JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

And the way to prove it was to set out the facts of what had happened - in other words, the history of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Otherwise, they would have had only a little story which would have convinced no one, much less persuaded people to give their lives rather than recant their beliefs.

---

"A little story" is all they had and it was simply their witness to what they had seen and heard but it was a powerful story. It was the story of God's love.

How is your faith dependent on the complete historicity of the texts?

---

Because if Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are not historical events which actually happened, then Christianity is pointless.

In saying it was "their witness to what they had seen and heard," you are of course affirming the stories' historicity.

---

we'll sure , if your gonna use logic

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

And the way to prove it was to set out the facts of what had happened - in other words, the history of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Otherwise, they would have had only a little story which would have convinced no one, much less persuaded people to give their lives rather than recant their beliefs.

---

"A little story" is all they had and it was simply their witness to what they had seen and heard but it was a powerful story. It was the story of God's love.

How is your faith dependent on the complete historicity of the texts?

---

Because if Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are not historical events which actually happened, then Christianity is pointless. Who said that those events weren't historical? I am saying they do not meet the standards of historicity. In addition, one needs to take into count the historiography of the gospel writers. Their intent is faith not historicity.

In saying it was "their witness to what they had seen and heard," you are of course affirming the stories' historicity. No I affirming their faith and and I am affirming it with my life with my discipleship and my ministry. You, too, affirm it with your life and ministry. We walk by faith not sight.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

And the way to prove it was to set out the facts of what had happened - in other words, the history of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Otherwise, they would have had only a little story which would have convinced no one, much less persuaded people to give their lives rather than recant their beliefs.

---

"A little story" is all they had and it was simply their witness to what they had seen and heard but it was a powerful story. It was the story of God's love.

How is your faith dependent on the complete historicity of the texts?

---

Because if Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are not historical events which actually happened, then Christianity is pointless.

In saying it was "their witness to what they had seen and heard," you are of course affirming the stories' historicity.

---

we'll sure , if your gonna use logic It's sophistry and rhetoric and not apropos to the historicity of the events nor the historiography of the gospel writers.

---

I affirming their faith and and I am affirming it with my life with my discipleship and my ministry. You, too, affirm it with your life and ministry. We walk by faith not sight.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

And the way to prove it was to set out the facts of what had happened - in other words, the history of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Otherwise, they would have had only a little story which would have convinced no one, much less persuaded people to give their lives rather than recant their beliefs.

---

"A little story" is all they had and it was simply their witness to what they had seen and heard but it was a powerful story. It was the story of God's love.

How is your faith dependent on the complete historicity of the texts?

---

Because if Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are not historical events which actually happened, then Christianity is pointless.

In saying it was "their witness to what they had seen and heard," you are of course affirming the stories' historicity.

---

we'll sure , if your gonna use logic It's sophistry and rhetoric and not apropos to the historicity of the events nor the historiography of the gospel writers.

---

I affirming their faith and and I am affirming it with my life with my discipleship and my ministry. You, too, affirm it with your life and ministry. We walk by faith not sight.

---

you have faith in Christ due to someone else's faith in Christ that they have because of something they may or may not have seen. Gotcha No, you haven't "gotin me' because you miss an essential of faith faith.

How is that different than a Person that has faith in the moon or witches because mom or dad have faith in the moon or witches? With that logic, how do you defend your faith.? My faith is grounded in the Biblical witness. I don't know what witches ground their faith in and what their logic is and your analogy of logic is irrelevant to the my logic which is that the Scriptures are my grounding in the love commandment and the will of God.
The witness of your faith faith is God's love commandment and seeing that commandment come alive in Jesus' is the ultimate truth of my belief. Do you not believe in the reality of the love God found in Jesus, your life and our shared Biblical faith. Moon worshippers have a different standard to me.
It's either that or, you are saying the gospels meet your standard of history but not the true standard of history. I will post a separate thread about the standard of history and the standard of faith. In concise terms the standard of history is about facts grounded in primary sources. The gospels are not primary sources by accepted history standards BUT, they were never intended to history but rather to be "Good News" hence; the name gospels, not historical account. The standard of faith is grounded in the spiritual witness of the earliest disciples.

Doesn't our faith in Christ come before our walk in faith? Otherwise, it would be walking in what faith. My faith in Christ is his love for me shown in his life, death, and resurrection which are the ultimate foundations of God's love for us. I walk in that faith with my stumbling love for you, myself, and humanity.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

And the way to prove it was to set out the facts of what had happened - in other words, the history of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Otherwise, they would have had only a little story which would have convinced no one, much less persuaded people to give their lives rather than recant their beliefs.

---

"A little story" is all they had and it was simply their witness to what they had seen and heard but it was a powerful story. It was the story of God's love.

How is your faith dependent on the complete historicity of the texts?

---

Because if Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are not historical events which actually happened, then Christianity is pointless.

In saying it was "their witness to what they had seen and heard," you are of course affirming the stories' historicity.

---

we'll sure , if your gonna use logic It's sophistry and rhetoric and not apropos to the historicity of the events nor the historiography of the gospel writers.

---

I affirming their faith and and I am affirming it with my life with my discipleship and my ministry. You, too, affirm it with your life and ministry. We walk by faith not sight.

---

you have faith in Christ due to someone else's faith in Christ that they have because of something they may or may not have seen. Gotcha No, you haven't "gotin me' because you miss an essential of faith faith.

How is that different than a Person that has faith in the moon or witches because mom or dad have faith in the moon or witches? With that logic, how do you defend your faith.? My faith is grounded in the Biblical witness. I don't know what witches ground their faith in and what their logic is and your analogy of logic is irrelevant to the my logic which is that the Scriptures are my grounding in the love commandment and the will of God.
The witness of your faith faith is God's love commandment and seeing that commandment come alive in Jesus' is the ultimate truth of my belief. Do you not believe in the reality of the love God found in Jesus, your life and our shared Biblical faith. Moon worshippers have a different standard to me.
It's either that or, you are saying the gospels meet your standard of history but not the true standard of history. I will post a separate thread about the standard of history and the standard of faith. In concise terms the standard of history is about facts grounded in primary sources. The gospels are not primary sources by accepted history standards BUT, they were never intended to history but rather to be "Good News" hence; the name gospels, not historical account. The standard of faith is grounded in the spiritual witness of the earliest disciples.

Doesn't our faith in Christ come before our walk in faith? Otherwise, it would be walking in what faith. My faith in Christ is his love for me shown in his life, death, and resurrection which are the ultimate foundations of God's love for us. I walk in that faith with my stumbling love for you, myself, and humanity.

---

---

your faith is in something that, as you have told us numerous times, is not based on any historicity. For all you know, it could be a cool story and nothing more. Therefore your faith is in their faith, whether the gospel story is true or not.

Is His life death and resurrection history or a cool story?

Lib I make an effort to understand to your words exactly as you say them. "Cool story" is your straw man. Read what I said and respond accordingly. Quote me as I quote you.

Which gospel is historical?
"The most ubiquitous Christian book was the Four Gospels, either preserving the distinct sequence of each text or comprising selected passages re-ordered in line with the readings employed in the Church year to form a lectionary. The popularity of the Gospels is attested by the large number that survive to this day there are over two thousand copies of the Greek Gospels alone. The Four Gospels were also combined into a single narrative in what are known as Gospel Harmonies. Although suppressed as heretical in the 2nd century, harmonised versions of the Gospels circulated throughout the medieval period. Also particularly numerous were psalters, copies of the Psalms structured to mirror their daily use in monastic liturgy. The Book of Revelation, or Apocalypse, appeared in separate volumes or combined with various biblical or non-biblical texts. Of the three hundred or so surviving copies of the Greek text of Revelation over forty appear in otherwise non-biblical compilations. In the West the Book of Revelation was most often copied together with a commentary explaining it when not part of the Vulgate; most surviving Greek copies of Revelation include or relate to a commentary. Moreover, in the West many copies of an individual book or groups of books of the Bible, such as the Psalms, Gospels or Pauline Epistles, included commentaries." British Library
Historicity is very hard to prove with this history of the gospels

Waco1947 said:

---

Which gospel is historical?
"The most ubiquitous Christian book was the Four Gospels, either preserving the distinct sequence of each text or comprising selected passages re-ordered in line with the readings employed in the Church year to form a lectionary. The popularity of the Gospels is attested by the large number that survive to this day there are over two thousand copies of the Greek Gospels alone. The Four Gospels were also combined into a single narrative in what are known as Gospel Harmonies. Although suppressed as heretical in the 2nd century, harmonised versions of the Gospels circulated throughout the medieval period. Also particularly numerous were psalters, copies of the Psalms structured to mirror their daily use in monastic liturgy. The Book of Revelation, or Apocalypse, appeared in separate volumes or combined with various biblical or non-biblical texts. Of the three hundred or so surviving copies of the Greek text of Revelation over forty appear in otherwise non-biblical compilations. In the West the Book of Revelation was most often copied together with a commentary explaining it when not part of the Vulgate; most surviving Greek copies of Revelation include or relate to a commentary. Moreover, in the West many copies of an individual book or groups of books of the Bible, such as the Psalms, Gospels or Pauline Epistles, included commentaries." British Library
Historicity is very hard to prove with this history of the gospels

---

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for evidence.

Waco1947 said:

---

Which gospel is historical?
"The most ubiquitous Christian book was the Four Gospels, either preserving the distinct sequence of each text or comprising selected passages re-ordered in line with the readings employed in the Church year to form a lectionary. The popularity of the Gospels is attested by the large number that survive to this day there are over two thousand copies of the Greek Gospels alone. The Four Gospels were also combined into a single narrative in what are known as Gospel Harmonies. Although suppressed as heretical in the 2nd century, harmonised versions of the Gospels circulated throughout the medieval period. Also particularly numerous were psalters, copies of the Psalms structured to mirror their daily use in monastic liturgy. The Book of Revelation, or Apocalypse, appeared in separate volumes or combined with various biblical or non-biblical texts. Of the three hundred or so surviving copies of the Greek text of Revelation over forty appear in otherwise non-biblical compilations. In the West the Book of Revelation was most often copied together with a commentary explaining it when not part of the Vulgate; most surviving Greek copies of Revelation include or relate to a commentary. Moreover, in the West many copies of an individual book or groups of books of the Bible, such as the Psalms, Gospels or Pauline Epistles, included commentaries." British Library
Historicity is very hard to prove with this history of the gospels

---

Why don't the Gospels meet the "standard of historicity" (whatever that may be)? I commend to you the excellent book Faith on Trial, by Pamela Ewen, a lawyer who analyzes the Gospels under the framework of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

https://www.pamelaewen.com/books/faith-on-trial/

"standard of historicity" (whatever that may be)?
Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history instead of being a historical myth, legend, or fiction. The historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status. Historicity denotes historical actuality, authenticity, factuality and focuses on the true value of knowledge claims about the past.

Questions regarding historicity concern not just the issue of "what really happened", but also how modern observers can come to know "what really happened". This second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other evidence
In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Which gospel is historical?
"The most ubiquitous Christian book was the Four Gospels, either preserving the distinct sequence of each text or comprising selected passages re-ordered in line with the readings employed in the Church year to form a lectionary. The popularity of the Gospels is attested by the large number that survive to this day there are over two thousand copies of the Greek Gospels alone. The Four Gospels were also combined into a single narrative in what are known as Gospel Harmonies. Although suppressed as heretical in the 2nd century, harmonised versions of the Gospels circulated throughout the medieval period. Also particularly numerous were psalters, copies of the Psalms structured to mirror their daily use in monastic liturgy. The Book of Revelation, or Apocalypse, appeared in separate volumes or combined with various biblical or non-biblical texts. Of the three hundred or so surviving copies of the Greek text of Revelation over forty appear in otherwise non-biblical compilations. In the West the Book of Revelation was most often copied together with a commentary explaining it when not part of the Vulgate; most surviving Greek copies of Revelation include or relate to a commentary. Moreover, in the West many copies of an individual book or groups of books of the Bible, such as the Psalms, Gospels or Pauline Epistles, included commentaries." British Library
Historicity is very hard to prove with this history of the gospels

---

Why don't the Gospels meet the "standard of historicity" (whatever that may be)?

---

n the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic.

History begins with an event and is history when we can attest to an event "actually happened."
Let take the Gospel of Luke
When Luke sat down to write his gospel and put to paper what were his sources?
What were Luke's sources for the historicity or what actually happened at feeding of the 5 thousand?
I will start. He had a copy of Mark.
What else? Take a shot at it JXL

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

This theory will completely revolutionize the study of ancient history as we know it.

---

Research how historians determine what is most probably historically true from what is fiction or lore.

---

Not the way that you have described.

During the hearings on the sinking of the Titanic, a number of witnesses testified that the ship broke in half before sinking. Other witnesses testified that the ship did not break in half, but sank intact. Since these two stories are clearly contradictory, the only possible conclusion is that the Titanic did not sink at all.

---

No, Just some were mistaken about reality.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

Quantum cosmology per Hawking and Guth does not show the universe coming out of nothing. Neither did they show it to be plausible, only that a universe like ours is theoretically possible - out of an infinite number of possibilities. To get a universe like ours, quantum physicists have to consciously choose numbers in their equations to constrain the possibilities down to a small finite number in order to achieve a preconceived end result. Sounds like intelligent design.

---

Theoretically possible is plausible. There is nothing to prevent a universe from being spontaneously created from nothing in a closed universe, provided all of the conserved numbers equal zero. In a closed universe the positive energy of matter is compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field yielding a total energy of zero. If something is not prohibited by the conservation laws there is a probability that it will occur. After formation of the universe it will begin expanding at a rapid rate due to the high energy of the vacuum resulting in continuous inflation. No precursor or cause is required for the universe to pop out of nothing, similar to decay of uranium. We assign a decay probability for uranium within a given time interval. There is no cause or precursor, it just happens by random occurrence. Likewise, in Quantum Mechanics there is no need for a cause to initiate creation of the universe. See (Vilenkin 2011) and (Guth 1997)

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

---

Ex nihilo is a not scientific nor logical. You simply know the beginning of the universe. We weren't present and of course thee is the nagging question "What was before this universe?"

---

Actually, it is both.

Scientifically, the laws of entropy are such that the universe would have burned out long ago if it had an infinite past.

Logically / philosophically, the argument for the first motion. Something has to pull the train cars.

---

You are "special pleading" your case by claiming God is a different sort not subject to the laws of physics. Your premise "God is the first cause" begs the question - is that idea true? You cannot prove it. You have no evidence.

---

Of course GOD would not be subject to physical laws, he created them. He does as he pleases.

Your problem is faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You have created a god, placed within the bounds of what you wish to limit him to, but rejected the GOD of the Bible who is almighty, all knowing, all powerful. The God who made everything, and without whom nothing was made.

Does it take faith to believe in this GOD. Of course it does. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

Just because we can see it face to face, doesn't mean it isn't.

---

I agree with you that the creator of the universe would be above the laws of physics. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that God chooses to act outside of those laws on earth.

Such a view would bring up some serious moral and ethical dilemmas that would be impossible to reconcile with an all-loving God.

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

I didn't put that because the prior poster was disputing God's supernatural power, not Him being All Loving. He sent His own Son to die for our sins. Of course He is all loving, that was not in dispute.

However, part of being All Loving is being perfectly just, God hates evil, sin cannot exist in His presence. So many people's definition of being All loving, leaves out his perfect justice and hatred of sin. They turn God's real love into a, hippified version of love, an anything goes no rules type of love. That does not reflect on a Just and Righteous love God has for us.

---

That doesn't make sense. I'm sure you think God is mysteriously present everywhere, so sin exists in His presence. He has even advocated sinful action according the Bible. An all loving, all powerful god would not create a world or universe with sin and damning consequences. There should be no need for the concepts of sin and justice. Do you believe you can sin in heaven? Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Clearly these concepts are contrived by religious clerics to explain the human condition.

---

Why would an all powerful god create a universe in which choice was impossible?

---

So, what is the state of heaven? Will you have a choice to sin there? Can you choose to sin, after receiving eternal life? I thought Yahweh's desire is to have unending adoration and praise. That would be a pretty good reason from his perspective.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

A quantum vacuum is not nothing.

---

How do you know. That may be the state of nothing. Your idea of nothing may be wrong.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

It may be tired to you, but it is one for which you have no credible answer.

---

This exact question has been posed by you and answered on this forum multiple times.

---

You'd think you'd get it right.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

Hawking got it right in Brief History of Time. Changed his mind, interestingly enough, for what can only have been personal reasons.

---

Hawking didn't change his mind. He has explained and clarified what he meant metaphorically in his book.

---

He went from believing that some questions are beyond scientific understanding to believing he could explain creation through physical laws. The theory he and Guth propounded may well be correct, but their theological conclusion is based on circular reasoning.

---

Mathematics.

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

You made claims about contradictions. Do you have authority outside of your own opinion or feelings?
I only ask for the authority on which you base your conclusions for the statements below
You posted:
That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Dr. Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Dr. Brent Landau, University of Texas, Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, University Vanderbilt, Dr. David Runia, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University.

---

Several of these claims have been proven wrong as archeology and textual analyses progresses

---

If you're talking about religious claims, I agree.

---

You agree that some of the birth narrative claims of Dr. Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Dr. Brent Landau, University of Texas, Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, University Vanderbilt, Dr. David Runia, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University are not true?

We agree

---

Yes, they all say there are errors and contradictions in the Gospels revealed by known history, and critical textural analyses.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

Your ability to exercise will is a product of physical laws. How does your hypothetical soul, as I understand you believe exists, interact with physical laws in order to control your body?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

---

You didn't even come close to answering the question. Read my question and try again.

---

Actually, I did. Your brain is you, and controls all of your bodily functions. Your brain controls movement in accord with physical laws. What you're saying is your body is in a virtual world controlled by the whims some outside agent. Where does your soul reside, and where did it come from?

bearhouse said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

---

I am assuming that when you say "your brain is you", you mean that "you" are the consciousness "your brain produces." If that is what you mean, this is not settled science. There is a healthy debate as to whether the brain produces consciousness or the brain acts as a receiver and receives consciousness from outside of itself. Ultimately, it may depend on what is the fundamental building block of the universe: matter or consciousness. This is not coming from a faith perspective. Just my 2 cents and way above my pay grade. However, my day job essentially is to work with people who have "damaged brains" according to the more traditional model and there are times where the materialistic explanation falls short. #spookyconsciousnessatadistance

---

Your brain produces consciousness. That is conclusive. Damage the brain and you lose consciousness. There is no credible debate about receiving consciousness from somewhere outside the brain. Neuroscience tells us there is no physical law or process that will support such mysticism, nor is there any credible observation or evidence to support such mysticism. Matter is a small percentage of what makes up the universe.

TexasScientist said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

---

I am assuming that when you say "your brain is you", you mean that "you" are the consciousness "your brain produces." If that is what you mean, this is not settled science. There is a healthy debate as to whether the brain produces consciousness or the brain acts as a receiver and receives consciousness from outside of itself. Ultimately, it may depend on what is the fundamental building block of the universe: matter or consciousness. This is not coming from a faith perspective. Just my 2 cents and way above my pay grade. However, my day job essentially is to work with people who have "damaged brains" according to the more traditional model and there are times where the materialistic explanation falls short. #spookyconsciousnessatadistance

---

Your brain produces consciousness. That is conclusive. Damage the brain and you lose consciousness. There is no credible debate about receiving consciousness from somewhere outside the brain. Neuroscience tells us there is no physical law or process that will support such mysticism, nor is there any credible observation or evidence to support such mysticism. Matter is a small percentage of what makes up the universe.

---

It is not conclusive nor is it mysticism. You are not fully informed in this area.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

bearhouse said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

---

You didn't even come close to answering the question. Read my question and try again.

---

Actually, I did. Your brain is you, and controls all of your bodily functions. Your brain controls movement in accord with physical laws. What you're saying is your body is in a virtual world controlled by the whims some outside agent. Where does your soul reside, and where did it come from?

---

Your brain does not control all bodily functions. Good gravy, your view is too simplistic.

---

You'd think he at least recalls the spinal cord, for instance ...

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

---

You didn't even come close to answering the question. Read my question and try again.

---

Actually, I did. Your brain is you, and controls all of your bodily functions. Your brain controls movement in accord with physical laws. What you're saying is your body is in a virtual world controlled by the whims some outside agent. Where does your soul reside, and where did it come from?

---

No, actually you didn't. Unless you are answering that "choice" and "free will" are merely illusions. In that case, then you are only making my point - your materialistic view does not allow for true choice or free will.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

Your ability to exercise will is a product of physical laws. How does your hypothetical soul, as I understand you believe exists, interact with physical laws in order to control your body?

---

If your "will" is a product of physical laws only, then you do not have true choice or free will. In your view, "will" is just an illusion.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I will start. He had a copy of Mark.
What else? Take a shot at it JXL

---

Just to make sure, are you stating the Luke copied Mark's gospel?

Luke makes it clear that several times in his gospel, that he gets is information from eyewitnesses.

---

I did say he copied Mark rather I said he had a copy. In addition he had his own stories like Goid Sam and the Prodigal. These "interviews" were a part of the sources he had at his disposal called L. Do a form critical analysis of Luke.