Sam Lowry said:bearhouse said:Yes. You proof texted from a few verses. We can do this back and forth all day. If your reading of the gospels is that the pharisee's had sound doctrine, I don't know what to tell you.Sam Lowry said:Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."bearhouse said:I liked that part where Jesus called them "blind guides" and "white washed tombs." No, it was not just that they were hypocrites. They did not know God. They knew rules (that they did not follow). But they had no idea what the rules pointed to. It was not just that they were hypocrites. They were doctrinally wrong. There is no correct theology if it is not based on the love of God. Jesus (love) is the foundation stone for all correct understanding.Sam Lowry said:Jesus said that the Pharisees had authority to teach doctrine and that their teaching should be obeyed. Only their example should not be followed because they were hypocrites and didn't live what they taught. Correct theology is important, but theology is worthless without love. Jesus preached both/and, not either/or.bearhouse said:This is a great question!JXL said:Waco1947 said:You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?bearhouse said:Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.bearhouse said:And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?bearhouse said:Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.bearhouse said:I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.Waco1947 said:I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.bearhouse said:Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.LIB,MR BEARS said:are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?bearhouse said:
Love people. That's what He commanded.
Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?
Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.
Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.
I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent
People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.
I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.
I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.
He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.
Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.
I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.
Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.
If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.
And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.
Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?
And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"
Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!
I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Now, applying that love to various life situations and people? That is hard.
Matthew 23:1-3
Losin' my religion
29,806 Views |
572 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Sam Lowry
I highly doubt the love of God and Jesus would ever lead one to blow off God and Jesus' main characteristics, like Creator and bodily risen Saviour.bearhouse said:....There is no correct theology if it is not based on the love of God. Jesus (love) is the foundation stone for all correct understanding....Sam Lowry said:Jesus said that the Pharisees had authority to teach doctrine and that their teaching should be obeyed. Only their example should not be followed because they were hypocrites and didn't live what they taught. Correct theology is important, but theology is worthless without love. Jesus preached both/and, not either/or.bearhouse said:This is a great question!JXL said:Waco1947 said:You durn right we compromise "biblical truth" if it contradicts the love commandment.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Relevant to this topic, one way to NOT do that is to compromise biblical truth in order to be "loving" to others. Case in point- clarify for us whether or not you think it is false that God did NOT create the universe and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead - the question you were deflecting from. What does the mandate of love tell you to say?bearhouse said:Sure. You said we are to love God first. I agree with that. But how do you do that?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Could you clarify yourself first? I'm not very fond of deflection to things irrelevant.bearhouse said:And how does BusyTarpDuster2017 love God first?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Let's be clear - you do not believe it is false that God did NOT create the heavens, the earth, and us, and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead?bearhouse said:Jesus commands us to love God and love others. The power of resurrection is love and the transformed heart. I won't quibble with someone who thinks that is literal versus someone who thinks that is metaphorical. Either way - follow the love Jesus preached. It. Is. Hard.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Waco believes that God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. He believes God did NOT create life on earth, including us humans.bearhouse said:I do not believe that you are a false teacher but I do think you like to challenge. And that riles some people for sure. What's wrong with a healthy discussion? Nothing, unless it reduces to name calling and hate.Waco1947 said:I exist and take positions that challenge. The traditionalists simply knee jerk with opinion and in an ugly fashion I. E. Canada, wang, shooter, dust tarp, etc.bearhouse said:Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.LIB,MR BEARS said:are taking the position that the tares (47) should be left to grow with the wheat?bearhouse said:
Love people. That's what He commanded.
Many of these posts are argumentative, self righteous, and quarrelous. Are these posts a reflection of Jesus or the reflection of the accuser?
Perhaps, 47 exists for you to practice love. Perhaps, you exist for 47 to practice love.
Love is hard to do. But we are not called just to love wheat.
I do not claim to understand the full ramifications of Jesus's command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that means you have to radically accept as truth something you disagree with. But there is a different spirit of disagreement when love is present - patience, kindness, respect and humility. Many of these seem lacking in the responses.
personal attacks and dismissiveness. Thank you for honest conversation. I am not a false teacher. I stand in a progressive and historical tradition at least from the Enlightenment.
Mr Lib and JXL and old bear 83 ( who seems to have a had a spiritual awakening) sometimes respond with genuine comment.
See my post about the Top 10 reasons the church will survive. One has to wade through a page of hateful nonsense to get a real dialogue going. On this thread critical thinking has been intermittent
People like dichotomous thinking. It keeps them safe and in a comfort zone. I am "in" and you are "out." I am "right" and you are "wrong." I like both/and statements much better than either/or statements. I think God is a both/and thinker rather than an either/or thinker. But this is my read on the Bible and people are free to reject it.
I recognize that I am both the chaff and the wheat. Jesus's love burns away my chaff over time as I work out my salvation learning how to follow Jesus. Jesus said love God and love others. His way is relational, not doctrinal. A person can have all the right religious beliefs but if they do not have love, they are not in a relationship with Jesus. Now...what does that look like? I don't always know. Love is hard. Especially loving someone who thinks, acts, looks, and believes differently than you do. But that is what we are commanded to do.
I don't put my trust in any theologian or human teacher or religious tradition. I put my trust in our Lord who commands us to love. If you have something to say about that, I will listen and think about it. I do think your posting here is worthwhile even if people vehemently disagree with you.
He also believes that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead. These are his stated beliefs.
Explain to me how these do not constitute false teaching in Christianity.
I believe you are zealous for truth and righteousness. I commend you for that. But Jesus has other sheep who hear his voice and follow him. They may not believe exactly as you do but that does not make them a false teacher or a heretic.
Finally, the trinity is full. Who are we to judge the heart of another? That is God's job. Not yours. And not mine.
If you believe it is not false, then you, like Waco, are promoting a God and Jesus that is clearly NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible. Hence, you'd be an apostate just like he is. You'd be stealing away God's glory and power in order to accomodate your idea of "love". If your "love" is doing that, then I seriously question whether that "love" is from the Father. We are to love God first, and love others only as ourselves. Tolerating such falseness within the church is putting love of others before our love of God.
And no one is judging hearts, but people's actual stated beliefs.
Will it be "biblical love" when Jesus says to the many "I never knew you, depart from me"?
And something that I hope motivates us all to contemplate the question "what does it mean to be known by God?"
Was the Good Samaritan, who did not worship correctly, known by God? The religious leaders who debated and took no noticed of the injured man on the side of the road did not know God and were not known by God. Jesus said the Samaritans did not worship correctly because salvation was from the Jews. But it was the Good Samaritan who was the Good Neighbor!
I suspect that anything Jesus says or does will be congruent with Biblical love. This is why I have asked "how do you love God?" I do not believe it is by right thinking, correct theology, or unimportant arguments but rather by expressing the love of God to others who need it. Compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy, patience expressed to others seems to be the narrow gate. It seems to me that the Good Samaritan entered through the narrow gate of love (Jesus) while many religious people take the wide path of destruction.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Jesus gave us a guideline to help us have correct understanding - "you shall know them by their fruits". The fruit that denies such critical attributes is not from God.
You can't explain some of the contradictions, and others you have to come up with a contorted story to harmonize them into an illogical conclusion.LIB,MR BEARS said:Hardly, every "contradiction" you bring up has been explained.TexasScientist said:No, but how you approach reading the separate and distinct Gospels has everything to do with objectivity in accepting them for what they say, each standing on their own. Harmonizing is not objectivity. It is looking for a way to confirm what you already want to believe. The differences are stark when you read them objectively.LIB,MR BEARS said:Who the heck are you to judge who is objective and who is not? Agreement with you does not equal objectivity.TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Is humility a trait frowned on in your field?
When I was an evangelical fundamentalist, I used to try and interpret, rationalize, and harmonize various passages so that they conformed in my reasoning to what I was taught to believe. Once I stopped that, and read each one for what it says, on its own merits, and accepted them for what they are, the contradictions, errors, and conflicts are more than obvious.
In one thread you claim possible = plausible but here if the stories don't match to your liking, you throw out possible and plausible because it doesn't suit your needed results.
What a dishonest person you are.
I used plausible, because using the quantum theory, it has been demonstrated that a universe, with all of the parameters that ours is observed to have can form spontaneously, without the need for an unexplained supernatural being. There is no plausible evidence, other than cleric assertions, that there exists a supernatural being represented by any of the religions mankind has dreamt.
You know, I haven't called you any names, or attacked your character in any of the comments I have made. When you have to resort to ad hominem attacks you've lost the debate.
1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
observation and reporting is a big part of science. I observed what you did on two separate threads and reported. It's not my fault you don't like being called out.TexasScientist said:You can't explain some of the contradictions, and others you have to come up with a contorted story to harmonize them into an illogical conclusion.LIB,MR BEARS said:Hardly, every "contradiction" you bring up has been explained.TexasScientist said:No, but how you approach reading the separate and distinct Gospels has everything to do with objectivity in accepting them for what they say, each standing on their own. Harmonizing is not objectivity. It is looking for a way to confirm what you already want to believe. The differences are stark when you read them objectively.LIB,MR BEARS said:Who the heck are you to judge who is objective and who is not? Agreement with you does not equal objectivity.TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Is humility a trait frowned on in your field?
When I was an evangelical fundamentalist, I used to try and interpret, rationalize, and harmonize various passages so that they conformed in my reasoning to what I was taught to believe. Once I stopped that, and read each one for what it says, on its own merits, and accepted them for what they are, the contradictions, errors, and conflicts are more than obvious.
In one thread you claim possible = plausible but here if the stories don't match to your liking, you throw out possible and plausible because it doesn't suit your needed results.
What a dishonest person you are.
I used plausible, because using the quantum theory, it has been demonstrated that a universe, with all of the parameters that ours is observed to have can form spontaneously, without the need for an unexplained supernatural being. There is no plausible evidence, other than cleric assertions, that there exists a supernatural being represented by any of the religions mankind has dreamt.
You know, I haven't called you any names, or attacked your character in any of the comments I have made. When you have to resort to ad hominem attacks you've lost the debate.
Give me an objective explanation of how a person who was crucified and died, came back to life. How did that physically happen? Don't you think, if all that is alleged to have occurred at any of the differing resurrection stories happened, that there would be some written description by one of the known contemporaneous chroniclers? As they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The problem is your objectivity or lack thereof.TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
The objectivity of the resurrection lies in the assessment of written testimony of those who saw it happen, or saw the risen Jesus, like Paul, whom you have yet to, and never will, debunk. What's left is for us to decide if we believe them or not. To those who have faith in God, this wouldn't be a difficult belief.TexasScientist said:Give me an objective explanation of how a person who was crucified and died, came back to life. How did that physically happen? Don't you think, if all that is alleged to have occurred at any of the differing resurrection stories happened, that there would be some written description by one of the known contemporaneous chroniclers? As they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The problem is your objectivity or lack thereof.TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
After all, if God created life, how in heaven and on earth would He have any difficulty whatsoever in bringing someone back to life from death? Believing that something can't happen if it doesn't agree with your current understanding of reality is the very definition of bias, not objectivity. Not to mention, it isn't a scientific way to think.
There WERE contemporaneous chroniclers - they're called the gospel writers and Paul. If there were any others who wrote of Jesus' resurrection, you would dismiss them just the same. Unobjectively, I might add.
What kind of extraordinary evidence could one expect from the first century? How about simple, ordinary men who powerfully proclaimed the risen Jesus, even if it meant leaving job, home, and family, and even if it meant getting killed for it? How about Paul, the most ardent persecutor and hater of Christianity, who ultimately became its most ardent believer and supporter? These men experienced something that changed and moved them profoundly, to say the least. Quite extraordinary, indeed.
Couple all this with the fact that other "messiahs" existed during this time. When they died, their followers/believers quickly disbanded and that movement was dead.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The objectivity of the resurrection lies in the assessment of written testimony of those who saw it happen, or saw the risen Jesus, like Paul, whom you have yet to, and never will, debunk. What's left is for us to decide if we believe them or not. To those who have faith in God, this wouldn't be a difficult belief.
After all, if God created life, how in heaven and on earth would He have any difficulty whatsoever in bringing someone back to life from death? Believing that something can't happen if it doesn't agree with your current understanding of reality is the very definition of bias, not objectivity. Not to mention, it isn't a scientific way to think.
There WERE contemporaneous chroniclers - they're called the gospel writers and Paul. If there were any others who wrote of Jesus' resurrection, you would dismiss them just the same. Unobjectively, I might add.
What kind of extraordinary evidence could one expect from the first century? How about simple, ordinary men who powerfully proclaimed the risen Jesus, even if it meant leaving job, home, and family, and even if it meant getting killed for it? How about Paul, the most ardent persecutor and hater of Christianity, who ultimately became its most ardent believer and supporter? These men experienced something that changed and moved them profoundly, to say the least. Quite extraordinary, indeed.
Not only did Christianity survive after the resurrection, it flourished amongst violent opposition in a hostile region for nearly 300 years. It spread throughout the world with non-violence.
No other single event has change the course of humanity like Christ's resurrection.
I'm going on record that you can love both God and love people and still understand and preach correct doctrine.
Way too many warnings to watch your doctrine closely and to study to see if what preachers say it actually true, to think God doesn't care about correct doctrine.
I will take His word over what some preacher has to say about it.
Quote:
The apostle Paul wrote to the evangelist Timothy, Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
1 Timothy 4:16
New International Version
16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Way too many warnings to watch your doctrine closely and to study to see if what preachers say it actually true, to think God doesn't care about correct doctrine.
Quote:
Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
I will take His word over what some preacher has to say about it.
TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
Nice try at trying to deflect and argue for something that I didn't say, We were discussing the Gospels. You threw in other books, some by Paul, others not, which are not relevant to the origins, writings, or accuracy of the Gospels. What about the other Gospels? They're about as believable as the four Gospels. You have James, Thomas and others. Do you give them any credence?LIB,MR BEARS said:observation and reporting is a big part of science. I observed what you did on two separate threads and reported. It's not my fault you don't like being called out.TexasScientist said:You can't explain some of the contradictions, and others you have to come up with a contorted story to harmonize them into an illogical conclusion.LIB,MR BEARS said:Hardly, every "contradiction" you bring up has been explained.TexasScientist said:No, but how you approach reading the separate and distinct Gospels has everything to do with objectivity in accepting them for what they say, each standing on their own. Harmonizing is not objectivity. It is looking for a way to confirm what you already want to believe. The differences are stark when you read them objectively.LIB,MR BEARS said:Who the heck are you to judge who is objective and who is not? Agreement with you does not equal objectivity.TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Is humility a trait frowned on in your field?
When I was an evangelical fundamentalist, I used to try and interpret, rationalize, and harmonize various passages so that they conformed in my reasoning to what I was taught to believe. Once I stopped that, and read each one for what it says, on its own merits, and accepted them for what they are, the contradictions, errors, and conflicts are more than obvious.
In one thread you claim possible = plausible but here if the stories don't match to your liking, you throw out possible and plausible because it doesn't suit your needed results.
What a dishonest person you are.
I used plausible, because using the quantum theory, it has been demonstrated that a universe, with all of the parameters that ours is observed to have can form spontaneously, without the need for an unexplained supernatural being. There is no plausible evidence, other than cleric assertions, that there exists a supernatural being represented by any of the religions mankind has dreamt.
You know, I haven't called you any names, or attacked your character in any of the comments I have made. When you have to resort to ad hominem attacks you've lost the debate.
The only archeological findings that support Judaism is in its early Canaanite origins and borrowed stories from other primitive religions. There is no archaeologic support for most of the early Jewish beliefs or claims. You don't have any archeological discoveries that support any of the outlandish Jewish claims of paranormal events or even the existence of their most revered ancestral forefathers. Islam can make many of the same claims. Just like Christianity, we know where the early Mormon Church was founded, and by whom. His miraculous claims are no more believable than Paul's. We know the historical setting for the founding of the Mormon Church, just the same as we do for the Christian/Jewish/Islamic facts. Yet one of their extraordinary claims are supported by historic facts. Don't confuse known historic settings of religious cultures with confirmation of religious mysticism.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
Adoption of Paul's version of Christianity by the Roman state is what enabled Christianity to grow and survive. Islam, in fact may be the fastest growing religion today, but that doesn't validate any of its teachings or beliefs.Coke Bear said:Couple all this with the fact that other "messiahs" existed during this time. When they died, their followers/believers quickly disbanded and that movement was dead.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The objectivity of the resurrection lies in the assessment of written testimony of those who saw it happen, or saw the risen Jesus, like Paul, whom you have yet to, and never will, debunk. What's left is for us to decide if we believe them or not. To those who have faith in God, this wouldn't be a difficult belief.
After all, if God created life, how in heaven and on earth would He have any difficulty whatsoever in bringing someone back to life from death? Believing that something can't happen if it doesn't agree with your current understanding of reality is the very definition of bias, not objectivity. Not to mention, it isn't a scientific way to think.
There WERE contemporaneous chroniclers - they're called the gospel writers and Paul. If there were any others who wrote of Jesus' resurrection, you would dismiss them just the same. Unobjectively, I might add.
What kind of extraordinary evidence could one expect from the first century? How about simple, ordinary men who powerfully proclaimed the risen Jesus, even if it meant leaving job, home, and family, and even if it meant getting killed for it? How about Paul, the most ardent persecutor and hater of Christianity, who ultimately became its most ardent believer and supporter? These men experienced something that changed and moved them profoundly, to say the least. Quite extraordinary, indeed.
Not only did Christianity survive after the resurrection, it flourished amongst violent opposition in a hostile region for nearly 300 years. It spread throughout the world with non-violence.
No other single event has change the course of humanity like Christ's resurrection.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Paul's version".TexasScientist said:
Adoption of Paul's version of Christianity by the Roman state is what enabled Christianity to grow and survive. Islam, in fact may be the fastest growing religion today, but that doesn't validate any of its teachings or beliefs.
It was only after nearly 300 years of persecution in Rome and the Edict of Milan was the persecution forbidden.
Islam spread by the sword, not thru peace.
That very confusion permeates your whole approach to the historical record. You're unable to acknowledge evidence for the historical claims of Judaism and Christianity for fear that it would tend to confirm the mystical claims.TexasScientist said:Don't confuse known historic settings of religious cultures with confirmation of religious mysticism.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
True...still does.Coke Bear said:TexasScientist said:
Adoption of Paul's version of Christianity by the Roman state is what enabled Christianity to grow and survive. Islam, in fact may be the fastest growing religion today, but that doesn't validate any of its teachings or beliefs.
Islam spread by the sword, not thru peace.
But so did Christianity in many instances .
TexasScientist said:The only archeological findings that support Judaism is in its early Canaanite origins and borrowed stories from other primitive religions. There is no archaeologic support for most of the early Jewish beliefs or claims. You don't have any archeological discoveries that support any of the outlandish Jewish claims of paranormal events or even the existence of their most revered ancestral forefathers. Islam can make many of the same claims. Just like Christianity, we know where the early Mormon Church was founded, and by whom. His miraculous claims are no more believable than Paul's. We know the historical setting for the founding of the Mormon Church, just the same as we do for the Christian/Jewish/Islamic facts. Yet one of their extraordinary claims are supported by historic facts. Don't confuse known historic settings of religious cultures with confirmation of religious mysticism.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
Your repeated attempts to liken the origin of Christianity with the origin of Mormonism are a continuing source of amusement. Your statement that the only archaeological support for the Old Testament is "early Canaanite origins and borrowed stories" is simply incorrect.
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2020/01/17/king-david-an-archaeological-biography/
As for the New Testament, the classical historian Colin Hemer identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research, and archaeologist Sir William Ramsey referred to Luke as a "historian of the first rank" because of the accuracy and attention to detail in Acts.
https://bibleapologetics.org/luke-a-historian-of-the-first-rank/
Which historical claims are you referring? The fact that Christianity sprang up during Roman rule, doesn't mean the religious claims of the gospels are historical facts.Sam Lowry said:That very confusion permeates your whole approach to the historical record. You're unable to acknowledge evidence for the historical claims of Judaism and Christianity for fear that it would tend to confirm the mystical claims.TexasScientist said:Don't confuse known historic settings of religious cultures with confirmation of religious mysticism.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
The field of apologetics is full of attempts to legitimize apologetics with a veil of archaeological stretches and imagined historicity. Here's a good synopsis for you:JXL said:TexasScientist said:The only archeological findings that support Judaism is in its early Canaanite origins and borrowed stories from other primitive religions. There is no archaeologic support for most of the early Jewish beliefs or claims. You don't have any archeological discoveries that support any of the outlandish Jewish claims of paranormal events or even the existence of their most revered ancestral forefathers. Islam can make many of the same claims. Just like Christianity, we know where the early Mormon Church was founded, and by whom. His miraculous claims are no more believable than Paul's. We know the historical setting for the founding of the Mormon Church, just the same as we do for the Christian/Jewish/Islamic facts. Yet one of their extraordinary claims are supported by historic facts. Don't confuse known historic settings of religious cultures with confirmation of religious mysticism.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
Your repeated attempts to liken the origin of Christianity with the origin of Mormonism are a continuing source of amusement. Your statement that the only archaeological support for the Old Testament is "early Canaanite origins and borrowed stories" is simply incorrect.
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2020/01/17/king-david-an-archaeological-biography/
As for the New Testament, the classical historian Colin Hemer identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research, and archaeologist Sir William Ramsey referred to Luke as a "historian of the first rank" because of the accuracy and attention to detail in Acts.
https://bibleapologetics.org/luke-a-historian-of-the-first-rank/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David
Historians of the Ancient Near East agree that David probably lived around 1000 BCE, but there is little else that is agreed on about him as a historical figure. The Tel Dan stele, a Canaanite-inscribed stone erected by a king of Aram-Damascus in the late-9th/early-8th centuries BCE to commemorate his victory over two enemy kings, contains the Hebrew-language phrase Beit David (), which most scholars translate as "House of David". The Mesha stele, erected by king Mesha of Moab in the 9th century BCE, may also refer to the "House of David", but this is disputed.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#cite_note-12][10][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#cite_note-13][11][/url] Apart from this, all that is known of David comes from biblical literature, the historicity of which is doubtful,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#cite_note-Ancient_Israel_page_32-14][12][/url] and there is little detail about David that is concrete and undisputed.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMooreKelle2011232%E2%80%93233-15][13][/url]
No, but at least we know the Romans existed. Unlike, say, the Lamanites. I don't think I can convey how telling it is that you're still comparing the Bible with the Book of Mormon after all these years. It's tempting to say that alone is fatal to your claim of objectivity.TexasScientist said:Which historical claims are you referring? The fact that Christianity sprang up during Roman rule, doesn't mean the religious claims of the gospels are historical facts.Sam Lowry said:That very confusion permeates your whole approach to the historical record. You're unable to acknowledge evidence for the historical claims of Judaism and Christianity for fear that it would tend to confirm the mystical claims.TexasScientist said:Don't confuse known historic settings of religious cultures with confirmation of religious mysticism.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid. %A0
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
I am glad to see you back on the board though. As you know, I mean no offense.
LOL. The Book of Mormon's testament to history is every bit as good as that of any of the Gospels. Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark. The NT and OT are full of plagiarized and borrowed stories.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
Oy vey.TexasScientist said:LOL. The Book of Mormon's testament to history is every bit as good as that of any of the Gospels. Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark. The NT and OT are full of plagiarized and borrowed stories.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
There WERE contemporaneous chroniclers - they're called the gospel writers and Paul. If there were any others who wrote of Jesus' resurrection, you would dismiss them just the same. Unobjectively, I might add.
No, not contemporaneous chroniclers. They wrote 30-90 years after Jesus.
No, not contemporaneous chroniclers. They wrote 30-90 years after Jesus.
Waco1947
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Waco1947
I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
The gospels are not scholarly works but a different kind of literature called "Good news." And no they are not verbatim. Any careful reading shows differences that are a part of the theological perspective of each writer.TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
Waco1947
TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
Maybe it would help if you knew what plagiarism was in that timeframe and when the word was first used regarding literature.
ps… your bias is showing…. and it's UGE
https://www.turnitin.com/blog/5-historical-moments-that-shaped-plagiarism
No offense taken. I think the comparison is cogent. The difference is some want to believe one view at the expense of the other, because of a perceived threat to their personal beliefs. Mormon's are pretty fervent that their beliefs are just as valid, as say, an Orthodox adherent, or an adherent to Paul's or even Peter's version of Christianity. I don't see where there is any difference in legitimacy of belief. Their belief is certainly no more preposterous.Sam Lowry said:No, but at least we know the Romans existed. Unlike, say, the Lamanites. I don't think I can convey how telling it is that you're still comparing the Bible with the Book of Mormon after all these years. It's tempting to say that alone is fatal to your claim of objectivity.TexasScientist said:Which historical claims are you referring? The fact that Christianity sprang up during Roman rule, doesn't mean the religious claims of the gospels are historical facts.Sam Lowry said:That very confusion permeates your whole approach to the historical record. You're unable to acknowledge evidence for the historical claims of Judaism and Christianity for fear that it would tend to confirm the mystical claims.TexasScientist said:Don't confuse known historic settings of religious cultures with confirmation of religious mysticism.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid. %A0
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
I am glad to see you back on the board though. As you know, I mean no offense.
In that time frame it was common for writers to use or borrow from other's works without credit, and they frequently used someone's name as an author to give color of authority and persuasion for their message. The Gospels, some of the so called Pauline letters, and some of the other books of the NT are good examples. The same can be said of the OT. It also is true of other non-biblical ancient writings.LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
Maybe it would help if you knew what plagiarism was in that timeframe and when the word was first used regarding literature.
ps… your bias is showing…. and it's UGE
https://www.turnitin.com/blog/5-historical-moments-that-shaped-plagiarism
I don't disagree, but parts are verbatim, to the extent that you can get years of copied over versions close to verbatim. JXL is the one who introduced the term 'plagiarized" to this thread.Waco1947 said:The gospels are not scholarly works but a different kind of literature called "Good news." And no they are not verbatim. Any careful reading shows differences that are a part of the theological perspective of each writer.TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
If in fact these books where written under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, The first 3 are "synoptic gospels," meaning the will be looking at the same occurances from different perspectives, for them not to be very very similar something would be wrong.TexasScientist said:LOL. The Book of Mormon's testament to history is every bit as good as that of any of the Gospels. Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark. The NT and OT are full of plagiarized and borrowed stories.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
I've read major parts of the Book of Mormon. It's nothing more than A book written by A man to create a religious movement. It has nothing in common with the Bible other than it was writtten with words.
TexasScientist said:I don't disagree, but parts are verbatim, to the extent that you can get years of copied over versions close to verbatim. JXL is the one who introduced the term 'plagiarized" to this thread.Waco1947 said:The gospels are not scholarly works but a different kind of literature called "Good news." And no they are not verbatim. Any careful reading shows differences that are a part of the theological perspective of each writer.TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
Since you keep bringing up the Book of Mormon for some unknown reason, you may not be aware that the Book of Mormon is largely if not almost entirely plagiarized from earlier works, including the Lost War, the Spalding manuscript, the KJV, and others.
http://bookofmormonplagiarism.com/
The Gospels, by contrast, are not plagiarized - each author wrote from a different perspective. Mark, for example, was the scribe of Peter, while John wrote from his own perspective.
The Gospels were written to further a religious movement and present the author's own message. If the Gospels were written "under the inspiration of the Spirit of God" then why are there contradictions and irreconcilable differences? You'd think the "Spirit" could get it right each time, and why would you need more than one Gospel, if the "Spirit" is telling the story. The "Spirit" would have just laid it all out there in one official, comprehensive story to make it abundantly clear. How do you know the "Spirit" didn't inspire the other omitted Gospels, and it wasn't a man made mistake that the others didn't make the Catholic cut at the end of the 4th century?Forest Bueller_bf said:If in fact these books where written under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, The first 3 are "synoptic gospels," meaning the will be looking at the same occurances from different perspectives, for them not to be very very similar something would be wrong.TexasScientist said:LOL. The Book of Mormon's testament to history is every bit as good as that of any of the Gospels. Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark. The NT and OT are full of plagiarized and borrowed stories.JXL said:TexasScientist said:1. There aren't in independent contemporaneous historical sources that document Jesus, or the crucifixion. There are known historical errors in the Bible (NT & OT), and a there is no historical support for the Jewish descriptions of its early forefathers and beginnings. Just lore.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?JXL said:TexasScientist said:Others who are not objective in their approach.JXL said:TexasScientist said:Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.TexasScientist said:It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
1. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about historical sources supporting opposing views.
2. Christianity is unique in a number of aspects, including the fact that it is rooted in historical events, unlike pretty much any other faith I can think of. These aspects - including the historical milieu in which it arose - give it credibility which other faiths lack.
2. You're confusing the fact that the books of the NT and much of the OT was written against the backdrop of the historical setting of Rome, or the Jewish kingdom, with historical validation of Jewish lore. No credibility. The book of Mormon better matches your historical aspects for credibility better than the NT. Yet, I doubt you're going to tell me what is written in the book of Mormon is valid.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
- archaeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck
No, there probably aren't Roman records documenting the execution of a single common criminal, or giving credence to the actions of a barbarian sorcerer (as they would have thought). Why would we expect that there would be? They didn't have the Roman News Network (RNN) going around with TV cameras rolling. Roman historians wanted to advance the interests of Rome, and barbarian sorcerers didn't fall into that category.
Jewish history is demonstrated in non-Biblical sources such as the Black Obelisk, Babylonian and Assyrian records, and other archaeological discoveries, such as this:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jerusalem-mount-zion-babylonian-conquest-evidence-intl-scli/index.html
Your reference to the Book of Mormon is mystifying, since it doesn't meet my standards of historical records or anyone else's. Aside from the fact that it was plagiarized from earlier unpublished writings, there has never been any archaeological verification of any of the events unique to the Book of Mormon, such as the accounts of the great cities and wars taking place in North America.
I've read major parts of the Book of Mormon. It's nothing more than A book written by A man to create a religious movement. It has nothing in common with the Bible other than it was writtten with words.
The Book of Mormon is no more outlandish in its message, and Mormons will tell you that the Book of Mormon is a second witness to the Bible's teachings fulfilling 2 Corinthians 13:1, and is God's message to the people of the Americas, just like OT and NT were messages to the people of the Middle East, and that the Bible and Book of Mormon support each other.
How do you know the Quoran isn't inspired by the "Spirit of God"? Islam is possibly growing faster than Christianity today, which some might offer as evidence. After all, Islam is also an Abrahamic based faith/
You're right the Book of Mormon is outlandish in its claims, but no more so than the Gospels. Matthew and Luke copied verbatim parts of Mark, which meets the definition of plagiarism. We don't know that the author of Mark was the scribe of Peter. You're right that the author of John wrote a different Gospel message with a different Christology from his own perspective and message he wanted to convey. Just like the author of each of the synoptic gospels had their own perspective and message they wanted to convey. They each stand on their own and tell a different story. Just like Paul's version of Christianity is different from Peter's version.JXL said:TexasScientist said:I don't disagree, but parts are verbatim, to the extent that you can get years of copied over versions close to verbatim. JXL is the one who introduced the term 'plagiarized" to this thread.Waco1947 said:The gospels are not scholarly works but a different kind of literature called "Good news." And no they are not verbatim. Any careful reading shows differences that are a part of the theological perspective of each writer.TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
Since you keep bringing up the Book of Mormon for some unknown reason, you may not be aware that the Book of Mormon is largely if not almost entirely plagiarized from earlier works, including the Lost War, the Spalding manuscript, the KJV, and others.
http://bookofmormonplagiarism.com/
The Gospels, by contrast, are not plagiarized - each author wrote from a different perspective. Mark, for example, was the scribe of Peter, while John wrote from his own perspective.
You keep mentioning these "contradictions and irreconcilable differences"; however, I mention posted no less than 4 times a book, Hard Sayings by Trent Horn, that more than explains these so-called issues. I will buy you the book IF a) you promise to read it, and b) after reading it, you only post specific "contradictions and irreconcilable differences" that are not explained rationally in his book.TexasScientist said:
The Gospels were written to further a religious movement and present the author's own message. If the Gospels were written "under the inspiration of the Spirit of God" then why are there contradictions and irreconcilable differences? You'd think the "Spirit" could get it right each time, and why would you need more than one Gospel, if the "Spirit" is telling the story. The "Spirit" would have just laid it all out there in one official, comprehensive story to make it abundantly clear. How do you know the "Spirit" didn't inspire the other omitted Gospels, and it wasn't a man made mistake that the others didn't make the Catholic cut at the end of the 4th century? /
The reason that so-called other Gospels (Thomas, Marcion, etc) were not included is because a) they were never read at mass, b) they were written in the second century, and c) they contained writings that were contradictory to Christ's teachings.
The claims in the Book of Mormon has been properly debunked by historians and scientists. There is genealogical proof that its claims are incorrect.TexasScientist said:
The Book of Mormon is no more outlandish in its message, and Mormons will tell you that the Book of Mormon is a second witness to the Bible's teachings fulfilling 2 Corinthians 13:1, and is God's message to the people of the Americas, just like OT and NT were messages to the people of the Middle East, and that the Bible and Book of Mormon support each other. /
Islam spread with false, worldly promises and by the sword.TexasScientist said:
How do you know the Quoran isn't inspired by the "Spirit of God"? Islam is possibly growing faster than Christianity today, which some might offer as evidence. After all, Islam is also an Abrahamic based faith/