Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you notice I don't blame science. That has it's rules and we can understand that they are rules for science.
I blame skeptics/atheists for saying the rules of science apply to everything and then roaming the world telling everyone that there is no evidence for God or for any religion.

Well, there is evidence for God. The problem is that mine is the correct one and you are so wrong. Or in reverse.

 

[Brian2]

Which apostles? Paul never saw Jesus, he only had visions. The only other apostles that the Bible even records are James and Judas. Even Peter's death is just Church tradition and not history. Some of it is on very shaky ground. So to claim that all but John were martyred is a claim that probably cannot be supported.

Paul claimed to be witness to Jesus in his vision and what he heard, but that was an epileptic fit or something wasn't it.
James witnessed Jesus, but that means nothing if you believe the Bible is all lies.
Saying "just church tradition" sounds like you do not respect that as containing any truth.
John's gospel, written late in the first century also alludes to the death of Peter also as being by crucifixion.
It seems that the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is common knowledge in the writings of the early church fathers and they are mentioned as if common knowledge.

 

[joelr]

The way you put it makes it sound clear cut, but it takes and lot of creativity and determination to see those savior demigods who died and rose again etc.
The stories no doubt came before Christianity but without saying that the OT was basically made up in the Exile, the prophecies about the Jewish Messiah who would die as savior and rise again are very old indeed, probably before most other Mediterranean stories that you claim are the same type (but which actually are not)

Judaism encountered messianic concepts when the Persians occupied, 630 B.C.
That is exactly how syncretism works. Each religion makes a new and unique version of the theology. Christianity is a Jewish version of Hellenism. But please explain how they are not alike.

These trends fit exactly into Christianity.


Basic Mystery cult, common features:


- Individuals “initiated” into the mysteries, ritually and by teaching sworn secrets about the universe. Something about the cosmos one needed to be saved, secrets. Many secrets are now lost.


- purpose was to gain salvation in the afterlife


- all use baptism and communion(communal meals)


- fictive kinship “brotherhood”

All Mystery religions have personal savior deities


- All saviors


- all son/daughter, never the supreme God (including Mithriasm)


- all undergo a passion (struggle) patheon


- all obtain victory over death which they share with followers


- all have stories set on earth


- none actually existed


- Is Jesus the exception and based on a real Jewish teacher or is it all made up?



Pagan /Jewish element, Judea-Pagan Syncretism


Pagan - Savior son of God


Jewish - Messianic resurrection cult


Pagan - Undergoes ordeal by which he obtains victory over death


Jewish - based on blood atonement theology (substitutionary sacrifice)


Pagan - which he shares with those initiated into his cult for individual salvation


Jewish - adapting Passover and Yom Kippur


Pagan - in a universal brotherhood


Jewish - first by circumsision, then without


Pagan - through a baptismal invitation and communal meal


Jewish - through a baptismal invitation and communal meal

Your evidence that Mark used the sources you mention comes from the presumption that Jesus is not real, that the gospel was made up, that it was inspired as fiction by some sources. IOW it is biased scholarship, circular reasoning.

Jesus may have been a real human Rabbi. The gospel version of Jesus has no evidence whatsoever. We don't just say Krishna or Zeus was real just because there are scriptures about them.
Mark IS fiction, it used fictive writing literary style, it uses fictive thematic development (Jesus scores almost a perfect score on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale) and there is undeniable evidence he used the OT, verbatim at times, at other times he clearly re-writes Elija, Moses, definitely re-writes Paul. The Chiasmus he made of one Epistles story is literally impossible to have happened that way in real life.

Again, there were earlier savior deities, dying/rising, baptism, communal meal, both nations who occupied Israel already had all the theology and now against all that evidence you want to say scholars are using fallacious reasoning by not concluding this demigod wasn't actually real? Do you really hear yourself here?

All I have is evidence while you have a story that you want to be real with no counter evidence?

But there is evidence Jesus existed even if none of the others did.

There is not.

The things in the writing of Mark which you call fictive writing devices also sound like they could be memory things used by Jesus so that His teaching would be remembered and easily passed on.

Sure and the things in the gospels of Hercules could also be memory devices. Mark is using Hellenistic theology and non-historical writing. And everything in Mark looks to be from other stories.
But this idea here is simply impossible. Besides it's so unlikely in light of all the obvious evidence, every gospel is different. Details change.
Matthew uses 97% of Mark verbatim but he changes key theology, wants a return to Judaism, and details are different, in all the Gospels.
There is no teaching being passed down. Stuff is being made up.

"Proper history"? is that with a bibliography or something?

Luke lets us know that he got his information from witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning.
And really I don't think you or anyone can say with certainty that "know" things which he says are not true when that is really no more than speculations based on the presumption that Luke made stuff up.
The extra bits that Luke adds (personal touches) have been said to reflect witness accounts, but some how you manage to need these things to be in other gospels or Paul or they are just lies.



He tells us his sources.
You are the one who claims he slavishly followed what was handed to him,,,,,,,,,,,, then you say that claim is a lie.

Luke is the first gospel to overtly represent itself as history. He adds superficial details as local color, attempts to date some events and includes a vague preface. He creates a resurrection narrative engineered to answer skeptics of Matthew's account, a tactic that "requires" his story to be true. This count is known to be a fabrication. No prior Gospel, or Paul, had ever heard of the peculiar and convenient details that suddenly make their first appearance in Luke, such as that Peter double-checked the womans claim that the tomb was empty and handled the burial shroud, or that Jesus showed disciples his wouonds and made sure the disciples touched him and fed him food to prove he wasn't a ghost, or that resurrected Jesus actually hung out and partied with dozens of his followers for over a month before flying into the clouds of heaven.
So we know Luke is making things up to sell a fake history, for purposes of winning an argument against doubters (both with and within Christianity, as his opponents included, for example, Christians with very different ideas about the nature of the resurrection).

Despite pretense at being a historian, preface and all, Luke's methods are demonstrably nonhistorical: he is not doing research, weighing facts, checking them against independent sources, and writing down what he thinks most likely happened. He is simply producing an expanded and redacted literary hybird of a couple of previous religious novels, each itself even more obviously constructed according to literary conventions rather than historiographical. Unlike other historians from Luke's era, he never names sources, explains why we are to trust them, or how he chose what he chose to include or exclude. In fact Luke does not even declare any critical method at all, but rather insists he slavishly followed what was handed to him - yet another claim we know to be a lie (since we have 2 of his sources and can confirm he freely altered them to suit his own agenda).

The early church fathers gave us quotes from what they considered authentic writings. This was before any "official" canon was done.
The main determination of the books seems to have been the apostolic proximity.

What early church fathers? You don't know the determination of the books? The 1st official canon was the Marcionite canon, completely unknown. Justin Martyr , Paul and Irenaeus have different versions of the OT books and do not know the Gospels by name.
You don't have anything resembling the modern canon until the 3rd century.
Gnosticism was 50% of Christians in the 2nd century. With all the wild speculation you are doing here, without any evidence to back it up, you could just as easily say the Gnostics are the correct Christians and what Jesus was actually preaching and the bishop wanted power and a church structure and messed it up because of greed.

In his letters he wanted only bishops of a bloodline to be able to read and teach, Gnostics were much more open. Sounds like they had it closer to the truth?
Islam as a nation knows the Gospel Jesus is a pagan creation. So does the 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr.
HE just claims the devil went back in time to make Greek deities look like Jesus to fool Christians. That pretty much says it all right there.


Justin Martyr, The Dialogue with Trypho,


Chapter 69. The devil, since he emulates the truth, has invented fables about Bacchus, Hercules, and Æsculapius


Justin: Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?

...
And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this."


Right, is that what happened? You don't think writers used Greek myths to create a Jewish version?

 

[joelr]

I don't have to be a big reader of scholarship to see the sort of reasoning in it.

No, actually you do.

It is anti supernatural and presumes that from the start (using the same naturalistic methodology that science does)
It presumes supernatural in scriptures is not true and works from there.

There you go, wrong already.
Did I timestamp this video?

Richard Carrier | Mystery Cults & Christianity

notice, he starts out explaining how to spot trends and where trends are and are not, and gives evidence. He starts out with evidence before going to more evidence. Nothing about anything supernatural.

Even if the supernatural was real, we would still have stories that were mythology. Roswell could still be a myth. Krishna could be a myth, Jesus could be a myth. This story is explained in every way, as a cultural syncretism, which we already know is HUGE and happens EVERYWHERE. So your proposition is, syncretism, which is happening everywhere all the time isn't what this is. Supernatural, which we have ZERO evidence of, have never seen or had the slightest shred of evidence, is what is happening here. Not only is it supernatural but it just happened to make itself look like a syncretic blend of cultures, perfectly, in every single way, every single thing is explained by people writing stories based on older stories, but this time it's still supernatural.
This is so absurd and unlikely I cannot quantify it.

Why does acceptance of the supernatural mean those people believe everything that claims to be from God?

Why would the Bible be assumed to be from a true God? Islam is more recent, has more original copies, is less pagan, is growing larger than Christianity. If you want to start making claims without evidence why can't Islam do the same?

I don't expect scholars to make a decision one way or the other about the truth of scriptures.

Historians can see it's a myth just like all other religions.

You seem to think that the anti supernatural bias of scholars is enough to say that no scriptures are true.

Then you haven't actually read one single post. For real, it's the opposite. How can you be so incorrect? Scholars use evidence. They do not use this made up bias at all? This is a thing you made up.
If there was evidence to believe in something supernatural then that would be considered.

Again, you have never answered the question, if scholars can assume supernatural tales are real in a Gospel why can't they assume Muhammad actually got messages from an angel?
Why can't they say "you know what, we believe in the supernatural, and Jesus predicted the temple destruction.........BUT then God sent an angel to Muhammad because the Jesus story was messed up. He DID predict the temple but the other stuff is PAGAN and he didn't resurrect, he was a prophet. God sent him and then sent Gabrielle to speak with Muhammad to clear things up. The bishops messed everything up with Pagan stories because they wanted power. But Gabrielle set it straight with Muhammad and Islam is the TRUE UPDATED TRUTH!" PRAISE ALLAH!!!!! All because we dropped this supernatural bias. Wow, so glad we cleared that up. Let's now tell the world governments that Islam should be the offical world religion. Because it IS the truth, it was written.


See, you don't want this to happen, you WANT evidence. You want belief based on empirical evidence and a logical and skeptical chain of reasoning in scholars and people who make the rules of the world. On a personal level you don't seem to but I don't buy this anti-supernatural bias at all because it doesn't just only work for you the way you want it.

You can say "oh no Islam isn't true", they may see it differently. Billions already do. Evidence and beliefs based on evidence are important.

They use baptism and communal means so none of them is true. Hmmm.

That is a small piece of evidence that Christianity is from Hellenism.

You don't know what I believe about Islam etc but presume it is hypocrisy.

They think you are a hypocrite and going to hell. Meanwhile secular humanists are interested in what can actually be demonstrated to be true, not what we wish were true.

Your "MASSIVE" evidence is really very thin when it is realised just how inventive your scholars have to be to see similarities in most cases.

It is massive. From the Genesis/Mesopotamian connections up to NT studies, all areas. It's massive.

Nothing is being invented. Name one thing. Go back to post 478 and tell me what is being invented in that lecture. What similarities are not really similar? And why. I don't think you actually watched the lecture. I didn't expect you to but now you are making absurd claims.
Here is a list of common features in dying/rising Gods, please tell me what is being invented to seem like a similarity?

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

When you realise that the idea that the Bible was invented in Exile is BS.

Yes OT scholars trace the beginning of the OT to about 600 B.C. You say it's "BS" but I don't hear any reason, see any evidence, see a link to a peer-reviewed paper?
This is becoming a flat earth debate. You just keep making claims and saying the evidence is weak. When you "realize"??????

When you realise that your scholars are starting with the idea that Jesus is non existent and working to try to show that to be true.

Face palm.

Ehrman believes in a historical Jesus.

Carrier and Lataster have peer-reviewed books examining the evidence to determine what is most probable? Carrier expected to confirm the historical consensus, a Jewish man named Jesus existed.
You have no idea because you don't even engage in reading about your own religion. There isn't any good evidence. As for actual demigods, no the secret is out, it's known that like Krishna, GAbrielle, Romulus, Osirus, there isn't any evidence AT ALL.

Apologists start out trying to prove Jesus is real. They ALREADY DO THAT. All NT theologians START OUT TO PROVE JESUS EXISTED AS A GOD????? That is what you do. What religious people do.
Historians just want what is true. From the start, it's not real. Genesis is nonsense, flat earth, cosmic waters with a closed gate to separate heaven, earth - th efirmament, it's complete nonsense AND it's a take on Mesopotamian creation and flood myths.
From there it doesn't get better. There is no evidence.

For years Christians have been saying this, it's a faith based belief, no evidence. Suddenly there is this new wave of apologists with Gary Habermas, Wallace, Ray Comfort, and they spread these lies about it's possible to make up evidence. They literally made up a publishing co yo pass papers so they could be called peer-reviewed and made up a journal for creationists.


Again, in the lecture, what does Carrier do? Look for evidence. There is no evidence it's real, stories are not evidence. So the best you can do is say Carrier is correct, it looks like a syncretic myth but that is just a coincidence because it's also real.
Which would mean Yahweh really finds it funny to mess with people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I blame skeptics/atheists for saying the rules of science apply to everything and then roaming the world telling everyone that there is no evidence for God or for any religion.

What can those who follow science, including many atheists, do, when there is no verifiable evidence for God or things that relate to that idea?

 

[joelr]

That, imv, is because you don't want it to be the same so you don't dig.

I like Hebrew scholar John Gill's exposition on it:

they pierced my hands and my feet;
by nailing them to the cross, which, though not related by the evangelists, is plainly suggested in ( John 20:25 John 20:27 ) ; and is referred to in other passages of Scripture, ( Zechariah 12:10 ) ( Revelation 1:7 ) ; and clearly points at the kind of death Christ should die; the death, of the cross, a shameful and painful one. In this clause there is a various reading; in some copies in the margin it is, "as a lion my hands and my feet", but in the text, "they have dug" or "pierced my hands and my feet"; both are joined together in the Targum, "biting as a lion my hands and my feet"; as it is by other interpreters F3; and Schultens F4 retains the latter, rendering the preceding clause in connection with it thus,




In the Targum, in the king of Spain's Bible, the phrase, "as a lion", is left out. The modern Jews are for retaining the marginal reading, though without any good sense, and are therefore sometimes charged with a wilful and malicious corruption of the text; but without sufficient proof, since the different reading in some copies might be originally occasioned by the similarity of the letters (y) and (w) ; and therefore finding it in their copies, or margin, sometimes (wrak) , and sometimes (yrak) , have chose that which best suits their purpose, and is not to be wondered at; however, their "masoretic" notes, continued by them, sufficiently clear them from such an imputation, and direct to the true reading of the words; in the small Masorah on the text it is observed that the word is twice used as here pointed, but in two different senses; this is one of the places; the other is ( Isaiah 38:13 ) ; where the sense requires it should be read "as a lion": wherefore, according to the authors of that note, it must have a different sense here, and not to be understood of a lion; the larger Masorah, in ( Numbers 24:9 ) ; observes the word is to be found in two places, in that place and in ( Psalms 22:16 ) ; and adds to that, it is written (wrak) , "they pierced"; and Ben Chayim confirms F5 this reading, and says he found it so written it, some correct copies, and in the margin (yrak) ; and so it is written in several manuscripts; and which is confirmed by the Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Greek, and Vulgate Latin versions; in which it is rendered, "they dug my hands and my feet"; and so took it to be a verb and not a noun: so Apollinarius in his metaphrase; and which is also confirmed by the points; though taking (yrak) for a participle, as the Targum, that reading may be admitted, as it is by some learned men F6, who render it "digging" or "piercing", and so has the same sense, deriving the word either from (rak) or (rwk) , which signify to dig, pierce, or make hollow; and there are many instances of plural words which end in (y) , the (m) omitted, being cut off by an apocope; see ( 2 Samuel 23:8 ) ( 2 Kings 11:4 2 Kings 11:19 ) ( Lamentations 3:14 ) ( Ezekiel 32:30 ) ; and either way the words are expressive of the same thing, and manifestly point to the sufferings of Christ, and that kind of death he should die, the death of the cross, and the nailing of his hands and feet to it, whereby they were pierced. This passage is sometimes applied by the Jews F7 themselves to their Messiah.
F7 Pesikta in Yalkut, par. 2. fol. 56. 4.

What?!?!?
He's not a Hebrew specialist? He's a theologian from BEFORE CRITICAL HISTORICAL STUDIES were even done on the Bible?????????????

John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a firm Calvinistic soteriology. Born in Kettering, Northamptonshire, he attended Kettering Grammar School where he mastered the Latin classics and learned Greek by age 11. He continued self-study in everything from logic to Hebrew, his love for the latter remaining throughout his life.

Why would you need to go to the 16th century when there are Hebrew Bible PhDs from Harvard giving Yale Divinity Lectures posted online for free??????? I don't dig? Dig for 16th century apologists who try to tell Jewish experts what their Bible "really" says?
All Jewish scholars say this passage has been altered to appear to predict Christ.
As does this paper from academia.edu

Naomi Koltun-Fromm | Haverford - Academia.edu

Scholar of Late Ancient Religion and Religious Communities

haverford.academia.edu

please go to :40 and listen to Rabbi Singer, a man who has dedicated his life to study of the Torah

Naomi Koltun-Fromm​

Scholar of Late Ancient Religion and Religious Communities

Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic1




Psalm 22 has been central to christological readings of the Hebrew Scriptures since the gospels were written, if not before. Allusions to Psalm 22 appear in all the gospels, but they are most prominent in John. For instance, while Jesus is on the cross, the soldiers divide his clothing among themselves and cast lots for his tunic. This transpires, according to John, in order to fulfill the scripture of Psalm 22.19: “They will divide my clothing among them and for the things that I wear they will throw lots” (John 19.23–4).2 In Mark, Matthew and Luke, the onlookers, both commoners and priests, mock Jesus and challenge him to save himself perhaps reflecting the psalmist’s claim (Psalm 22.7–8) that “All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads. He committed his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him.”3 In addition, in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew Jesus cries out the opening line of Psalm 22: “My God, my God why have you forsaken me.”4 Psalm 22’s tormented voice clearly speaks of the Passion to the gospel writers.

Later Christian writers, specifically Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Aphrahat, develop the gospels’ christological interpretation of this
psalm. Interestingly, these writers focus not on Psalm 22.1, 7–8 or 19, as the gospels do, but on Psalm 22.17. The third part of this verse, which is often translated as “They have pierced my hands and feet,” is fundamen- tal to these writers’ exegesis. This image of pierced limbs describes for them Jesus’ exclusive experience on the cross. Why is this seemingly appropriate image unknown to the gospel writers? Why do they dwell on the divided clothing, the mocking spectators and the cry of despair but not the pierced hands and feet? Finally, why do only several geographi- cally and linguistically diverse exegetes concentrate on the pierced hands and feet in the centuries beginning with Justin Martyr?
This paper will argue that Psalm 22.17’s exegetical development is intrinsically linked to early Jewish-Christian polemic and Christian self-identification. It is only with these three authors’6 apologetic and anti-Jewish polemical works that the image of pierced limbs appears. It is my contention that this passage’s christological interpretation is an extra-New Testament evolution and dependent on early patristic under- standings of the Septuagint’s translation. It is an outcome of real, or perceived, early Jewish-Christian debates and most likely originates with Justin Martyr. This study helps illuminate the creation and dissemination of early standardized Christian exegesis for use in active and continuing anti-Jewish polemics throughout the first few centuries of the common era.

In order to understand this progression it is necessary first to outline the translation problems Psalm 22.17 has caused scholars and exegetes over the years. I will then discuss Justin, Tertullian and Aphrahat’s shared exegesis of Psalm 22.17 and finally its place within early Jewish- Christian polemics.

CONCLUSIONS


Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Aphrahat, separated by several centuries and dispersed around the Mediterranean, compose similar arguments concerning Psalm 22’s christological interpretation, although they read from differing textual translations. While the variant translations allow them to write unique exegetical passages, their “bottom-line” conclu- sions coincide: the Jews misunderstand the passage when they claim it refers only to David (or Saul)’s life experiences, when it clearly foreshad- ows Jesus’.

Despite the differences in each author’s presentation, the similarities between the three indicate a similar source. I suggest that Tertullian and Aphrahat (perhaps indirectly)57 are dependent on Justin.



Oh you "like" Gill's exposition on it? Hmm, because he's an apologist who desperately tries to insert Jesus into the OT when all Jewish scholars know that's B.S.

 

[joelr]

An important point is that the apostles were not dying for just a belief, it was for what they claimed to be witness to.

A more important point is it's only in the Gospels, which is likely fiction.

Men, who were fishermen, did not leave their families to starve. Women did not work but took care of children, this happens in fiction, not history.

Please note:

"
Of the Twelve Apostles to hold the title after Matthias' selection, Christian tradition has generally passed down that all of the Twelve Apostles except one were martyred, with only John surviving into old age.[56] However, only the death of James, son of Zebedee is described in the New Testament. (Acts 12:1–2)

Matthew 27:5 says that Judas Iscariot threw the silver he received for betraying Jesus down in the Temple, then went and hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says that he purchased a field, then "falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out".

According to the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon, early Christians (second half of the second century and first half of the third century) believed that only Peter, Paul, and James, son of Zebedee, were martyred.[57] The remainder, or even all, of the claims of martyred apostles do not rely upon historical or biblical evidence, but only on late legends.[58][59]"





2 accounts in Acts, one disagrees with Matthew and Acts has been proven beyond a doubt to be historical fiction. Someone here is not telling the truth, yet all this stuff is reliable to you? It literally says "late legends".

We don't know why Paul was killed. We don't know if any apostle had the chance to recant? Like Paul if these men were real there is no evidence they witnesses any Jesus demigod, those are stories. They may have been men who were converted and like Paul "saw Jesus" in a dream, vision, whatever.

The only claim of "witness" is in the gospel; which genuinely looks to be a made up story. You can't take a myth and say "look this man in the myth saw the supernatural thing in the myth and died for it, in an unknown way". This is not evidence. You would not accept this as evidence for Islam. Late legends are not an important point.

 

[Kenny]

What?!?!?
He's not a Hebrew specialist? He's a theologian from BEFORE CRITICAL HISTORICAL STUDIES were even done on the Bible?????????????

John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a firm Calvinistic soteriology. Born in Kettering, Northamptonshire, he attended Kettering Grammar School where he mastered the Latin classics and learned Greek by age 11. He continued self-study in everything from logic to Hebrew, his love for the latter remaining throughout his life.

Why would you need to go to the 16th century when there are Hebrew Bible PhDs from Harvard giving Yale Divinity Lectures posted online for free??????? I don't dig? Dig for 16th century apologists who try to tell Jewish experts what their Bible "really" says?
All Jewish scholars say this passage has been altered to appear to predict Christ.
As does this paper from academia.edu

Attacking the author vs attacking the content is a common fallacy used by those who don't have support for their position. That makes two fallacies that you have used.

Many Yale graduates have knowledge but no understanding IMV>

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Attacking the author vs attacking the content is a common fallacy used by those who don't have support for their position. That makes two fallacies that you have used.

Many Yale graduates have knowledge but no understanding IMV>

Well, the problem with that, is that your support is not the only way to do it. And neither is mine. But somehow I get the idea that yours is True. I have never been able to replicate that for any version of True.

 

[Kenny]

Well, the problem with that, is that your support is not the only way to do it. And neither is mine. But somehow I get the idea that yours is True. I have never been able to replicate that for any version of True.

some things are pretty obvious. If a Yale graduate says "Jesus is a mythological fictional story", it took a Yale college education to come to that conclusion. Just obviously wrong.

In Harvard, they placed an atheist as a Chaplain... you have to get a PhD to think that is OK.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

some things are pretty obvious. If a Yale graduate says "Jesus is a mythological fictional story", it took a Yale college education to come to that conclusion. Just obviously wrong.

In Harvard, they placed an atheist as a Chaplain... you have to get a PhD to think that is OK.

Yeah, I like how you know that any absolute claim is wrong, if it is not your, but correct if it is yours.

 

[Brian2]

What can those who follow science, including many atheists, do, when there is no verifiable evidence for God or things that relate to that idea?

If you put your whole trust in science, in humanity to be able to figure out all the answers then you can do nothing.
Plenty of scientists are theists however. I guess they don't put all their trust in the ability of humanity to tell us answers to the big questions, such as whether there is a God or not.
God tells us that He exists and we tell Him that He does not exist, that we don't believe Him.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To each his/her own. I have no complaints about such people. I have only put forward my view. I am not concerned with what others believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What can those who follow science, including many atheists, do, when there is no verifiable evidence for God or things that relate to that idea?

Yeah, now solve the is-ought problem and only use science.
There is no verifiable evidence for God or things that relate to that idea, therefore we ought to do...
Remember only verifiable evidence for what we ought to do...

You are doing 2 things. Evidence and a norm. But science can't do norms like that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To each his/her own. I have no complaints about such people. I have only put forward my view.

But your view is not science. That is your view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You do what you believe, I do what I believe.

"Lakum deenukum wa liya deen": For you is your religion, and for me is my religion. Al Quran 109.6 (Surah Al-Kafirun)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul claimed to be witness to Jesus in his vision and what he heard, but that was an epileptic fit or something wasn't it.
James witnessed Jesus, but that means nothing if you believe the Bible is all lies.
Saying "just church tradition" sounds like you do not respect that as containing any truth.
John's gospel, written late in the first century also alludes to the death of Peter also as being by crucifixion.
It seems that the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is common knowledge in the writings of the early church fathers and they are mentioned as if common knowledge.

Why do you do that? Why use a black and white fallacy? Why not use the more appropriate term "wrong". Anyone that has seriously and honestly studied the Bible knows that it is wrong again and again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, there is evidence for God. The problem is that mine is the correct one and you are so wrong. Or in reverse.

Yes, there is evidence for God. Very very weak evidence. I have not ever seen any that was strong enough to even make the cut into small claims court.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, there is evidence for God. Very very weak evidence. I have not ever seen any that was strong enough to even make the cut into small claims court.

That is why I use faith as a deist. But that is me.

 

[Kenny]

Yeah, I like how you know that any absolute claim is wrong, if it is not your, but correct if it is yours.

Can you give me an example?