Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 37, 38, 39  Next

Reply to topic
bluegreenearth
First Post
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:15 pm  Is faith a reliable method for determining truth? Reply with quote

For example:

Quote:
Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.


There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 311: Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:50 am
Reply
Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Like this post (1): Difflugia
brunumb wrote:


I take Paul's self-attributed trials and tribulations with a grain of salt.


He may well have suffered all sorts of miseries because of his obsession. Many do even today. Some religious folk have sacrificed themselves and their families in the belief that this is the way to heaven.

When a man thinks gods have shouted at him from the sky and persuades himself that if he doesn't do heaven's bidding, he will suffer eternal punishment, then he writes copiously about that good God, makes things up about the Theory of Heaven and undergoes any trials heaven sees fit to offer. It has ever been so. Paul is one more deluded soul.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 312: Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:48 pm
Reply

Like this post (2): benchwarmer, bluegreenearth
I have a larger issue with where that claim of faith even leads to.........

What I mean is the definition of truth from a faith based claim. Let's take for instance the statement that Christ is the son of God.

Well for the Christian that statement of truth is an absolute or eternal truth......it can never be wrong.

In my world view of scientific rationalism truth is defined as being provisional........rather than absolute or eternal. Meaning that if say an observation of gravity is consistent and predictable through experimentation and replicated time and again we have a high confidence of that observation being accurate but there may come a time when our understanding of gravity may not fit the model we have developed through the scientific method and as a result we may have to revise that model............that once thought iron clad truth may not be in all circumstances in other words it is true as long as the evidence continues to back that up......or it is provisional and not absolute in its claim.

but how does anyone know that truth could ever be absolute rather than provisional?

Perhaps there is a multiverse where gravity in another universe as we know it doesn't not have the same properties as we have observed so far this universe?

We cannot be absolutely sure this is the only universe in reality so we must hold truth as a provisional condition.

How would anyone be able to know what the ultimate reality of anything to call it an absolute truth?

What if there really is a God of the Bible............in that case despite everything that is claimed by scriptures of his nature.......how does this God or anyone who follows him be able to absolutely claim this entity is not the result of a computer construct of another super race who created that being to think it is eternal to begin with? There would be no evidence for that but you or this God doesn't have the ability to extend beyond reality to be assured it isn't a created being or computer construct.

Faith is not a good pathway to provisional truth because it lacks a method to provide consistent and predictable results........let alone claim truth can be absolute for reasons as I explained above............

......not even science can make an absolute truth claim in the big picture of reality and in the final analysis that is a prudent and wise position to hold when you are trying to understand reality as best as you can.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 313: Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:28 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 312 by PghPanther]

Your larger picture is an interesting diversion. Of course we may be the computer playthings of a little boy in another dimension or the images in a dream of someone else. Does such speculation add anything to our progress through time?

We can certainly imagine ourselves as ants, scurrying on our perceived tasks to assist and labour before dying, but then there is nothing wrong with restricting our universe to the environs of the anthill, for what else matters?

Leaving our nets and our families and occupying our mind with matters from another, inaccessible dimension seems a denial of existence, the action of a renegade ant that withdraws its efforts for the community. If it prays, instead, for prolific production and plenty of food, can we say it is helping the formic community? Faith seems to be in the area of the renegade ant.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 314: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:00 am
Reply
Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Like this post
[Replying to post 294 by benchwarmer]

Quote:
But do we actually have 5 DIFFERENT claims? Or do we have ONE claim which 4 other (anonymous?) people just repeated. In other words, did 5 people witness the resurrection (or at least the crucifiction and later living Jesus) and write what they saw or do we only have people repeating what other people said. There is a huge difference here.


Well? Let us look at the actual facts, and evidence we have?

We have certain evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled around with Paul, for decades. With this being the case, we can know this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making, first hand. At the beginning of his first letter, this author assures Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", and with the evidence we have seen thus far, we can know that he would have had the ability to do just that.

Also, at the beginning of his first letter, this author acknowledged, "MANY have undertaken to draw up an account of the things which have been accomplished among us", which means he is acknowledging, that at the time of his writing, others had already written an account, and it would have been, "MANY".

However, he does not mention having a copy from anyone else, nor does he even suggest that he has read what any of the others would have had to say. Rather, he tells Theophilus, this information would have come through my, "careful investigation".

So then, we have at least one author, who we can know would have traveled around with Paul, which means he would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the original apostles, along with hearing the claims they were making first hand, from their own lips, would have been able to converse with these men, asking them many questions, and then seems to be compelled to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to a friend, and of concern for this particular individual, knowing the truth about, "the things which have been accomplished, among US".

So sure, you can throw out the idea that these men were simply repeating what they had been told, but it would really help your case to have some sort of facts, and evidence to support your position, like I have supplied?

I mean, let's think about this? We do indeed have 5 different authors who report on the same exact event. We have just seen that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, along with Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, and the claims they were making, so these two authors would have had no need in simply repeating what they had been told, because they would have received their information straight from the source. Then, we have the author of John, who reports different events concerning the life of Jesus than the others, and this author as well reports the resurrection.

This leaves us with the author of Matthew, and Mark. Now, we do not have any direct evidence of who these authors may have been. However, we do know that the author of the two letters to Theophilus did in fact report that, "MANY had undertaken to write an account of these events", and therefore, if we can simply assume, as you seem to do, that these men simply repeated what they have been told, then we can also assume, that the other accounts the author of the two letters to Theophilus was referring to, could have very well included, Matthew, and Mark, which would mean they would have been alive at the time as well, and could have very well known, or even been one of the apostles themselves, which means along with the author of the two letters to Theophilus, they would have had no need in simply reporting what they had been told. Because at least here, our assumptions would be based on some sort of facts, and evidence, unlike the idea you throw out.

As far as there being a "huge difference"? Well, it would make no difference at all, if no one ever reported the resurrection, as to whether the event actually occurred, or not? In other words, an event does not even have to be reported, in order for the event to have actually occurred.

In the same way, you can have those simply repeating what they have heard from others, because they did not actually witness the event themselves, but this would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the event would have occurred, or not?

Quote:
In fact, I don't think we have one single, actual witness account of the resurrection do we?


This is correct. No one claims to have witnessed the actual resurrection occurring. Sort of strange, isn't it? You would think that if there were those who were going to tell such an extraordinary tale, which they knew was not true, then why would they not go on to add in that, they actually were there to witness the event occurring?

Here is the thing my friend. You can say you, "do not believe the claims to be true". You can also say, "there would be reasons to doubt the claims". But, what you cannot rightly say is, "the claims would be false" and, or, "there would be, no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe the claims". Of course, you can type these words out, but what you cannot do is to demonstrate your case. Because you see, even if we do not have one single witness to the resurrection, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the reports would be true, or false.

Quote:
What we have are people claiming other people saw a risen Christ.


Well no! We have at least Paul claiming to have been encountered by the "risen Christ", along with the author of the two letters to Theophilus who would have heard these claims first hand from those making the claims, and it could in fact be the case that we have another who would have heard this from someone directly, with two more who may have in fact been witnesses themselves, of Christ alive, after the crucifixion.

So then, simply saying, "we cannot know" is not helping your case.

Quote:
At best we have Paul and there is debate whether he saw Jesus in the flesh or in dreams.


What is not up for debate is, whether Paul would have been completely opposed to Christianity, only to become it's biggest champion. What is not up for debate is, whether the author of Luke begins to use the words "we", and "us" when describing the events concerning the travels of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events. What is not up for debate is whether Paul went on to continue to proclaim these same things well into his old age, going to prison because of what he was proclaiming.

I could continue on, and on, with those things which would not be, "up for debate", but the point is, I have never argued that there would be no reasons to doubt the claims. However, the fact of the matter is, the objections you bring up, in no way demonstrates there would be no reasons to believe the claims, and they certainly do not demonstrate the claims to be false.

The bottom line is, I am not at this point insisting that the claims must, and have to be true, and there would be no reasons to doubt the claims. So then, are you insisting that the claims must, and have to be false, and there are no reasons to believe the claims? This is the ultimate question involved here?

Because you see, it is one thing to doubt the claims, and, or, to simply not believe the claims to be true. It is quite another thing, to insist the claims must, and have to be false, and there would be no reason to believe the claims. So, where are you at here?

Quote:
Even then, he did not witness the resurrection. He MAY have seen Jesus later, but was not there to watch a dead Jesus go into a tomb and a live Jesus wandering around later.


Would that cause the claim to be false? Or, would it only be some sort of reason for doubt? If you say, "it is a reason to doubt" then what would that reason be?

Quote:
Face it, the evidence we have is sketchy at best.


sketch·y
/ˈskeCHē/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
not thorough or detailed.
"the information they had was sketchy"

2.
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
dishonest or disreputable.

Okay, you have some explaining to do? Exactly how in the world can one say, the information contained about the life, death, and resurrection would not be "thorough, or detailed"? How would it be, "dishonest, or disreputable"?

Quote:
Given the type of claims we are dealing with here one would think there should be something better to go on.


What is it you would like? What you really mean to say is, "you want proof". I am afraid there is no proof.

However, I think there are some things you are failing to consider? The authors of the letters contained in the NT were addressing audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else besides their original intended audience, and they certainly could not have known about the Bible, and therefore, they were not attempting to write in order to be in the Bible. Also, the audiences being addressed would have already been believers. In other words, the authors were not attempting to persuade, or prove anything to the audience they were addressing.

With this in mind, you need to think about yourself reporting some sort of fantastic tale to a close friend, and let us imagine that this friend of yours truly believes, and trust your report, but ask "if you would please write out all the details of the event, so as for him to have a written account of the event?"

Therefore, since you already understand your audience is already convinced of the events, you simply write out an orderly account of the events, and have no need whatsoever to attempt to write in such a way as to convince your audience.

If someone later were to read this letter to your friend, they may complain that "this is a wild, and fantastic report, and there really is no reason to believe the report". Now, if this were to happen, you could surely complain that, "this letter was addressed to a friend who already believed the events, and so I was simply giving an account of the events to this friend, and I had no intentions of anyone else ever reading this letter besides this friend".

In other words, you really owe nothing to anyone else, besides the audience you are addressing at the time. In the same way, when we read the two letters addressed to Theophilus, we need to keep in mind, this letter was not intended for us, and therefore the author owes nothing to us.

However, when we read these letters, we can know that this author would have just spent decades traveling around with Paul, on his journeys, would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles, along with the claims they were making first hand, and after all these events, this author seems to be compelled to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, and it certainly seems as if, it is out of true concern for this individual.

Now of course there would be a whole lot to consider here, but one question would be, "do we have any reason to believe that after going through all these events himself, this author knowingly writes out false information to this individual"? Do we have any evidence, or reason to believe this author may have been deceived in some sort of way?

Again, there would be a whole lot more to consider here, and I am not insisting that you believe the reports, but I certainly cannot see how in the world anyone can say, "there would be no reason to believe the reports"?

Quote:
Why was there not mass conversions and other witness statements after the supposed undead roamed the streets of Jerusalem?


My friend, I do not know what you consider to be, "mass conversions" but according to the report given to Theophilus, 3000 folks believed on, "The Day of Pentecost". Next, we know there were Jews from far away at the time, and many of them made the decision to stay in Jerusalem, and not to return to their homelands.

Next, it is also reported to Theophilus that, "MANY have undertaken to write out an account of the things accomplished among us".

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 315: Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:47 pm
Reply
Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Like this post (3): marco, benchwarmer, brunumb
Realworldjack wrote:

[Replying to post 294 by benchwarmer]

Quote:
But do we actually have 5 DIFFERENT claims? Or do we have ONE claim which 4 other (anonymous?) people just repeated. In other words, did 5 people witness the resurrection (or at least the crucifiction and later living Jesus) and write what they saw or do we only have people repeating what other people said. There is a huge difference here.


Well? Let us look at the actual facts, and evidence we have?

We have certain evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled around with Paul, for decades. With this being the case, we can know this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making, first hand. At the beginning of his first letter, this author assures Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", and with the evidence we have seen thus far, we can know that he would have had the ability to do just that.

We can stop right there if this is an example of your "evidence." To call it 'meager' would be overstatement.

We know little definitive about the man. There are many theories about who Theophilus was:

The Coptic view;
Roman Official;
Honorary title (academia) tradition maintains that Theophilus was not a person;
Paul's Lawyer;
A Jewish priest
A growing belief points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41.
Titus Flavius Sabinus

References:

Dulle, Jason. "The Complementary Messages of The Gospel of Luke and Acts". Retrieved 31 March 2016.
Strong's G2321 Archived 21 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine
Bauer lexicon, 2nd edition, 1958, page 358
John Wesley, Notes on The Gospel According to St Luke, 1:3
Mauck, 2001
The earliest known person to suggest that most excellent Theophilus was none other than the High Priest was Theodore Hase (1682-1731) who contributed an article in 1725 to the Bibliotheca Historico-Philogico-Theologica, referenced as the Bibliotheca Bremensissome in the Introduction to the New Testament by Johann David Michaelis tr. and augmented with notes by Herbert Marsh, although Hase proposed that Luke was written to Theophilus after his years as High Priest. Christian apologist and philosopher William Paley (1743-1805) accepted this identification in his Horae Paulinae. In recent years contributions are in David L. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (2010); Richard H. Anderson, Who are Theophilus and Johanna? The Irony of the Intended Audience (2010); "Theophilus: A Proposal," Evangelical Quarterly 69:3 (1997) 195-215; "The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews," Evangelical Quarterly71:2 (1999), 127-149; "Luke and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants," The Journal of Biblical Studies, January–March 2001, Vol. 1, No. 1; "A la recherche de Theophile," Dossiers d'Archeolgie, December 2002 – January 2003; Josep Rius-Camps, Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The message of Acts in Codex Bezae: a comparison with the Alexandrian tradition, Volume 4, (2009) 3-4 and prior volumes
Anderson, Who are Theophilus and Johanna?: The Irony of the Intended Audience of the Gospel of Luke.
Luke 3:2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_(biblical)

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 316: Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:50 pm
Reply
Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Like this post (2): Danmark, benchwarmer
[Replying to post 314 by Realworldjack]

Quote:
We have certain evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled around with Paul, for decades. With this being the case, we can know this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making, first hand. At the beginning of his first letter, this author assures Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", and with the evidence we have seen thus far, we can know that he would have had the ability to do just that.

Please present this certain evidence and demonstrate how it allows would have to actually become did.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 317: Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:56 pm
Reply
Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Like this post (1): benchwarmer
brunumb wrote:

[Replying to post 314 by Realworldjack]

Quote:
We have certain evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled around with Paul, for decades. With this being the case, we can know this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making, first hand. At the beginning of his first letter, this author assures Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", and with the evidence we have seen thus far, we can know that he would have had the ability to do just that.

Please present this certain evidence and demonstrate how it allows would have to actually become did.

I have long found it interesting that Paul in particular, and also this mysterious 'Theophilus,' both of whom supposedly lived at the same time and place of the historical Jesus, never met him; never saw him. Yet both are very interested in him and had both geographic and chronologic proximity to him. The closest they get to Jesus is Paul's delirium produced 'vision.'

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 318: Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:09 pm
Reply
Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Like this post (3): Danmark, brunumb, Tcg
Realworldjack wrote:

[Replying to post 294 by benchwarmer]

Quote:
But do we actually have 5 DIFFERENT claims? Or do we have ONE claim which 4 other (anonymous?) people just repeated. In other words, did 5 people witness the resurrection (or at least the crucifiction and later living Jesus) and write what they saw or do we only have people repeating what other people said. There is a huge difference here.


Well? Let us look at the actual facts, and evidence we have?

Yes, let's do that.

Realworldjack wrote:

We have certain evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled around with Paul, for decades. With this being the case, we can know this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making, first hand. At the beginning of his first letter, this author assures Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", and with the evidence we have seen thus far, we can know that he would have had the ability to do just that.

Fantastic. Did this Theophilus claim to have seen Jesus die and then later see him alive? Did you miss that important detail I was asking for??

What you say next is nothing but evidence that Theophilus has first hand knowledge of what Paul was saying. I think that was my point. I'm not sure what yours was.

Realworldjack wrote:

So sure, you can throw out the idea that these men were simply repeating what they had been told, but it would really help your case to have some sort of facts, and evidence to support your position, like I have supplied?

You've supplied no evidence of witness statements from people seeing Jesus alive, then dead, then alive again. Or did I miss something? It seems you've missed my point entirely and have gone off on some other tangent.

Realworldjack wrote:

I mean, let's think about this? We do indeed have 5 different authors who report on the same exact event. We have just seen that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, along with Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, and the claims they were making, so these two authors would have had no need in simply repeating what they had been told, because they would have received their information straight from the source. Then, we have the author of John, who reports different events concerning the life of Jesus than the others, and this author as well reports the resurrection.

It's interesting how you are claiming to disagree with me and yet you are agreeing with me at the same time. Did Theophilus claim to see Jesus alive after seeing him die? You seem to be missing this key point in your evidence.

Realworldjack wrote:

This leaves us with the author of Matthew, and Mark. Now, we do not have any direct evidence of who these authors may have been.

Correct. Thus we have anonymous sources claiming that other people saw a resurrected Jesus. At best it's second hand hearsay. Not a direct claim from the author that they witnessed any of it.

Realworldjack wrote:

However, we do know that the author of the two letters to Theophilus did in fact report that, "MANY had undertaken to write an account of these events",

And? Someone wrote that other people wrote stuff? Really? That's your rebuttal to me pointing out we have no direct witness statements?

Realworldjack wrote:

and therefore, if we can simply assume, as you seem to do, that these men simply repeated what they have been told, then we can also assume, that the other accounts the author of the two letters to Theophilus was referring to, could have very well included, Matthew, and Mark, which would mean they would have been alive at the time as well, and could have very well known, or even been one of the apostles themselves, which means along with the author of the two letters to Theophilus, they would have had no need in simply reporting what they had been told. Because at least here, our assumptions would be based on some sort of facts, and evidence, unlike the idea you throw out.

Well, that's a lot of assumptions. Do you have any actual evidence of one of these authors claiming to see a resurrected Jesus? Would have saved us a lot of time.

Realworldjack wrote:

As far as there being a "huge difference"? Well, it would make no difference at all, if no one ever reported the resurrection, as to whether the event actually occurred, or not? In other words, an event does not even have to be reported, in order for the event to have actually occurred.

Well no kidding. Is there a point here that has anything to do with me asking for direct witnesses or is this just a diversionary tactic of some sort?

Realworldjack wrote:

In the same way, you can have those simply repeating what they have heard from others, because they did not actually witness the event themselves, but this would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the event would have occurred, or not?

Correct. And that is what we have for the most part. People claiming what other people claimed. Did I say this proves the event didn't happen? No. More diversions.

Realworldjack wrote:

Quote:
In fact, I don't think we have one single, actual witness account of the resurrection do we?


This is correct.


Well, there you go. Could have saved us a lot of time if you admitted this from the beginning.

Realworldjack wrote:

Here is the thing my friend. You can say you, "do not believe the claims to be true". You can also say, "there would be reasons to doubt the claims". But, what you cannot rightly say is, "the claims would be false" and, or, "there would be, no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe the claims". Of course, you can type these words out, but what you cannot do is to demonstrate your case. Because you see, even if we do not have one single witness to the resurrection, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the reports would be true, or false.

And did I say the claims are false or there are no facts? Well? No. I'm not sure who you are debating at this point.

Realworldjack wrote:

Quote:
What we have are people claiming other people saw a risen Christ.


Well no! We have at least Paul claiming to have been encountered by the "risen Christ",

Which I already stipulated taking into account there is debate if he actually encountered Jesus or just had a dream. Did I or did I not say "at best we have Paul"?

Realworldjack wrote:

So then, simply saying, "we cannot know" is not helping your case.

It helps to quote people. Did I simply say "we cannot know"? Which case do you believe I'm trying to make? It wasn't that.

Realworldjack wrote:

Quote:
At best we have Paul and there is debate whether he saw Jesus in the flesh or in dreams.


What is not up for debate is, whether Paul would have been completely opposed to Christianity, only to become it's biggest champion. What is not up for debate is, whether the author of Luke begins to use the words "we", and "us" when describing the events concerning the travels of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events. What is not up for debate is whether Paul went on to continue to proclaim these same things well into his old age, going to prison because of what he was proclaiming.

Not up for debate? So you have iron clad proof then? Or do you just have the claims of these authors? The only thing not up for debate is that we do indeed have writings claiming these things. The rest is most certainly up for debate.

Realworldjack wrote:

I could continue on, and on, with those things which would not be, "up for debate", but the point is, I have never argued that there would be no reasons to doubt the claims. However, the fact of the matter is, the objections you bring up, in no way demonstrates there would be no reasons to believe the claims, and they certainly do not demonstrate the claims to be false.

I never claimed the claims are false or there are NO reasons. Why you keep bringing up this obvious strawman is really telling. You seem to think this is a rebuttal, but you are not rebutting anything I've actually said. I am simply claiming we only have what is written in the Bible and those writings are, for the most part, people claiming what OTHER people have claimed.

Generally, when one has only second hand heresay to go on, one doesn't make major life decisions without first confirming the claims as best as possible. In this case, there is nothing better to support any of it.

Realworldjack wrote:

The bottom line is, I am not at this point insisting that the claims must, and have to be true, and there would be no reasons to doubt the claims. So then, are you insisting that the claims must, and have to be false, and there are no reasons to believe the claims? This is the ultimate question involved here?

Are you not actually reading anything I've been writing?? Did I insist the claims must be false or that there are NO reasons? No, in fact I've pointed this out to you at least once, possibly more times in our interactions. Clearly you just keeping spinning in circles hoping I'm making these claims when I'm not. Rather than address the obvious lack of good evidence, you trot out this strawman time after time.

Realworldjack wrote:

Because you see, it is one thing to doubt the claims, and, or, to simply not believe the claims to be true. It is quite another thing, to insist the claims must, and have to be false, and there would be no reason to believe the claims. So, where are you at here?

I think you know, I've only explained it multiple times in my posts. Or you are not actually reading what I write and prefer to strawman me.

Realworldjack wrote:

Quote:
Even then, he did not witness the resurrection. He MAY have seen Jesus later, but was not there to watch a dead Jesus go into a tomb and a live Jesus wandering around later.

Would that cause the claim to be false? Or, would it only be some sort of reason for doubt? If you say, "it is a reason to doubt" then what would that reason be?

What this is, is casting doubt that we have an actual witness statement. That was the ENTIRE point of my post which you clearly didn't want to address. Oh well. Tangents it is.

Realworldjack wrote:

Quote:
Face it, the evidence we have is sketchy at best.


sketch·y
/ˈskeCHē/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
not thorough or detailed.
"the information they had was sketchy"

2.
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
dishonest or disreputable.

Okay, you have some explaining to do? Exactly how in the world can one say, the information contained about the life, death, and resurrection would not be "thorough, or detailed"? How would it be, "dishonest, or disreputable"?

Not sure what there is to explain. When one is presented with second hand hearsay in obvious religious promotional material one usually takes it with a grain of salt. Claims of essentially magic don't seem particularly honest or reputable to me. Especially when we can see the progression of the stories as time goes on. More details get added to flesh out the stories. Seems real reputable to me....

Realworldjack wrote:

Quote:
Given the type of claims we are dealing with here one would think there should be something better to go on.


What is it you would like? What you really mean to say is, "you want proof". I am afraid there is no proof.

Wrong. Yet again... sigh...

What I would like is at least some corroborating evidence from disconnected sources. Got any of that? Well no, or it would be trotted out every time these kinds of debates come up.

Realworldjack wrote:

Quote:
Why was there not mass conversions and other witness statements after the supposed undead roamed the streets of Jerusalem?


My friend, I do not know what you consider to be, "mass conversions" but according to the report given to Theophilus, 3000 folks believed on, "The Day of Pentecost". Next, we know there were Jews from far away at the time, and many of them made the decision to stay in Jerusalem, and not to return to their homelands.

And the written witness reports of this from among these 3000 folks is where? Oh ya, nowhere. We have ONE written account that there were 3000 folks. Wow, super convincing.

Face it, what we have is little more than second hand claims for the most part. It's the best there is and it's not convincing in the least and certainly not 'good' evidence. It may be evidence and it may provide some reasons, but it's certainly not multiple direct witness statements. Which was the ENTIRE point of my post to which you responded. Nice dodge I guess.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 319: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:07 am
Reply
Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Like this post (2): Danmark, Difflugia
Danmark wrote:


We can stop right there if this is an example of your "evidence." To call it 'meager' would be overstatement.

We know little definitive about the man. There are many theories about who Theophilus was:



And your list is impressive.

That the recipient is simply "a God lover" tells us all we need to know. When Browning wanted to paint his devout, fictional hymn-singing child as pious, he gave him a similar name, Theocrite:

"Morning, evening, noon and night,
Praise God!; sang Theocrite" imitating the Psalmist

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 320: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:24 am
Reply
Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Like this post (2): Danmark, benchwarmer
Realworldjack wrote:



Okay, you have some explaining to do? Exactly how in the world can one say, the information contained about the life, death, and resurrection would not be "thorough, or detailed"? How would it be, "dishonest, or disreputable"?



Date of birth? Activities between the ages of 10 and 30? Description of the man? Trade and occupation? Education? Adolescence? Strengths and weaknesses? Visits to other countries? Military experience? Death dates of parents and siblings?

We are supplied - in apparent seriousness - with birth details going back to Adam.
We have recorded conversations of him when there appears to have been no witnesses.
One of the reliable biographers tells us that one of the incidental details at crucifixion time was the walking about of corpses.
A young man was sitting in his tomb - no, it was two angels.

How much of this is "thorough" and "detailed"? When they try to give us a specific detail that historians can check, such as the Roman census, or the ruling king at Christ's birth, we find errors.

The Slavs have a saying: "A horse would laugh."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 37, 38, 39  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version