How is the Bible the Word of God?

[1robin]

Gee, whatta surprise you won't link me. Sorry 1robin, but I do think your "colors" are vividly showing through.

BTW, you think questioning whether another person is "Christian" enough isn't a form of "antagonism"? Can dish it out but can't take it?

I've have enough of your pathetic judgementalism to last a lifetime.

Good, is this over with then?

 

[1robin]

is that which is not subject to the laws of physics or, more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

Which translates to no credible evidence.

It also translates to imagination, because nature exist in reality, so many are considered to be imagining outside reality.

This is ridiculous. Morals do not conform to the laws of physics, neither does legal theory, neither does the singularity, or freewill, etc.....in fact science can't be proven by science. Are these there for lacking evidence? In fact you cannot prove one single thing to a certainty beyond the fact that we think. If water miraculously changes instantly into wine then it can leave as much evidence as any event can possibly leave. You have "translated" yourself out of the realm of reason and into the fantasy land your trying to confine me to. The supernatural describes events which are not explained by natural law not which the universe has no evidence of. In fact the entire universe defies any naturalistic explanation it's self. How depressingly narrow and boring atheism must be.

 

[1robin]

You recall wrong. I can back every position with credible sources.

I did not say anything about what you can or cannot do, I said what you in general do not do.

You can run if you want, knowing you have no credible sources. But lets just call this what it is, not what you want it to be.

Run, what are you talking about? I do have to leave here shortly but I will be here again as I always am.

If I do not back something in every post, its because I have posted the definition and conclusions many times before.

I fortunately do not have the full transcript of every post you have ever made to anyone memorized. I only know the majority of your posts do not even pretend to hint at any evidence that are made to me.

You don't have the education or knowledge on he historical side here, if you did, you could provide credible sources. I think you know and are educated on the dogma and theology quite well though.

Yes I do and so far I have posted at least 10 times as much of it as you have.

BUT your crossing the lines into the historical side with many of your claims. When you do, you need credible sources.

The sources I named do not get any more credible. Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, Irenaeus, the early Church fathers, N.T. Wright, Raymond Brown, James White, Bart Ehrman, etc.... dwarf the credibility of your sources.

 

[1robin]

LOL

Not an argument nor evidence.

Ridiculous.

Neither is this.

Was not a historian, nor a biblical scholar.

His work has been refuted for hundreds of years

Neither did I claim of him. I said he was one of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history. His work has never been refuted, it has been ineffectually contended with almost as ineffectually as you so far have.

He was not a scholar.

Simon Greenleaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes he was. He was among the greatest possible scholars on the subjects in question.

In 179(?), Simon's parents moved to New Gloucester in Maine, leaving him in Newburyport under the care of his grandfather Jonathan Greenleaf. There Simon was educated at the Latin school and studied the Greco-Roman classics. When he turned 16 years old, he rejoined his parents in New Gloucester. In 1801 he joined the law office of Ezekiel Whitman (the later Chief Justice of Maine) and in 1806 was admitted to the Cumberland County bar as a legal practitioner. On 22 Mar 1806, in New Gloucester, Cumberland County, Maine, he married Hannah Kingman.[1]

He then opened a legal practice at Standish, but six months later relocated to Gray, where he practised for twelve years, and in 1818 removed to Portland. Greenleaf's political preferences were aligned with the Federalist Party, and in 1816 he was an unsuccessful candidate for that party in Cumberland County for the Senate. He was reporter of the Supreme Court of Maine from 1820 to 1832, and published nine volumes of Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Maine (1820–1832).

He was awarded the honorary Doctor of Laws degree by Harvard in 1834, received the same honor from Amherst in 1845, and again from the University of Alabama in 1852.

Professorships[edit]
In 1833, Greenleaf was named to the Royall professorship, and in 1846 succeeded Judge Joseph Story as Dane professor of law at Harvard University. Greenleaf contributed extensively to the development of Harvard Law School, including expansion of the Harvard Law Library. He was retained as chief counsel by the Warren Bridge group in the US Supreme Court case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 36 U.S. 420 (1837),[2] where the case laid down the rule that public contracts must be construed in favor of states.

In 1848, Greenleaf retired from his active duties, and became professor emeritus. After being for many years president of the Massachusetts Bible Society, he died at Cambridge. Greenleaf's well-known work, a Treatise on the Law of Evidence, is considered a classic of American jurisprudence. Greenleaf prepared the original constitution of the Colony of Liberia.

And had no historical or biblical education what so ever.

I have a much higher degree of education then he does.

In arrogance maybe. How many of the world's top legal schools did you found exactly?

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is an 1846 Christian apologetic work

Greenleaf submits as eyewitness testimony is technically hearsay


the criteria for the "ancient documents rule" is not met by the gospel documents and that the force of Greenleaf's argument is thereby undermined.

That rule is absolutely met in every single category by the Gospels. Do you know what apologetics means? It means to defend. He was infinitely more qualified than you or anyone you have cited (I believe so far a grand total of no one) to both know the truth of and defend that truth with the best scholarship possible of his time. And the trend in scholarship has only made his defense stronger over time. More fragments and ancient manuscripts have been discovered in the last 100 years than in the previous 1000. Greenleaf forgot more about what hearsay is than you will ever know.

I have to go, have a good one and study up, these claims are arrogant and silly. I actually think you have a lot of potential but so far your arguments have been very weak and opinion based with far less credible sources than mine and I have not even began to post a fraction of what I will.

 

[1robin]

So your saying you know nothing about this with certainty?

No, there are things about biblical theology I know with absolute certainty, unlike you about your claims, because I have a resource unavailable to you at this time. However those things are only known subjectively and not available as objective proof. Sort of like saying I have been to the top of the mountain and know what is there but I can't bring the top of the mountain with me into a debate as proof. Debate takes place on common ground. The common ground in this case on either side does not include absolute certainty but only a high degree of probability in almost every category for my claims. The true source of my theological certainty (that is about certain biblical precepts, not all of them) is not available to you.

 

[1robin]

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES

I have, of far more credibility than any you have.

 

[outhouse]

Morals do not conform to the laws of physics

Don't bring morals into another subject that has nothing to do with morals. That is off topic to our conversation.

 

[outhouse]

Yes he was. He was among the greatest possible scholars on the subjects in question.

.

Not one aspect you posted showed a biblical or historical education

How many of the world's top legal schools did you found exactly?

Has nothing to do with history, or biblical history


HE IS NOT CREDIBLE, he was apologetically inclined.


I posted people who refuted his apologetic work

 

[outhouse]

That rule is absolutely met in every single category by the Gospels.

Says you.

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES


You do not get to dictate what is credible and what is not credible.

 

[outhouse]

I have, of far more credibility than any you have.

No, it doesn't look like that at all.

What schooling do you have?

What universities have you gone to regarding historical studies?

What university did you study the NT?


What scholarships do you even know?? so far it looks like you don't know a single scholars work in full on these topics

 

[outhouse]

That rule is absolutely met in every single category by the Gospels.

Then provide credible sources.

Because your opinion is not refuting the credible sources I provided.

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is an 1846 Christian apologetic work

Greenleaf submits as eyewitness testimony is technically hearsay


the criteria for the "ancient documents rule" is not met by the gospel documents and that the force of Greenleaf's argument is thereby undermined.

It is old apologetic outdated work, that was based on severe ignorance of historical and biblical study.

He is an embarrassment to any modern credible scholarship.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Okay. I think I put this in the right forum. It has to do with religion.

Anyway, I was thinking. When I think of the "Word of God" I think of Jesus' message to His believers and those He said His Father sent Him to save. His message--the words--are the Bible. Since Jesus is said to be God, it is God's words as well.

However, when I think of God I do not think of His message written in a book. God (or so have you) speaks to us through our heart, minds, and souls. The Bible (and any other Abrahamic scripture: Quran and so forth) is more the message written through the hearts of the people who believed in Him. It is "their words; their testimonies" not God's.

Of course, there is opposition with this statement. I do not think of God as a person, so Him having a full conversation written or spoken with me and anyone else in our native tongue is foreign to me.

"God" has no language. He has no tongue. He is the spirit or mystic law imprinted in our hearts that motivates us to fulfill our calling and purpose in life. We are born through the Spirit, live by it, and die by it to live the next stage of life in a continuous cycle.

Who can ever limit "God" by language alone.

Your words are true
This is what it calls the Christian ??
Gospel are the words spoken by Christ in his life
2. The Bible is the deeds and actions of Christ
3. Gospel favor in all languages
4. Christian says rigid character or spirit is life
5. Christ's words speak to the soul
6. Christian does not believe in the myth of corned board
7. Christian says honesty
8 - Christian does not believe in rigid download ??
As do the Muslims ??
9. private criticisms of Muslims only
10. Muslim believes in the myth saved the board in the sky
11. Muslim to say that his words of God
12. All the evidence suggests that the Koran is the transfer of a professional of his intention was to discredit God in Christianity and Judaism
13. Thank you for Thread
14. I am a Christian I reject the idea that God speaks one language
15. I can address God in all languages
Because he understands all languages

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understood and okay with most of what you said, except a couple of things such as:

Your words are true
This is what it calls the Christian ??
Gospel are the words spoken by Christ in his life
2. The Bible is the deeds and actions of Christ
3. Gospel favor in all languages
4. Christian says rigid character or spirit is life
5. Christ's words speak to the soul

6. Christian does not believe in the myth of corned board (Do you understand the analogy I am using at least? No Christian uses cornbread in communion)

7. Christian says honesty

8 - Christian does not believe in rigid download ??As do the Muslims ?? (What do you mean?)
9. private criticisms of Muslims only
10. Muslim believes in the myth saved the board in the sky
11. Muslim to say that his words of God
12. All the evidence suggests that the Koran is the transfer of a professional of his intention was to discredit God in Christianity and Judaism

(What do you have against the Muslim faith; and, how does that relate to my post?)

13. Thank you for Thread (You're welcome)

14. I am a Christian I reject the idea that God speaks one language
15. I can address God in all languages
Because he understands all languages

(Thank you for answering honestly)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Again, could you please supply the link?

Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral | Page 17 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[viole]

Your a funny person ehhhh?


"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.

No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.

He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.

Scottish TheologianJames Stuart

Christianity is more associated with moral excellence than any similar source in history. Our highest authority despite being divine was tortured and died for your and my sins. We build museum and give medals to humans who display this, the highest possible aspect of moral virtue

I don't see how vicarious sacrifice of an innocent for the faults of others qualifies as moral excellence. The fact that it was not a real sacrifice makes it even more unjustifiable.

For starter, it is not accepted by any decent legal system I am aware of. Would you approve a legal system that lets a willing innocent being executed in lieu of the murderer?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The whole universes existence is a total mystery, One I think God easily resolves (that does not mean he exist, but it does mean iron or bronze age men gave him the exact characteristics of a cause they did not know the properties of the effect of). I don't know but scientists claim that helium and on other atom existed from the very beginning (depending on how you define beginning I guess). Atoms contained charged particles.

Nucleosynthesis[edit]
Between 3 minutes and 20 minutes after the Big Bang[17]
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
During the photon epoch the temperature of the Universe falls to the point where atomic nuclei can begin to form. Protons (hydrogen ions) and neutrons begin to combine into atomic nuclei in the process of nuclear fusion. Free neutrons combine with protons to form deuterium. Deuterium rapidly fuses into helium-4. Nucleosynthesis only lasts for about seventeen minutes, since the temperature and density of the Universe has fallen to the point where nuclear fusion cannot continue. By this time, all neutrons have been incorporated into helium nuclei. This leaves about three times more hydrogen than helium-4 (by mass) and only trace quantities of other light nuclei.
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: If you think I buy they actually know the chronology this accurately you can forget it, but obviously charged particles existed as far back as can be determined with any accuracy.

That is almost exactly how I meant it but even a thing which is contained by the label "I don't know what it is" is in all likely hood no exception to having an explanation or cause. I would have to reject the evidence a take a flaying leap of faith into your fantasy realm to think it probably did not....That is another theoretical fantasy land and this particular fantasy land would have applied to the singularity when:

The breaking of an exact symmetry of the underlying laws of physics by the random formation of some structure.
Symmetry breaking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is guessed to have occurred.

There is also an entire category of symmetry breaking called spontaneous which I guess would defeat your determinism idea. BTW half of the ten or so possible quantum mathematical formats are non-deterministic.

I don't see how spontaneous symmetry breaking defeats my determinism. Considering that I hold true one of the deterministic interpretations of QM, I am still in the game. At least as long as they are not proven definetely incorrect.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Nobody knows anything beyond the fact we think if you want to be hyper technical about it. However all the evidence points to a universe that began in a very small space a finite time ago That all matter, space, and time originated at that point. Regardless of the speed it expanded, or how dense the singularity was it would still never ever produce an infinite anything. All we could debate is how much, how far, and how long if evidence is to be the judge. The reason I get frustrated with most pure theoreticians and atheists is while insisting their being "rational" they ultimately living in a fantasy world where their conclusion bend a tiny fragment of evidence into and ignore virtually all the actual evidence. Your literally defying all the evidence and are operating on far more faith than I.

Every model I have ever seen has been of a bubble or a sphere, not one nor simplistic logical results in a cylinder or a plane of any kind. Are you talking about the universe or something else? Are talking about maybe a cylindrical cross section or something?

No I would be in an ocean of those who for every reason possible believe it is finite. I don't even know of anyone that believes this universe is infinite. A few claim (apparently without thinking or as a figure of speech) claim the singularity could have infinite properties but that is actually disprovable, not just contradictory to all the evidence.

What I meant to convey is that there is no reason to think natural infinites exist in any way or any possible universe but no one can emphatically state what is impossible of a fantasy realm.

BTW what defines almost nothing? Anything is inherent not close to nothing.

Hey, I got an off the wall question for you. How is it that we know we almost remembered something?

You confuse fantasy land with our current models. The same models that have been used by Vilenkin to prove your beloved theorem. I could you use your same arguments to dismiss them as fantasy land as well.

And no, i do not mean a cross section of a cilinder. A whole cilinder is flat. A torus (donut) is flat too. I think you are appealing to your intuition of flatness as it is represented by a flat plane. Flat is what can be obtained by a flat sheet of paper (by rolling it for instance) without creating wrinkles. You cannot do that with a sphere, for instance, which makes us rule out that the universe is spherical (according to evidence of the large scale flatness of the universe).

And yes, some of these flat surfaces, the three dimensional version thereof, agree with evidence. We do not know which one is the true one. Unless, of course, we can use personal interviews with God or your personal intuition as evidence of truth .

Your preference of the finite ones is not justified by any theory nor observation I am aware of. But I am open to change my mind.

Do you have some well consolidated theory that contradicts me?including Big Bang cosmology, of course. I seriously hope you find cosmology less boring than evolution, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral | Page 17 | ReligiousForums.com

Thank you very much.

 

[viole]

So your compatible with compatabilsm? As long as your not compatible with cannibalism I think we have an accord.

Carroll (if you mean Sean) is the best debater secularism has.

You could if you knew them in theory. The best a bunch of MIT grad students could do was get within a 1/8th section with a computer.

In theory I agree.

Energy here is not a barrier but only a laziness multiplier. One I concur with.

NOOOOOOOO, there is no such thing as luck, or true randomness. You can't bottle, measure, or point to either one. If you mean that your victory was arbitrary to the physics I can agree. By the way I use the words randomness, and chance as figures of speech but neither are true.

So your saying your ignorance of the physics that produced a brain and most of everything else is the only reason you cannot predict what all decisions would be? That a defense from ignorance and one I do not agree with. I do not care what initial conditions were nor what our knowledge of them would be they would never so conveniently line up as to make this conversation possible. Why would unintentional matter be so obliging as to allow our countless desires to be fulfilled when it has no interest in fulfilling any one of them.

Nope, it makes you a preferential optimist. IOW you decide what you want to be true and then hope it is, at any cost. Just kidding, but it is not compatabalism. compatabalism is the idea that truly free will is compatable with physical determinism in general.

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.
Google

So, i can be a compatibilist and a (physical) determinist at the same time. Cool.

Now then, the question reduces to: considering that compatibilism is not a metaphysical position, do you think that compatibilists (like Sean Carroll) believe that our free will trascends physics and the natural, unconscious mechanisms, that led to intentional agents?

In other words: do you think that compatibilism entails dualism or some sort of non physicalism?

If not, then we might be in business. If yes then I would like you to post (philosophical) evidence that it is indeed the case that compatibilism entails mechanisms that trascend physics and strict naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[catch22]

No, it doesn't look like that at all.

What schooling do you have?

What universities have you gone to regarding historical studies?

What university did you study the NT?

What scholarships do you even know?? so far it looks like you don't know a single scholars work in full on these topics

I'm just going to say, 1robin is providing scholars, books, and more sources overall. For example, you haven't bothered to address the argument he presented via Ehrman. You're literally just using wikipedia.

You would fail in college doing that. At least, my professors would fail you. Anyone can (and does), edit wikipedia.

I'm merely a spectator, but demanding better sources whilst rationalizing with wikipedia is rather short sided, if not contradictory.

Aside from easily verifiable facts like dates or names, it's a useless scholarly resource. Relying on it to form an opinion is ignorant. The citations it may use could be valuable, but that would require you looking into them and reading them for yourself. I recommend that over just copy-pasting wikipedia arguments.

Anyway, continue on.