Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can “confidence in what we hope for”
and an “assurance about what we do not see”
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[Clownboat]

The first thing I would like to point out is the fact that I have one in post #74 who has copied and pasted authority which you claim to be a fallacy in other posts including this one.

Your dishonesty in this matter has already been addressed. There is nothing more for me to add. You are just wrong...

An "appeal to authority" is a fallacy if one is presenting the authority in lieu of logical argument. If you were putting together a logical argument and I were telling you that you're wrong because an authority says you're wrong, that would be a fallacy. I'm not "appealing to authority" to counter any logic, however, but things that you are asserting as fact without justification. The things that you are claiming as fact are simply being pulled from someplace (let's charitably say, "from under your hat"). Up to now, the only reason that you've offered for believing that they're true is, bizarrely, that academics disagree with you.

If there have been these other religions long before you were even born, and there have been millions of folks, maybe even billions who have had to consider this fact, then this sort of demonstrates this sort of thing has been dealt with millions, if not billions of times. Moreover, the fact remains, I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions in order to know if there are facts evidence and reasons to believe a resurrection took place.

The topic of this thread is about faith being a reliable path to reality. Faith is not just a Christian thing. The faith of competing religions and discussing if their faith is a reliable path to reality would therefore also be on the table. Thank you for admitting your ignorance in regards to other religions. I once shared this ignorance you now have. Learning about competing religions doesn't help one maintain their religion. This I know first hand.

And I can copy and paste my response since I have answered this every time you have ask it by pointing to the fact that this would not include Christianity since Christianity did not begin with a "god concept".

I have listed many of the names for this god concept behind Christianity. Without this god concept, there is nothing to resurrect this Jesus. The God came first no matter your denialism.
You fail to address or acknowledge this, which I find to be deceptive and why I continue to say that we will know them by their fruits.

If this were true, this would demonstrate one who was convinced of something for over 2 decades traveling the globe drunk in the holy ghost when there would be no facts and evidence in support of what one was convinced of, and this one now would like us to believe that since the mind has changed, this somehow demonstrates the thinking has changed.

Yes, I was drunk in the holy ghost, street evangelizing missionary for 2 decades. Perhaps my reasons for belief were as bad as yours are now. I don't dispute this (nor find it relevant).

That is pretty funny, but what is even more funny is the fact that this one continues to attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts and evidence they claim we do not have.

Provide the facts and evidence and shut me up then. If all you end up offering are fallacies, then that is on you. I'm ok with you believing anything you want as long as you are not harming other humans.

I am not really interested in the "god concepts" since Christianity did not begin with a "god concept".

I have provided many of the names for the god concept that is claimed to be behind Christianity, up to the claim that it resurrected a man, a god, or a demi god (depending on the Christian) named Jesus that then stemmed a religion we now call Christianity.

Do you reject the claim that Jehovah (please insert another name for this god concept if it helps you to answer the question. I choose Jehovah only for being common) resurrected this Jesus?

Your failure is the fact that you claim to have been a convinced Christian for over 2 decades claiming to have very good knowledge of the Bible, but you have failed the test of interpretation of a simple text, and in fact have not even attempted to deal with the actual text because you know that it would be impossible for you to cause this passage to have anything at all to do with Paul commanding us to guard our thoughts. This goes on to demonstrate one who did not possess a very good knowledge of what they claim to have been convinced of.

This is not an argument. It is a lame attempt to poison the well in place of putting me in my place by providing evidence that a decomposing corpse reanimated. I have seen your fallacious reasoning and ask for actual evidence.

Can you see now why your past beliefs are relevant?

Nope, please see the topic of this thread. My previously held beliefs matter not. I have already been set free from that which you are not, but again, this matters not.

It is because you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what you were convinced of, which goes on to demonstrate that it is not Christianity you are rejecting, when you demonstrate lack of knowledge of the very basics.

I believe I have a better overall understanding of the Bible then yourself, but this is not the topic of this thread. You make it the topic to distract from the fact you don't have any facts or evidence for a resurrection. I acknowledge and point out the fallacies you offer, but still await any evidence if you have any.

Just like the idea of one traveling the globe drunk in the holy ghost, when Christianity never mentions such a thing. These things are extremely relevant to the debate.

Eph 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.
Acts 2:4 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.
Then there is the ol make disciples of all men thingy as well.

Let's test your words for honesty or lack there of.
Who is it that resurrected Jesus?

Well, according to you he was never resurrected at all.

Readers, notice how the question was ignored. This poster refuses to answer the question as to the name of the god concept that is claimed to have sent Jesus to earth to die for the sins of humanity, to then be resurrected from the dead.
And this poster questions my knowledge of the Bible!

But the thing is, it can be demonstrated that Christianity had it's beginning with the claim of a resurrection with no "god concept".

This is false, the god concept of the Israelites is the God that Christians claim sent its son to die and then be resurrected to pay for our sins and the sins of Adam.

We are talking about how Christianity began, and it did not begin with a "god concept". We have reports of a resurrection, with no reports that God had a thing to do with it, and we have very strong evidence these folks were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. This is the way in which Christianity began. It was attributed to God after the fact.

Holy monkeys! Here is another question for you to dodge.
What is the name of the god concept that sent Jesus to die for our sins? You know, that thing that happened before any resurrection took place.

How is this a dodge, and off topic? You are the one who brought into the debate that you are more Christlike since you lost your faith. I am simply attempting to figure out how it is possible to be more Christlike once you have rejected Christ?

I am now more Christlike. I'm more loving and excepting for example.
Only when Christians and Muslims stop telling their children that there is a God that loves them so much as to send them to heaven, yet hates another so much as to send them to hell will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed.

This is really hilarious! First you say there is no evidence, and then you go on to explain away the evidence we do not have.

You have only supplied fallacies. I'm open to any evidence you are able to provide for a resurrection though.

And again, all you are doing is to demonstrate one who was convinced of something to the point they were traveling the globe, drunk in the holy ghost, for some 2 decades, when there were no facts and evidence to support what one was convinced of. Again, do you see how your past life, which you have freely shared becomes relevant? I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

Yes, I was drunk in the holy ghost, street evangelizing missionary for 2 decades that had what at one time was thought to be facts and evidence (like you now believe) to justify my said beliefs. My facts and evidence, like your own were shown to not be. Therefore I hold out hope that you may one day also be set free. That is the only relevance I see here about my past beliefs. That I was once like you are now, but that does not further this debate.

Moreover, you can continue to suggest that these folks simply "believed a thing" but it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that these folks were not simply claiming to "believe a thing" but were rather claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with very strong evidence that they were convinced that they had.

Argument ad populum fallacy. You can't even name these folks. They're just generic folks and you expect that to be evidence for a risen corpse? You continue to offer up fallacies in place of actual evidence.

It is not my fault we have this evidence.

It is your fault that you call this fallacy, 'evidence'. It really is your fault. The best you could argue is that you are offering fallacious evidence, but even that would be a stretch.

I did not have a thing in the world to do with it. I can tell you though, it is pretty strong evidence when we can know these folks were making the claim, with strong evidence they were convinced they had witnessed what they claimed to have witnessed, with no other confirmed explanations for the facts and evidence we have. It is certainly fine for one to be under the impression that there must and has to be an alternative explanation for these facts and evidence we have, but one has to be in complete denial to insist there are no facts and evidence.

Again, I would be being kind to call what you offer, 'fallacious evidence'. In reality, what you offer us just fallacious thinking and I have named the fallacies (3) that you commit.

My friend, if my "goal was to show that humans have believed all sorts of silly things in the past" all I would have to do is to point to one who was traveling the globe drunk in the holy ghost. What I am doing is to demonstrate we have those who were claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with strong evidence to support the fact that they truly believed this to be the case. Do you have any explanation for these facts? Or are you going to deny the fact that we have this strong evidence that they truly believed they had witnessed such an event? If this is what you are going to do, then we are left with those making the claims, who would have known the claim to be a lie. I'm just telling you; these are the facts you are dealing with.

Fallacies are not facts. They just aren't no matter how hard you protest. Your facts and evidence are faulty and you don't want to deal with that FACT.

And as we read the accounts of the resurrection, we do not encounter those who were proclaiming that a resurrection was possible. Rather, they seem to clearly understand that they were proclaiming the impossible has occurred.

Muhammed made about 4 stops on his winged horse if I remember correctly. That people believe he tied the horse to the western wall in Jerusalem (last stop) is not a fact nor is it evidence that this flight actually took place. Surely you agree as this would be a fallacious argument.

Thus far I have demonstrated the facts and evidence which must be explained, and you demonstrate one who is in complete denial.

You have been educated on the fallacies you are committing. I only deny that you have offered valid facts and evidence.

I am saying however, that this would be evidence that those who reported the event truly believed they had witnessed Jesus alive after death.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but what you offer is evidence that Jesus was not crucified. I don't personably find that to be the most likely explanation, especially if we look to the Bible.
I know it's hard to trust the Bible, but the perfumes and spices and the place the disciples traveled to suggests a corpse was moved to Galilee.
Believing a thing because others are claimed to have believed a thing (this thing being a Jesus after a crucifixion here) is a fallacy. It is not evidence.

If it can be demonstrated these folks truly believed this to be the case, then we would need some sort of explanation.

Please supply the folks you allude to and then demonstrate their belief. Can you do that without using fallacious reasoning?

This is SO, SO FUNNY! I am not appealing to authorities who believe a resurrection took place. I am appealing to authority

Your right, this was funny. Thanks for the giggle.

who have dedicated their lives to the study of such things, and they are convinced by the facts, and evidence we have, that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. Now, you can absolutely disagree with this, and we have no problem. In other words, you can attempt to make the argument that these folks were not at all convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. However, this would leave us with those who were making the claim, who knew it to be a lie, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it. Again, these are the facts and evidence you are dealing with, and all you continue to do is to insist we do not have these facts and evidence.

I'm not sure if you have considered this, but ridiculous claims often don't deserve to be stopped. For example, debating a flat earth would be to give it credit it doesn't deserve. Just like how putting a stop to a claim 2,000 years ago that a corpse resurrected likely didn't deserve to be stopped. It was silly to them then likely, like a flat earth is to us now.

Now, since you seem to want to be so quick to point out this fallacy, could you please demonstrate me to be in error by pointing out this very same fallacy in post 74?

This has been done for you now twice (a fallacy wasn't committed and why was explained to you). I can again if needed, just let me know.

It is not an appeal to authority. What I am saying is, we have enough facts and evidence to convince those who dedicate their lives to the study of such things, to convince them that the early followers were at the very least convinced they had encountered the risen Christ.

It is an appeal to authority because you offer the authorities in place of an argument. That some scholars find something likely while other scholars don't is not evidence for anything but disagreement between scholars.

If this is not the case, we are left with those who were making the claim who knew the claim to be a lie.

Consider this and when it was written:
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca who died in 65 AD in Rome.

Nah, they just believed it. On faith. Is faith a reliable path to reality?

Okay? So, let's attempt to get this straight? You are saying they believed upon faith they had witnessed Jesus alive after death?

Nope. Your use of 'they' isn't even descriptive, so how can I honestly make any claim about what they actually believed or why? For all we know, early Christianity was a complete joke (like a flat earth or the Hale Bopp comet).
If you were to now argue for aliens being at the tale of the Hale Bopp comet ready to take us away, me not attempting to put a stop to such a belief would NOT be evidence that aliens have anything to do with Hale Bopp. Even if I scream that you are not dealing with my facts and evidence. Surely those that killed themselves believed and that is not assurance that they were correct, you must agree.

I mean, faith is belief in something there would be no evidence for, and these folks were pointing to an empty tomb.

Again, we must consider the perfumes and spices and the place the disciples traveled after the claimed event. This explains any empty tomb nicely.

I'm just telling you, when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, they will indeed discover there are no easy answers.

Again, an argument from incredulity. I don't claim that my answer is a fact (the perfumes and then a trip to Galilee with a corpse) but it easily describes what might have happened to the body and is found within the only source we have for this incredible claim. You are therefore wrong about there not being easy answers.

It seems sort of strange for one to have a former life in which they were convinced it was all so simple. Now that they have changed the mind, it continues to be just as simple.

Perhaps one day you will also recognize fallacious reasoning and be set free from your faith beliefs. If it can happen to me, it can happen to you.

I am going to leave it here for now, because the rest below seems to be rinse and repeat. If there is something you think I have missed just let me know an I will address it.

Thanks for that! There were some challenges offered up to you.
- Who was it again that is claimed to have resurrected Jesus?
- Please show that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event.
- How did they come up with their god concepts? Not how did the their stories and ideas get passed down before written language. (In regards to your oral tradition statement).
- Therefore I don't find faith to be a reliable path to reality. (Do you?)

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77]

You continue to be under the impression that I am arguing for the reliability of the material. Again, I am not arguing for this. Rather, I am demonstrating there are things we can know by reading the material whether the material be reliable are not. You have demonstrated this yourself by agreeing we can know the Apostle Paul was a real historical figure. How do you know this to be a fact? By reading material which you insist is unreliable. You go on to seem to be convinced that we can know that Paul and all of the apostles were somehow convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. How were you convinced this would be the case? By reading material you insist is unreliable. You acknowledge you are giving your opinion, and then go on to say your opinion is demonstratable. My friend, if your opinion is demonstratable then it is no longer an opinion but would rather be a fact. If it is your opinion that the material is demonstrably unreliable, I am not arguing that the material is reliable. I am demonstrating there are facts and evidence to be had whether the material is reliable or not and you seem to agree.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77]

You continue to be under the impression that I am arguing for the reliability of the material. Again, I am not arguing for this. Rather, I am demonstrating there are things we can know by reading the material whether the material be reliable are not. You have demonstrated this yourself by agreeing we can know the Apostle Paul was a real historical figure. How do you know this to be a fact? By reading material which you insist is unreliable. You go on to seem to be convinced that we can know that Paul and all of the apostles were somehow convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. How were you convinced this would be the case? By reading material you insist is unreliable. You acknowledge you are giving your opinion, and then go on to say your opinion is demonstratable. My friend, if your opinion is demonstratable then it is no longer an opinion but would rather be a fact. If it is your opinion that the material is demonstrably unreliable, I am not arguing that the material is reliable. I am demonstrating there are facts and evidence to be had whether the material is reliable or not and you seem to agree.

A good response as a valid point.

We know the argument about records, new or old. Are they reliable or not? We look for corroboration. There is none. So we have to assess how the single source sounds. Never mind the Experts (who seem to take easy acceptance so they can write their books, rather than questioning the source).

So my take, never mind anyone else, is that if Paul's letters were invented, they would not make problems for themselves. I'm sure Pul argues his side, but can't disguise that he got into a dispute with Peter, and it looks like the 'super apostles' he sneers at were Jesus' people, who were 'teaching a gospel' that was not his.

So Paul was real, I accept, but was NOT teaching what the disciples taught. And oif course a fake up would have i Cor agree with the gospels on the resurrection. It doesn't (which Bible apologists ignore or try to cover up).

For the same reason, I think Jesus had to be real for 2 reasons - that if he'f d been invented, he'd be a Judean, and killed by Jews, not Romans.

But, just as Paul is real, what is in his letters is false. The argument does not work, as he found out (but doubled down).

On the other side, Though there is a real jesus story, reworked by Christians to suit their dogmas (1)


(1) this is known to anyone but the Experts, it seems because no Jew Jesus or a follower, could have written the David and Shewbread argument, nor made a case for healing on the Sabbath (not without debate), nor does the blasphemy charge (never mind Herod thinking a king of the Jews = the Biblical messiah) make sense except to Christians.

Thus for such reasons, I knew the real jesus was overlaid by Christian writers. It follows Pauline doctrines; it is not Jesus doctrine passed by the disciples to paul.

Even without that, it can be seen that Acts has fiddled Paul's letters to make a different story. It is not a reliable record of the origins of Christianity and I have to make an assessment that some others have - Paul invented Christianity, not jesus.

So wherever we are on Paul saying 'We' about a fellow traveller, the Gospels, not even mark, let alone Acts are not reliable as a basis for the story of Christian origins and I (and I hope others, now or later) will call for a rethink on Paul, the Nazorenes, Christian doctrines and the bible, and not just accept the 'Gospels are reliable' too - easy claim.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #78]

but things that you are asserting as fact without justification.

Exactly what am I "asserting as fact without justification"?

The things that you are claiming as fact are simply being pulled from someplace (let's charitably say, "from under your hat").

You can call it what you like. What I would like to know is what it is I have stated to be a fact, which would not be a fact?

Up to now, the only reason that you've offered for believing that they're true is, bizarrely, that academics disagree with you.

"Believing that they're true"? Who is "they're"?

The "copying and pasting authority" is, quite frankly, not for you.

Oh? My bad. I guess in that case an appeal to authority is fine.

The conversation with you is pretty much winding down.

I do not believe it is. More in a moment.

I expect that you've said everything novel you're going to and will now repeat it ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The reason I have to continue to repeat is the fact that others either do not understand what I am saying, or they intentionally misrepresent what I have said, or they ignore it. More on ignoring in a moment.

I find the subject interesting, though, and happened to read the essay that I quoted since the last time I commented. I thought it likely enough that someone else reading the exchange might also find it interesting.

I find it quite interesting, and I appreciate your sharing. I also appreciate the exchange because it is extremely beneficial for me, if no one else.

The author writes like an academic and is mentioning all of the academic positions, even if they're ones with which he disagrees. You'll note, though, that the author never confuses possible and probable.

Right! Because we all know that the natural reading of the text is always the least probable, and the most probable would be the one in which we would have to be a gymnast in order to be able to jump through all the hoops. I mean, this is exactly what you are attempting to sell. I can't read these letters as they are naturally written in that they were addressed to one individual. No! I have to listen to a scholar tell me that the name Theophilus has a meaning, and the author was using this meaning to appeal to a wider audience, even though the author addresses this audience as "most excellent" in the second letter. And you want to tell me that the author was using the meaning of the name is the most probable? Really? Be for real! I can assure you that if we were to simply go with the probabilities, the most probable would be that the author was addressing one individual. The least probable would be that the author used the meaning of the name in order to appeal to a wider audience. Can you imagine why the latter would be the least probable? That would be because when a letter is addressed to a common name at the time, most all the time (if not all the time) the author is addressing an individual. It would be way far less times, (if any) the author is using the name to appeal to a wider audience. Exactly how many other times has an author used the meaning of the name Theophilus in order to address a wider audience? How many times has an author used the name Theophilus in order to address an individual? There are your probabilities my friend.

Now, let us move on to the passages in which the author begins to use the words "we" and "us". As we look down through the centuries, is the most probable answer to one beginning to use the words "we" and "us" an indication that the author is present? Or is the most probable answer being that the author is using some sort of literary device? I would suggest the most probable would be the fact that the author would be present. I will assure you the least probable would be the author is using a literary device.

To be clear here, I am not one who goes on the probabilities. Rather, I tend to stick with the facts and evidence we have. So then, what sort of facts and evidence do we have which would suggest the author was using the meaning of the name Theophilus to appeal to a wider audience? What sort of evidence do we have which would suggest this author was using some sort of literary device when using the words, "we and us"? Now, let us consider the reason why we may have those who would want to insist upon such things.

Well, that may be because they understand that it is not very good for the position they hold, to have one who sits down in order to write not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth". No, what we need is for this individual to be appealing to the masses. Therefore, we are to suppose this author must have been using the meaning of the name Theophilus in order to appeal to a wider audience. Next, we surely cannot have this author being present with Paul to witness the events he records, because this would demonstrate the author would have been alive at the time of the events he records, which would mean that he would have known and spent time with the apostles and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips. Therefore, we have to insist this author did not intend to communicate that he was present when using the words "we" and "us" but was rather using a literary device, which we all know would be the most probable.

The bottom line here is, if we take the natural reading of the texts, we would all come to the conclusion that the author was addressing an individual, along with the fact the author would have been present with Paul. But we cannot go with the natural reading of the text, rather we have to depend upon the scholars to inform us that the author was using the meaning of the name of Theophilus in order to appeal to a wider audience, and we also have to depend upon the scholars to tell us that when the author begins to use the words "we" and "us" we cannot understand this to mean what we would naturally interpret this to mean, but rather that the author was using some sort of literary device, and that both of these interpretations would be the most probable. I'm just telling you, there is no way one is buying this, unless this is what they would rather believe. At any rate, it does not matter in the least, because what all of this demonstrates is the fact that we have very good evidence this author was indeed addressing one individual, on top of the fact that we have very good evidence this author was a traveling companion of Paul, which is the exact reason why there are those who clearly understand they must, and have to give an alternative explanation for these facts, and evidence in support.

Now, let us get to where the rubber actually meets the road. You quote me as saying,

Moreover, let us think about the fact...

To which you reply

Yes. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Sort of strange how you decide not to include what I had to say after that? Allow me to add what that was, along with asking you to help me out here. As far as I know, I am the only one making this argument. In other words, I have never heard this argument from another, and if you can find where another has made this argument, I would certainly appreciate you pointing this out to me. At any rate, where you decided to cut me off was at the point where I was giving more evidence the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul. This would be the fact that this author begins his second letter describing the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, for some strange reason when Paul comes on the scene and begins his journeys we do not hear of the apostles in Jerusalem but only hear of the actions of Paul, along with this author beginning to use the words, "we" and "us" when describing the events. Can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can. If this author would have been traveling with Paul, he could not have possibly reported on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem since he would have been traveling with Paul, which would explain why the sole focus is with what Paul is doing. Moreover, it is not until, or unless Paul comes in contact with the other apostles that the author includes them. Let us add to this the fact that this author ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some two years. Why would this author end this letter addressed to Theophilus with Paul being under arrest for two years? Could it be the fact that the author is there with Paul and there is no more to report? In other words, Theophilus is up to date? Sure, that could be a possibility. Let us go on to add the fact that in one of Paul's letters addressed to Timothy, in which it is clear Paul is under arrest, Paul just so happens to mention, "only Luke is left with me". Let us also think about the fact that if this author was there with Paul for some 2 years while Paul was under arrest, this would give this author ample time to sit down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual out of concern for this individual knowing the exact truth.

What we have with all the above is very good evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul, and we did not have to jump through any sort of mental hoops in order to get there. Add to this the fact that those opposed understand this to be very strong evidence, and you begin to see why they are so desperate to have us jump through all the mental hoops in an attempt to explain away this evidence. Moreover, your scholar did not deal with the fact that the author begins to solely focus upon the actions of Paul when Paul's journey begins, which is indeed evidence the author was with Paul, and for some strange reason you cut me off at that point and ignore this evidence.

[Difflugia]

but things that you are asserting as fact without justification.

Exactly what am I "asserting as fact without justification"?

Pretty much everything you claim is a fact. Here's an incomplete set of examples:

• these early followers did not make this story up, but was rather convinced that what they were reporting would be fact
• we know for a fact there was those who were attempting to put a stop to it
• we know for a fact that Paul would have been one of them
• we know that he was not alone
• We also know that Paul converted to this movement he was out to put a stop to and becomes the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time.
• we know for a fact these folks were preaching these things to their audience orally at the time
• two letters addressed to Theophilus
• We have very strong evidence this author was a traveling companion of Paul.
• we know for a fact that Paul knew and spent much time with the original apostles and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips
• we have very strong evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus ... would have known and spent much time with the original apostles hearing the claims they were making
• we are left with those who made the whole thing up, and continued to proclaim what they would have known to be a lie

What I would like to know is what it is I have stated to be a fact, which would not be a fact?

None of the things in that list can reasonably be called a fact. Some are reasonable conjectures. Some are reasonable conclusions if we accept that the conjectures are true. The conversation might be interesting if you were willing to acknowledge the distinctions, but at least as far as your rhetoric is concerned, you are truly baffled that the rest of us don't accept your wishful thinking as bedrock reality.

Up to now, the only reason that you've offered for believing that they're true is, bizarrely, that academics disagree with you.

"Believing that they're true"? Who is "they're"?

Your "facts."

Oh? My bad. I guess in that case an appeal to authority is fine.

In the context of the current discussion, yes it is. This Wikipedia page might help you understand the differences.

Right! Because we all know that the natural reading of the text is always the least probable,

Nobody has argued this, therefore it's a straw man argument.

these letters

They're unlikely to be letters. You've been told why.

I have to listen to a scholar tell me that the name Theophilus has a meaning,

It's painfully obvious that you don't have to.

I can assure you that if we were to simply go with the probabilities, the most probable would be that the author was addressing one individual.

And your assurance is all you've ever offered.

To be clear here, I am not one who goes on the probabilities.

Yes. That's clear.

Now, let us get to where the rubber actually meets the road. You quote me as saying,

Moreover, let us think about the fact...

To which you reply

Yes. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Sort of strange how you decide not to include what I had to say after that?

Yes. That's where the rubber meets the road. All you've done is repeated the same apologetic points, all of which have been addressed. Your claims of fact are false and therefore the conclusions you've drawn from them have no value. You've been given the benefit of the doubt and been offered opportunities to provide any type of supporting documentation, but your main response has been nothing more than incredulity, as though your conclusions are self-evident. To put it mildly, they're not.

Allow me to add what that was, along with asking you to help me out here. As far as I know, I am the only one making this argument. In other words, I have never heard this argument from another, and if you can find where another has made this argument, I would certainly appreciate you pointing this out to me. At any rate, where you decided to cut me off was at the point where I was giving more evidence the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul. This would be the fact that this author begins his second letter describing the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, for some strange reason when Paul comes on the scene and begins his journeys we do not hear of the apostles in Jerusalem but only hear of the actions of Paul, along with this author beginning to use the words, "we" and "us" when describing the events.

The kinds of things you're talking about are important when trying to determine specific authorial intentions. Unfortunately for your argument, the story the author wants us to read and its relationship to the likelihood that its events may not have actually happened is determined far more by other considerations. Discussions about things like genre give overall context to the details you're talking about, but so far, you've summarily dismissed those discussions as unimportant. Despite your assertions, Acts appears to neither be a letter nor historiography, for example, yet you insist on treating it as both.

Can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can.

And then you indulge in raw speculation that you expect the rest of us to treat as evidence of something.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is awfully long and more rhetorical than making a case. And no -one is talking to me, anyway.

I'll be honest and say I find these endless back and forth election f debates tiresome and I apparently don't know how to use the quote function. So I don't.

But essentially, it is appealing to the resurrection - belief.

Sure, 'Natural reading' takes a fairy tale, fantasy or sci fi story for what it is. There have been a few Diaries (Hitler, the Ripper, Shostakovich) that are debated as not being genuine. The gospels can be presented as reliable, even without the pressure to have Faith that religion exploits.

But the fact is that one who questions can have doubts. It is so often the case that a believer who tries to validate the Bible then realises it isn't valid. That is why past true believers slide into doubt.

That there was a resurrection belief that started messianism is for sure. That it was based on the disciples seeing Jesus strolling around is less so, because the stories contradict, terminally. Why Believers have pretended they tell the same story...well, I accepted that they were the same story from different points of view for a Long time, even when the women running into Jesus, doubting Thomas, the descending angel, all had to go. Really, come on and still what was left was problematical. John pretty much debunks the whole angelic explanation. Luke (and John) pretty much make Matthew's trip to Galilee to see Jesus pointless as well and not in their gospels, and it takes more Faith than i can muster to fiddle contradictory stories together and believe they are the same story.

Of course, when some genius suggested the obvious to me - Mark did not Lose the ending; he never had one - it became clear. The resurrections were stories invented to make a resurrection that nobody saw into one they did. After all, I already knew this had been done with the nativities.

Thus Paul's i Cor resurrections and the basis of Christianity were claims and ideas (visions) in the head. In short, a fake story like all the other religions that Christians dismiss out of hand.

Sure, Christianity looks good because it is based (I think) on a real person and even story, just as Paul and his letters are real. But there are very good reasons why the fiddling of Paul and the gospel writers to turn Jewish messianism into Gentile Christianity can be discovered and is why former believers can no longer believe - because they employ their reasoning and doubt, not their Faith and denial.

There is good reason why the gospels and indeed Christianity regards doubt and questioning as the ultimate 'foolisness'.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #79]

I think you may be too easily convinced,

This is quite comical! I mean, we have already established the fact that you are far too easily convinced, and you are the one who established this fact for us with your own words by explaining to us that you were convinced of something which there would be no facts and evidence to support what you claimed to be convinced of. You have gone on to establish the fact that you know very little about what you were once convinced of in that you cannot even interpret one little verse which you would have had to read over and over as a Christian, and you have as of yet even attempted to deal with this passage, because you now know it is a fact that it would be impossible to make the passage say what those you appealed to want to make it say. You have also established the fact for us, that you were traveling the globe "drunk in the holy ghost" when this is nowhere taught by the authors contained in the Bible. Again, what we are establishing is one who freely admits to being easily convinced of something there would be no facts and evidence to support, who also knows very little about what they once claimed to be convinced of. Another thing which has been established to us by your own words is, you did not employee the mind in order to be convinced, and simply because the mind has changed does not in any way demonstrate the thinking has changed.

This is not the first time I have seen this very thing. I had a very good friend who was a convinced Christian who did not become convinced by the use of the mind, but rather became convinced by the emotions. When the reckless theology he was exposed to did not turn out as he was told, he became angry and bitter and rejected Christianity based upon anger. The point is, he became convinced based upon emotions, and it was also emotions which caused him to change the mind, which demonstrates one can change the mind, but this does not demonstrate the mind is engaged.

The bottom line is, your argument seems to be, I was a convinced Christian at one time (which you seem to think lends credibility to your argument) who did not use the mind. You then seem to go on to deduce that anyone who is a convinced Christian could not have possibly used the mind, and therefore you are on a mission in order to save us as Christians. I mean, you cannot make this stuff up! You were at one time traveling the globe in order to save folks for Christ, and now you are on a mission in order to save folks from Christ. I mean, this is just what I call "good stuff".

Allow me to explain where the credibility is gone for me. It would be one thing for one to explain how they were convinced of something, and go on to explain how they understand how others have become convinced to the same thing, while going on to explain what the thinking was which changed the mind, as opposed to one freely admitting they did not use the mind in order to become convinced, who now wants to convince us it was the use of the mind which changed the mind. I'm just here to tell you, it is being intellectually honest to acknowledge the fact that there are facts evidence and reasons to believe the resurrection. It would be one who would have to be in complete denial in order for one to insist there would be no reason to believe the resurrection. I can imagine that your arguments FOR Christ were extremely lame. I can assure you that your arguments against Christ are just as lame.

Who were these followers that you refer to that have convinced you that a decomposing body reanimated to life?

My friend, this is where I can explain the difference between us. There are no "followers" who have convinced me. I did not know these followers, and therefore I would have no way to evaluate their credibility. My problem comes in when I sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to attempting to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. In the end, I come away understanding the reason involved for those who do not believe, and do not insist there would be no reason to doubt the claims. I have come away understanding that either way we are left with the extraordinary. I also understand there are no easy answers involved, and for those on either side to suppose that there are easy answers is to demonstrate one who is in some sort of dream world. In other words, if there are Christians who are traveling the globe "drunk in the holy ghost", insisting there would be no reason involved in doubt, then such a person demonstrates one who is in a dream world. On the other hand, if we have those who want to insist there would be no facts, evidence, nor reasons to believe the claims, then this person also demonstrates one who is in a dream world, especially when such a one tells us they were at one time traveling the globe "drunk in the holy ghost" convinced Christian. The latter does nothing to add to credibility but takes it away.

What we are demonstrating is one who believed it to be all so simple when they were a convinced Christian, who now believes it to be all so simple now that they have rejected Christianity, when the reality is, it is not that simple at all. In other words, it is not as simple as most Christians make it out to be, but it is also not as simple as a lot of those opposed make it out to be. I am a convinced Christian based upon what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and I have no problem with those who come to a different conclusion and do not insist they have no reason to come to the conclusions they have. My problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there would be no reason to come to the conclusion I have, when they continue to fail to demonstrate this to be the case.

The fallacy of referring to other people's beliefs is called the ad populum fallacy.

And what I continue to attempt to explain to you is the FACT that I am not "referring to other people's beliefs". There is a tremendous difference between what one claims to believe, as opposed to what one claims to have witnessed, and the fact is, we have scholars now who do not believe the resurrection, who are convinced the early followers of Jesus truly believed they had seen the risen Christ. Now, this is not at all an appeal to these scholars as if to say they must and have to be correct. However, if these scholars are not correct, then we are left with those who were making the claims who knew full well they had not encountered Christ alive after death. So then, how are these scholars so convinced the earlier followers were convinced Jesus was alive after death? This would be based upon the facts and evidence surrounding the claims, and if one is going to attempt to refute this as being fact, then they will have to give some sort of alternative explanation for these facts and evidence you insist we do not have. So then, what we are left with are scholars who go to their office every day and study the facts and evidence you insist we do not have, as opposed to one who traveled the globe "drunk in the holy ghost" who wants to tell us that he was convinced of something there would be no facts and evidence to support. Again, you cannot make this stuff up!

It occurs when someone argues that a claim is true because many people believe it, instead of using evidence to justify their position.

Correct! And what I have just demonstrated is that my belief is based upon the facts and evidence the scholars study every day. Moreover, and again, the argument is not in any way, "because people believed a claim other folks were making". Rather, it is based upon the evidence we have that these folks were not simply believing a claim made, but were rather those who were making the claim, with evidence they truly believed they had witnessed the event, on top of evidence they were making the claims in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to the claims.

This is where I am going to stop here, because we have enough to discuss. I can tell you that it is not going to do your argument any good at all to continue to insist these folks simply believed a claim, when it can be demonstrated these folks were the ones making the claim.

[Clownboat]

"my belief is based upon the facts and evidence the scholars study every day."

I'll say it again, I think you are too easily convinced.
I see no reason to address your ad hominin attacks on my character. It's been comical for me to read them watching you think you know what you don't, but since they are nothing but fallacies, I see no reason to respond to them.

Something I would like to point out to the readers:

If there is something you think I have missed just let me know an I will address it.

Nobel and honorable, right readers!

Thanks for that! There were some challenges offered up to you.
- Who was it again that is claimed to have resurrected Jesus?
- Please show that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event (like you claimed it was).
- How did they come up with their god concepts? Not how did the their stories and ideas get passed down before written language.
- Therefore I don't find faith to be a reliable path to reality. (Do you?)

Instead, my character is attacked and assumptions are made about my prior beliefs when I was a practicing Christian.
Talk is cheap. You will know them by their fruits.

Other challenges that were left unaddressed:

Just like the idea of one traveling the globe drunk in the holy ghost, when Christianity never mentions such a thing. These things are extremely relevant to the debate.

The reply:

Eph 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.
Acts 2:4 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.
Then there is the ol make disciples of all men thingy as well.

Some random internet poster claiming that I was a believing Christian for bad reason does not address nor make the challenge go away.

This poster refuses to answer the question as to the name of the god concept that is claimed to have sent Jesus to earth to die for the sins of humanity, to then be resurrected from the dead.

All so the said poster can continue to claim that Christianity started with a resurrection.

Muhammed made about 4 stops on his winged horse if I remember correctly. That people believe he tied the horse to the western wall in Jerusalem (last stop) is not a fact nor is it evidence that this flight actually took place. Surely you agree as this would be a fallacious argument.

Also unaddressed as it would show that both arguments are fallacious.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #85]

these early followers did not make this story up, but was rather convinced that what they were reporting would be fact

I believe I qualified this statement when I said, "if the scholars are correct in that the early followers were convinced they had encountered the risen Christ, this would mean they were not reporting what they knew to be false". This would be a true statement.

we know for a fact there was those who were attempting to put a stop to it

Yes, this is something we can know to be a fact for a couple of reasons. First, we know that Paul was out to put a stop to this movement, and we know this because the evidence is overwhelming. We can also know that Paul was consenting to the death of Stephen, and it was not Paul who put Stephen to death, but it was others. We can also know that the religious authorities wanted Jesus put to death, and with this being the case we can know they would not have taken to kindly to those who were claiming this man had been raised and that he was the Christ. My friend, these are facts we can know beyond a reasonable doubt, and for one to deny that we can know these things is for one to commit intellectual suicide. I can tell you though, there have been folks who become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence we have, who have in fact gone on to commit intellectual suicide; by denying we can know anything at all concerning this matter. In fact, we have had those on this site who went on to attempt to say that we cannot even know that Jesus ever existed. If this is where you are headed, then I cannot imagine we can have any sort of conversation, because it is like we are on different planets. It is sort of like those who have attempted to deny the holocaust ever happened. When this occurs, the conversation is over for me, because we are in two different realities. The point is, if we cannot agree that Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that there were those who claimed him to be alive after death, and that those who had Jesus crucified would have done all they could do to put a stop to it, then one of us is being completely unreasonable, and I do not believe that would be me, and I think we will see this as we move on.

we know for a fact that Paul would have been one of them
we know that he was not alone

This is addressed above.

We also know that Paul converted to this movement he was out to put a stop to and becomes the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time.

This is where we can demonstrate intellectual suicide. I mean, Paul writes letters to Churches he has planted, and he would have spent years with these Churches, demonstrating that these folks in these Churches would have known Paul extremely well, on top of the fact that we know Paul had traveling companions, and Paul tells these folks that he was attempting to put a stop to Christianity only to convert, and we are to suppose this could somehow be false? I mean, what kind of dream world would one have to be in, in order to believe such a thing could possibly be false? This would be a most extraordinary tale, and you have to know this. It is like there are those who will go to any extent in order to cast any sort of doubt. My friend, the evidence is overwhelming that Paul was on a mission to stop Christianity only to become its biggest champion. What evidence do we have that this would not be the case?

we know for a fact these folks were preaching these things to their audience orally at the time

You see, this is really getting ridiculous. So then, we are to imagine that Paul did not speak orally at all to the Churches he planted? Paul goes to a town in order to plant a Church, and says nothing orally at all to these folks, and somehow the Church is planted, and the only words Paul communicates to them would be the letters after he leaves? This is like a dream world I cannot even imagine living in.

two letters addressed to Theophilus

My friend, you can call them what you would like. What I do know is, what we have from Paul is considered to be letters. I can also tell you that we have very strong evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus traveled with Paul. So then, if we consider what Paul wrote to be letters, then why would we not consider a traveling companion of Paul to have also authored what we call letters? Moreover, let us consider the fact that Theophilus was a common name at the time, along with the fact that in the second letter the author addresses this Theophilus as "Most Excellent". I am just telling you; I do not have to do any sort of mental gymnastics at all, in order to believe this material to be letters addressed to one individual by the name of Theophilus. On the other hand, I would have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to believe this author may have used the meaning of the name to address a wider audience, along with believing that the author was using some sort of literary device in the "we" and "us" passages. The question is, who is stretching this beyond belief? Is it those of us who read this material just as it is written? Or is it those who are asking us to jump through the hoops?

We have very strong evidence this author was a traveling companion of Paul.

Yes, we do, and this is demonstrated by the fact that there are those who attempt to give alternative explanations in order to explain away this very strong evidence. I mean, why in the world would one come up with the idea that the author was using some sort of literary device when using the words, "we" and "us"? Well, that would be because they understand the natural reading would lead one to believe the author was a traveling companion of Paul. I can tell you that the average reader would never come to such a conclusion, and the overwhelming majority of those who hold to such a position are indeed leaning on scholars because they would have never come to such a conclusion on their own. The one thing that is certain is, it has not in any way been demonstrated to be a literary device. And again, it is also certain that we do in fact have very good evidence this author traveled with Paul, which is demonstrated by the fact we have those who demonstrate they understand this to be the case, which is why they are forced to come up with some sort of alternative explanation no matter how farfetched it may be.

we know for a fact that Paul knew and spent much time with the original apostles and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips

This is an absolute "no brainer". We know Paul wrote letters to the Churches he planted. In these letters he mentions the other apostles even telling of a run in he had with Peter. Moreover, in these letters it is abundantly clear that Paul was well acquainted with the apostles.

we have very strong evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus ... would have known and spent much time with the original apostles hearing the claims they were making

We have already established the fact that we do indeed have very strong evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul. With this being fact, this means we have very strong evidence this author was alive at the time of the events recorded, along with the evidence that if he was indeed with Paul he would have had to have known the apostles as well.

we are left with those who made the whole thing up, and continued to proclaim what they would have known to be a lie

And again, this was qualified in that if these followers did not truly believe they had encountered Christ alive after death, then these folks would have been proclaiming what they knew to be a lie. The fact that we have scholars who are not Christian, who are convinced the earlier followers of Jesus truly believed they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, demonstrates the facts and evidence surrounding the claims, because it is the facts and evidence we have which brings them to such a conclusion. Of course, you may not agree with these scholars, and that is certainly fine, However, this would leave us with those who were proclaiming what they knew to be a lie. In fact, let us look at a quote from one of the scholars who is not Christian who has come to such a conclusion,

I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.

You see, as a historian Fredriksen is telling us that "all the historical evidence we have afterwards" attest to these followers being convinced in what they saw. Again, what is it that makes this scholar so confident in this matter? The facts and evidence.

None of the things in that list can reasonably be called a fact.

Oh, but they can.

Some are reasonable conjectures. Some are reasonable conclusions if we accept that the conjectures are true.

You are absolutely correct in that they are reasonable, and they are reasonable based upon the facts and evidence we have. Most all of what you have quoted me as saying above, can be known to be fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

The conversation might be interesting if you were willing to acknowledge the distinctions, but at least as far as your rhetoric is concerned, you are truly baffled that the rest of us don't accept your wishful thinking as bedrock reality.

My friend, it is indeed "bedrock reality" that we have evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul. Now, you may give some sort of alternative explanation for the facts and evidence we have, but this does not negate the fact that we do indeed have this evidence which those opposed understand must and has to have some sort of alternative explanation. In fact, the fact that you and others are attempting to give these alternative explanations for these facts and evidence demonstrate the facts and evidence. So then, I am not "baffled" in the least that there are those who come to a different conclusion. Rather, I understand it very well, and also expect it.

In the context of the current discussion, yes it is. This Wikipedia page might help you understand the differences.

GOOD GRIEF! You are now appealing to authority, in order to argue that appealing to authority is not always a fallacy. You cannot make this stuff up. It does not matter what Wikipedia has to say, an appeal to authority is a fallacy if one is attempting to say that this appeal demonstrates the case.

Nobody has argued this, therefore it's a straw man argument.

No one may have argued this, but what they are arguing is that we should not read the passage as it is naturally written, but rather must jump through all the hoops in order to come to the desired conclusion.

They're unlikely to be letters. You've been told why.

Yeah! I've been told why but that math does not add. First, I would like to point out that you are not saying they are not letters, rather you are simply telling us they are "unlikely to be letters". Well, this tells us they very well may be letters because we all know that the odds are not always correct, and it does not matter in the least how many times the odds are correct. Next, exactly how in the world did you figure these odds? Please explain the math to us. What I can tell you is, the author addresses a Theophilus both times, and in the second this Theophilus is addressed as "most excellent". What exactly are the odds that this author wrote out these things in order for this Theophilus, "to know the exact truth" and then had these writings sent off to this Theophilus in the same way in which Paul sent his letters? Would this be considered letters at this point? The thing is, if what I have just described is exactly what happened, then I really do not believe it matters in the least what you would like to call this material. I believe your chosen term is "Fachprose". I have no idea what this would be, but I am fine with whatever it is you would like to call it, and I also have no problem with the conclusions you have. The problem comes in when you seem to want to insist, there would be no reason to believe this author sat down in order to write out not one, but two long and detailed accounts to one by the name of Theophilus, in order for this Theophilus to "know the exact truth". I do not know how you are doing the odds, but I do not believe your math is correct. However, even if your odds were correct, (and you need to explain how it is correct) this still would not negate the fact that there are very good reasons to believe this author was a traveling companion of Paul, who sat down in order to write out not one, but two long and detailed accounts to one individual, in order for this individual to "know the exact truth". Again, I have no problem with what it is you choose to believe, but please do not attempt to insist there would be no reason to believe this author wrote after years of traveling with Paul, in order for this individual to "know the exact truth". It demonstrates one who is uncomfortable with what they believe, who wants to insist there would be no reason to be opposed to the position they hold, in the face of the evidence against such a position. It is one thing for one to be convinced they hold to the best opinion of the facts and evidence we have, it is quite another for one to insist there would be no reason at all involved in the position of those opposed.

It's painfully obvious that you don't have to.

Right! Because we all know names have meanings, and the meaning of my name Jack means, "God is gracious". Therefore, how many times is a Jack addressed when the author is addressing all those who believe God to be gracious, as opposed to how many times a Jack is addressed as an individual? I have no way to know this, but if I were to guess, my guess would be that Jack being used to address all those who believe God to be gracious would be zero. The times the name Jack would be used to address an individual would be more than we could number. With this being the case, how many times has one used the name of an individual in order to address an individual, as opposed to one using the name of an individual in order to address a wider audience? Is it "painfully obvious" when I read material addressed to Jack as well? Or does this only apply to the name Theophilus? Do I really have to explain what is "painfully obvious"?

And your assurance is all you've ever offered.

What in the world have you offered us besides what you claim to be the odds, without even explaining how you arrived at these odds? I mean, you seem to want to insist we have no evidence the author traveled with Paul, the whole time you are attempting to give an alternative explanation for the facts and evidence we have.

Yes. That's clear.

Yes, it is clear I do not go with the odds, because we all know the odds have nothing whatsoever to do with what the truth would be. Allow me to give you a quote by George Canning,

I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.

Now allow me to give you a quote concerning the quote above,

The quote by George Canning, "I can prove anything by statistics except the truth," succinctly captures the notion that statistics alone may not always lead us to an accurate understanding of reality. It speaks to the inherent limitations of relying solely on numerical data to reach meaningful conclusions.

Yes. That's where the rubber meets the road. All you've done is repeated the same apologetic points, all of which have been addressed.

Yeah! You say they have been addressed but all you are doing is to give your opinion of the facts and evidence we have. I understand this is what we are all doing, which is why I do not insist others do not have reasons to believe as they do. This is exactly why it is a debate. If the matter had been settled there would no longer be a debate. One thing there is no debate about, is the fact that we have evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul. Of course, you may come to a different conclusion based upon these same facts and evidence, but your opinion of the facts and evidence does not negate the fact that we have this evidence but rather demonstrates the evidence.

Your claims of fact are false and therefore the conclusions you've drawn from them have no value.

Again, it is a fact that we have several pieces of evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul, and the fact that there are those who attempt to give alternative explanations for these facts and evidence demonstrates this to be the case. The fact that we have scholars who dedicate their lives to the study of such things, who go on to tell us that we can know the early followers at the very least truly believed Jesus to be alive after death, demonstrates the strong evidence we have surrounding the resurrection claims. If you do not agree with these scholars that is certainly fine, but we have enough evidence to know that if they did not truly believe this to be the case, then they would have been proclaiming this event knowing it to be a lie. The only other option one has is to deny that we can know anything at all, and at that point the conversation is over. That is what folks do when they become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence we have.

You've been given the benefit of the doubt and been offered opportunities to provide any type of supporting documentation

I do not need the "benefit of the doubt" and as far as the supporting documentation is concerned, we have what is contained in the NT and I do not need to demonstrate the material to be trustworthy in order to demonstrate there are things we can know to be true whether the material be trustworthy or not. This is exactly what historians do. They read, study, and analyze ancient letters which they may not at all consider to be trustworthy, but they understand there are certain things we can be almost certain about by reading this material which may not be trustworthy, and it is from this material these historians tell us we can be certain about certain historical events. Moreover, and again, this is exactly why we have scholars today, who are not at all claiming what is contained in the NT to be trustworthy, who claim we can know the earliest followers of Jesus believed they had encountered the risen Christ, and they are telling us we can know this by reading material they do not consider to be trustworthy.

but your main response has been nothing more than incredulity, as though your conclusions are self-evident. To put it mildly, they're not.

Oh, but they are "self-evident". I have not claimed that the resurrection took place. I have not claimed the author was a traveling companion of Paul. I have not claimed there would be no reason to doubt the claims. What I have done is to claim there are facts evidence and reasons to believe the claims, along with facts evidence and reasons to believe the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul. These things are facts my friend, and there is no amount of denying which is going to change these facts.

The kinds of things you're talking about are important when trying to determine specific authorial intentions. Unfortunately for your argument, the story the author wants us to read and its relationship to the likelihood that its events may not have actually happened is determined far more by other considerations. Discussions about things like genre give overall context to the details you're talking about, but so far, you've summarily dismissed those discussions as unimportant. Despite your assertions, Acts appears to neither be a letter nor historiography, for example, yet you insist on treating it as both.

This is a complete dodge of the point I was making. I am not attempting to make the argument this material is in any way trustworthy. Rather, I am pointing to the fact that we have very good evidence inside the material the author traveled with Paul. So then, if this author begins to explain to Theophilus what the apostles in Jerusalem were doing, only later to begin to focus solely upon what Paul is doing on his travels, and does not mention the apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them, along with the other evidence we have that this author traveled with Paul, and you would absolutely have to admit that this would at the very least be evidence the author traveled with Paul, even if you hold the opinion that there are other explanations which explain these facts we have.

And then you indulge in raw speculation that you expect the rest of us to treat as evidence of something.

It is not "speculation" my friend. It is a fact the author begins by explaining what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing. It is a fact that when Paul comes on the scene and begins his journeys the author begins to focus solely upon what Paul is doing and does not mention the apostles in Jerusalem until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them. It is a fact we have other evidence this author traveled with Paul, and it is a fact that all of this would at the very least have to be considered as evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul. Again, you may have a different opinion concerning these facts, but you certainly cannot deny that we do indeed have this evidence. The fact remains, when there are those who are attempting to give alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, demonstrates the fact there are facts and evidence which demand an alternative explanation.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #88]

I'll say it again, I think you are too easily convinced.

And I will say this again. This comment has no value coming from one who has demonstrated to us, they are indeed easily convinced. You have demonstrated this to us by explaining that you were convinced of something which there would be no facts and evidence in order to be convinced. This seems to have convinced you that it is impossible to be a convinced Christian by the use of the mind, which again demonstrates one who is easily convinced.

I see no reason to address your ad hominin attacks on my character.

I do not know how to explain this better to you. When one is quoting what another has said about themselves almost word for word, this cannot be considered an attack on the character of that person. Please explain how my repeating exactly what you have said about yourself could possibly be an attack upon your character? If this is the case, then it would seem that you were attacking your own character by telling us these things about yourself.

It's been comical for me to read them watching you think you know what you don't

What I know is what you have said about yourself, which would include being a "born again drunk in the holy ghost Christian for over two decades" who goes on to tell us they were convinced of something which they now tell us they are convinced there would be no evidence to have convinced them. This is what I know, please explain what I have gotten wrong, along with how this could possibly be an attack on your character when you are the one who has shared it with us?

but since they are nothing but fallacies, I see no reason to respond to them.

If this is fallacy, then you are the one who has created it.

Who was it again that is claimed to have resurrected Jesus?

If you read the reports, no one is claimed to have resurrected Jesus. Rather, the claim was, the tomb is empty, and that Jesus had been raised. The main point here is, Christianity did not begin with a "god concept". Christianity began with a claimed historical event.

Please show that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event (like you claimed it was).

You will have to demonstrate where I have ever claimed the resurrection was a historical event. What I have claimed is, Christianity began with what was claimed to be an historical event. Tremendous difference.

How did they come up with their god concepts? Not how did the their stories and ideas get passed down before written language.

As I have said, I do not know about the "god concepts". What I do know is Christianity did not begin with some sort of "god concept". Christianity began with a claim of a resurrection, and without this claim there would be no Christianity.

Therefore I don't find faith to be a reliable path to reality. (Do you?)

I do not believe faith to be a reliable path to reality. Faith is believing something which there would be no facts and evidence in support of the belief. When there are facts and evidence to examine faith is not required.

You will know them by their fruits.

Where did the above come from? Oh yeah! That would be the book you claim to be unreliable.

Eph 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! I mean, it really is! The verse has the word "drunk" in it, and somehow you have translated it to mean, since we are not to be "drunk with wine" then this must mean we are to be "drunk in the holy ghost"? Again, you cannot make this stuff up! It says, "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery". The contrast to being "drunk with wine" is to be filled with the Spirit which leads to self-control as opposed to being controlled by some other substance. GOOD GRIEF! It is no wonder how one could have been convinced of something they now want to convince us there would be no evidence to support. How in the world could one come to such an interpretation? It would have to be by taking the word of others, because one could not possibly read this passage and come away with the idea that we were to somehow be "drunk in the holy ghost".

Acts 2:4 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.
Then there is the ol make disciples of all men thingy as well.

Again, GOOD GRIEF! Who is "all of them"? Well, that would be the 12 apostles and no one else. So then, how in the world does the author of Acts explaining to Theophilus what the 12 were doing somehow turn into a command to us to be "drunk in the holy ghost"? It can be demonstrated that it was only the 12 apostles who were speaking in tongues on "The day of Pentecost". Again, how in the world can one interpret the author explaining to Theophilus how the 12 apostles were speaking in tongues be translated into us as Christians today being "drunk in the holy ghost"? Moreover, when we read about the speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, this would have nothing to do with the apostles speaking in a language they did not understand. It is evident the crowd at Pentecost shared a common language in that Theophilus is informed that Peter stood up an announced to the crowd, "these men are not drunk as you suppose". Peter then goes on to preach to the crowd, and Peter could have been only speaking in one language. Therefore, it is clear the crowd all shared a common language.

Seriously! You continue to demonstrate one who has very little knowledge of what they claim to have been so convinced of, which sort of demonstrates you have not really rejected Christianity, but rather the reckless theology you were exposed to. I mean, with two decades of being a Christian you never questioned how in the world Peter could have communicated to the whole of the crowd if the whole of the crowd did not share a common language? Moreover, the historical evidence we have from that time tells us that of all the list of folks in the crowd that day, they all would have communicated in one of two languages, and a good number of these folks more than likely spoke in more than one language.

As far as "the ol make disciples of all men thingy as well" this again was only addressed to the apostles and is not a command to all of us as Christians. If this was a command to all of us as Christians, then why in the world would Paul have gone around planting Churches? In his letters to these Churches, he is not at all scolding them for not traveling the world preaching the Gospel. Seriously! There is no possible way one could have been a Christian for two decades believing that all Christians are commanded to "make disciples of all nations". Just yesterday I attended the funeral of a dear friend who had down syndrome. Believe it or not, he lived to be 65 years of age. Do you imagine that he as a Christian is commanded to "make disciples of all nations"? No! This was a command which was given to the apostles and is not in any way a command to us as Christians today. I mean, how in the world can the command of Jesus to the apostles be translated as a command to us today? How many Christians do you actually know who are traveling the globe making disciples of all nations, as opposed to how many Christians have never gone on any sort of mission trip at all? I would suggest the overwhelming majority of Christians have never left their home country in order to attempt to make disciples of another nation.

Some random internet poster claiming that I was a believing Christian for bad reason

This poster you are referring to must be you, because you are the one who has freely told us that you were a "born again drunk in the holy ghost Christian 3 countries for 2 decades", and have also gone on to tell us you had no reason to be a Christian. I have simply repeated what you have said about yourself. Moreover, we have demonstrated above that one was "drunk in the holy ghost" based upon passages from the Bible which has nothing whatsoever to do with being a command to Christians to be "drunk in the holy ghost". We also had one who was traveling the globe based upon a command which was given to the 11 apostles and could not have possibly been a command to all Christians. What this tells us is that you wasted 2 decades of your life, and want to blame Christianity for this, when the authors of the NT never commanded Christians to behave in such a way. What we have seen is, you were a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian" based upon passages which have nothing whatsoever to do with teaching Christians to be "drunk in the holy ghost" and you were traveling the globe attempting to make disciples of the nations, when it can be easily demonstrated, this command was given to the eleven disciples. How in the world is Christianity to blame here?

Muhammed made about 4 stops on his winged horse if I remember correctly. That people believe he tied the horse to the western wall in Jerusalem (last stop) is not a fact nor is it evidence that this flight actually took place. Surely you agree as this would be a fallacious argument.

I really do not know what is causing the mental block here, but I will continue to attempt to help you out. You continue to talk about folks who believed claims others have made, and comparing this to folks who are claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death. Can you see the difference? The early followers of Jesus were not saying there are folks who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after death and we believe the claim. No, these folks were claiming to have witnessed Jesus with their own eyes, and we have enough evidence for this that we have scholars today who tell us we can know from this evidence these early followers were truly convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death.

My friend, there is no comparison at all between Islam and Christianity as far as the historical evidence is concerned. Islam has its main character who makes a claim with no other witnesses and there are those who believe the claim made. On the other hand, the main character of Christianity leaves us nothing in writing himself, and it was his followers who claim to have witnessed him alive after death, and it is this claim which has gone out into all the world to the point that this Jesus who left us nothing in writing himself has become one of the most, if not the most significant figures the world has ever known. I don't care who you are! That is extraordinary.