WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
POI
Sage
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 316 times

WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #1

Post by POI »

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3937
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3017 times
Been thanked: 1637 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #121

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:35 am [Replying to alexxcJRO in post #114]

You can have the last word here...and I will take the dub (W).

I have bigger fish to fry.
In this case it appears that your goose is cooked.

Or, to borrow from Joey, it was alexxcJRO in the conservatory with the lead pipe.
:D
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

POI
Sage
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #122

Post by POI »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Kool. Thanks for not trying to continue to straw-man the liar argument upon me.
I see you are still confused about what the liar thing was all about. Oh well, can't help everyone.
Wow! Just.... Wow.... Let's go back to your initial statement, from post 101:

anyone that has studied this subject (Resurrection) in the least bit, would know that naysayers have historically accused the disciples of stealing the body and thus lying about the Resurrection...and my point is, they (disciples) believed that they actually saw the risen Jesus and the stealing the body/lying hypothesis is not valid.

Now, I just placed things back in its proper perspective...so next time, leave it there
.

*************

I'm aware that unbelievers have many differing arguments for why they doubt the resurrection. This is not one of mine. So if you wish to wage this particular rebuttal, please do it without me. THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT WHY I DOUBT THE RESURRECTION ;)

Hint hint... I doubt that Jesus was placed in a special tomb, in the first place, and then guarded by Romans. Thus, to suggest the body was stolen would not apply to my argument in the least. Got it now? Thankx! So please, do not try to straw-man me, with an argument for which I have no logical interest to entertain.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Right, and Paul, or anyone else for that matter, could not be the perpetual gatekeeper to all the floating gossip. You know, how you already admitted that oral tradition is synonymous to the telephone game.
Well, when you can tell me what floating gossip was floating around during that time (that Paul missed), then it will be considered.

Until then, we have what we have, which is Paul traveling and writing to the many congregations throughout the empire, and quelling any false stuff that was even beginning to surface.
Do you even know how the telephone game works? Do you even know how (L)egend works? If not, maybe we need to devote a new thread to these topics?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Seriously... Are you suggesting that Paul was able to auto-correct all the ('town gossip' / 'telephone games' / 'oral traditions') which were not to his liking?
If it was brought to his attention (which it more than likely would have been), then yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting.
Okay, so "magic" it is. Why not?

Again, if the stories spread far and wide, rapidly, he certainly cannot be in all places at once, can he? Probably not even close.
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
You are saying this to provide a red herring. Well, I'm not chasing your fallacious argument...
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm Yeah, ok. Touched a nerve there, didn't I?
I see you continue to double down with the red herring.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm Back on track...

Do you know who wrote the Gospels, and from where exactly they obtained their source information? This is a rhetorical question. The answer is no.
I don't "know" who wrote anything in antiquity.
Great. And I told you, several times, why it matters in this case. Thanks.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Correct. But it matters here, because we are interested in the 'eyewitness' testimony of such a claimed one time event. Without verified eyewitnesses, and no physical evidence to really address, (regarding a sighting of seeing a post-mortem event), antiquity here looks to present quite an issue.
And as I stated previously, if we had eyewitness testimony of X amount of people (besides the ones of whom I believe we currently have), I doubt that you would be any closer to becoming a Christian.

So the point is, it doesn't matter what we have/don't have...from your side of things.

My side of things is; we have what we have, and it is enough to convince us (believers).
Okay, yet again with a red herring argument. Rinse/repeat:

But it matters here, because we are interested in the 'eyewitness' testimony of such a claimed one time event. Without verified eyewitnesses, and no physical evidence to really address, (regarding a sighting of seeing a post-mortem event), antiquity here looks to present quite an issue.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm And this was Jesus's preferred method to spread truth?
It was spread, wasn't it? So apparently, it worked.
What exactly was spread? Again, this goes back to the theist trilemma (plus) one. The four (L)'s. Your assertion is (L)ord, which used to be mine, but now, my hypothesis is now (L)egend.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
This is not my argument. My argument is that they were likely already gone/dead/kaput.
And my argument is that they were alive.
But your argument defies basic math. Sorry. Hint; how many standard deviations must you apply to an average, before it then becomes an outlier? Again, "faith" is doing some heavy lifting here for you...
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm And if Mark was written first, then it really does not matter when John was written.
Mark's Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with John's Gospel.
Oh, I know it doesn't.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm If all the stories, which we were able to investigate, happened to be true, as they were told from the Bible, maybe I would have remained a Christian. Please remember, I was a Christian first.
Please remember, according to the Bible, no true Christian would leave the faith.
Kool. You have opted to go with yet another ancient fallacious argument, from the Bible no less, (i.e.) of the no true Scotsman flavor...

I guess this means I never really believed in Santa, or the tooth fairy either ;)
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm An idea ain't gonna cut it. You do not know. We are only speaking about the largest claim in human history. Need a bit more than this, I'm afraid.
I also don't "know" if Caesar was stabbed, either. All I know is what history tells me.
I would wager ALOT more is riding upon the claim that "Jesus rose from the dead to save me", verses to decipher whether or not someone was stabbed. An idea, or faith, is good enough here as well?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm If we do not have full copies, of chapters, prior to 200, how do we know there exists full copies, prior to 200? I'll start first, to get things going... Here is the earliest partial finding thus far, Papyrus P52 (125-175AD). Spoiler alert... Its the size on an index card.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that we come across completed ones, dating all the way back to when things were first being placed to paper. We can then compare them to the presumed first copies we have now. But until then, 'faith'; as it states you must have several times in the Bible.
Hmm. That's interesting. Well, we have Papias, who was an early church father and the guy of whom we get our info from, as far as Mark being Peter's friend and writing a Gospel is concerned.

You see, Papias died around 163 AD, and he stated (according to Eusebius), that Mark wrote a Gospel.

So if Papias died around 163 AD (which means that he was a very old man, having been born in 70AD, go figure), and he speaks of Mark writing a Gospel, that would mean that a full Gospel of Mark was in existence prior to 163 AD.

So please, kill the 200AD nonsense.
How did he know Mark wrote Mark? What was his source? Did he actually see him write it? Oh, and does he happen to know who wrote the second/additional ending to Mark too?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm For starters, are you saying the 'church' did not decide what to canonize, and what not to canonize, in the 4th century?
I never said, implied, nor even HINTED that...so why are you asking me such a question?
So 'the church' did not vote upon what was to become canon, in the 4th century?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Is God 'first cause', or not?
Yes, and I think I made that point very clear.
Well, you kinda didn't in the prior response, But that's okay. But forging ahead, you have now just placed yourself back into your precarious predicament, again.

If God is 'first cause', but you also acknowledge "something else' had to always exist, how does that work exactly?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
You could, but you do not need to. Did you at least listen to what he says? He states it is not known. Many cosmologists have differing hypotheses.
Yeah, that kinda was my point, sir.
Sounds like you actually missed the point. We both admit we are not cosmologists. But somehow, you are forcing a conclusion, with lack in knowledge to the subject. Strange?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm We don't know yet, "therefore god." Classic fallacious reasoning...
More like "we do know; it was God".

I don't hold to the "we don't know" idea, sir.
So, like I said, please attend the next cosmology conference, and share with them your knowledge. The 'world' needs to know.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:33 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:40 pm
Glad we settled one topic :) You agree with whipping children as a sign of love, think slavery is a-okay, think women leadership in church is bad, and you detest gay people.
Ok, now that that is settled, lets move along, shall we.
Not quite, I would like to reflect upon this settled discovery...

When the "Holy Spirit" gives you these ideas, do you already agree with all of them, or, does He need to coax you a bit first?

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #123

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am
So we agree the gospels authors are anonymous
No doubt about that one.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am and not eyewitness testimonies. Good.
The Gospels either originated or was written by either apostles or friends of the apostles.

I said this about 20 times already and how you conclude that I said or implied otherwise is beyond me.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am Q: What’s up with Wikipedia? With the sources I provided?
Surely Wikipedia its not biased against the religious.

“Mark, the earliest gospel, was likely written just after the destruction of the second Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E, and was known by both Matthew and Luke when they undertook the task of producing their own narratives.
The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years), most likely during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, is known in its earliest form from extensive papyri fragments dating to the early or middle of the third century. The Gospel of John, dated between 80 and 110 C.E. is first attested in a highly fragmentary papyrus, dated to 125-150 C.E”
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/node/1754

The above used the work of François Bovon, Brown Raymond, James R. Edwards, Ehrman Bart D., Bruce M. Metzger.
You have your sources, and I have mines. Pre 70AD from mines.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am Problems:

1. You have the issue of later gospels being inspired by Mark gospel. Therefore the whole multiple testimonies giving credence to the supposed miracle is put into question.
The term ‘synoptic problem’ refers to the fact that when the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are laid in parallel and read synoptically (‘with the same eye’), it becomes evident that there is a literary dependency among them. A technical analysis of the texts shows that Mark was the original and that Matthew and Luke were written independently, based on Mark.
“Synoptic problem
Sure. The problem with that analysis is, Mark is also the shortest Gospel.

The Gospel of Matthew is 28 chapters long and Mark has only 16...so obviously Mark left some stuff out which Matthew inserts in his...making it independent...not wholly independent, but independent nevertheless.

And the same thing with Luke.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. The fact that they share so much material verbatim and yet also exhibit important differences has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence, a phenomenon termed the Synoptic Problem. It is widely accepted that this was the first gospel (Marcan Priority) and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, who agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
Same answer as above.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am 2. You have the issue with the gospels in that the earliest copies we have date to the late 2nd century while most of them are even much later.
Which is still much earlier/closer to the event(s) in question, when compared to other ancient works of literature.

Most of those other ancient works were written centuries after the events for which they speak of...and it sure doesn't stop scholars from viewing them as authentic.

Second, as I told POI, lets just take Mark's Gospel..early church father Papias confirmed that Mark wrote a Gospel, and Papias died in 163 AD.

So obviously, Mark's Gospel must have predated 200 AD, contrary to what your beloved sources state.

The fact that Mark's Gospel was aware of prior to 163AD, makes anything you say about post 200 AD inaccurate.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am 3. Oral circulation:
Scholars agree that before (and even after) the Gospels were written, early Christians relied primarily, if not exclusively, on oral traditions for their information about Jesus.
As true as that may be, it doesn't tell the full story..and that is why Paul's epistles are so important.

With his epistles, you can clearly see what early Christian thought was...he was writing, not according to tradition, but according to what the original apostles were PREACHING that current day and also from his own personal experience.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am With oral transmission one has the problem of keeping the story as reliably close to the original. Word of mouth transmission of information is inherently unreliable.
Humans psychic is a weak thing prone to false memories, bad memory recollection, peer affirmation, bias, power of suggestion, pareidolia and other such deficiencies.
By 70AD most of the apostles were deceased, and up until that point, the STORY was close to the original...as THEY were the original sources.

After they passed on, the Gospel's were then in circulation. So the word was preserved, and it doesn't get any more preserved than that.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am Oral traditions and the formation of the gospels
Modern scholars[who?] have concluded that the Canonical Gospels went through four stages in their formation:
1. The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.

I agree.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am 2. In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down[by whom?] in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate.
I disagree with the oral traditions bit...no oral traditions pre 70AD.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am 3. In the third stage, early Christians began combining the written collections and oral traditions into what might be called "proto-gospels" – hence Luke's reference to the existence of "many" earlier narratives about Jesus
Um, not so fast. Luke stated that his Gospel was just one of many ACCOUNTS that were circulating about the story of Jesus during his day.

Lets not water it down.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am 4. In the fourth stage, the authors of our four Gospels drew on these proto-gospels, collections, and still-circulating oral traditions to produce the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.[1]
I disagree. This whole "drew on" business isn't what I see when I look at the history. If the Gospels were written by either apostles, or friends of the apostles (as I maintain), then the stories were told from eyewitnesses, or those that knew eyewitnesses....so far be it from drawing on oral traditions...but more so the information came straight from the horses mouth or by personable experiences.

You may not agree, but its all good though.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence.
Sure.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Marcan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation.
I agree. Funny, because based on Papias' account of Mark's authorship, that seem to gel well with what Papias stated.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am [15] It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.[16]
Oral transmission may also be seen as a different approach to understanding the Synoptic Gospels in New Testament scholarship. Current theories attempt to link the three synoptic gospels together through a common textual tradition. However, many problems arise when linking these three texts together (see the Synoptic problem). This has led many scholars to hypothesize the existence of a fourth document from which Matthew and Luke drew upon independently of each other (for example, the Q source).[17] The Oral Transmission hypothesis based on the oral tradition steps away from this model, proposing instead that this common, shared tradition was transmitted orally rather than through a lost document.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_gospel_traditions

4.
“Recent scholars are complicating the conversation by taking a closer look at the stages by which "Gospels" moved from oral tradition to "notes" (in Greek, hypomnemata) to "unfinished" texts with limited circulation to "finished" or "published" texts with broader circulation. And even at that late stage, those "finished" texts were interpolated, abbreviated, and otherwise modified (intentionally and unintentionally) in the following centuries. Our modern, printed Gospels are translations of Greek "critical editions." That means that no ancient manuscript looks exactly like the Greek text from which our translations are made. The critical editions based on scholars' best guesses, weighing all the available evidence, as to what was found in the "original" and "finished" (both problematic terms) versions of the text.” [/i]
Everyone has their opinions.
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:31 am
Q: Of whom you speak? Please don’t be vague?

Q: And why?

The age the writers wrote is relevant for example:
Scenario showing the issue:
If Peter was 30-40 years old(most likely) at the death of Jesus he would have been 90-110 years old at the time of the gospel of Mark was supposed to have originated.

An idea that Peter died in spring 44 AD:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3262446

If Peter lived to mere 50s or 60s he would have been dead for 30-50 years at the time the Gospel of “Mark” supposed to have originated. Therefore if the writer of “Mark” was 30 when he wrote the gospel he could not have been friend with Peter.
The overlap of the persons is therefore not guaranteed.
You have the same issue with the others.
I am speaking of the average age of the apostles during the decade of the 60's AD.

I don't have any hard facts on their ages...I am simply assuming they were all within 10 years of Jesus' age (up or down) when he was crucified...so we are talking between the ages of 23 and 43...but I will be modest and put them between the ages of 25 and 35...35 is the high end, and 25 is the low end.

So, if I take the average of 25 and 35, I get an age of 30.

If they were 30 in 33AD, then they would have been around ages 60-65 during the 60's AD.

This is a fair and honest assessment and I am rolling with it.

As far as Peter is concerned, we are talking about the authorship of the Gospels, and no one is claiming that Peter wrote a Gospel, so the mention of Peter (for your case), is irrelevant.

However, speaking of Peter...notice that his death is not mentioned in the book of Acts (neither is Paul's), which leads me to conclude that he was alive during the time that Acts was written.

After all, the death of Stephen was surely mentioned, why wouldn't the deaths of Peter (Jesus' right hand man), or Paul (it mentions Paul's conversion, travels, upcoming trial), but doesn't mention his death.

Hmmm. Probably because both Paul and Peter was both alive during the time Acts was written...and since Paul died around 67 AD, then Acts cannot be said to have been written after 67 AD...and since the book of Acts is part 2 to Luke's Gospel, then it follows that Luke's Gospel can't be said to have been written prior to 67 AD.

Do you see how it all just flows together?
Observation to readers: We do not have a manuscript of “Mark” gospel dating in the normal sense. Dating refers to the most probable time of when it was written after analysing the available information.
I agree.
Paul mentioning Luke as friend does logically lead to therefore Paul was friend to the writer of the gospel of Luke. It’s a non-sequitur.
This is a straw man. The question POI asked was something along the lines of "Do we have any credible evidence that Luke was Paul's friend", and I simply pointed out the fact that Paul himself stated that Luke was his friend.

It had nothing to do with Luke being the writer of Luke's Gospel, as you are insinuating.

Although, when you think about it...if we have a tradition of someone named Luke being claimed as the author (from the early church), and we have Paul himself stating that he has a friend named Luke...it does allow one to logically conclude that Luke, Paul's friend, wrote a Gospel.

I mean, c'mon now.
Provide something outside your own words to back up this please: “that tradition has Mark, a FRIEND of Peter as being the source of the written Gospel...that in itself gives credibility to the claim that Mark wrote it.”

Please provide all the evidence you have connecting apostles with the writers of the gospels.
As I already stated, the idea that Mark (friend of Peter) is said to have "wrote" a Gospel, instead of giving the authorship to Peter himself....and also the idea that Luke (friend of Paul) "wrote" a Gospel, instead of attributing authorship to Paul himself...those are TOO modest of claims for me to overlook...and I won't.

That may not do it for you, but it does it for me.
8 of them conform Wikipedia were written early 2nd c.
Matthew and Luke and John conform Wikipedia were written around (AD 85–90, AD 90–110).
So John was possibly early second century.
So late first century(canonical: Matthew and Luke and possibly John) or early 2nd c(non-canonical and possible John).
Its not centuries later as you seem to imply. But decades in difference.
The reason does not seem as logical as you first assume considering the above.
First of all, your sources are just simply wrong in their dating of the Gospels. Just flat out WRONG. Notice you are not presenting any case for your data...you are just simply copy/pasting stuff that are in agreement with you.

What reasons do they have in giving the Gospels such dating timeframes? Do you know...or do you just go on wikipedia, get the info you need, and regurgitate it on here?
So I ask again:

Q: What about the Non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels(written early 2nd c)? What's up with them? Why was their perspective is not included?
I already answer that.
You said "I already acknowledged that point." meaning "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."
Q: Are you contradicting yourself? :?
I don't understand the question, sir.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #124

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm The Gospels either originated or was written by either apostles or friends of the apostles.

I said this about 20 times already and how you conclude that I said or implied otherwise is beyond me.
I don't understand the question, sir.
I said: “Even the Catholics admit the anonymity: Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.""
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

They agree that the traditional titles were a later addition.”


You replied: “I already acknowledged that point. Next..”

“The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.” means the gospels of Mathew and John were not written by apostles Mathew and John.
If you agree with “The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.” then it follows you believe the gospels of Mathew and John were not written by apostles Mathew and John.

Q: So what’s up? :?
Your getting confusing.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm You have your sources, and I have mines. Pre 70AD from mines.
1.
Q: What sources?
You have not provided anything.
You have only empty claims.
Just saying so not make it so.
Please provide something and don’t bore me with empty claims.

2.
Q: What’s the problem with my sources?
Please explain.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm Sure. The problem with that analysis is, Mark is also the shortest Gospel.

The Gospel of Matthew is 28 chapters long and Mark has only 16...so obviously Mark left some stuff out which Matthew inserts in his...making it independent...not wholly independent, but independent nevertheless.

And the same thing with Luke.
Same answer as above.
I agree. Funny, because based on Papias' account of Mark's authorship, that seem to gel well with what Papias stated.
“The degree of verbatim agreement or the sequential agreement in the arrangement of episodes and sayings is so strong that one must posit some kind of literary relationship among the gospels.”

This suggest copycat, plagiarism. + later embellishment-additions(ex: Mathew making Jesus seem more divine).
We have clear evidence of adding (harmonise the text to fit a certain narrative, certain concepts) and embellishment with Mark’s longer ending.
Putting great mistrust in this ancient writings as genuinely relating historical truth.

Its funny how the genuine ending of Mark does not include the appearance of Jesus to either to women or apostles after burial, no ascension to Heaven.

Also one has the writer of the Matthew gospel writing in third person when referring to Matthew suggesting this is probably not eyewitness testimony.

“Matt. 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,”a he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.” (NIV)


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm Which is still much earlier/closer to the event(s) in question, when compared to other ancient works of literature.

Most of those other ancient works were written centuries after the events for which they speak of...and it sure doesn't stop scholars from viewing them as authentic.

Second, as I told POI, lets just take Mark's Gospel..early church father Papias confirmed that Mark wrote a Gospel, and Papias died in 163 AD.

So obviously, Mark's Gospel must have predated 200 AD, contrary to what your beloved sources state.

The fact that Mark's Gospel was aware of prior to 163AD, makes anything you say about post 200 AD inaccurate.
Q: Do you make the distinction between dating manuscripts(ex: Papyri) Using Spectrometric Methods from dating “the most probable time of when it was written after analysing the available information”?

The 2nd century is the period from 101 (CI) through 200 (CC).

Q: So I don’t understand the whole “post 200 AD”?


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm As true as that may be, it doesn't tell the full story..and that is why Paul's epistles are so important.

With his epistles, you can clearly see what early Christian thought was...he was writing, not according to tradition, but according to what the original apostles were PREACHING that current day and also from his own personal experience.
“1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter”
Paul confirming the oral transmission mechanism. Warning of possible conflicting stories.

Anecdotal personal experiences does not impress me and should not impress anyone.

“Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[14] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.[15]

Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population.

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.[16] For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm I am speaking of the average age of the apostles during the decade of the 60's AD.

I don't have any hard facts on their ages...I am simply assuming they were all within 10 years of Jesus' age (up or down) when he was crucified...so we are talking between the ages of 23 and 43...but I will be modest and put them between the ages of 25 and 35...35 is the high end, and 25 is the low end.

So, if I take the average of 25 and 35, I get an age of 30.

If they were 30 in 33AD, then they would have been around ages 60-65 during the 60's AD.

This is a fair and honest assessment and I am rolling with it.

As far as Peter is concerned, we are talking about the authorship of the Gospels, and no one is claiming that Peter wrote a Gospel, so the mention of Peter (for your case), is irrelevant.

However, speaking of Peter...notice that his death is not mentioned in the book of Acts (neither is Paul's), which leads me to conclude that he was alive during the time that Acts was written.

After all, the death of Stephen was surely mentioned, why wouldn't the deaths of Peter (Jesus' right hand man), or Paul (it mentions Paul's conversion, travels, upcoming trial), but doesn't mention his death.

Hmmm. Probably because both Paul and Peter was both alive during the time Acts was written...and since Paul died around 67 AD, then Acts cannot be said to have been written after 67 AD...and since the book of Acts is part 2 to Luke's Gospel, then it follows that Luke's Gospel can't be said to have been written prior to 67 AD.

Do you see how it all just flows together?
I made an error. I thought AD means after death of Christ.

If Peter was 30 at the death of Christ(30AD) he would have been in the 60s-70s during 60-70AD.
Q: What’s your evidence Peter was alive in 60-70AD when the Mark gospel was supposed to have originated? Evidence please.

If Matthew was 30 at the death of Christ(30AD) he would have been in the 85s-90s during 85-90AD.
Q: What’s your evidence Matthew was alive in 85-90AD when the Matthew’s gospel was supposed to have originated? Evidence please.

If Paul died in the 60-70AD he would have been dead for 15-30 years during 85-90AD when the Luke gospel was supposed to have originated?
Q: What’s your evidence of Paul existence overlapped with Luke’s gospel writer existence? Evidence please.

If John was 25 at the death of Christ(30AD) he would have been in 85s-105s during the 90-110AD.
Q: What’s your evidence John was alive in 85s-105s when the John gospel was supposed to have originated? Evidence please.

Q: It is not highly unlikely that all lived very long lives considering the low life-span of people in the first century(exceptionally for the first eyewitness suspects Matthew and John)?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm This is a straw man. The question POI asked was something along the lines of "Do we have any credible evidence that Luke was Paul's friend", and I simply pointed out the fact that Paul himself stated that Luke was his friend.

It had nothing to do with Luke being the writer of Luke's Gospel, as you are insinuating.

Although, when you think about it...if we have a tradition of someone named Luke being claimed as the author (from the early church), and we have Paul himself stating that he has a friend named Luke...it does allow one to logically conclude that Luke, Paul's friend, wrote a Gospel.

I mean, c'mon now.
Sir I asked:
“Q: How old was the Luke when he wrote the gospel? Is Luke the supposed writer of the gospel same as the Luke the supposed friend of Paul? Q: How credible are accounts who attest Luke was friend of Paul?”

I said if “Luke”(which may well be Eli ) the supposed writer of the gospel is the same as the Luke the supposed friend of Paul?
It may well be that Eli wrote the gospel and the supposed friend of Paul: Luke was only attributed as the being the writer.

Also its irrelevant for Paul was no eyewitness.

But lets see:
P. People claimed someone named Luke wrote a gospel.
C1. Therefore someone named Luke wrote a gospel.(non-sequitur)
It may be that someone wrote a gospel but it does not follow from there being an oral tradition(People claiming someone named Luke wrote a gospel).

P1 Someone named Luke wrote a gospel.
P2. Paul had a friend named Luke.
C2. The “Gospel we have now in the Bible” was written by the friend of Paul Luke.
Non-sequitur.
It may well be that indeed Paul friend wrote something but its not follows that is the same thing as the “Gospel we have now in the Bible”.

Q: What if the rumor(oral transmission) that someone named Luke wrote a gospel came from writings of Paul(as inspiration) which preceded the Gospel of Luke(conform Raymond E. Brown)?

The following is rather weak:
Q: How do you know the bible is true?
A: Christian miracle.
Q: How do you know the miracle happen?
A: Multiple first hand and 2hand testimonials?
Q: How do you know the texts are first hand and 2hand testimonials?
A: Because of early oral tradition and Paul mentioning friends.
Q: How do you know they are the same persons as the persons writing the gospels?
A: ?


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm As I already stated, the idea that Mark (friend of Peter) is said to have "wrote" a Gospel, instead of giving the authorship to Peter himself....and also the idea that Luke (friend of Paul) "wrote" a Gospel, instead of attributing authorship to Paul himself...those are TOO modest of claims for me to overlook...and I won't.

That may not do it for you, but it does it for me.
Provide something outside your own words to back up this please: “that tradition has Mark, a FRIEND of Peter as being the source of the written Gospel...that in itself gives credibility to the claim that Mark wrote it.”

Please provide all the evidence you have connecting apostles with the writers of the gospels outside your own claims.
Please provide evidence for your claims.
Saying so does not make it so.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm First of all, your sources are just simply wrong in their dating of the Gospels. Just flat out WRONG. Notice you are not presenting any case for your data...you are just simply copy/pasting stuff that are in agreement with you.

What reasons do they have in giving the Gospels such dating timeframes? Do you know...or do you just go on wikipedia, get the info you need, and regurgitate it on here?
Your complaining about my sources and you have not presented anything outside your own words.
Zero. Nada.
Its funny how the religious don’t follow the saying from the bible: “In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you".
Q: What’s the problem with my sources that “8 of them conform Wikipedia were written early 2nd c.”?


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:01 pm By 70AD most of the apostles were deceased, and up until that point, the STORY was close to the original...as THEY were the original sources.

After they passed on, the Gospel's were then in circulation. So the word was preserved, and it doesn't get any more preserved than that.

I disagree. This whole "drew on" business isn't what I see when I look at the history. If the Gospels were written by either apostles, or friends of the apostles (as I maintain), then the stories were told from eyewitnesses, or those that knew eyewitnesses....so far be it from drawing on oral traditions...but more so the information came straight from the horses mouth or by personable experiences.

You may not agree, but its all good though.
Everyone has their opinions.
I just pointed what sources say on the matter which have studied this much more then you or I.
Equating your opinion as on the same ground as external sources(new testament scholars) to you and I is rather comical.

Raymond E. Brown says, in An Introduction to the New Testament, “Parallels have been detected between Mark and Paul's letter to the Romans,” suggesting that the somewhat earlier epistle was a source of some material in the Gospel.
Burton L. Mack says, in Who Wrote the New Testament:
Just as the Greeks would have done, Mark took the many little sayings and stories of Jesus that were available to him from earlier traditions and used them to create a new image of Jesus.

Dennis R. MacDonald even says, in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, that much of the Gospel must have been imaginatively based on Homer’s epics, The Iliad and The Odyssey.

Rhoads, Dewey and Michie say, in Mark as Story, that the Gospel should be read as story, not as history.

At the end of the day that’s what we have subjective ponderings on who wrote what, who inspired from who, who copied who.

Sathya sai baba supposed miracles and testimonies are in better shape because one can probably find the eyewitness alive today.

Sri Sathya Sai Baba
http://saibaba.ws/miracles.htm
With the bible we have possible bogus 2hand or third hand or fourth hand or … testimonials.

Q: Surely this cannot constitute compelling enough for any rational mind? 8-)
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #125

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

brunumb wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:00 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:35 am [Replying to alexxcJRO in post #114]

You can have the last word here...and I will take the dub (W).

I have bigger fish to fry.
In this case it appears that your goose is cooked.

Or, to borrow from Joey, it was alexxcJRO in the conservatory with the lead pipe.
:D
A lion (me) doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #126

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Wow! Just.... Wow.... Let's go back to your initial statement, from post 101:

anyone that has studied this subject (Resurrection) in the least bit, would know that naysayers have historically accused the disciples of stealing the body and thus lying about the Resurrection...and my point is, they (disciples) believed that they actually saw the risen Jesus and the stealing the body/lying hypothesis is not valid.

Now, I just placed things back in its proper perspective...so next time, leave it there
.

*************
I'm aware that unbelievers have many differing arguments for why they doubt the resurrection. This is not one of mine. So if you wish to wage this particular rebuttal, please do it without me. THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT WHY I DOUBT THE RESURRECTION ;)

Hint hint... I doubt that Jesus was placed in a special tomb, in the first place, and then guarded by Romans. Thus, to suggest the body was stolen would not apply to my argument in the least. Got it now? Thankx! So please, do not try to straw-man me, with an argument for which I have no logical interest to entertain.
Still gnawing away at that bone, are we? I will leave you to it...moving along..
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm Do you even know how the telephone game works? Do you even know how (L)egend works? If not, maybe we need to devote a new thread to these topics?
Implying that I am ignorant as it pertains to the telephone game is a red herring, and this sentence that I am typing is the extent that I will entertain such notion.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Okay, so "magic" it is. Why not?

Again, if the stories spread far and wide, rapidly, he certainly cannot be in all places at once, can he? Probably not even close.
No one stated that Paul could be in all places at once, that is why I stated "....when/if it was brought to his attention", it was addressed accordingingly.

Or did you not see that part? Oh, I get it, you probably ignored it because the urge to stick to your skeptical talking points was too much to overcome.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Great. And I told you, several times, why it matters in this case. Thanks.
Yeah, I'm really not buying your explanation. All I see is a convenient dismissive cop out, as to why this particular claim (Resurrection) is different than any other claim that was made in antiquity.

You take on this "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" approach, which is nothing more than a famous atheist quip with no backing of rationale.

When in reality, a claim is a claim, and it is either true, or false...point blank.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm But it matters here, because we are interested in the 'eyewitness' testimony of such a claimed one time event.
Ohhh, so if it was such a claimed testimony of a two (or more) time event, then we wouldn't be interested in it?

Gotcha. Same point as above, which is my point exactly...makes no sense whatsoever. The same standard should be applied to all claims, and not just specific ones as you are insinuating.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm Without verified eyewitnesses
Which we have Paul. Paul claimed that he saw Christ (1Corin 9:1, 1Corin 15:3-7), and mentioned others that allegedly saw him...and he also stated that he met Peter and James (brother of Jesus), who were both undoubtedly testifying to the Resurrection of Christ as well.

We also have written testimony from James, who was preaching belief in Jesus (James 1:1, James 2:1).

So, you have what you asked for..but of course, this won't be enough, I predict. It can never be enough for people hell bent on the continual state of unbelief and denial.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm , and no physical evidence to really address, (regarding a sighting of seeing a post-mortem event), antiquity here looks to present quite an issue.
Hmm, don't know what kind of physical evidence you seek. What is this, CSI?
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm What exactly was spread?
The Gospel, obviously.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm But your argument defies basic math. Sorry. Hint; how many standard deviations must you apply to an average, before it then becomes an outlier? Again, "faith" is doing some heavy lifting here for you...
?

POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Kool. You have opted to go with yet another ancient fallacious argument, from the Bible no less, (i.e.) of the no true Scotsman flavor...
Hey, don't kill the messenger.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm I guess this means I never really believed in Santa, or the tooth fairy either ;)
Is that what the Bible says? Or is this a fallacious false equivalency?
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm I would wager ALOT more is riding upon the claim that "Jesus rose from the dead to save me", verses to decipher whether or not someone was stabbed. An idea, or faith, is good enough here as well?
Yeah, Pascal's Wager. I can dig it :approve:
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm How did he know Mark wrote Mark? What was his source? Did he actually see him write it? Oh, and does he happen to know who wrote the second/additional ending to Mark too?
How do we know Caesar was stabbed? Again, goalpost moving.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm So 'the church' did not vote upon what was to become canon, in the 4th century?
The canon, as we currently have, was compiled before the turn of the 4th century. There was one that was compiled in the second century AD, without a few of the NT books.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm If God is 'first cause', but you also acknowledge "something else' had to always exist, how does that work exactly?
Yeah, and this "something else" was eternal dwelling place (whatever that is/was)...which has no causal power.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm Sounds like you actually missed the point. We both admit we are not cosmologists. But somehow, you are forcing a conclusion, with lack in knowledge to the subject. Strange?
First off, my point was simply that not all cosmologist agree with the "we don't know" claim of Sean Carroll.

And that point stands, regardless of whether or not you and I are/are not cosmologists.

Second, my argument (for the umphteenth time) for a finite universe is independent of science, and I am not relying on science or cosmology for any evidential proof of premise 2 of the KCA.

The argument against infinite regress doesn't care about Einstein, singularity theorems, string theories, or quantum mechanics.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm So, like I said, please attend the next cosmology conference, and share with them your knowledge. The 'world' needs to know.
This has already been done...not be me...but by physicist Alexander Vilenkin.



Peep the theorem, if you want to get all scientify with it.

Any universe, that has an average Hubble expansion GREATER THAN ZERO, must have had a beginning...which applies to virtually all viable models of the universe...whether quantum, string, oscillating, whatever.
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Not quite, I would like to reflect upon this settled discovery...

When the "Holy Spirit" gives you these ideas, do you already agree with all of them, or, does He need to coax you a bit first?
Let me provide a real life example...quick story..

So one day, me and the wife was at the ATM outside of a bank, after close of business hours. And before I got out of the car to go to the ATM, she noticed a credit card on the ground by the machine.

She coaxed me, "Go get the card and lets see if there is any money on it".

And I told her "Naw, I'm not gonna do that. It ain't mines...and I wouldn't want anyone picking up my card and trying to use it if I had accidently dropped it and left".

And upon saying this, I immediately felt this heat wave that swept through my body, but it was a very euphoric feeling...as if God's holy spirit swept through my body to praise me for doing a good deed....and that is what I take it as.

Now, I don't expect you to agree with such implications...as this is something that only a believer will appreciate (no disrespect to you).

So, to answer your question, when it comes to certain moral/ethical situations, we already know what is right and wrong. But sometimes, we may still need the coaxing...such as when we face our personal demon's (addictions)...but any time you second guess yourself as it pertains to doing something you KNOW is wrong...surely that is the Holy Spirit putting that bird in your ear.

"Do not do that".
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18690
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1651 times
Been thanked: 1125 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #127

Post by JoeyKnothead »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm ...
We also have written testimony from James, who was preaching belief in Jesus (James 1:1, James 2:1).
...
Please present these original manuscripts for analysis.
...
Hmm, don't know what kind of physical evidence you seek. What is this, CSI?
...
This is a site dedicated to debating various religious topics, not a tv show (yet).

Physical evidence could go a long way in establishing the veracity of your claims.

Snip remainder
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

POI
Sage
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #128

Post by POI »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm Do you even know how the telephone game works? Do you even know how (L)egend works? If not, maybe we need to devote a new thread to these topics?
Implying that I am ignorant as it pertains to the telephone game is a red herring, and this sentence that I am typing is the extent that I will entertain such notion.
Not implying ignorance. These were rhetorical questions. Unless you, in fact, are ignorant? I'm implying avoidance to my position.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Okay, so "magic" it is. Why not?

Again, if the stories spread far and wide, rapidly, he certainly cannot be in all places at once, can he? Probably not even close.
No one stated that Paul could be in all places at once, that is why I stated "....when/if it was brought to his attention", it was addressed accordingingly.

Or did you not see that part? Oh, I get it, you probably ignored it because the urge to stick to your skeptical talking points was too much to overcome.
Yes, I already addressed what you stated, many responses ago. You have ignored it... I stated there is no way Paul could be the gatekeeper for all gossip, stories, growing legend, lore, etc.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Great. And I told you, several times, why it matters in this case. Thanks.
Yeah, I'm really not buying your explanation. All I see is a convenient dismissive cop out, as to why this particular claim (Resurrection) is different than any other claim that was made in antiquity.

You take on this "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" approach, which is nothing more than a famous atheist quip with no backing of rationale.

When in reality, a claim is a claim, and it is either true, or false...point blank.
Kool. Call me a liar. It's an easy cop out for you.

And no, all claims are not assessed with the same weight; sorry.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm But it matters here, because we are interested in the 'eyewitness' testimony of such a claimed one time event.
Ohhh, so if it was such a claimed testimony of a two (or more) time event, then we wouldn't be interested in it?

Gotcha. Same point as above, which is my point exactly...makes no sense whatsoever. The same standard should be applied to all claims, and not just specific ones as you are insinuating.
*face palm*

I mentioned, many responses ago, if we are investigating a one-time 'miraculous' claimed event, you would want to interview all the alleged eyewitnesses independently. There would be no physical evidence to address. Hence, we are stuck with eyewitness testimony, as the primary means to verify.

1. How many alleged independent corroborated eyewitnesses does the Bible say we have? It states we have 100's! So do we? No. Not even close. If we did, I would likely still be a believer that a man named Jesus rose from the grave.
2. How many alleged independent and corroborated eyewitnesses can we actually investigate?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm Without verified eyewitnesses
Which we have Paul. Paul claimed that he saw Christ (1Corin 9:1, 1Corin 15:3-7), and mentioned others that allegedly saw him...and he also stated that he met Peter and James (brother of Jesus), who were both undoubtedly testifying to the Resurrection of Christ as well.

We also have written testimony from James, who was preaching belief in Jesus (James 1:1, James 2:1).
Okay, so we have one person who claimed he allegedly saw Jesus. And he claims others allegedly saw him too. Let's explore...

Did "Peter" and "James" give their own independent accounts in writing themselves? Or, did someone write these assertions upon their behalves? If it's the later, who wrote them, when, and was "Peter" and "James" actually the writer's direct source for information of these accounts? Meaning, how do you know the testimony of 'Peter' and "James" was not instead taken from circulation oral tradition, because maybe these two were already dead or not near the authors who wrote these accounts? Also, we also know many were illiterate. Is it possible Peter and James could not write? Also, last names did not really exist at this time. Are we even sure we are addressing the right fellas? Doesn't hurt to ask, since these names were likely pretty common.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm But your argument defies basic math. Sorry. Hint; how many standard deviations must you apply to an average, before it then becomes an outlier? Again, "faith" is doing some heavy lifting here for you...
?
Your assumption would be that all independent and corroborated (eyewitnesses / authors) would have to live from at least (double to triple) the average life expectancy of this era. I mean, I understand you need faith and all, but maybe you might want to sprinkle in quite a bit of magic too.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Kool. You have opted to go with yet another ancient fallacious argument, from the Bible no less, (i.e.) of the no true Scotsman flavor...
Hey, don't kill the messenger.
Oh, I'm not per se; I said "from the Bible no less". The Bible is being fallacious here. But you also quoted it, so that still makes you culpable. Sorry. You are guilty by association.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm I guess this means I never really believed in Santa, or the tooth fairy either ;)
Is that what the Bible says? Or is this a fallacious false equivalency?


Haha:

(You) "no true Christian would leave the faith."
(Me) No true Santa believer would leave the faith.

Same thing. Sorry.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm I would wager ALOT more is riding upon the claim that "Jesus rose from the dead to save me", verses to decipher whether or not someone was stabbed. An idea, or faith, is good enough here as well?
Yeah, Pascal's Wager. I can dig it :approve:
Seems you missed my point again. The larger the claim, the larger the evidence needed to substantiate the claim. Hint hint, I'm not even disputing Jesus was killed for blasphemy by way of a 'cross' ;) I'll just reconcile this, without question... Why? If He indeed existed and was preaching the things He was said to preach, He was clearly spreading alleged blasphemy across the land. This was considered a capitol offense, and cross hangings were a mode of death sentence during this era. So this is not very far fetched...

But 'rising from a Roman guarded grave', that needs a bit more evidence, wouldn't you agree?

So to decipher whether Caesar was stabbed or if Jesus was hung are not very extraordinary claims, in my estimation...
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm So 'the church' did not vote upon what was to become canon, in the 4th century?
The canon, as we currently have, was compiled before the turn of the 4th century. There was one that was compiled in the second century AD, without a few of the NT books.
Great, Thank you! And you don't see a problem with this? And please remember, we are only speaking about the most important claim in human history, not merely if someone died by knife, disease, cross, or other ;)
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm If God is 'first cause', but you also acknowledge "something else' had to always exist, how does that work exactly?
Yeah, and this "something else" was eternal dwelling place (whatever that is/was)...which has no causal power.
So not only have you asserted a 'god', but now you must also blankly assert some unknown perpetual "transcendent" realm too? Care to add any more blank assertions, which is fed by fallacious reasoning -- (as demonstrated prior)?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm Sounds like you actually missed the point. We both admit we are not cosmologists. But somehow, you are forcing a conclusion, with lack in knowledge to the subject. Strange?
First off, my point was simply that not all cosmologist agree with the "we don't know" claim of Sean Carroll.

And that point stands, regardless of whether or not you and I are/are not cosmologists.

Second, my argument (for the umphteenth time) for a finite universe is independent of science, and I am not relying on science or cosmology for any evidential proof of premise 2 of the KCA.

The argument against infinite regress doesn't care about Einstein, singularity theorems, string theories, or quantum mechanics.
And for the (millionth time), the Kalam is irrelevant regardless. If the 'universe' truly had a beginning, it could have been the end of a prior 'universal realm', which started the beginning of this 'universe'. But since we do not know yet, you are already fallaciously inserting "god". Tisk tisk.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm So, like I said, please attend the next cosmology conference, and share with them your knowledge. The 'world' needs to know.
This has already been done...not be me...but by physicist Alexander Vilenkin.



Peep the theorem, if you want to get all scientify with it.

Any universe, that has an average Hubble expansion GREATER THAN ZERO, must have had a beginning...which applies to virtually all viable models of the universe...whether quantum, string, oscillating, whatever.
Maybe the memo has not quite reached all cosmologists ;) Maybe Dr. Carroll is just in denial, because he wants to bury god :)

But seriously, Dr. Carroll, who is a public figure, would not continue to go around, acting a fool, if he thought this alternative position was validated. It's not like theism, where much less accountability is applied from apologist to apologist, pastor to pastor, priest to priest, minister to minister ;)

But like I stated directly above... It's still irrelevant, as we do not know what caused this 'universe'; even if it did indeed begin??? Maybe it was a prior exploded universe, maybe other other other other other? But none-the-less, we are not there yet, as P2 is still unknown, whether you like it or not.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm
POI wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 6:31 pm
Not quite, I would like to reflect upon this settled discovery...

When the "Holy Spirit" gives you these ideas, do you already agree with all of them, or, does He need to coax you a bit first?
Let me provide a real life example...quick story..

So one day, me and the wife was at the ATM outside of a bank, after close of business hours. And before I got out of the car to go to the ATM, she noticed a credit card on the ground by the machine.

She coaxed me, "Go get the card and lets see if there is any money on it".

And I told her "Naw, I'm not gonna do that. It ain't mines...and I wouldn't want anyone picking up my card and trying to use it if I had accidently dropped it and left".

And upon saying this, I immediately felt this heat wave that swept through my body, but it was a very euphoric feeling...as if God's holy spirit swept through my body to praise me for doing a good deed....and that is what I take it as.

Now, I don't expect you to agree with such implications...as this is something that only a believer will appreciate (no disrespect to you).

So, to answer your question, when it comes to certain moral/ethical situations, we already know what is right and wrong. But sometimes, we may still need the coaxing...such as when we face our personal demon's (addictions)...but any time you second guess yourself as it pertains to doing something you KNOW is wrong...surely that is the Holy Spirit putting that bird in your ear.

"Do not do that".
Nothing here addressed my question. Did you always agree with the Bible's position on slavery, women in church, whipping your kids, and the gays, or did you need to be persuaded about any of these???

And to now address your response. So when you feel a 'heat wave', this is the Holy Spirit? Does this mean, when a Christian is whipping their child, keeping a slave, telling a woman not to lead in church, or telling a gay person (s)he is going to hell, and this Christian feels a heat wave, this means the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding them too?

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3937
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3017 times
Been thanked: 1637 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #129

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:16 pm She coaxed me, "Go get the card and lets see if there is any money on it".

And I told her "Naw, I'm not gonna do that. It ain't mines...and I wouldn't want anyone picking up my card and trying to use it if I had accidently dropped it and left".

And upon saying this, I immediately felt this heat wave that swept through my body, but it was a very euphoric feeling...as if God's holy spirit swept through my body to praise me for doing a good deed....and that is what I take it as.
You had a flush from pride for not being the jerk your wife wanted you to be, therefore, Holy Spirit. Yeah, right. Too funny.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #130

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply