Either you're an eyewitness or you're not, and no NT author is or even claims to be. And if you're not an eyewitness then you're a hearsayer.
And since Matthew and John were there... they are eyewitnesses. Luke also wrote down the statements of the eyewitnesses and verified that some had already made an eyewitness account- a policeman of sorts that is taking down the statements of eyewitnesses.
Dedication to Theophilus
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
So, in reality, it isn't that there is no information, you simply don't agree with the information given.
Nothing of the kind in the NT, only its express negation ─ but by the third century the strand of Christianity who wanted the central figure of Christianity to be a god was taking developed form. This trend was criticized by Jewish onlookers as polytheism just like the pagans. So politically wishing to avoid such jibes, they rejected polytheism hence the idea of a team or partnership, they rejected the idea that Father Jesus and Ghost were all manifestations of a single will, and finally in the 4th century the Trinity doctrine emerged. It's actually three gods (or alternatively three manifestations of the one god) but here they're unified by hocus pocus, or in officialese, "a mystery in the strict sense, in that it cannot be known by unaided human reason other than by revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" (their words, not mine). What they're 'fessing is that the "one god" part is incoherent.
That's a nice take on it... it just doesn't match the narrative given... "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God"... "And the Word was made flesh". (1st century)
So we can say that it isn't there all we want while a glaring statement says... "NOOOOOOOOOO!"
What, the incoherent Trinity doctrine? Or just mentioning Father, Jesus and Ghost in the one sentence (which of course isn't Trinitarianism)? Grateful for a quote.
please see the above quote... very coherent!
The people of Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Canaan, Greece, Rome, Persia, India, China, Africa, the Americas, Australia, had no problem in believing in their gods and supernatural beings either. So I'm not sure that advances your cause.
But it's plainly the case that the gospel authors make stuff up. Matthew's author with his "taxation census" and his "Massacre of the Innocents" and so much else is simply one example.
There are positive answers to those positions. Of course, if one doesn't like those, there are negative statements that people can cling on.
That's not a parallel case. With a black hole we're looking for an aggregation of mass concentrated to such an extent that light can't escape from its gravity field. This will have defined consequences which will allow the location and identification of black holes.
What real thing are we actually looking for when we look for God and how can we tell whether any real suspect we find is God or not?
You have two questions here (and I think one too many)
First, is there a God
Second, how can we tell whether any real suspect we find is God or not".
I think we have to first start with the first and, after that, as about the second.
Let's consider the possibility of this statement:
"For since the beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made and which are commonly seen and known,"
Does it seem like nature is driven towards a direction rather than just randomly changing? (Certainly 93% of all people would agree with that viewpoint as they acknowledge there is a God) - if we throw out the outlying extremes.......
Does the Burgess Shale fossil discovery of 1909 of never discovered animals at the Cambrian layer with no precursor forms suggest that something greater was driving everything? It would appear so.
Does symbiotic relationships suggest that something greater was involved? Man certainly can't answer how.
Does the mere function of a body, its complexity, its intricacies, its amazing capacity et al seem to defy simple chance? That certainly is what I see but maybe you don't so think of it this way...
We can see an original Picasso
What was he really thinking? What really inspired him? Is he sane or insane?
We can all have different viewpoints of exactly what these answers are, but we know there is an author.
I may know understand why there is a mosquito, but I know there is an author.
SSSH! Don't say that out loud!
Yes I do. I'm as qualified as any human I know of to make moral judgments. I dare say you are too.
And since the question is whether a real god exists, we need to find a real one and examine it before we could tell whether we're somehow disqualified from judging it or not.
Yes... but are those moral judgments hardwired by God or just your thinking.
Free will doesn't mean you're free of your evolved genetic structure, including your brain's decision-making processes and functions.
And that is what my version of God would understand and if it was faulty or damaged or both, would fix. [He]'d know the only point in sending anyone to Hell was petty human-type sadism and vengefulness; whereas healing would address and fix the true problem.
So... we shouldn't put anyone in jail? And, in this current stage, man is suppose to fix it. Any parent that constantly takes a son out of jail with no consequences only accentuates the son's problem.
It is easy to just blame the system and say "the system made me do it" and not have to exercise responsibility.
Do I what! Don't start me ...
LOL..
