
That is a position that can't be discussed?
Don't go squirrelly on me and claim that I don't understand that the supernatural is outside the realm of science (i.e. it doesn't exist), that's not what i'm asking. I'm talking about how you can make that claim without backing it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
Congratulations. You are improving.
1
May 23, 2023, 8:06 AM
|
|
Your chosen ignorance is out there for all to see.
"Evidence ..." (1st edition) is one of the most comprehensive and well documented investigations of the historicity of the resurrection ever undertaken. Dont have to agree with the conclusions, but it is top drawer.
So why wont you become familiar with this subject? Because you read a review (by an atheist) and found that McDowell believes the resurrection occurred, what you call having an agenda. That really is too good. Do you also put your fingers in your ears and run around saying "nah nah nah"?
That's as bad as I have seen. But really, that is fine. You are an atheist who wants to read confirmations by other atheists. Fine. At least this is a statement of who and where you are. You can say you are an atheist all you like, no pushback from me. If you say say something illogical, a near certainty, I might point it out, but with nothing said about you. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2058]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: Congratulations. You are improving.
2
May 23, 2023, 9:24 AM
|
|
This is surreal lol.
You are doing exactly what you accuse me of.
You think the evangelical scholars don’t have an agenda/bias? Why do you cherry pick Christian sources?
You also close your ears to evidence. You “disagree” with middle school biology so your condescension is quite hilarious.
In your mind, a snake evolving is ludicrous but a talking snake is not. So excuse me if I don’t think you are the most critical thinker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: I didn't say those alone prove it.
1
May 22, 2023, 4:36 PM
[ in reply to Re: I didn't say those alone prove it. ] |
|
"Maybe I'm missing something, but how do we know that the contemporaries believed the homologies? The NT was written decades after his death. There was plenty of time for people to be confused/shocked by Jesus' death, and then try to figure out a reason why it must have mattered."
They believe the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 to be traced to only a few years after Jesus died, and that it was confirmed at least by Peter and some of the other disciples who were closest to Jesus. I'll grant CUintulsa® that.
My beef is that there is no proof that any of these people ever even lived. The entire story could have been made up by a bunch of greek loonies in a cave. We've seen that happen plenty of times in history where people come up with a crazy idea and are actually able to gather a following.
The christian movement in the first century was small and insignificant. If a man had rose from the dead and then the graves opened up and a bunch of dead bodies started walking around Jerusalem (a lot of christians don't even know the bible says this) you'd think it would have exploded immediately and not taken 300 years, and you'd think at least one secular source would have mentioned this event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: I didn't say those alone prove it.
May 22, 2023, 6:39 PM
|
|
>Greek Loonies in a Cave
Lol, I’ve just found the name for my new band
“Hey man! The Loonies are playing at the amphitheater tonight!”
#GreekLoonies4Life
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: All that is right. What those five are referring to is not
1
May 19, 2023, 1:36 PM
[ in reply to All that is right. What those five are referring to is not ] |
|
Jesus also said at the beginning of his ministry that "the kingdom of god is at hand", as if it had already come. That would seem to contradict your theory and Jesus words that you've quoted here.
Mark 1:14-15
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Why do those two explanations fit what he said better?
This is a perfect example of harmonization. You, like every other christian, read the bible with assumptions about what it means already and mind...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26104]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14895
Joined: 2001
|
If He is here, the Kingdom is here. It is here now.
1
May 21, 2023, 11:35 AM
|
|
"Appears to do, yes."
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: We may be saying the same thing here, but as I remember it
1
May 19, 2023, 1:30 PM
[ in reply to We may be saying the same thing here, but as I remember it ] |
|
1. What's baffling is that James grew up with Jesus and never recognized his divinity. How could that be?
4. There is no record of Paul outside the New Testament. His story starts with his conversion. If he was such a prominent Jew why would nobody mention him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: We may be saying the same thing here, but as I remember it
1
May 19, 2023, 1:51 PM
|
|
>4. There is no record of Paul outside the New Testament. His story starts with his conversion. If he >was such a prominent Jew why would nobody mention him?
Actually, several Church fathers mention Paul. I don't have a comprehensive list, but here's a blurb I dug up on a chat board: h t t p s://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/44711/why-did-clement-and-eusebius-believe-that-paul-was-married
"Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry." (Church History, 3.30)"
That comment it interesting in a lot of ways. It's by Eusebius in his "Church History." But nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say Paul has a wife, though 1 Cor 9:5 says this: "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (ESV)
So it seems that Clement is getting his info from an epistle from Paul that is not in the Bible. he may reference in his own Epistle of Clement, from about 100 AD, also not included in the Bible. There are more examples, those are ones I could grab quickly. Bottom line was that Paul was recognized in the church "circle" very well. Outside that circle, corroborating evidence might be harder to come by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: We may be saying the same thing here, but as I remember it
1
May 19, 2023, 4:05 PM
|
|
Well yea the church fathers were going off the New Testament. There’s no Jewish mention of him around the time of Jesus.
Hard to believe if he was a such a prominent Jew who was going around killing Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 102
| visibility 604
|
|
|
50
