Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[SiNcE_1985]

It depends on the claim. In the case for the Gospels, below would be my rubric:

- Are said event(s) independently corroborated? No, not in the case for the (4) Gospels.
- Are such claim(s)/record(s) verified by relic(s)? No, not in the case for the (4) Gospels regarding <Jesus>. This is why 'The Shroud' later became a thing, to try and add "credibility" in around the 1,300's. Which, by no surprise, was later also deemed untrustworthy.
- Are said source(s) consistent in their narrative? No! Hence, are also deemed untrustworthy. Benchwarmer explained this quite well in post 131. Your response to his explanation did absolutely nothing to refute it, and the readers see this.
- Are said source(s) free from political/religious bias? No. "Luke" alone was written with intent to capture persuasive authority and to fulfill OT prophecy in which "Mark" could not.
- Are said sources(s) free of claims which defy natural law? No. Such claims are extraordinary, therefore, more easily dismissed/ignored when all other criteria- are also 'no'.
- Are said sources(s) produced from firsthand accounts? No. In this case, it is important since we are speaking about one-time 'supernatural' events from antiquity.
- Are said source(s) identified? No. Another pause for concern, regarding the (4) Gospels.

I simply disagree.

Moving along.

Negative. "Luke" changes some claims, from "Mark", to fit a differing intended narrative. The video cites the verses between the two Gospels which do so.

Already responded to this.

You are either purposefully misrepresenting my argument, or still do not get what I am saying.

Um, no.

You insinuated that Luke spiced the narrative, to push his own agenda....insinuating that he deliberately fabricated his account from the original.

And my response to this was; Luke's narrative could have been spiced, but with the truth...still pushing his own truthful agenda.

It ain't rocket science and my point was clearly made.

Another baseless rubberstamp. I'm not going to explain, again, because you will either likely still not actually get it, or, pretend not to.

Not buying it, and not getting it are two different things.

How do we know AtG was a real person from antiquity? (vs) How do we know AtG was the son of Zeus? Further, does the second claims have to be true in order to support the first claim?

Um, I know AtG was not the son of Zeus, based on the background information I have that Jesus is the Son of God (Yahweh).

So, the claims/deeds of Jesus invalids the claims of AtG or any Greek mythology.

Did the apostle Paul believe that he saw the resurrected Jesus, based on his writings. Yes or no?

Yes. [/quote]

Ok, and the last question before I drive the point home...based on Paul's writings, did the Christian movement begin, based on Jesus' followers (Paul included) belief that they saw the resurrected Jesus.

Yes or no.

I only have time for one debate forum, as I have a life outside of debating people of opposing views in my free-spare time. "Religion' already places me into countless categories for discussion.

LOL! I guess this means if you can discredit 'abiogenesis', then the Bible is true?

No, it means that if you can discredit abiogenesis, the theism is true.

Your question insinuates a binary proposition. Is it possible to continue to explore the concept of 'deism' without also having to accept what looks to be obvious claims generated from religious propaganda and/or dogma (i.e.) the Gospels?

Sure, deism is still a step above atheism, isn't it?

As I've told you before, I have not studied abiogenesis enough to hold any position. Maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't? If you can demonstrate it is nonsense, then maybe you will be next in line for a prize?

Yeah, my point exactly.

If you put half the time and energy to focus/study stuff like abiogenesis, as you do trying to tear down and discredit Christianity...then maybe your scope of knowledge will be less biased and more open-minded.

Sure, just apply faith to all 'supernatural' claims. But then I would also have to accept ALL religions, not just the one for which you have opted to 'apologize' for....

You would also have to accept abiogenesis, which is a default religion/position of atheist.

[The Nice Centurion]

Another baseless rubberstamp. I'm not going to explain, again, because you will either likely still not actually get it, or, pretend not to.

Not buying it, and not getting it are two different things.

So that must be it for why Richard Carrier doesnt buy The Resurrection!
https://infidels.org/library/modern/ric ... urrection/

[oldbadger]

Well, the gospel of Yeshua, the "kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13), does not require a resurrection, other than the "son of man" returning after the "tribulation" (Mt 24:29-30). Only the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil", the gospel of lawlessness/grace/cross requires a resurrection.

Just in Matthew? OK.
Those gospels do vary so much.

And now you apparently want to delete the whole book of Revelation. Which blessing in that book do you think will be removed from yourself? The blessing of health? How are you doing by the way? The church of Paul would certainly not like the contents of the book of Revelation, for it is a message against that church. Luther didn't like the book of James for the same reason.

I do not take any notice of Revelation.

[TRANSPONDER]

It depends on the claim. In the case for the Gospels, below would be my rubric:

- Are said event(s) independently corroborated? No, not in the case for the (4) Gospels.
- Are such claim(s)/record(s) verified by relic(s)? No, not in the case for the (4) Gospels regarding <Jesus>. This is why 'The Shroud' later became a thing, to try and add "credibility" in around the 1,300's. Which, by no surprise, was later also deemed untrustworthy.
- Are said source(s) consistent in their narrative? No! Hence, are also deemed untrustworthy. Benchwarmer explained this quite well in post 131. Your response to his explanation did absolutely nothing to refute it, and the readers see this.
- Are said source(s) free from political/religious bias? No. "Luke" alone was written with intent to capture persuasive authority and to fulfill OT prophecy in which "Mark" could not.
- Are said sources(s) free of claims which defy natural law? No. Such claims are extraordinary, therefore, more easily dismissed/ignored when all other criteria- are also 'no'.
- Are said sources(s) produced from firsthand accounts? No. In this case, it is important since we are speaking about one-time 'supernatural' events from antiquity.
- Are said source(s) identified? No. Another pause for concern, regarding the (4) Gospels.

I simply disagree.

Moving along.

This is a windup right? There is nothing but denial.

Negative. "Luke" changes some claims, from "Mark", to fit a differing intended narrative. The video cites the verses between the two Gospels which do so.

Already responded to this.

i don't recall what your response was but the last person who said (posted) that to me had already had their response debunked.

You are either purposefully misrepresenting my argument, or still do not get what I am saying.

Um, no.

You insinuated that Luke spiced the narrative, to push his own agenda....insinuating that he deliberately fabricated his account from the original.

And my response to this was; Luke's narrative could have been spiced, but with the truth...still pushing his own truthful agenda.

It ain't rocket science and my point was clearly made.

And clearly without force and in fact denied by the evidence. We know (or I know at least) from the evidence in the text that Luke altered and shifted about stuff to suit himself and in all reason made stuff up.How could the most memorable parab;le have been ignored by the others?He wrote them himself.


If Luke was saying what was true (as you claim) that makes all the other wrong. The nativities are terminally contrary and nif Luke's is right, Matthew's is wrong. But Luke's makes no real sense so the evidence is (in reason) both are inveneted and not true. And that's the take away fromgospel contradiction.

If the idea is fakes stries to tel about a real God (with or without a Jesus) this is simply afaithclaim without a shred of evidence.

Another baseless rubberstamp. I'm not going to explain, again, because you will either likely still not actually get it, or, pretend not to.

Not buying it, and not getting it are two different things.

Sure just as Creationists not understanding evolution and understanding it but lying about it are two different things, but neither do them much credit.

How do we know AtG was a real person from antiquity? (vs) How do we know AtG was the son of Zeus? Further, does the second claims have to be true in order to support the first claim?

Um, I know AtG was not the son of Zeus, based on the background information I have that Jesus is the Son of God (Yahweh).

So, the claims/deeds of Jesus invalids the claims of AtG or any Greek mythology.

One could also argue that we know that Alexander was a real person from the coin images, inscriptions, statues and cities names after him and the historical accounts, even though there are things in the histories (like the Gordian knot) that we might not credit. As you say we hardly buy the supernatural claims he made about himself.

So while I do find some clues that Jesus was a real person. I do not buy the supernatural stories about him and there are no contemporary images of him, no credible extra - Biblical attestations (whatever Bible apologists might tell you) and in fact nothing outside the Bible.

So AiG trumps Jesus in credibility even though I think both were real people.

Did the apostle Paul believe that he saw the resurrected Jesus, based on his writings. Yes or no?

Yes.

Ok, and the last question before I drive the point home...based on Paul's writings, did the Christian movement begin, based on Jesus' followers (Paul included) belief that they saw the resurrected Jesus.

Yes or no.

I only have time for one debate forum, as I have a life outside of debating people of opposing views in my free-spare time. "Religion' already places me into countless categories for discussion.

LOL! I guess this means if you can discredit 'abiogenesis', then the Bible is true?

No, it means that if you can discredit abiogenesis, the theism is true.

No.This is the common fallacy of Theism. You at least get thatbit doesn't get get us to a particular religion (in fact Creationists get that but say they Believe it is Biblegod) but it does not get us to Theism, but "We don't know". This is the faithbased fallacy Theism makes and which invalidates all their arguments from the start. And they can never understand this.

Your question insinuates a binary proposition. Is it possible to continue to explore the concept of 'deism' without also having to accept what looks to be obvious claims generated from religious propaganda and/or dogma (i.e.) the Gospels?

Sure, deism is still a step above atheism, isn't it?

It's a denialist faithbased irrationality short of it, you mean. But we goddless can at least communicate with them.

As I've told you before, I have not studied abiogenesis enough to hold any position. Maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't? If you can demonstrate it is nonsense, then maybe you will be next in line for a prize?

Yeah, my point exactly.

If you put half the time and energy to focus/study stuff like abiogenesis, as you do trying to tear down and discredit Christianity...then maybe your scope of knowledge will be less biased and more open-minded.

I could say the same about you. And all the anti -evolutionists. I don't claim to be an expert but I know that it has more going for it as a hypothesis than God -creation does. But there is also a hypothetivcal mechanism how it could happen. Biochemical replication = Life, which Theists/Creationists can never understand or just push away. Theist creation has nothing but wave a magic wand.

Sure, just apply faith to all 'supernatural' claims. But then I would also have to accept ALL religions, not just the one for which you have opted to 'apologize' for....

You would also have to accept abiogenesis, which is a default religion/position of atheist.

The only 'fault' here is the theist projecting their own religious thinking (fallacious,illogical and and irrational) onto science, secularism and atheism. It is either misunderstanding or deliberate smearing and I'm not asking which. Science is a method (universal, unlike religions. Even Muslims and Hindus do science the same as the West) and the database of information is the basis for atheist argument. Religions rely on faith and denial of science where it conflicts. Atheism and science are not a religion. Christianity and Creationism are religious.
[/quote]

[SiNcE_1985]

Another baseless rubberstamp. I'm not going to explain, again, because you will either likely still not actually get it, or, pretend not to.

Not buying it, and not getting it are two different things.

So that must be it for why Richard Carrier doesnt buy The Resurrection!
https://infidels.org/library/modern/ric ... urrection/

Richard Carrier? Who is that?

Ohh, I remember.

Isn't that the guy who got spanked up, down, and around the stage by William Lane Craig in their public debate titled "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"

Yes, that's him.

RC took a terrible lost. Just terrible.

Poor guy has never been the same since.

Isn't that also the guy that got intellectually slapped around by the Black apologist and Pastor Damon Richardson in their video debate titled "Did Jesus Exist".

Yes, I believe that is him as well.

....

I said all that to say this..

We (Christian apologists) are out here.

We are warriors for Christ and when you go against us, you cannot win because we have the backing of higher powers and forces..

Of which you cannot possibly comprehend.

[SiNcE_1985]

This is a windup right? There is nothing but denial.

Well, when you've repeated the same thing X amount of times, sometimes you just gotta disagree and move on.

i don't recall what your response was but the last person who said (posted) that to me had already had their response debunked.

You are either purposefully misrepresenting my argument, or still do not get what I am saying.

And clearly without force and in fact denied by the evidence. We know (or I know at least) from the evidence in the text that Luke altered and shifted about stuff to suit himself and in all reason made stuff up.How could the most memorable parab;le have been ignored by the others?He wrote them himself.

I've already addressed this..and as far as I'm concerned, my point stands.

If Luke was saying what was true (as you claim) that makes all the other wrong. The nativities are terminally contrary and nif Luke's is right, Matthew's is wrong. But Luke's makes no real sense so the evidence is (in reason) both are inveneted and not true. And that's the take away fromgospel contradiction.

I need specifics.

The specifics you put forth prior (Galilee/Jerusalem) was already addressed and I haven't seen any reason why my explanation isn't valid.

So, it stands as a possible explanation.

Now, if you have anything new to add it, or a new issue to raise altogether then let's hear it.

If not, time to move along.

Sure just as Creationists not understanding evolution and understanding it but lying about it are two different things, but neither do them much credit.

The truth about evolution in itself is so absurd that we don't have to lie about it.

One could also argue that we know that Alexander was a real person from the coin images, inscriptions, statues and cities names after him and the historical accounts, even though there are things in the histories (like the Gordian knot) that we might not credit. As you say we hardly buy the supernatural claims he made about himself.

Jesus did more than just make claims...he made the sick well, the blind see, the lame walk, defied physics, rose from the dead.

There will be a day when all of these "Greats" will stand before Jesus, and bow before him.

So while I do find some clues that Jesus was a real person. I do not buy the supernatural stories about him and there are no contemporary images of him, no credible extra - Biblical attestations (whatever Bible apologists might tell you) and in fact nothing outside the Bible.

What we have of Jesus, is enough for us (believers).

So AiG trumps Jesus in credibility even though I think both were real people.

Millions of people wake up every day and give praises to who? Jesus Christ...not Alexander

Millions of people join together in fellowship everyweek together..in honor of and worship of who? Jesus Christ...not Alexander

Holidays were created in honor of and commemorated because of who? Jesus Christ...not Alexander.

No man, nor any created entity or deity, can hold a candle to Jesus Christ.

We are mere ants, while Jesus is the sun (Son).

Sun/Son <---hey, that's a double entendre

No.This is the common fallacy of Theism. You at least get thatbit doesn't get get us to a particular religion (in fact Creationists get that but say they Believe it is Biblegod) but it does not get us to Theism, but "We don't know". This is the faithbased fallacy Theism makes and which invalidates all their arguments from the start. And they can never understand this.

"We know, if we want to know".

I could say the same about you. And all the anti -evolutionists. I don't claim to be an expert but I know that it has more going for it as a hypothesis than God -creation does.

I can see why you would believe that.

But there is also a hypothetivcal mechanism how it could happen. Biochemical replication = Life, which Theists/Creationists can never understand or just push away. Theist creation has nothing but wave a magic wand.

We understand. We just don't accept.

The only 'fault' here is the theist projecting their own religious thinking (fallacious,illogical and and irrational) onto science, secularism and atheism. It is either misunderstanding or deliberate smearing and I'm not asking which. Science is a method (universal, unlike religions. Even Muslims and Hindus do science the same as the West) and the database of information is the basis for atheist argument. Religions rely on faith and denial of science where it conflicts. Atheism and science are not a religion. Christianity and Creationism are religious.

Not gonna go down this rabbit hole (respectfully).

[TRANSPONDER]

This is a windup right? There is nothing but denial.

Well, when you've repeated the same thing X amount of times, sometimes you just gotta disagree and move on.

i don't recall what your response was but the last person who said (posted) that to me had already had their response debunked.

You are either purposefully misrepresenting my argument, or still do not get what I am saying.

And clearly without force and in fact denied by the evidence. We know (or I know at least) from the evidence in the text that Luke altered and shifted about stuff to suit himself and in all reason made stuff up.How could the most memorable parab;le have been ignored by the others?He wrote them himself.

I've already addressed this..and as far as I'm concerned, my point stands.

If Luke was saying what was true (as you claim) that makes all the other wrong. The nativities are terminally contrary and nif Luke's is right, Matthew's is wrong. But Luke's makes no real sense so the evidence is (in reason) both are inveneted and not true. And that's the take away fromgospel contradiction.

I need specifics.

The specifics you put forth prior (Galilee/Jerusalem) was already addressed and I haven't seen any reason why my explanation isn't valid.

So, it stands as a possible explanation.

Now, if you have anything new to add it, or a new issue to raise altogether then let's hear it.

If not, time to move along.

Sure just as Creationists not understanding evolution and understanding it but lying about it are two different things, but neither do them much credit.

The truth about evolution in itself is so absurd that we don't have to lie about it.

One could also argue that we know that Alexander was a real person from the coin images, inscriptions, statues and cities names after him and the historical accounts, even though there are things in the histories (like the Gordian knot) that we might not credit. As you say we hardly buy the supernatural claims he made about himself.

Jesus did more than just make claims...he made the sick well, the blind see, the lame walk, defied physics, rose from the dead.

There will be a day when all of these "Greats" will stand before Jesus, and bow before him.

So while I do find some clues that Jesus was a real person. I do not buy the supernatural stories about him and there are no contemporary images of him, no credible extra - Biblical attestations (whatever Bible apologists might tell you) and in fact nothing outside the Bible.

What we have of Jesus, is enough for us (believers).

So AiG trumps Jesus in credibility even though I think both were real people.

Millions of people wake up every day and give praises to who? Jesus Christ...not Alexander

Millions of people join together in fellowship everyweek together..in honor of and worship of who? Jesus Christ...not Alexander

Holidays were created in honor of and commemorated because of who? Jesus Christ...not Alexander.

No man, nor any created entity or deity, can hold a candle to Jesus Christ.

We are mere ants, while Jesus is the sun (Son).

Sun/Son <---hey, that's a double entendre

No.This is the common fallacy of Theism. You at least get thatbit doesn't get get us to a particular religion (in fact Creationists get that but say they Believe it is Biblegod) but it does not get us to Theism, but "We don't know". This is the faithbased fallacy Theism makes and which invalidates all their arguments from the start. And they can never understand this.

"We know, if we want to know".

I could say the same about you. And all the anti -evolutionists. I don't claim to be an expert but I know that it has more going for it as a hypothesis than God -creation does.

I can see why you would believe that.

But there is also a hypothetical mechanism how it could happen. Biochemical replication = Life, which Theists/Creationists can never understand or just push away. Theist creation has nothing but wave a magic wand.

We understand. We just don't accept.

The only 'fault' here is the theist projecting their own religious thinking (fallacious,illogical and and irrational) onto science, secularism and atheism. It is either misunderstanding or deliberate smearing and I'm not asking which. Science is a method (universal, unlike religions. Even Muslims and Hindus do science the same as the West) and the database of information is the basis for atheist argument. Religions rely on faith and denial of science where it conflicts. Atheism and science are not a religion. Christianity and Creationism are religious.

Not gonna go down this rabbit hole (respectfully).

Following complaints about my inexpertise about quoting I shall revert to block response. which is not specific but really your post was more needle an atheist than make a point. Disagree and move on when fe3d through Google translate Theist - English comes out 'Deny everything and claim a draw if not a win". Just as 'let's agree to differ' translates as 'My claim is as good as yours' when on the evidence it is not. It is frankly a cheat. The iconic vid is the Black Knight who after losing arms and legs says "All right, we'll call it a draw".

I don't recall I discusses the nativities with anyone let alone you but here it is.

Luke says Joseph was in Nazareth Matthew evidently has then ion Bethlehem because they plan to go back there after Egypt and are instructed to relocate, picking Nazareth.
After the birth, and rites they go back to Nazareth in Luke but in Matthew they go to Egypt until Herod is dead and then, as I said, plan to return to Judea.

There is no sense in the trip to Bethlehem to sign on anyway. Galilee was not under Roman rule, so any taxes would be paid by Joseph to Antipas.

There's other nonsense about Matthew as if the mobile star wasn't daft enough, but that is contradiction and Luke's mechanism to wangle Jesus into Bethlehem is nonsense. Even with the Egyptian census document, people signed on where they lived and worked, not some ancestral city - if they even knew which it was. And the only reason to take his wife along is to have Jesus born there. Hook or crook.

Any other creationist denial of evolution would be unimaginative and shortsighted if it was not denialist to start off with. You are right that the truth about is is 'absurd'or may seem so to the uninformed. The fact is that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine (Fred Hoyle said that, I believe) and just because it makes no sense (what about quantum does?) does not make it untrue. Lack of evidence makes it untenable and that is what Creationism, the Bible and Christianity has lack of. Evolution has it in truckloads whether Creationists reject it or not.

So now you say you DO understand Abiogenesis. You just don't accept it it. It isn't Believe or not - another logical (or illogical) trap theist fall into. It has better evidence and your denialist rejection of that earns you nothing but showing a closed mind.

The faithclaim about Jesus healing anybody is as 'absurd' as the one about everyone grovelling before Jesus god. I am no more worried about that as you are about quaking before Allah.

I was thinking of prerefuting appeal to numbers about Alexander. You leaped up at that like one of Pavlov's dogs. The fact is that Millions believe in Buddhism or Hinduism and you don't, so millions believing in Jesus means nothing; evidence means everything about credibility, and Alexander has more than Jesus Sorry

respectfully or not, refusal to 'go down a rabbit hole'means you know you lose, so you avoid such argument. Congratulations on discrediting yourself.

[POI]

I simply disagree. Moving along.

Since you are into rubberstamps, here's a befitting one for you... nuh-uh defense.

Already responded to this.

Anyone can "respond". Just like above, with your proverbial nuh-uh, is also technically a "response". But in a debate, such schoolyard tactics fail.

You insinuated that Luke spiced the narrative, to push his own agenda....insinuating that he deliberately fabricated his account from the original. And my response to this was; Luke's narrative could have been spiced, but with the truth...still pushing his own truthful agenda. It ain't rocket science and my point was clearly made.

If you had watched the video, you would clearly know the position. Heck, we may have even saved many responses. I've also told you, more than once. "Luke" copies "Mark" in spots, (word-for-word). In this regard, these parts of "Luke" are nothing more than 'Luke' being a 15th century printing press, simply issuing more copies of 'Mark'. In other spots, 'Luke' changes the narrative (a lot), by placing Jesus in differing places at differing times - (verses Mark), etc... 'Luke' does this to 'correct' "Mark's" narrative, not instead to merely compliment it. You see, the Gospel of "Mark" wasn't going to convert people. It did not favor Romans or align enough with OT prophecy. 'Luke' needed a storyline which 'fulfills' OT prophecy, and also paints the Romans into a better light. It's clear 'Luke' is nothing more than a complete plagiarism of "Mark", with clearly added fabrication to twist the given narrative to intended taste. And wouldn't you know it, emperor Constantine ultimately legalized "Christianity", making it the thing to do -- in having faith that a dude rose, after rotting in a grave for 1-3 days. With the "help" of other 'Gospels' as well, and with enough manipulation and fabrication, viola, a new official religion is birthed; which was later brought to the west. And now we get to enjoy Christian apologetics, here to offer up countless amounts of 'spin', in addressing the OP topic. Weeeeee! But it is entertaining to read, I must admit...

Not buying it, and not getting it are two different things.

And you are clearly not getting it. The genetic fallacy charge is completely unwarranted and unfounded. I've already explained why, ad nauseum.

Um, I know AtG was not the son of Zeus, based on the background information I have that Jesus is the Son of God (Yahweh). So, the claims/deeds of Jesus invalids the claims of AtG or any Greek mythology.

Here is exactly what you stated in (post 230) --> "supernatural stuff will only need more if you are already against the idea of supernatural stuff." All your response demonstrates, is that you merely favor one unfalsifiable claim over another. They both claim to be the son of a God.

Ok, and the last question before I drive the point home...

LOL! The only point you are driving home here is that you know the (4) Gospels are filled with hot steaming garbage. Why? Well, I would try and re-write Benchwarmer's summation, from post 131, but there has been no need... Hence, the reason you need to redirect to "Saul". If you finally admit the Gospels are B.S., then sure, we can then move over to the other thread about Paul.

No, it means that if you can discredit abiogenesis, the theism is true.

You demonstrate to be quite narrow minded. It's not this binary.

Sure, deism is still a step above atheism, isn't it?

They are all apples and oranges. They do not relate. A deist can believe this deity no longer exists, and/or, had/has no care about us here on earth.

Yeah, my point exactly.

If you put half the time and energy to focus/study stuff like abiogenesis, as you do trying to tear down and discredit Christianity...then maybe your scope of knowledge will be less biased and more open-minded.

If I should find out abiogenesis and evolutionary biology are false, I will not turn to the Bible. The Bible is B.S. on it's own merits. That's my point.

You would also have to accept abiogenesis, which is a default religion/position of atheist.

You missed my point. You could not pick and choose faith positions. You would instead have to accept them ALL. If you discard some faith positions, then they are no longer in FAITH positions, because you instead apply reason/logic to reject them. In this context, because I understand faith has more than one use, faith is incompatible with reason/logic.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes.It'sclear what the problem is here. Assuming that Bioblegod/Christianity is the default unless atheism/evolution is proven to the hilt. It is the fallacy of assuming the claim as a given, simply because it's been taught for thousand years and more.

As I said, if evolution were disproved, then 'God' would not be the logical default, but "We don'tknow" would be the defaulr, letalone any particular god and religion. Deism, yes, while it is usually irreligious theism in effect, it could theoretically claim that God made it all and then vanished, but I imagine most would prefer some excuses as to why this god doesn't intervene.

Here is exactly what you stated in (post 230) --> "supernatural stuff will only need more if you are already against the idea of supernatural stuff." All your response demonstrates, is that you merely favor one unfalsifiable claim over another. They both claim to be the son of a God.

We can see through this to the idea that 'God' is the default. Any more than the claim is only required if one does not believe the claim. As the vid on closed mind (I'll post it again - some -one might watch it ) It is not the atheist that needs to ask for less evidence but the believer who needs to ask for more.



I sometimes wonder whether the lampshade story is real, but it does illustrate the idea - jumping to conclusions and insisting it be accepted as evidence for the supernatural (eg, NDEs where it was demanded it be accepted as evidence for heaven before any research was done) is not open -minded, it is biased to acept the supernatural or at least over - gullible.

Another thing I had to doubt is the example of someone ranting about the author'sclosed mind until 'when they listened carefully' they realised that was not what he was saying.

"Listen carefully" is what theist apologists in my experience are incapable of doing. "Rehearsing their prejudices" is on the other hand Justified and praiseworthy.If is called "fighting for the Faith".

Quite apart from unknowns (like Cosmic origins which as a theist apologetic is powered by assuming a god as the default -theory) faith- based theism can be presented with evidence for (e.g) evolution, Daniel written just before the Maccabean war and one of the nativities having to be wrong and probably both is rejected. It is so often not a choice of the more probable theory but insisting the theory or claim far less probable is not debunked by evidence is considered the default on Faith and all evidence is rejected on any pretext or just none.

[SiNcE_1985]

Since you are into rubberstamps, here's a befitting one for you... nuh-uh defense.

Which is still more than what you've given me.

Anyone can "respond". Just like above, with your proverbial nuh-uh, is also technically a "response". But in a debate, such schoolyard tactics fail.

Yeah, you get a nun-uh response after paragraph upon paragraph have been dedicated to debunking your arguments and yet you've somehow remained lost in the sauce.

If you had watched the video, you would clearly know the position.

Dont know which is more important to you..

The viewing of the video..

or..

The reading of benchwarmer's post.

I shall do neither, because..

A. Anyone can post a video supporting their position..

B. If I find anything from benchwarmer worthy of my attention, then I'll address it.

I don't need your references (respectfully).

Heck, we may have even saved many responses. I've also told you, more than once. "Luke" copies "Mark" in spots, (word-for-word). In this regard, these parts of "Luke" are nothing more than 'Luke' being a 15th century printing press, simply issuing more copies of 'Mark'. In other spots, 'Luke' changes the narrative (a lot), by placing Jesus in differing places at differing times - (verses Mark), etc... 'Luke' does this to 'correct' "Mark's" narrative, not instead to merely compliment it. You see, the Gospel of "Mark" wasn't going to convert people. It did not favor Romans or align enough with OT prophecy. 'Luke' needed a storyline which 'fulfills' OT prophecy, and also paints the Romans into a better light. It's clear 'Luke' is nothing more than a complete plagiarism of "Mark", with clearly added fabrication to twist the given narrative to intended taste.

Again, I've already addressed this. My answer will not change.

Ok, Luke favored the Romans.

I get it.

I responded to it.

You haven't added anything new of which offers a defeater of my answer.

Luke favors the Romans.

Cool.

I get it.

Moving on.

And wouldn't you know it, emperor Constantine ultimately legalized "Christianity", making it the thing to do -- in having faith that a dude rose, after rotting in a grave for 1-3 days.

Ohhh, the ole "Constantine" bit

The problem with it is simple; Christianity was already in full effect by the time Constantine came to power in the 3rd century CE.

Sure, the emperor tolerating Christianity didn't hurt, but Christianity had already swept the Roman empire by then.

Skeptics appeal to the whole Constantine thing as a way to put cherry on the top of their argument...or they appeal to it as a filler...and it falls flat every time.

I know the game, and watch it unfold.

With the "help" of other 'Gospels' as well, and with enough manipulation and fabrication, viola, a new official religion is birthed; which was later brought to the west. And now we get to enjoy Christian apologetics, here to offer up countless amounts of 'spin', in addressing the OP topic. Weeeeee! But it is entertaining to read, I must admit...

Genetic fallacy.

And you are clearly not getting it. The genetic fallacy charge is completely unwarranted and unfounded. I've already explained why, ad nauseum.

Yet, you just committed it.

The only thing unfounded is your charge of any Gospel being fabricated or was authored via manipulation.

Unfounded and history don't support it.

Here is exactly what you stated in (post 230) --> "supernatural stuff will only need more if you are already against the idea of supernatural stuff." All your response demonstrates, is that you merely favor one unfalsifiable claim over another. They both claim to be the son of a God.

I also stated that anyone can claim anything..and with Jesus, it wasn't just the claims...but rather, the actions behind the claims.

That is the difference between a 5'2 guy just merely claiming he can dunk a basketball, and the guy claiming it, and then actually doing it.

LOL! The only point you are driving home here is that you know the (4) Gospels are filled with hot steaming garbage.

If I knew it, I would be on your side of things.

But I'm not on your side, am I?

Why? Well, I would try and re-write Benchwarmer's summation, from post 131, but there has been no need... Hence, the reason you need to redirect to "Saul". If you finally admit the Gospels are B.S., then sure, we can then move over to the other thread about Paul.

Um, no.

You rejected the Gospels, so moved to Paul.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Because as you were about to find out (had you actually answered the question), my point can be made just as effective with Paul.

But, you blatantly dodged the question...a kind of "dodge" that would make even Stellantis proud.

They are all apples and oranges. They do not relate. A deist can believe this deity no longer exists, and/or, had/has no care about us here on earth.

Yeah, but deism it is still a form of theism.

"A deist believes this deity no longer exists"

Makes no sense.

If I should find out abiogenesis and evolutionary biology are false, I will not turn to the Bible. The Bible is B.S. on it's own merits. That's my point.

Fine.

But if abiogenesis is negated, then theism is the only game left in town..as the origins of life must still be explained..and if not naturally, then what else is there?

You missed my point. You could not pick and choose faith positions. You would instead have to accept them ALL. If you discard some faith positions, then they are no longer in FAITH positions, because you instead apply reason/logic to reject them. In this context, because I understand faith has more than one use, faith is incompatible with reason/logic.

?