Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 2574 by Goat]

Hmallen and I have a discussion going in another string. I expect to clear up all of his questions there, given time.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 2584 by Danmark]

My working hypothesis is that the universe has always been. It may have changed and gone thru endless cycles but it has always been. This, to me, is a preferable conclusion than that it suddenly came from nothing.

Laurance Krauss considers the current state of the universe to be nothing more then a quantum fluctuation in the ongoing conflict conflict between gravity and energy. When energy prevails a universe of variation is born. When gravity prevails all things become one. Complete and total sameness, no variation whatsoever, is essentially what we conceive of as nothing. Laurance Krauss is one of the great lights of modern physics. But of course we don't really know the answer to this question yet, so his opinion remains one interesting possibility.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2584 by Danmark]

My working hypothesis is that the universe has always been. It may have changed and gone thru endless cycles but it has always been. This, to me, is a preferable conclusion than that it suddenly came from nothing.

Laurance Krauss considers the current state of the universe to be nothing more then a quantum fluctuation in the ongoing conflict conflict between gravity and energy. When energy prevails a universe of variation is born. When gravity prevails all things become one. Complete and total sameness, no variation whatsoever, is essentially what we conceive of as nothing. Laurance Krauss is one of the great lights of modern physics. But of course we don't really know the answer to this question yet, so his opinion remains one interesting possibility.

Yes, what I got out of Krauss is that what he calls 'nothing' is very different from what a philosopher would call 'nothing.'

[Sir Hamilton]

They were not written contemporaneously but probably within about 30 years from the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is not necessarily a good basis to reject them on. Actually the author of the gospels are known...they are named after each author. Written to support an argument?? That is your opinion. Now stories that require the suspension of natural laws is your best one...you need to go with it even though I think that what you refer to as natural laws may only apply to our 3 dimensional view of things. Doesn't physics allow for the existence of more than our 3 dimensions? Maybe there are things that go on in these dimensions that we can't understand? I know that I can't understand some of the miracles of Jesus but I recognize that I am a finite imperfect creature with limitations....and so are you.

The dates and authorship of the gospels are disputed. Some of the dates are as late as the beginning of the 2d Century. Scholars disagree about the dates and who the authors were. I'm not aware of any scholar who simply says, 'The authors are the ones who bear the traditional names. It was common in those days to attribute works to famous people in order to give the writing more value or authority.

I agree that there are things we do not know for certain, but the problem with abandoning the knowledge and laws we know is that we can simply conclude anything we want, not based on what we know, but on what we want to be true.

There are many people on this forum who are more knowledgable than I am about the authorship and dating of the gospels, but two facts among others that bother me are that if any of the original disciples of wrote them, why did they not use their own language, aramaic, and why did they wait 30 to 70 years to record such important events. The Gospel of John, for example, is thought to be the work of several authors and did not reach it's final form until as late as 100 CE.

Also, scholars conclude that Paul wrote prior to the publication of any of the gospels and he appears to not know of any of the gospels. From the evidence I have seen it appears they were written by church leaders long after the fact and in order to bolster the opinions and positions of those leaders.

I think that what happens with many of us who were raised in the church is that we grew up being taught to revere the Bible as very special. Those pages, enclosed in leather and inscribed with the title "Holy Bible" in gold letters became a magical talisman or relic given almost supernatural power and certainly something to be revered over and above any other written work or object. Thus the Bible became an idol, something not to be questioned, but to be reverenced as the word of god.

It comes as quite a shocking blow to find that the canon was decided by men, not god; that there are great disputes about the authorship and dating of the bible and that there are competing ideas and conclusions among scholars about these various issues.

Concerning the authorship and the dates...that's the problem isn't it? Scholars disagree. One scholars says yes Mark wrote Mark or one says no Mark didn't write Mark. I will go with the scholars that I like and you go with the scholars you like. Many scholars put the dates of the gospels before 70 AD and many scholars see no reason to not attribute each gospel to the name which is assigned to them. Have the original manuscripts been discovered? How do we know if they were not written in Aramaic? Furthermore many scholars agree that at the time of Jesus most people could speak Aramaic and Greek in the Palestinian area. It didn't really shock me when I learned that the books of the bible were decided by men. I do believe that the Spirit of God guided these men though. Furthermore I am not a bibliolater. I don't worship the bible as many Christians seem to. Jesus said God is a Spirit....and we must worship him in spirit and in truth. He didn't say we must worship Him in spirit and in book. One can be completely illiterate and have a person relationship with YHWH.

[Danmark]

Concerning the authorship and the dates...that's the problem isn't it? Scholars disagree. One scholars [sic] says yes Mark wrote Mark or one says no Mark didn't write Mark. I will go with the scholars that I like and you go with the scholars you like....

Wouldn't you agree that rather than simply 'go with the scholars' who confirm our prejudices, we should look at the quality of the scholars' work, whether those scholars are in the majority, and the qualifications of those scholars? . . . Not to mention, their standing in their scholarly profession?

Or will you simply agree with any scholar that tells you what you want to hear? That practice would insulate you from the opportunity to change and grow, and learn, right?

Then there is also the question of whether they are scholars at all, or mere journalists or popularizers, like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell.

For example the authorship of Matthew is in much greater dispute than the authorship of Mark.
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was not part of the first editions.[6] The tradition that this was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63), who wrote: "Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in Hebrew dialect (en Hebraïdi dialekt�i—may refer to Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated (hērmēneusen—or "interpreted") them to the best of their ability.[7] On the surface this implies that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek, but the passage is ambiguous and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ ... nd_setting

[Sir Hamilton]

Concerning the authorship and the dates...that's the problem isn't it? Scholars disagree. One scholars [sic] says yes Mark wrote Mark or one says no Mark didn't write Mark. I will go with the scholars that I like and you go with the scholars you like....

Wouldn't you agree that rather than simply 'go with the scholars' who confirm our prejudices, we should look at the quality of the scholars' work, whether those scholars are in the majority, and the qualifications of those scholars? . . . Not to mention, their standing in their scholarly profession?

Or will you simply agree with any scholar that tells you what you want to hear? That practice would insulate you from the opportunity to change and grow, and learn, right?

Then there is also the question of whether they are scholars at all, or mere journalists or popularizers, like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell.

For example the authorship of Matthew is in much greater dispute than the authorship of Mark.
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was not part of the first editions.[6] The tradition that this was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63), who wrote: "Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in Hebrew dialect (en Hebraïdi dialekt�i—may refer to Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated (hērmēneusen—or "interpreted") them to the best of their ability.[7] On the surface this implies that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek, but the passage is ambiguous and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ ... nd_setting

I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. Humans can not be completely objective when they study data, their preconceived beliefs and views will "leak" into their conclusions.

[Danmark]

I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. . . .

That is why so many of them think the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

[Sir Hamilton]

I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. . . .

That is why so many of them think the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

I know of some scholars that believe the Earth is 6000 years old...don't know of any that believe the Earth is flat do you? Can you believe that some scholars actually think that the Earth is around 4 billion years old?? And some even think that there was some magical explosion some 14 billion years ago that formed the universe! Crazy isn't it?

[Joab]

I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. . . .

That is why so many of them think the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

I know of some scholars that believe the Earth is 6000 years old...don't know of any that believe the Earth is flat do you? Can you believe that some scholars actually think that the Earth is around 4 billion years old?? And some even think that there was some magical explosion some 14 billion years ago that formed the universe! Crazy isn't it?

You actually know someone who thinks there was a magical explosion some 14 billion years ago? WOW! Oh you probably mean a fundy, yeah they just can't wrap their heads around science at all. Sorry to interrupt.

[Sir Hamilton]

I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. . . .

That is why so many of them think the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

I know of some scholars that believe the Earth is 6000 years old...don't know of any that believe the Earth is flat do you? Can you believe that some scholars actually think that the Earth is around 4 billion years old?? And some even think that there was some magical explosion some 14 billion years ago that formed the universe! Crazy isn't it?

You actually know someone who thinks there was a magical explosion some 14 billion years ago? WOW! Oh you probably mean a fundy, yeah they just can't wrap their heads around science at all. Sorry to interrupt.

Oh no....you can interrupt this is an open discussion...please continue...you do have a point don't you?