Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 280 by Realworldjack]

So then now, as we compare these two letters together, written by two completely different people, to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns, we can clearly see how they validate each other, and the thing is, they do so incidentally.

So now, please explain how this is not, verifiable internal Biblical evidence, supporting itself? Also explain how this would be a circular argument!

Just have to point out to you...let's say I accept that. Well...all you've done there is 'proven' that a guy called Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles and talked about how he hung around with a guy called Paul while Paul was under house arrest; and that a guy called Paul wrote something and wrote about how he was under house arrest and hung out with a guy called Luke.
That's it. All you've 'proven' here is that these two people hung out together and knew each other. That's all. This is a trivial thing, and certainly does not lend credibility to any of the magical claims, such as Paul having experienced a certain man years after he died. Nor does it prove that what Luke wrote about in the Gospel of Luke regarding Jesus himself and what Jesus reportedly said or did in that Gospel happened as reported.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 280 by Realworldjack]

So then now, as we compare these two letters together, written by two completely different people, to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns, we can clearly see how they validate each other, and the thing is, they do so incidentally.

So now, please explain how this is not, verifiable internal Biblical evidence, supporting itself? Also explain how this would be a circular argument!

Just have to point out to you...let's say I accept that. Well...all you've done there is 'proven' that a guy called Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles and talked about how he hung around with a guy called Paul while Paul was under house arrest; and that a guy called Paul wrote something and wrote about how he was under house arrest and hung out with a guy called Luke.
That's it. All you've 'proven' here is that these two people hung out together and knew each other. That's all. This is a trivial thing, and certainly does not lend credibility to any of the magical claims, such as Paul having experienced a certain man years after he died. Nor does it prove that what Luke wrote about in the Gospel of Luke regarding Jesus himself and what Jesus reportedly said or did in that Gospel happened as reported.

I do not have at lot of time at this point, but I will absolutely agree with what you have said, and at this point this is all I am attempting to establish. What I mean is, this is at least a start that we can agree upon. Therefore, if we have agreed upon this, then there certainly may be other things we can come to agreement upon.

Thanks for the response, but I have to run now.

[sevensealscom]

[quote="Zzyzx"]
.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None


I'll answer your questions above based on new insight/understanding of why I think our world exists.

Jesus was human, but still did all the miracles as described in the Bible.
God(s)/Elohiym is also human. In the Book of Genesis, Gods/Elohiym said "let us make mankind in our image after our likeness." Therefore, Adam and Eve look just like the Gods (two/male and female) that created them.
How did these human Gods create the universe and everything in it in six of our days? They dreamed it into existence to purposely span a time frame of six nights and six daylights.
Why was it dreamed into existence? To reveal what the real perfect world will become if evil is allowed to coexist with good. Evidently the Adam and Eve of the real world partook of a forbidden fruit that awakens the genes in humans that gives them the awareness of evil thoughts.
On judgment day, the dreamers (Gods) of our world will convey telepathically to the perfect people (referred to as angels) living in the real world what will happen to the real world (that evolved to perfection) if evil is permitted to live among them.
Also these Gods know when and how our world will end because it has already happened and everything is being replayed. During the replay our world was created in six days and the prophets were told to write of events that will happen in the end times.
Why is a Bible necessary? Evidently the dreamer(s) of our world
can not communicate with the living messenger in the latter days as in times of old probably because there is to much technology to reproduce in the with more buildings, people, and situations happening than in times past. Also it is likely that the dreamer's mind (where our world is being created) has become more logical in how a world should exist and no longer permits the dreamer to interact or do miracles as in the days of old. Hence a book is the only logical way of communicating with the living latter day messenger who can understand it and warn the people who accept his message of how and when the world will end. If the human species (that are created in the dreamer's mind) can convince the dreamer's mind that something should logically be there, then humans will discover it, but it might not be there in the real world.
People can dream a world and universe within a few hours of sleep. If you could control your dream, it would be easy to make the sun go down or side ways, make people live again, create food from nothing, floods, whatever you want.
Some evidence that events in our world are being replayed: deja vu, ghosts, clairvoyants, bible prophecies.

[enviousintheeverafter]

What scholars are you talking about? You do realize there are, "scholars" who believe these letters to be authentic, right?

Not really, no. So far as I can tell, the scholarly consensus on this point is extremely strong, and the dissenters tend to be hardline fundamentalists, more of apologists than Biblical scholars- but more to the point, they don't have much going for their view in terms of sound arguments and evidence.

Of course the scholars who claim these writings are authentic, are Christian scholars, while those opposed are not.

That's not true, views on the authorship of the Gospels isn't split along religious lines. Most Biblical scholars are Christian, and most Biblical scholars reject the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

So, are you suggesting the truth is determined by the majority? If so, that is an extremely poor argument!

No, as I said, their arguments are strong and the view well-corroborated, so backing up the claim that the traditional authorship of the Gospels is not factual isn't especially hard.

Your view certainly seems to be, "the scholars say it, I believe it, and that settles it."

No, maybe you should re-read what I wrote, because that wasn't it.

In the same way, I would be willing to bet, you believe evolution, because the majority of scientists believe it to be true, right? And since the majority of scientists believe it to be true, then it is as certain as, "things fall when dropped?" WOW!

You've got things backwards. When the evidence in favor of a certain view reaches a certain level, the consensus reflects that. Not the other way around. But yes, that evolution is factual is about as controversial as that gravity is factual.

Which Gospels are you talking about? There are four Gospels, so which ones are you talking about?

The four canonical Gospels.

First, there is a tremendous difference between, evidence, and proof! On the one hand, I can simply give you the, "evidence" of why I believe as I do. Giving evidence, does not in any way, establish truth, rather it is simply reasons to believe a certain way, according to the way the evidence is interpreted. On the other hand, if I supply proof, then I am establishing truth, that is beyond question.

This is all beside the point. Burden of proof is just a procedural principle in debate- it could just as easily be called "burden of evidence"; the difference between evidence and proof is not pertinent here. And in debates and factual disputes, its generally given that one bears a burden to back up one's claims- providing credible sources is certainly part of that.

Okay then, allow me to give you an example, and then you explain to us how this argument is circular.

The Bible contains two letters which have been attributed to Luke. Of course one of these letters is known to us as, "The Gospel of Luke," the other letter is, "The Actions of The Apostles." Toward the end of the second letter, the writer begins to concentrate almost exclusively, on the actions of Paul. He even begins to use the word, "we" clearly indicating he is with Paul witnessing the events. The author claims to have been with Paul, on his journey to Rome in order to stand trial there. The letter ends with Paul being under house arrest, welcoming all that came to him, and preaching the Gospel to them, for two whole years, and the author clearly indicates he is there with Paul. These two letters that have been attributed to Luke, are addressed to someone name, Theophilus and they give the reasons for the writing.

Okay so then, we have another letter contained in the Bible, in which the author clearly identifies himself as the, Apostle Paul. The letter I am referring to, is the second letter to Timothy. There is evidence in this letter, that the author was in fact under house arrest, and at the end of this letter, the author, who claimed to be Paul, tells Timothy that, there were some who had deserted him, but goes on to say, "only Luke is with me."

So then now, as we compare these two letters together, written by two completely different people, to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns, we can clearly see how they validate each other, and the thing is, they do so incidentally.

So now, please explain how this is not, verifiable internal Biblical evidence, supporting itself? Also explain how this would be a circular argument!

Internal corroboration wouldn't establish anything beyond a lack of inconsistency- i.e. no presumption of truth- unless one assumes to veracity of these claims, which is clearly question-begging when the factual accuracy of the Bible is what is in question. Internal corroboration, lacking such an assumption, is only evidence of consistency, a logical property, and not factual accuracy, an empirical property.

Okay, so can you please explain whom I need to go to in order to determine any of this? Should I consult you, since you seem to believe your reasoning is sound? Should I consult the scholars, and simply believe what the majority of them have to say, as you seem to do? In other words, what is it that causes you to believe your reason, and logic is any more sound than mine? As I said, "we will get to more on this in a moment," and I will explain the way I see it, but I would certainly like you to explain, how you come to the conclusion, your logic and reasoning, is any better than anyone else? Or, do you gage it like, those that agree with you, use sound logic, but if they disagree their logic is way off the mark?

Not sure what prompted this, but this isn't really a response to what I had said. Do you disagree that for ones reasons for believing something to be good and rational, they have to actually imply the truth or probability of what is believed? If they do not, in what sense could these reasons be considered good or rational ones for that belief?

Well, at this point I will attempt to explain the way I see things. Before I begin, allow me to say, I came to this particular site, thinking I would be discussing theology with fellow Christians. It was not until I signed up that I realized there seemed to be more of those here opposed to Christianity, than there were Christians themselves. Therefore, I saw this as an opportunity for myself, and myself alone, to determine if what I claimed to believe, held up to those with completely opposing beliefs. In other words, I have no desire, or impression, that my arguments will somehow persuade anyone. So then, I admit, my reasons for staying here are, selfish. I say all of this, simply to establish my reasons for participating on this site.

Having established the above, allow me to help you get some things straight. The name of this site is, "Debating Christianity." With this being the case, there is a reason for you, as an unbeliever to be here. What is that reason? Is it to prove Christianity wrong? If so, you are not doing a very good job! Or could it be, your reason for being here, is to simply explain why you reject Christianity, according to the way you have interpreted the evidence? If this is the case, then welcome to the conversation, and I am more than happy to exchange ideas.

I'm not sure why you're so concerned about personal motivations, as they are outside the scope of the topic, but my reasons aren't much different than yours; I find debate to be intellectually stimulating and enjoyable (for the most part), and it allows a chance for growth (i.e. of beliefs and arguments).

But you're making overmuch of the difference between evidence and proof here. One can have good and rational reasons/evidence for a belief that falls short of strict proof- we can come up with countless trivial examples (any empirical fact, for instance). But merely having a reason, or evidence, for a belief isn't to say that its a good, sufficient or rational basis for the belief- if my evidence for a belief doesn't actually imply the truth or at least probability of the belief, it seems obvious that this evidence is not good or sufficient. And testimony of questionable veracity is a perfect example of evidence that is not generally good or sufficient- testimony that X is the case is indeed evidence for X, but it is very weak, given how fallible testimony is. And the less credible we have reason to believe the testimony to be, its strength as evidence for what it asserts decreases proportionally.

[arian]

[Replying to post 275 by arian]

.. and what happens when that information gets into the hands of Evolutionist? Fukushima is a good indication what happens, so is Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki,

I'd love to know just what evolution has to do with these nuclear disasters/attacks. You do know, I hope, that these are completely different things? Nuclear theory has nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory.

Evolution Theory really came about by whites trying to figure out if blacks/aborigines qualified as human or not. It was strictly a white-thing. Later it was picked up by politicians, and on to justifying the holocaust of these inferior races.

The idea to justify building these nuclear reactors near big cities by telling people lies that they are safe for the environment (lol) is also the result of the Evolution-theory Religion, and as you can see even today, for the public Fukushima is safe, all under control, .. the millions of fish, she'll fish, which include mammals like whales and dolphins turning up dead on the shores around the world is said by scientists to be a mystery. A complete mystery (yet the Big-bang theory is claimed to be a fact, lol), .. suicide maybe, alien mind control .. anything but the truth.

You can see the mutation of these animals, and fish, farmers in Japan are crying out from guilt in selling radiation poisoned vegetables to the people, but they are warned that if they continue to complain they will be fined, imprisoned or worse! Those ruling over the Japanese since WW2 are eagerly waiting for the results of people eating the radiation-poisoned vegetables, so shutting up the farmers is extremely critical. The internet in this case is their enemy, people are coming together and complaining, so what do they do? They start releasing the huge compartments of radioactive water they sucked out of the plant into the ocean to speed up the process.

These are all man-made disasters, well planned out years and years before, and if you looked into the scientific testing done at Chernobyl today, you would understand just who exactly is doing the testing on the human/animals, what they are looking for, their voicing of just what perfect opportunity the 'disaster' has created for scientific studies on mutation, there would be no doubt in your mind who and why this was created.

This goes hand in hand with chem-trailing, water poisonings (like this last 'accidental' release of poisons into a lake from a gold mine), the creation of drought here, and the floods there, .. its all summed up in any of the Lady-Gaga concerts, just read her lips when she speaks to her audience.

For those who don't believe our Creator God exists, .. there is no way they could claim Satan doesn't! And if Satan exists and is obviously ruling the minds of mankind, then God must be here somewhere also, wouldn't you think? Yes "think" and watch the darkness fade and the light/truth be revealed. Close that "portal" (a lot of talk about portals nowadays isn't there?!) in your mind that was opened, and keep Satan out.

Here is a video that literally sums-up what's happening in the world today; from the Big-bang Evolution theories, to chem-trails, to all the 'Recycle' publicity, to the 'Green Agenda' the 'Orion, Venus, Mars (etc.) Projects', the 'Blue Brain/Human Genome' projects, and all the associated 'Post Human 2.0' projects, Cancer Awareness' it has been planned out hundreds of years ago (maybe even thousands of years ago?), which included the building of all the nuclear power plants upwind from major cities, even the Twin Towers were pre-planned for the 9-11 event. Agenda 21, ..everything that's going on with the Global Climate Change initiative, this video (and other associated Heavens Gate cult videos) sums it all up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6IAf_y8pQc

Listen as he says "The Earth is being recycled, so you better come with us!"

Songs like "Animals", all the lady Gaga, Beyoncé/Sasha fierce, Madonna, Miley Cyrus, Satan worshippers, it's all summed up in Evolution, that man is to become a beast, the uniting of the Beauty and the Beast, and suicide. Satan's dream for humanity summed up in the Evolution Story: "Extinction!"

[Zzyzx]

.
It must be quite a burden to carry negative attitudes and opinions. Of course, it is a matter of choice – choosing negativity (under the guise of knowledge) and developing opinions based upon . . . OPINIONS.

When one believes without actual (verifiable) evidence, anything becomes possible in the imagination. "They are out to get me (us)" must be appealing to some or many people – and in extreme cases is diagnosed as a mental illness or personality disorder (generic statement).

Perhaps believing in "better things after you die" is comforting for many people who dislike present life conditions.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 285 by arian]

Evolution Theory really came about by whites trying to figure out if blacks/aborigines qualified as human or not. It was strictly a white-thing. Later it was picked up by politicians, and on to justifying the holocaust of these inferior races.

Pull the other one! ...wait, you're serious? You think...that the theory of evolution was formulated by white men to see if black people qualified as humans?
Clear evidence right here that you've never studied the subject. I've got great news for you then: theory of evolution says black people ARE humans. Evidence is there in favour of the black people = human hypothesis. So if ever anyone were to try and say "No, they're not", the evidence is against them.
Why, in your view, is this a point AGAINST the theory of evolution and not in favour of it?

The idea to justify building these nuclear reactors near big cities by telling people lies that they are safe for the environment (lol) is also the result of the Evolution-theory Religion

Have to stop you there. Evolution is not a religion and never has been. I do not regard it as being dogmatic truth. Unlike those people who are members of actual religions, such as Christianity, who view certain claims as undeniable facts that can never be wrong (e.g. Jesus rose from the dead), I accept that while there is a great body of evidence in favour of evolution, it is not undeniable. It could, theoretically, be proven wrong someday.

farmers in Japan are crying out from guilt in selling radiation poisoned vegetables to the people, but they are warned that if they continue to complain they will be fined, imprisoned or worse!

Wow, the sheer amount of evidence you provided in support of this claim is breathtaking. Oh wait...no it's not. You didn't. Gonna have to say I don't believe you, since you provided none. I'm not going to bother checking to see if it's true - you have the burden of proof here.

They start releasing the huge compartments of radioactive water they sucked out of the plant into the ocean to speed up the process.

I would suggest asking a physicist, especially a nuclear physicist, why this was really the best thing they could have done post-Fukushima...but you and I both know this isn't likely to happen.
I don't like nuclear plants myself, but what do you suggest should happen once they're built and something goes wrong? What would you have suggested to the Fukushima officials about what to do with the radioactive water? More importantly, why should said officials listen to you, with your disdain for science?

These are all man-made disasters,

So a conspiracy theorist. I'm going to stop right now. I know from experience that if I actually express any interest in letting you "prove" yourself right, I'll get a whole slew of things that are implausible or unlikely to say the least. That certain things that 'prove' it are only true if one accepts a thousand other implausible things as true as well.
I'm not going to pull the pin on this grenade.

there is no way they could claim Satan doesn't!

Do you know the difference between making a claim and providing evidence for said claim?
OF COURSE people can claim (say) Satan doesn't exist! I'm one of them! I don't believe for a second there is a Satan or a God, mainly due to the complete lack of evidence in favour of them existing put forth by those who believe that they do exist.
So there...I've proven you wrong. I can claim (say) there isn't a Satan, or say I don't believe there is a Satan.

Here is a video that literally sums-up what's happening in the world today

Right. I'm done. I'm putting you on my ignore list. I do not talk with cultists, unless said cultists are actually experiencing some doubts about their cult. At least you were honest enough to call HG a cult.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Evolution Theory really came about by whites trying to figure out if blacks/aborigines qualified as human or not. It was strictly a white-thing. Later it was picked up by politicians, and on to justifying the holocaust of these inferior races.

Obviously you need to check your history, since this couldn't be more mistaken.

For those who don't believe our Creator God exists, .. there is no way they could claim Satan doesn't!

Um... why not?

And if Satan exists and is obviously ruling the minds of mankind, then God must be here somewhere also, wouldn't you think?

Well no, not necessarily, and in any case the point is moot since there's no more reason to think Satan exists than that God does (i.e. none).

Here is a video that literally sums-up what's happening in the world today; from the Big-bang Evolution theories, to chem-trails, to all the 'Recycle' publicity, to the 'Green Agenda' the 'Orion, Venus, Mars (etc.) Projects', the 'Blue Brain/Human Genome' projects, and all the associated 'Post Human 2.0' projects, Cancer Awareness' it has been planned out hundreds of years ago (maybe even thousands of years ago?), which included the building of all the nuclear power plants upwind from major cities, even the Twin Towers were pre-planned for the 9-11 event.

Ahhh... a conspiracy theory that manages to include everything from theories in physics, theories in biology, recycling, the genome project, climate change, nuclear power plants, and 9/11. Something makes me think it also involves the staged deaths of Elvis and Tupac, how Obama is really a Muslim, and how Martha Stewart is actually a Martian, but you just left those parts out. Definitely sounds like a very serious and credible theory- clearly more plausible than evolution.

[Realworldjack]

What scholars are you talking about? You do realize there are, "scholars" who believe these letters to be authentic, right?

Not really, no. So far as I can tell, the scholarly consensus on this point is extremely strong, and the dissenters tend to be hardline fundamentalists, more of apologists than Biblical scholars- but more to the point, they don't have much going for their view in terms of sound arguments and evidence.

Of course the scholars who claim these writings are authentic, are Christian scholars, while those opposed are not.

That's not true, views on the authorship of the Gospels isn't split along religious lines. Most Biblical scholars are Christian, and most Biblical scholars reject the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

So, are you suggesting the truth is determined by the majority? If so, that is an extremely poor argument!

No, as I said, their arguments are strong and the view well-corroborated, so backing up the claim that the traditional authorship of the Gospels is not factual isn't especially hard.

Your view certainly seems to be, "the scholars say it, I believe it, and that settles it."

No, maybe you should re-read what I wrote, because that wasn't it.

In the same way, I would be willing to bet, you believe evolution, because the majority of scientists believe it to be true, right? And since the majority of scientists believe it to be true, then it is as certain as, "things fall when dropped?" WOW!

You've got things backwards. When the evidence in favor of a certain view reaches a certain level, the consensus reflects that. Not the other way around. But yes, that evolution is factual is about as controversial as that gravity is factual.

Which Gospels are you talking about? There are four Gospels, so which ones are you talking about?

The four canonical Gospels.

First, there is a tremendous difference between, evidence, and proof! On the one hand, I can simply give you the, "evidence" of why I believe as I do. Giving evidence, does not in any way, establish truth, rather it is simply reasons to believe a certain way, according to the way the evidence is interpreted. On the other hand, if I supply proof, then I am establishing truth, that is beyond question.

This is all beside the point. Burden of proof is just a procedural principle in debate- it could just as easily be called "burden of evidence"; the difference between evidence and proof is not pertinent here. And in debates and factual disputes, its generally given that one bears a burden to back up one's claims- providing credible sources is certainly part of that.

Okay then, allow me to give you an example, and then you explain to us how this argument is circular.

The Bible contains two letters which have been attributed to Luke. Of course one of these letters is known to us as, "The Gospel of Luke," the other letter is, "The Actions of The Apostles." Toward the end of the second letter, the writer begins to concentrate almost exclusively, on the actions of Paul. He even begins to use the word, "we" clearly indicating he is with Paul witnessing the events. The author claims to have been with Paul, on his journey to Rome in order to stand trial there. The letter ends with Paul being under house arrest, welcoming all that came to him, and preaching the Gospel to them, for two whole years, and the author clearly indicates he is there with Paul. These two letters that have been attributed to Luke, are addressed to someone name, Theophilus and they give the reasons for the writing.

Okay so then, we have another letter contained in the Bible, in which the author clearly identifies himself as the, Apostle Paul. The letter I am referring to, is the second letter to Timothy. There is evidence in this letter, that the author was in fact under house arrest, and at the end of this letter, the author, who claimed to be Paul, tells Timothy that, there were some who had deserted him, but goes on to say, "only Luke is with me."

So then now, as we compare these two letters together, written by two completely different people, to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns, we can clearly see how they validate each other, and the thing is, they do so incidentally.

So now, please explain how this is not, verifiable internal Biblical evidence, supporting itself? Also explain how this would be a circular argument!

Internal corroboration wouldn't establish anything beyond a lack of inconsistency- i.e. no presumption of truth- unless one assumes to veracity of these claims, which is clearly question-begging when the factual accuracy of the Bible is what is in question. Internal corroboration, lacking such an assumption, is only evidence of consistency, a logical property, and not factual accuracy, an empirical property.

Okay, so can you please explain whom I need to go to in order to determine any of this? Should I consult you, since you seem to believe your reasoning is sound? Should I consult the scholars, and simply believe what the majority of them have to say, as you seem to do? In other words, what is it that causes you to believe your reason, and logic is any more sound than mine? As I said, "we will get to more on this in a moment," and I will explain the way I see it, but I would certainly like you to explain, how you come to the conclusion, your logic and reasoning, is any better than anyone else? Or, do you gage it like, those that agree with you, use sound logic, but if they disagree their logic is way off the mark?

Not sure what prompted this, but this isn't really a response to what I had said. Do you disagree that for ones reasons for believing something to be good and rational, they have to actually imply the truth or probability of what is believed? If they do not, in what sense could these reasons be considered good or rational ones for that belief?

Well, at this point I will attempt to explain the way I see things. Before I begin, allow me to say, I came to this particular site, thinking I would be discussing theology with fellow Christians. It was not until I signed up that I realized there seemed to be more of those here opposed to Christianity, than there were Christians themselves. Therefore, I saw this as an opportunity for myself, and myself alone, to determine if what I claimed to believe, held up to those with completely opposing beliefs. In other words, I have no desire, or impression, that my arguments will somehow persuade anyone. So then, I admit, my reasons for staying here are, selfish. I say all of this, simply to establish my reasons for participating on this site.

Having established the above, allow me to help you get some things straight. The name of this site is, "Debating Christianity." With this being the case, there is a reason for you, as an unbeliever to be here. What is that reason? Is it to prove Christianity wrong? If so, you are not doing a very good job! Or could it be, your reason for being here, is to simply explain why you reject Christianity, according to the way you have interpreted the evidence? If this is the case, then welcome to the conversation, and I am more than happy to exchange ideas.

I'm not sure why you're so concerned about personal motivations, as they are outside the scope of the topic, but my reasons aren't much different than yours; I find debate to be intellectually stimulating and enjoyable (for the most part), and it allows a chance for growth (i.e. of beliefs and arguments).

But you're making overmuch of the difference between evidence and proof here. One can have good and rational reasons/evidence for a belief that falls short of strict proof- we can come up with countless trivial examples (any empirical fact, for instance). But merely having a reason, or evidence, for a belief isn't to say that its a good, sufficient or rational basis for the belief- if my evidence for a belief doesn't actually imply the truth or at least probability of the belief, it seems obvious that this evidence is not good or sufficient. And testimony of questionable veracity is a perfect example of evidence that is not generally good or sufficient- testimony that X is the case is indeed evidence for X, but it is very weak, given how fallible testimony is. And the less credible we have reason to believe the testimony to be, its strength as evidence for what it asserts decreases proportionally.

Not really, no. So far as I can tell, the scholarly consensus on this point is extremely strong, and the dissenters tend to be hardline fundamentalists, more of apologists than Biblical scholars

This is extremely comical! First, what exactly do you mean by, "So far as I can tell"? Should I put my trust in, "so far as you can tell?" Tell you what, why don't you read some material by, "F.F. Brue" who is considered a Biblical scholar, or would he in your view be considered more of an apologist, than Biblical scholar? Strange isn't it, how you get to determine who the real Biblical scholars are? So, is it like this, if they happen to agree with the way you would like to view things, then they are true Biblical scholars, however if they disagree with you, they must be extremists, fundamentalists, and apologists, and not really scholars? Or is it simply if they disagree with the consensus?

You continue to tell us how, "consensus on this point is extremely strong" however, you fail to give us any sort of findings, or evidence, concerning this consensus. Therefore, you certainly seem to be saying, "the scholars have said it, that should settle it." Sorry, but I do not believe things that easily. You see, I know all about the consensus, and have read much about the reasons some scholars reject the traditional authorship, and unless you can show me something new, that I have not seen, it is all pretty much speculation, with the intent to cast doubt upon the Biblical writings.

You see, I understand, the Biblical scholars who defend the traditional view, could be interpreting the evidence toward a particular slant, therefore I tend to read everything critically. Certainly, you are not naïve enough to believe, the scholars who oppose the traditional view, have no bias, or slant, right?

but more to the point, they don't have much going for their view in terms of sound arguments and evidence.

Okay, so am I to simply take your word for this statement?

No, as I said, their arguments are strong and the view well-corroborated, so backing up the claim that the traditional authorship of the Gospels is not factual isn't especially hard.

Again, should I simply take your word for it? If, "backing up the claim that the traditional authorship of the Gospels is not factual isn't especially hard," then it certainly should not be difficult for you to give me something other than, "the consensus says."

No, maybe you should re-read what I wrote, because that wasn't it.

Thus far, that is all I am seeing, maybe I'm missing something? At this point let me attempt to explain something to you.

I have read the consensus, (meaning those who oppose the traditional view of authorship). Of course, I have also read the opposing side that attempts to defend the traditional view. However, more importantly, I have actually, not only read, but studied intently, over the years, the content of the Bible itself. Therefore, whether I am reading, those opposed, or those who defend the traditional view, I am not in any way dependent on what I am reading, because I am already extremely familiar with the content. Now, does this mean I must be right, and there is no possibility of error on my part? Absolutely not! I clearly understand the possibility of my error. What it does mean is that, neither side will be able to pull the wool over my eyes. In other words, although I may learn something from each side, I am not dependent on the view of others, consensus or not!

Here is an example. http://alpha.fdu.edu/~jbecker/bible/gul ... ensed.html

This article is written by a scholar who is certainly opposed to the traditional view. I have read this article word, for word, and would love to critique it, point, by point, but this would certainly take up far to much space, therefore I will only address one point. Before I do this, allow me to give my own personal opinion of the article as a whole.

Remembering that this is my own personal opinion, I do not believe his argument is weak, because it is not even good enough to simply be called weak. Rather, I view it as pathetic! Listen, I am convinced of the traditional view of Scripture, and even though I am, I could give a better argument against the traditional view than this scholar does!

At any rate, since I cannot critique it point by, point, let's just take a look at one of his points.

It is this authors point, that Paul, or any one author for that matter, could not have possibly authored, these two conflicting passages, because according to him, "How can they be reconciled?" The first passage he is speaking of is,

Ephesians 5:22-24New International Version (NIV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Now, he compares the passage above, to this passage,

Galatians 3:28New International Version (NIV)

28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now, from this passage, I want you to keep in mind the phrase, " for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus." Emphasis on the word, ONE!

The first thing I would like to point out is, these 2 passages have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and the author is speaking of 2 completely different things. In the first passage the author is speaking of the relationship between a husband, and a wife, and how the, CHRISTIAN marriage, should operate. Notice my emphasis on, "CHRISTIAN" because the author is not at all concerned with the marital relationship of those outside the Church. Rather, the author is saying, "since you are part of the Church, and since you are the ones who asked, to become a part of the Church, and agreed to come under the discipline of the Church, then this is the way in which, a Christian marriage should operate". I will also point out, this submission of the wife to the husband, is not in any way, a slave to task master relationship, as the scholar above is wanting us to believe, and we will prove this in a moment, however at this point suffice it to say, this passage is dealing with the relationship between husband, and wife.

As we now turn our attention to the passage this scholar is comparing, the above passage to, which is Galatians 3:28, we can clearly see, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with, marital relations, but rather, the relationship of the Church, to Christ. You see, the Church is made up of people, and the author is saying, "in the Church, there is no such distinctions, rather all are equal, and come together to become, ONE in Christ."

Notice in this passage in Galatians, the author says absolutely zero, concerning, "husband, and wife," and the closest thing he says to this is when he says, "nor is there male and female," but what in the world would this have to do with, "husband, and wife?" Simply because a husband would be male, and a wife, would be female is absolutely irrelevant to the point the author is making in this passage.

But the main point is, this scholar takes the passage in Ephesians, completely out of it's context. What I mean is, there are other passages around this passage that shed light upon this passage and it's correct interpretation, and when these other passages are added, it not only demonstrates, that the "submission of the wife to the husband," is not in a slave to task master sort of way, but the exact opposite. It also demonstrates clearly, and beyond doubt, these passages not only do not conflict, but rather fit perfectly, and beautifully together, which goes on to clearly demonstrate, the same person absolutely could be the author of both. So let's look at the passage in Ephesians in it's whole context, to see if we can determine this?

Now this scholar decides to begin in verse 22, chapter 5 of Ephesians, which is convenient because if he would have backed up one more verse, we could have read this,

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Okay, so the question is, if we submit ourselves to someone else, does this make us any less equal to, or less important than the person we are submitting too? On a football team, if the 350 pound center, submits to the captain of the team, who is the 200 pound quarter back, does the center's submission make him less equal, or important than the quarterback? If not, then why would a wife's submission to her husband some how make her less equal, or important to the husband, which is what this scholar is attempting to make the author of this passage say. But let's see if that is indeed the case? We have already looked at what was said just before the passage this scholar cites, now let's take a look at what is said immediately after. First let's look again at the passage the scholar cites.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Now this is all that is said to the wife, but let's take a look next at what is said immediately after to the husband.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.�[c]

As you can see, the instruction to the husband was more in depth. The author tells husbands to, "love their wives just as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her. In the same way, the husband should give himself up completely, for the sake of his wife.

In fact, the author goes on to say, " In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies." WOW! Now does this sound like the wife is not equal to the husband? Sounds to me as if, they are equally the same.

Now let's pause a minute, and think about this. Why would the author here say, "love your wife, as your own, BODY," instead of simply saying, yourself? Could it possibly be because the Church is referred to as the Bride, (wife) of Christ, and it is also referred to as, the BODY of Christ, and Christ is said to love, the Church, His Bride, His Body, and therefore, Christian husbands should love their wife, as there own body, just as Christ loves His wife, body, the Church?

At any rate, the author goes on to say, "He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body." Again, WOW! Is the author here comparing the husband's body to his wife, and in doing so proclaiming the wife is not simply equal to the husband, but rather they are "ONE" and the same? Remember that emphasis on the, "ONE" I used a while back, because we are getting there!

I only cited part of verse 29, so now let's look at the whole of verse 29.

29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church

Clearly, the author is saying, Christ cares for His Church, which is His wife, and body. In the same way, husbands should care for their wife, as she is his, (the husbands) body as well, which means, they are more than simply equal, but are rather, "ONE" and the same!

Now, as we move on to verse 30, I want to include verse 29, which we have already looked at, since the translators did not end verse 29 with a period, but rather a hyphen. With this being the case the sentence reads,

29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.

So verse 30 reads, "for we are members of his body." Now, I want to compare this to the other passage our scholar referred to which was, Galatians 3:28. Let's look at that passage again.

28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, we can see, the author is saying, "in the Church there is no distinction." Why does he say this? Because he goes on to say, "for you are all, ONE in Jesus Christ." In other words, there is no division over who is more important, because in the end, we are, "ONE" and come together to form the body, which is the Body of Christ.

Now, as we turn our attention back to the other passage our scholar refers to, in which he is attempting to get us to believe, the same person could not have possibly authored both passages, we find that although the two passages are speaking of two totally different things, where one is speaking of our relationship to Christ, and His Church, while the other speaks of the marital relationship between the husband and wife, in the end these two passages coincide beautifully together. In other words, on the one hand, you have the members of the Church that come together to form, "ONE", while on the other we have the husband and wife coming together to form, "ONE." And this is exactly the way our passage in Ephesians ends.

30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become ONE flesh.�

So, we have the one passage speaking of the Church, and how the members come together to form ONE body, which is the "Body of Christ" which is also called, "the Bride of Christ" and there is no distinction in this Body. Then we have the other passage which is speaking of the relationship between a husband, and wife, and how they are to come together to unite, and become, ONE, and that the husband should love, and care for his wife, in the same way as Christ loves and cares for His Bride, which is also His Body, to the point of "giving Himself up for her" which means the husband should love his wife the same, and give himself up completely for the sake of his wife.

This is what you get, when you compare these two passages together, and you are going to tell me, they could not possibly have been authored by the same person. Be for real! How in the world, can you have two completely different passages, from two completely different letters, addressed to two completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns, and wind up having the same points made in both, and come to the conclusion, these two letters could not have been authored by the same person?

The four canonical Gospels.

To address this point of yours, we will have to go back through the conversation. In your post, previous to the post I am responding to now, you stated,

for instance, the Gospels were not written by the Apostles whose names they bear

When I read this, I could clearly see where you had misspoke, but I thought that it could have simply been an oversight, therefore I ask, "what Gospels you were referring too", in order to give you a chance to correct the error. However, given this second chance you have not.

You see, anyone who knows anything at all about the Bible, who would want to actually debate it would know, that only two of the canonical Gospels were attributed to Apostles, which would be, Matthew, and John. The other two, Mark, and Luke, were not Apostles. Form this, I think we can determine, anyone who would say such a thing, does not really know the subject they are attempting to debate. I think we can also determine, this person is more than likely depending on others completely, to form their beliefs.

If there are those who want to form their opinion completely based on the "consensus of the scholars" I have absolutely no problem with that, it is fine by me. However, this sort of mentality, will probably not fare very well, in a debate forum.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I have read the consensus, (meaning those who oppose the traditional view of authorship). Of course, I have also read the opposing side that attempts to defend the traditional view.

So then you're aware of both the consensus, and the disparity between the strength of the evidence/arguments in favor of both views (which is undoubtedly the reason for this consensus, particularly since the dominant position is incongruous with the religious commitment of most Biblical scholars, who are themselves Christians). Gotcha.