beloved57
Well-known member
You believe that your freewill is the savior.
Why the Religious Will Perish with the Unbelievers
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
You believe that your freewill is the savior.
No, poor blind fool.
If you accidentally stepped on a rattle snake what would you do?
1. By your own freewill take your foot off and run?
2. Stand there with your foot on the snake and declare its God's will?
beloved57
Well-known member
You have no regard for the death of Christ.
Epoisses
New member
No they fall from grace like Jamie when they trust in the day they go to church on instead of Christ.
God's Truth
New member
Taunting the saved.
God's Truth
New member
I believed in God and Jesus since I was an infant. I was not saved until I started obeying him.
God's Truth
New member
You are trying so hard to resist. Kicking against the goads.
Epoisses
New member
Sinner and heretic!
God's Truth
New member
Obeying God does not make one a heretic. Saying someone is a heretic for obeying God makes you a heretic.
I don't trust in the day, but I trust in scripture.
Jesus was raised on the day after the Sabbath because that was the law of Moses.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh, was I? Let me look back......
No, I was speaking of your silly pride as usual.
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, it doesn't.
glorydaz
Well-known member
"Since I was an infant" - :rotfl:
God's Truth
New member
Infant means very young child.
Matthew 21:16 “Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him. “Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read, “‘From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise’?”
God's Truth
New member
You have no regard for common sense. You will believe anything that pleases your flesh.
jsanford108
New member
If this is the case, then you even posting in this thread is evidence that this is a lie. Or, more likely, that you are a pompous and arrogant troll. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and hope you were just being dishonest.
That is one of the definitions of "truth." But truth is most often an objective fact. Hence, labels of "true" and "false." So, no; provisional knowledge is not as close as one can get to objective fact/truth.
This is a misapplication of this fallacy. Lon is correct. I was not committing the fallacy of composition, because I never made the claim in the supernatural aspects being credible or accurate, only that the Bible is a historically accurate text. If, due to supernatural claims made therein, you then discredit the entire text, then you would likewise have to reject the Constitution of various countries, both the United States, as well as several in Europe, due to mentions of God.
The fallacy would then be applied to you, due to not dismissing any such text with equal discernment.
That is fine. I was just giving due credit.
You are being hypocritical. If circular logic is necessary for proving that what we observe is "real," such as the existence of the universe, then any premise that is built upon it is faulty. You would agree that circular reasoning is not a logical approach.
What caused time to suddenly exist? This is the most consistent logical statement you have made thus far; time must begin with the Big Bang. Because an eternal universe would be eternally dead, due to the impossibility of ever being able to reach "today," due to an infinite number of "yesterdays." This leads to the logical conclusion that time must have had a beginning, just like the universe.
This is true of a majority of archaic historical texts. Through various historical sciences, scholars determine who most likely authored the texts. In the case of the Gospels, there is actually direct reference to the authors around 130 AD, by various individuals. This, combined with contextual clues within each gospel account point to the ascribed authors.
I never said it was translated from Aramaic. There are original copies of Matthew's Gospel found that are written in Aramaic, which are the oldest copies of the text ever found.
This is simple denial. I have submitted evidence of the gospels being composed within the lifetime of those who knew Christ. You have not submitted any information that contradicts this claim.
We know that Matthew lived with Christ through each of the synoptic Gospels, as well as John's account, as well as accounts given by secular sources. The 12 Apostles who traveled with Christ are each accounted for, not just in the Bible, but in various other texts and proofs from the same time period. Including Roman letters, Hebrew histories (mind you, these histories are not fans of Christ).
So how do we know that Matthew and John literally walked and talked with Christ? History. Accurate historical research and reliable source material.
False. Every single skirmish involving the Hebrews was considered "war." The Jewish-Roman War, the accounts of which you refer to, are from Roman sources, correct? This war was in reality a series of rebellions by the Hebrews against Roman rule. Various sources point to such insurrection beginning as early as 10 AD, and lasting through 73 AD. So, a "war in Judea" as a grounds of proof against early composition is not too sound. Also, you are arguing about a 6 year difference in composition. I can recall what I researched and experienced 10 years ago pretty accurately.
Again, you are arguing over a 6 year difference. And, you have been dismissing historical evidence and accounts. So, in reality, you have been the one straying from reality.
At this point, could we just start a tally of how many times you claim "no eyewitness accounts of Jesus," despite historical evidence contrary to this claim? At this point we are at 6 in just this response.
And your insistence that what scholars say, which supports the existence and eyewitness accounts of Christ, being false, is not just a continued assertion of denial.
You mean, I really believe the accurate historical authenticity of the Gospels, as supported by reliable historical evidence and analysis, supported by a majority of scholars and historians? Yes, I do. I allow logic and reason to shape my beliefs and knowledge, based on the accuracy of evidence and proofs submitted.
I guess I could just blindly deny something as fiction, if I do not want to believe it. Especially when such beliefs are contrary to logic and evidence.
That makes 7. Also, if it was "possibly" composed in the lifetime of witnesses and those who witnessed, then it was "possibly" an eyewitness account, since that the the entire premise of that statement.
In reference to a Hebrew ruler, Herod, conducting a census? No need for you to do any work. Historians have already done this. And once again, the evidence supports the accounts given in the Gospels. Especially given the Herodian Dynasty. Especially given that two specifically different King Herod's are mentioned in the Gospel accounts.
Up to 8 now. Also, there is a letter on archive that is from a Roman Centurion, stationed in Jerusalem, which references Christ. Sure, I did not include him with the names of various Roman sources before, but that is because no name is known. Only the contents and date of composition of the letter, which is from 1 AD. I believe the letter in located in Europe, but I could be mistaken on that. I would have to consult my notes.
I will look into this inquiry.
Interesting point, given that that is your whole argument thus far. Especially when you have specifically stated that 8 times in this post alone. If you would like, I could comb through your prior responses and give you and even larger tally.
Also, "no evidence" is not proof of absence; I agree. But my argument is that there is significant evidence which supports the exodus of the Hebrews, and no evidence against it. My argument is not a "there is no evidence" claim, but a claim that there is only evidence in support of it, none against. Unlike your arguments thus far.
Excellent point, but off topic. The beauty of this statement though, is that you claim that the theory of Intelligent Design has failed, yet posit no evidence against it. In fact, I am sure you deny the scientific evidence that refute Darwin's Theory of Evolution. And please, provide this evidence that demonstrates proof of flagellant movement being an elegant example of evolution, because five years ago, no such proof existed.
That is 9. Almost broke 10. So close. Has my point of your claim being a history denial concise enough?
Obviously it should matter to me, and any religious person, from any religion. If one is to believe in the teachings of a person, such a person must be real, as that is the basic foundation of truth, existence; as alluded to with your Assumption list.
You should pursue the truth, with skepticism and belief, wherever it leads. If you are just going to repeatedly deny evidence, scholastic research, history, facts, etc. , then there is no point in discussion. It would be pointless, as you would be preferring falsehoods to reality.
Stuu: That must be because the subject material isn't very interesting.
...to which I have conceded the point that it is not exactly 'like all others of that kind', but that there are many elements in common and the Jesus myth contains a selection of them. Obviously.
Stuart
| 7. It's just not very interesting. The fact that people believe it is interesting, but the mythology of Jesus is that of just another Mesopotamian man-god belief system, like all others of that kind. |
...to which I have conceded the point that it is not exactly 'like all others of that kind', but that there are many elements in common and the Jesus myth contains a selection of them. Obviously.
I would make a distinction between the use of the word truth and the claim of things that are true, because people posting on ToL sometimes tend to equivocate on those definitions.
But that is how people behave in practice.
It is very simple, actually. The bible is historical fiction. Ancient Palestine existed; humans don't walk after they have been executed. Those are facts. Perhaps if this logical fallacy of composition was not what you were trying to perpetrate, then why actually were you suggesting people first establish the historical accuracy of scripture? What were you hoping would be achieved by that?
The words premise and assumption are interchangeable. I'm having some difficulty understanding what you are trying to argue here. On what basis do you believe the universe is real?
That's the problem. You can't have 'causes' if time doesn't exist yet. You could have something like 'characteristic behaviours of space-time' but I recommend forgetting about the concept of cause and effect. Big Bang cosmology and the inflation of the universe is too weird for our conventional ways of thinking about what happens to us in this gravity well on the surface of a planet within space-time. Time only came into existence when space came into existence.
Ascribed by whom, with what motive? What individuals, living a century after the alleged events described? The point is not to discover the Truth here, it is to discover what is true. The consensus of scholarship does not support your traditional view.
So why was the gospel of Matthew written originally in Greek?
I don't remember when you 'submitted evidence', I think you submitted naive assertion.
So the gospels tell us that the gospels are reliable.
You don't know what you are talking about, do you.
Experienced?
Well, what size of difference do you think is worth arguing over? You claimed the year was 60CE. You are not in the consensus of scholarship in that view.
They must be so special that you are not willing to say what they are.
Well, tell us what the historical evidence is then. And I do hope you really mean 'historical', as in subject to the rigours of proper historical analysis.
Yes, that is indeed what you appear to be doing.
Did anyone see Jesus and write about him? You still haven't named anyone in that category yet. You tried naming two anonymous people. But they are anonymous, so you might possibly have the names wrong, yes?
Lazy, lazy, lazy. Not as lazy as 6days, but nonetheless slack. Let me know if you would like some help.
Yes, that is quite a good running count of how many times you have failed to address the point you are seeking to address.
Yes, maybe you should consult your notes. They might mention the name of a single person who ever saw Jesus and wrote about him (9).
Well, maybe you should have a go at 'looking into' the work of Israel Finkelstein, and see if he agrees with you. Do you think it likely that he would not know about the evidence you claim to know about? If any single person in the world is going to know all the archeological evidence regarding the supposed exodus, it will be him. But you haven't heard of him.
Well, you mentioned ID first!
Yes I did. All you need to disprove irreducible complexity, the actual claim of Intelligent Design creationism, all you have to do is take whatever example they give, and show that part of the 'design' actually exists elsewhere in nature, doing a different job. And that is exactly the case with the flagellar motor outer component, which functions as a protein excretory system in other, related bacteria.
I don't deny any empirical evidence. Please tell me what you think 'refutes Darwin's Theory of Evolution'. Although if your attempts at that are as poor as your work on establishing an eyewitness of Jesus (10), it's just going to be more of me asking you to do some reading.
Elegance is in the eye of the beholder. For the evidence, read this excellent description by Kenneth Miller, who gave evidence at the 'Dover Trial' which established that Intelligent Design is not science, for the purpose of teaching in schools. You might recall that the whole point of Intelligent Design is to get creationism forced into public institutions under the guise of it being 'science'. Well, legally, it isn't.
You are a brilliant parody of yourself.
Stuart
No one can provide scientific evidence of what he himself just did yesterday. This is so because it is a human incapability to verify the past. To leverage this human incapability to prove that Jesus existed or not is a fallacious approach.
What you did yesterday can not be made evidenced. However, we can know what you did yesterday if an eye-witness wrote about what you did for us to believe with faith. More often this is the only way for us to get to know what you did in history. There's no other way round.
History is about how historians wrote about from a credible source back then (better be a direct eye-witness). It is yet another human incapability to examine how credible this source was, say, 2000 years back. So to leverage this human incapability remains yet another fallacious argument.
While history is the recording of human deeds by a source from eye-witnesses, Christianity is about the recording of God's deeds by a source ultimately from eye-witnesses. This is the only way for such a truth to be conveyed among humans, there's no any other way round unless God chooses to show up directly in front of all mankind. God doesn't show up this way because a covenant is said to be granted that humans will have to rely on faith to be saved. That is, if God shows up to all mankind, all mankind are thus not savable simultaneously.
In a nutshell, humans don't usually rely on evidence to get to a truth. Instead, humans rely heavily on putting faith in another human's saying to reach a truth. That's where the flaw of all kinds of atheistic arguments coming from.
What you did yesterday can not be made evidenced. However, we can know what you did yesterday if an eye-witness wrote about what you did for us to believe with faith. More often this is the only way for us to get to know what you did in history. There's no other way round.
History is about how historians wrote about from a credible source back then (better be a direct eye-witness). It is yet another human incapability to examine how credible this source was, say, 2000 years back. So to leverage this human incapability remains yet another fallacious argument.
While history is the recording of human deeds by a source from eye-witnesses, Christianity is about the recording of God's deeds by a source ultimately from eye-witnesses. This is the only way for such a truth to be conveyed among humans, there's no any other way round unless God chooses to show up directly in front of all mankind. God doesn't show up this way because a covenant is said to be granted that humans will have to rely on faith to be saved. That is, if God shows up to all mankind, all mankind are thus not savable simultaneously.
In a nutshell, humans don't usually rely on evidence to get to a truth. Instead, humans rely heavily on putting faith in another human's saying to reach a truth. That's where the flaw of all kinds of atheistic arguments coming from.