Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Sapiens]

I apologize if I'm missing your point. It sure looked like you posted several times "NT written 2nd century or later" but scholars believe--including skeptic and atheist scholars--that the entire NT was written in the 1st century.

No. I gave you dates for the oldest known piece of the gospel and the oldest know complete document. I said that the provenance of even those parts are lacking. What that means is that no confidence can be placed in any earlier date and no honest supportable claim can be made concerning how closely those documents compare with the original sources any other answer is hand waving and smoke and mirrors.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not really.
What's happening here is that you are claiming that they are eyewitnesses. And you don't really have much evidence for that claim. And evidence that should exist, like independent sources for the claims doesn't exist.
Tom

It sounds like you are unaware of the archaeological argument for eyewitnesses, namely, that in both testaments, since archaeology is a modern science only, the many facts that are accurate in both testaments regarding people, dates, buildings, armies, empires, etc. place the writers as eyewitnesses.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your witness who presents eyewitness testimony-if he could not tell
you either the place, date, or even the year, and his testimony was
restricted to a sketchy written statement, no questions possible-would you
care to convict or acquit on such testimony?

Likely not, which is why it's delightful that the four gospel writers include details like:

When things occurred
Which leaders were in power at the time(s)
Where things occurred
Who else was present
What was said
What the responses were
Etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why are you always try to change the subject to something else? You said what you said about those 500 people. Should I take this to mean you are walking back that claim? I won't hold it against you if you do. We all make mistakes sometimes.

I could also point out that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts, but I see that has been pointed out numerous times already. Not that eyewitness accounts are all that trustworthy to begin with. They'd be more trustworthy if they all corroborated one another, but they don't even do that much.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my original statement--since repeated when you created this red herring argument--was "The gospel writer recorded an appearance to 500 persons". Since then, I've mentioned that one dozen NT appearances of the Christ were recorded in the NT.

But I see you are claiming that corroboration would be powerful, so if all four gospels were the same or nearly so, would you then trust Christ? And if 500 persons told you they had an encounter with the Christ, and their details corroborated, would you then trust Christ for salvation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. I gave you dates for the oldest known piece of the gospel and the oldest know complete document. I said that the provenance of even those parts are lacking. What that means is that no confidence can be placed in any earlier date and no honest supportable claim can be made concerning how closely those documents compare with the original sources any other answer is hand waving and smoke and mirrors.

Okay, I may misunderstand your position: what is the earliest book of the NT and its date and the latest and its date, do you think?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my original statement--since repeated when you created this red herring argument--was "The gospel writer recorded an appearance to 500 persons". Since then, I've mentioned that one dozen NT appearances of the Christ were recorded in the NT.

So I cannot find the testimonies of the 500 people that were claimed to have witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, because they do not exist. It's based on hearsay.

That's all you had to say.

But I see you are claiming that corroboration would be powerful, so if all four gospels were the same or nearly so, would you then trust Christ? And if 500 persons told you they had an encounter with the Christ, and their details corroborated, would you then trust Christ for salvation?

It would make them more trustworthy and I may be more inclined to believe that this man named Jesus once existed. But it doesn't mean I would then believe that he rose from the dead, or turned water into wine, or walked on water, or any other alleged miracle claim that have been made about Jesus. None of that can ever be tested. The claim of a person simply having existed is a far cry from the miracle claims and the veracity of the former doesn't get us to the latter.

Think of it this way: Right now, today, I can find dozens of people who claim to have seen aliens from outer space, including some who have even said they have been abducted by them. I can find these people and talk to them, and find that many of them will have similar stories with similar details, and most of them would probably draw pictures of these aliens that look a lot alike. Would that be enough, without any further inquiry, to convince you that many people have been abducted by aliens? Would that be enough for you to start worshiping aliens?

 

[Sapiens]

Okay, I may misunderstand your position: what is the earliest book of the NT and its date and the latest and its date, do you think?

The earliest scrap is likely James, but that is just a scrap with no indicator of what the entire document said, that is the issue here. There is no provenance here for the entire document ... or even for the scrap, so any guesses on the part of so called Biblical "Scholars" really amounts to little more than imagination and protection of thier socially useless rice bowl.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. I gave you dates for the oldest known piece of the gospel and the oldest know complete document. I said that the provenance of even those parts are lacking. What that means is that no confidence can be placed in any earlier date and no honest supportable claim can be made concerning how closely those documents compare with the original sources any other answer is hand waving and smoke and mirrors.

If we stay with 66 CE, how is that a problem, for example? If you saw Christ crucified in 30 and then resurrected, you think you would forget many details in 36 years? Have you forgotten the biblical record is that eyewitnesses preached and taught Christ in those intervening years, repeating what they knew, and then wrote when they felt the need and old age?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The earliest scrap is likely James, but that is just a scrap with no indicator of what the entire document said, that is the issue here. There is no provenance here for the entire document ... or even for the scrap, so any guesses on the part of so called Biblical "Scholars" really amounts to little more than imagination and protection of thier socially useless rice bowl.

But you ought to consider archaeology, and how it is that archaeology has demonstrated that each NT book got many details right about the world in 30 CE.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So I cannot find the testimonies of the 500 people that were claimed to have witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, because they do not exist. It's based on hearsay.

That's all you had to say.


It would make them more trustworthy and I may be more inclined to believe that this man named Jesus once existed. But it doesn't mean I would then believe that he rose from the dead, or turned water into wine, or walked on water, or any other alleged miracle claim that have been made about Jesus. None of that can ever be tested. The claim of a person simply having existed is a far cry from the miracle claims and the veracity of the former doesn't get us to the latter.

Think of it this way: Right now, today, I can find dozens of people who claim to have seen aliens from outer space, including some who have even said they have been abducted by them. I can find these people and talk to them, and find that many of them will have similar stories with similar details, and most of them would probably draw pictures of these aliens that look a lot alike. Would that be enough, without any further inquiry, to convince you that many people have been abducted by aliens? Would that be enough for you to start worshiping aliens?

No--in jurisprudence, hearsay is when someone not present at an event says, "But, Billy was there, and Billy said," whereas in the NT, the authors are eyewitnesses who honestly report, "Jesus was here, along with X and Y, and X believed, Y doubted." Not hearsay.

The aliens stuff is interesting. What Project Blue Book and others have documented is that most alien/UFO sightings are natural and man-made phenomena, but the few that could not be explained away include tens of thousands of people who met entities who would hold them down and hurt them, and then tend to pop out of sight/existence rather than fly off. What entities are not in our dimension but enter our dimension to be capricious to humans?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No--in jurisprudence, hearsay is when someone not present at an event says, "But, Billy was there, and Billy said," whereas in the NT, the authors are eyewitnesses who honestly report, "Jesus was here, along with X and Y, and X believed, Y doubted." Not hearsay.

"I was there to see it and 500 other people were also there to see it" is an eyewitness account only in reference to what you yourself saw. Anyone can say something like that. Without those other accounts, it's just empty words. How would anybody know if their stories would corroborate each other if we can't examine those 500 other stories? How would we know they would all tell the same exact story that you have? Because you say so?

The NT authors were not eyewitnesses. But even if they were, they can't speak for 500 other people. If we had the accounts of each of those 500 people (remember that's what I was asking you for in the first place), then they would be eyewitness accounts.

The aliens stuff is interesting. What Project Blue Book and others have documented is that most alien/UFO sightings are natural and man-made phenomena, but the few that could not be explained away include tens of thousands of people who met entities who would hold them down and hurt them, and then tend to pop out of sight/existence rather than fly off. What entities are not in our dimension but enter our dimension to be capricious to humans?

So you're saying that people can witness events or occurrences of phenomena they can't explain and while seeking an explanation for said events, ascribe it to things like alien abductions? Hmmmm, I wonder if that could also apply to occurrences other than alien abductions ....

 

[Sapiens]

If we stay with 66 CE, how is that a problem, for example? If you saw Christ crucified in 30 and then resurrected, you think you would forget many details in 36 years? Have you forgotten the biblical record is that eyewitnesses preached and taught Christ in those intervening years, repeating what they knew, and then wrote when they felt the need and old age?

In 36 years (that's Reagan to Trump) many things change and memories alter. With no direct link to the original event, and then no direct link from the first writing to the oldest remaining document, accuracy of transmission is very much in doubt.

But you ought to consider archaeology, and how it is that archaeology has demonstrated that each NT book got many details right about the world in 30 CE.

Tom Clancy got many things right, but does that make any of his stories true? Of course not. The same is true of the NT books.

 

[Audie]

It sounds like you are unaware of the archaeological argument for eyewitnesses, namely, that in both testaments, since archaeology is a modern science only, the many facts that are accurate in both testaments regarding people, dates, buildings, armies, empires, etc. place the writers as eyewitnesses.

It sounds as if you have not considered how historical novels weave real people and places into the narrative.

That the Dead Sea, or Egypt gets mentioned in the NT
is not so impressive.

Here is a FACT. Nobody knows where your "Jesus" was born, nor when. They dont know when or where
he died.

Yet, we have all these (fantastically) detailed accounts
of just what people said, did, the time of day?

Conversations written down, verbatim, decades later?

Good enough for the credulous.

 

[Audie]

In 36 years (that's Reagan to Trump) many things change and memories alter. With no direct link to the original event, and then no direct link from the first writing to the oldest remaining document, accuracy of transmission is very much in doubt.
Tom Clancy got many things right, but does that make any of his stories true? Of course not. The same is true of the NT books.

Clancy did not indulge in magical realism, which makes his books
more believable, really. They could happen, just didnt.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"I was there to see it and 500 other people were also there to see it" is an eyewitness account only in reference to what you yourself saw. Anyone can say something like that. Without those other accounts, it's just empty words. How would anybody know if their stories would corroborate each other if we can't examine those 500 other stories? How would we know they would all tell the same exact story that you have? Because you say so?

The NT authors were not eyewitnesses. But even if they were, they can't speak for 500 other people. If we had the accounts of each of those 500 people (remember that's what I was asking you for in the first place), then they would be eyewitness accounts.


So you're saying that people can witness events or occurrences of phenomena they can't explain and while seeking an explanation for said events, ascribe it to things like alien abductions? Hmmmm, I wonder if that could also apply to occurrences other than alien abductions ....

I see. So you stand corrected that it isn't hearsay, and now your statement seems to be, "No one can ever be a reporter, so that if a reporter says 1,000 people showed to a political rally, we cannot ever trust there were 1,000 present unless all were signed in."

 

[BilliardsBall]

It sounds as if you have not considered how historical novels weave real people and places into the narrative.

That the Dead Sea, or Egypt gets mentioned in the NT
is not so impressive.

Here is a FACT. Nobody knows where your "Jesus" was born, nor when. They dont know when or where
he died.

Yet, we have all these (fantastically) detailed accounts
of just what people said, did, the time of day?

Conversations written down, verbatim, decades later?

Good enough for the credulous.

It goes beyond "Egypt" to several thousands place names, historical personages, architectural details verified by archaeology, trade routes, etc.

Where does the Bible say, "This conversation is verbatim"? Why add things that aren't there? We can, however, say, that if you saw someone resurrect others and do fabulous miracles, and trusted them for your eternity, you would relish what they said and did and share the stories many times over.

And do you use the same standards for other biographies? When you read the new books coming from the Obamas, will you visit Obama-favorable forums to say, "Yeah, I'm so sure he remembers this conversation he had with his general about a potential nuclear war, like, ten years after he had it..."

Be real.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In 36 years (that's Reagan to Trump) many things change and memories alter. With no direct link to the original event, and then no direct link from the first writing to the oldest remaining document, accuracy of transmission is very much in doubt.
Tom Clancy got many things right, but does that make any of his stories true? Of course not. The same is true of the NT books.

What is true:

The NT got EVERYTHING right, whereas Tom Clancy had good sources and got some things right.

My memory hasn't altered of things Jesus did for me 20 years ago, and it wouldn't have changed an iota in 36 years if I saw Him resurrect, raise the dead, heal the blind, mute and deaf and more. NEITHER WOULD YOURS.

I call baloney!

 

[Audie]

It goes beyond "Egypt" to several thousands place names, historical personages, architectural details verified by archaeology, trade routes, etc.

Where does the Bible say, "This conversation is verbatim"? Why add things that aren't there? We can, however, say, that if you saw someone resurrect others and do fabulous miracles, and trusted them for your eternity, you would relish what they said and did and share the stories many times over.

And do you use the same standards for other biographies? When you read the new books coming from the Obamas, will you visit Obama-favorable forums to say, "Yeah, I'm so sure he remembers this conversation he had with his general about a potential nuclear war, like, ten years after he had it..."

Be real.

So what if they add in trade routes? I am not questioning that live humans wrote about their time and place. You are overemphasizing the obvious.

So the words of "Jesus" as report d are not accurate? Never thought they were. Lo and many a Christian will say they are, though.

Yes, you can SAY all sorts of things. There are stories of miracle cures
from probably every culture that ever was, and a lot of them involve
stories of, yes, gods that died and came back to life. Christianity is so far from unique in this! Id be more impressed if they didnt have such stories.

Standards for books-

Your fav. is supposed to come from God, be something special.
You seem arguing that it is not.

Now, to me, it is a book of the collected folk tales of a people, some
wise,, some ridiculous, with a bunch of magical hooey and or course,
all one sided from the POV of the writers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see. So you stand corrected that it isn't hearsay, and now your statement seems to be,

It's a form of hearsay. You can't report on what 500 other people saw. You can claim that you saw that those people were there, but you have no claim to their testimony of what they saw at the event/occurrence. In other words, stating that 500 other people saw the same thing you did doesn't get you anywhere, because you can't speak on their behalf. And since they didn't bother to speak on their own behalf, we have no idea what they claim to have seen. So the claim that 500 people were there doesn't tell us much of anything.

I mean, I can be in the presence of a person suffering from hallucinations, as I was when my Grandmother had a stroke. She told me that she saw waves and flowers bouncing around the room and that her (deceased) sister was there, dancing around. She could have told someone that I was present when she saw all of these things and so I must have seen them too. But then if you come and ask me what I saw, you will find out that I didn't see any waves or flowers bouncing around and that my Great Aunt was definitely not their either. The situation is most decidedly different, based on what perspective a person is coming from. I'd say the same goes for miracle claims, wouldn't you?

"No one can ever be a reporter, so that if a reporter says 1,000 people showed to a political rally, we cannot ever trust there were 1,000 present unless all were signed in."

No, not at all. A reporter can report that 1000 people showed up to a political rally, but they cannot report on what those people saw or how they interpreted what went on at the rally unless they speak to them and record their experiences directly from them.

Going back to your claim that 500 people witnessed the resurrection of Christ ... the most you can say is that 500 people were in attendance, according to what you witnessed (and that assumes the person that recorded the event was even an eyewitness in the first place). You cannot say what those 500 other people witnessed/saw/experienced. And since they didn't record it themselves, we can never know. That is the very reason I keep asking you where I can read 500 testimonies of the people that were supposedly there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is true:

The NT got EVERYTHING right, whereas Tom Clancy had good sources and got some things right.

My memory hasn't altered of things Jesus did for me 20 years ago, and it wouldn't have changed an iota in 36 years if I saw Him resurrect, raise the dead, heal the blind, mute and deaf and more. NEITHER WOULD YOURS.

I call baloney!

You can believe that all you want, but studies in psychology and human nature show that our memories are not nearly as great as we think they are and are subject to our personal biases, interpretations, and re-interpretations long after the fact.