• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

By Faith. Why?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So says the atheist...called a 'fool' by God! [Psalms 14 and 53]

It's just a pity you haven't taken the time to check these things out. Luke, whose role is one of historian and recorder, says exactly what his undertaking involved:

Acts 1:1-3. 'The former treatise [the Gospel of Luke] have l made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began to do and teach.
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:'

Now l hope the sceptics on RF read these words carefully because Luke talks about 'many infallible proofs'. To whom were these infallible proofs shown? Luke doesn't claim to be the eyewitness, he claims to be the record writer. Clearly, it was the apostles who witnesses the events. And how many apostles were there? There were 12 apostles who spent time with the risen Lord, and to each one of these apostles Jesus' resurrection became an 'infallible proof'.

There were, of course, others who saw the resurrected Lord, for in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, Paul says, 'he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto the present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time.'

Is it now sinking in? Can you not see that Luke is acting as the historian, and he is using information given to him by men and women who were eyewitnesses to the events recorded.

What you, Shunydragon, and others are trying to do is suggest that Luke's record is just a 'subjective' account, whereas it is nothing of the sort. It's a treatise, in which he has gathered the relevant evidence from a wide range of sources.

What sits alongside Luke's two orderly records [Luke and Acts] are other 'eyewitness' Gospel records. Matthew was an apostle. John Mark accompanied Peter and acted as his scribe. John was the 'beloved' disciple who was asked by Jesus to look after Mary, his mother.

At the end of John's Gospel it says, 'This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.'

So the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and by Luke, who acted as an historian for the early Church.

In Josephus, we have a Jewish historian whose own history covers the times recorded in the Gospels and in Acts. When the two are compared, there is remarkable agreement, with Josephus providing credence to the Biblical testimony.
Sorry, God is not that stupid. The Bible has a strawman version of atheism too. That only confirms that it is a work of man. Not of God.

But let's get back to who wrote the largely mythical accounts of Jesus. First off the author of Luke was almost certainly jot Luke. The name was given to the book in the second century. The work itself is anonymous and even states that it is not an eyewitness account. You misread it if you think that it was. Second, that book has one of the biggest errors in the whole Bible. It implies that Jesus was born around 4 BCE, but then states quite clearly that Jesus was born in 6 CE. Your quote from Acts does not describe an eyewitness event. Why did you even quote it?

The epistle of James may have been written by James, but it says very little about Jesus. It is rather short. Most scholars now seem to think that it may have been written by a man under the name of James. But even if it was the James, not another James, and not pseodonymous, it still is very weak. He says practically nothing of Jesus. How do you think that this helps you? No miracles, no resurrection story. Jesus could just be a man as far as James' writing goes.

Epistle of James - Wikipedia


And Paul was not an eyewitness. He describes no eyewitness events.

So once again, where are your eyewitnesses?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Sorry, God is not that stupid. The Bible has a strawman version of atheism too. That only confirms that it is a work of man. Not of God.

But let's get back to who wrote the largely mythical accounts of Jesus. First off the author of Luke was almost certainly jot Luke. The name was given to the book in the second century. The work itself is anonymous and even states that it is not an eyewitness account. You misread it if you think that it was. Second, that book has one of the biggest errors in the whole Bible. It implies that Jesus was born around 4 BCE, but then states quite clearly that Jesus was born in 6 CE. Your quote from Acts does not describe an eyewitness event. Why did you even quote it?

The epistle of James may have been written by James, but it says very little about Jesus. It is rather short. Most scholars now seem to think that it may have been written by a man under the name of James. But even if it was the James, not another James, and not pseodonymous, it still is very weak. He says practically nothing of Jesus. How do you think that this helps you? No miracles, no resurrection story. Jesus could just be a man as far as James' writing goes.

Epistle of James - Wikipedia


And Paul was not an eyewitness. He describes no eyewitness events.

So once again, where are your eyewitnesses?
You have a habit of regurgitating the same nonsense without regard to evidence.

Can you name me one historian that you believe provides us with reliable history?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
NOT from the fallible human perspective. Our perspective is diverse conflicting and subjective IF God exists. Objectivity concerning God can only be from God's perspective.

I believe by faith that a Universal 'Source' some call God{s} and by various other names. I do not believe God is an 'object.'
So, you accept that objectivity can only truly exist from God's perspective. Does it not follow that we can only receive revelation of universal truth (objective truth) by faith?

If one connects the two, and recognizes that God is only known by faith, how do you think we are to distinguish between the true prophet and the false?

It is the prophet that receives revelation direct from God (by faith), and it is the prophetic writings of prophets that are claimed as evidence of God's messages.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
So says the atheist...called a 'fool' by God! [Psalms 14 and 53]

It's just a pity you haven't taken the time to check these things out. Luke, whose role is one of historian and recorder, says exactly what his undertaking involved:

Acts 1:1-3. 'The former treatise [the Gospel of Luke] have l made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began to do and teach.
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:'

Now l hope the sceptics on RF read these words carefully because Luke talks about 'many infallible proofs'. To whom were these infallible proofs shown? Luke doesn't claim to be the eyewitness, he claims to be the record writer. Clearly, it was the apostles who witnesses the events. And how many apostles were there? There were 12 apostles who spent time with the risen Lord, and to each one of these apostles Jesus' resurrection became an 'infallible proof'.

There were, of course, others who saw the resurrected Lord, for in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, Paul says, 'he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto the present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time.'

Is it now sinking in? Can you not see that Luke is acting as the historian, and he is using information given to him by men and women who were eyewitnesses to the events recorded.

What you, Shunydragon, and others are trying to do is suggest that Luke's record is just a 'subjective' account, whereas it is nothing of the sort. It's a treatise, in which he has gathered the relevant evidence from a wide range of sources.

What sits alongside Luke's two orderly records [Luke and Acts] are other 'eyewitness' Gospel records. Matthew was an apostle. John Mark accompanied Peter and acted as his scribe. John was the 'beloved' disciple who was asked by Jesus to look after Mary, his mother.

At the end of John's Gospel it says, 'This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.'

So the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and by Luke, who acted as an historian for the early Church.

In Josephus, we have a Jewish historian whose own history covers the times recorded in the Gospels and in Acts. When the two are compared, there is remarkable agreement, with Josephus providing credence to the Biblical testimony.

Cute that you think that we are all fools so
you are automatically always right.

All your amazing proofs add up to exactly
nothing.

It's no way different than Joseph Smith
and his gold books.
Eye witness testimony? The people who
saw the books swore before God and signed
their names.

Has that sunk in? Ha.

Bet you've never read " Joseph Smith
Tells His Own Story" or the witness' testimony.

Oh, and of course LDS use the same book that
refers to fools.

Who is the fool, you or the Mormons?
Ask one so you can point at eachother.

Atheists will point at both of you.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
So, you accept that objectivity can only truly exist from God's perspective. Does it not follow that we can only receive revelation of universal truth (objective truth) by faith?

If one connects the two, and recognizes that God is only known by faith, how do you think we are to distinguish between the true prophet and the false?

It is the prophet that receives revelation direct from God (by faith), and it is their prophetic writings that are claimed as evidence of God's messages.
Joseph Smith got his revelation
from angels sent by God.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If you believe life has a purpose. You have to be motivated to own a realised humans review then question it.

Based on everything you see and all contradictions past and present.

I did. I was unsure if our life owned a meaning when you see all of the abuses.

So I asked out loud.

Why would I? Ask out loud or ask myself a question that life itself motivated me to ask?

Hence I'm told I'm woman I'm nasty evil to blame for man's human hurt. Living with men portraying superiority as just other humans.

I'm born a baby. My mother bares the birth of Boys and girls. I see her. I see her pain love caring nurturing.

So I asked what did a woman really do wrong. You can't say sex as men have to forcibly penetrate a virgin of unknown female previous sexual expression.

I reviewed the advice and it said what is life's wrong history.

Men theists. Science talk. False women themes such as space was a womb. Lifes bio attack. Loss of mind consciousness including hearing of voice.

I knew then why I asked out loud. As voices answer and they are not my own.

So I trusted my motivations were pure. As life as I saw it was evilly destructive only in human choices and beliefs.

Who would save us. We seem to be failing.

I heard our fathers voice.

When I was being biological heavens changed and hurt... I heard his voice. He said my name. He said I belonged to him.

I didn't expect it. I wasn't looking for it. In fact I didn't believe in any concept I had not yet experienced.

The love I could feel and the changes my conscious self felt aren't just everyday used feelings I knew I loved my husband and realised I did one day despite all of our problems.

Yet that feeling of a husband's love was nothing like I felt with father. I knew why other humans said he was holy.

The emotional feelings real.

I now live in a faith of his love for me that guides me by the advice I am given. As I don't think it. It's given direct. And the advice isn't just for my life.

It's about family. Reunification via denouncing all known human chosen evils against family.

I trusted his guidance. I learnt I don't need to fear personal challenge. It's about family not just myself.

I don't believe in calling him god. As I know a human did not create creation. I know him as father. And not a small father. In fact he seems quite large.

So whilst you may argue what is god. I own no reason to argue who is a father.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Joseph Smith got his revelation
from angels sent by God.
And his revelation does not add to our knowledge of the Lord.

So, maybe we need some pointers that help us to distinguish the true prophet from the false.

My first suggestion is to have corroboration from others. Two witnesses must be better than one.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
If you believe life has a purpose. You have to be motivated to own a realised humans review then question it.

Based on everything you see and all contradictions past and present.

I did. I was unsure if our life owned a meaning when you see all of the abuses.

So I asked out loud.

Why would I? Ask out loud or ask myself a question that life itself motivated me to ask?

Hence I'm told I'm woman I'm nasty evil to blame for man's human hurt. Living with men portraying superiority as just other humans.

I'm born a baby. My mother bares the birth of Boys and girls. I see her. I see her pain love caring nurturing.

So I asked what did a woman really do wrong. You can't say sex as men have to forcibly penetrate a virgin of unknown female previous sexual expression.

I reviewed the advice and it said what is life's wrong history.

Men theists. Science talk. False women themes such as space was a womb. Lifes bio attack. Loss of mind consciousness including hearing of voice.

I knew then why I asked out loud. As voices answer and they are not my own.

So I trusted my motivations were pure. As life as I saw it was evilly destructive only in human choices and beliefs.

Who would save us. We seem to be failing.

I heard our fathers voice.

When I was being biological heavens changed and hurt... I heard his voice. He said my name. He said I belonged to him.

I didn't expect it. I wasn't looking for it. In fact I didn't believe in any concept I had not yet experienced.

The love I could feel and the changes my conscious self felt aren't just everyday used feelings I knew I loved my husband and realised I did one day despite all of our problems.

Yet that feeling of a husband's love was nothing like I felt with father. I knew why other humans said he was holy.

The emotional feelings real.

I now live in a faith of his love for me that guides me by the advice I am given. As I don't think it. It's given direct. And the advice isn't just for my life.

It's about family. Reunification via denouncing all known human chosen evils against family.

I trusted his guidance. I learnt I don't need to fear personal challenge. It's about family not just myself.

I don't believe in calling him god. As I know a human did not create creation. I know him as father. And not a small father. In fact he seems quite large.

So whilst you may argue what is god. I own no reason to argue who is a father.
I've not heard you say these things before.

When did you begin to speak to your 'father' and experience his love?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I've not heard you say these things before.

When did you begin to speak to your 'father' and experience his love?
After I had been heavenly biologically attacked.

And I don't mean my biological sexual father. As father spoke to me as an American Indian father.

I have said before I had visions like large dream scapes of advices as historic. Stated by what information was detailed in the vision.

I heard a females spiritually voiced study and crying mourning father's death at the hands of our science brothers historic.

Previous to that outcome my brother in law's memories said past male engineers were involved in the incident.

He comforts my personal grief and spiritual experience. He changed adapted my own negating behaviours that I was expressing. A position I thought impossible to overcome.

I feel his presence and authority without question. He listens to my anger and only assists me without any words of judgement.

I really would like him to be here with me as I need him. Yet I know he cannot. A varied list of personal sensed interactive conditions.

I don't talk about it as it's the information not the relationship that's important as we all belong with him.

I'm not religious and I try not to preach about the natural circumstance to love and be loved. Alive or otherwise it's true. And just for the satanic science community ..he's not a resource or electricity.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It's not me that matters. God's Word existed before l was born into this world, and will continue to exist after l depart. Truth is eternal.
You made the choice to deecide you
have access to "eternal truth".
So simple, choose to always be right.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
And his revelation does not add to our knowledge of the Lord.

So, maybe we need some pointers that help us to distinguish the true prophet from the false.

My first suggestion is to have corroboration from others. Two witnesses must be better than one.
Two? I can do better than that.
Testimony of Eight Witnesses

You think they swore to it before God, knowing it's a lie?

Christians go on about "who would die for a lie"
as proof, right ?

Here are people giving greater proof!
For lo, their presumptively immortal
SOULS are on the line to die if they lie!

Let THAT sink in.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
To shatter a meter? Nah.
That takes someone who can choose
to be wonderful.
No, l meant find an historian who is reliable.

As regards the irony, l think it's unjust of you to use the same evidence base for me and Subduction Zone. I made it clear in an earlier post that my evidence for God was the Bible. I have been consistent in referring to this source as my evidence.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So, you accept that objectivity can only truly exist from God's perspective. Does it not follow that we can only receive revelation of universal truth (objective truth) by faith?

No, because of extreme diverse and conflicting claims from the human perspective od receiving revelation of universal truth. The evidence is just simply not there concerning the claims of the conflicting claims that the determination cannot be objectively determined. There is no even reasonable evidence that Judaism, Christianity, Islam nor any other ancient religion fulfills the claim of being universal, because ALL reflect only the tribal and cultural view of their origins, and not the universal view of humanity..

In today's world where we can see all of the history of humanity and beyond how could the individual religions and/or churches make this claim?

If one connects the two, and recognizes that God is only known by faith, how do you think we are to distinguish between the true prophet and the false?

That is a good question, but nonetheless all of them could very well could be in some way false, because of the fallible limited human nature. The multitude of problems with every religionsand even individual churches and divisions, claiming to be the only universal true faith compounds the problem. That is in part why I assume a Universalist perspective as my foundation.

It is the prophet that receives revelation direct from God (by faith), and it is the prophetic writings of prophets that are claimed as evidence of God's messages.

True of all the diverse conflicting claims of the different religions and their divisions..
 
Last edited:
Top