Not a sin anymore???

[leroy]

why wont you answer with a yes or no?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Direct answers are required,

so Paul and + the Gospels are good enough evidcne to establish the existence of 12 “special” disciplines ……… but they are not good enough to stablish the resurrection, because the prior possibility of the first is relativley high and the prior probability of the resurection is low.

is this a correct representation of your view? (this is a yes or no question)

No. That's just one criterion, among many others.


You pretty much never answer my questions. So I don't know why you feel so entitled to answers to your points that I've addressed countless times.

Take some time to read through that link and ALL the points, and you'll find your answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

why wont you answer with a yes or no?

Because it's more complex than a simple yes or no.
Which you should have realized by now.

 

[leroy]

No. That's just one criterion, among many others.


You pretty much never answer my questions. So I don't know why you feel so entitled to answers to your points that I've addressed countless times.

Take some time to read through that link and ALL the points, and you'll find your answer.

the answer to your question is "yes" I agree.................se how easy it is to answer with a simple yes or a simple no? why cant you do the same?
The claim that Jesus had 12 disciplines is a rather mundane claim, especially in comparison the the resurrection claim, wouldn't you say??

Take some time to read through that link and ALL the points, and you'll find your answer.

Sounds like a pathetic excise for not answering my question

Can you please explain based on your link, on what points do Paul and The gospels fails as reliable sources?


You already said “fantastical claims”

Do you have any other reason to dismiss them as non reliable sources?

 

[leroy]

Because it's more complex than a simple yes or no.
Which you should have realized by now.

More excuses to avoid direct answers,

 

[SkepticThinker]

the answer to your question is "yes" I agree.................se how easy it is to answer with a simple yes or a simple no? why cant you do the same?
The claim that Jesus had 12 disciplines is a rather mundane claim, especially in comparison the the resurrection claim, wouldn't you say??



Sounds like a pathetic excise for not answering my question

Can you please explain based on your link, on what points do Paul and The gospels fails as reliable sources?


You already said “fantastical claims”

Do you have any other reason to dismiss them as non reliable sources?

So you still can't be bothered to read through the entire thing.
If you can't even be bothered to read through and understand how historians determine history, I really can't help you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

More excuses to avoid direct answers,

There are a number of criteria upon which historians depend to determine history as accurately as possible.

You cling to one single one of them and seem to think that's all you need to do to determine that the Bible stories you cite are reliable and accurate.

You're doing it wrong and your questions betray that fact.

 

[leroy]

So you still can't be bothered to read through the entire thing.
If you can't even be bothered to read through and understand how historians determine history, I really can't help you.

Again more pathetic exuses to not support your claims.

I read your source, and agree with it

Now it is your turn,

Based on what the source says, why do you think Paul and the Gospels are not reliable sources?

Just for the record, your sources doesn’t say the ridiculous claims that you have made such as “testimonies are not evidence”……….

 

[leroy]

There are a number of criteria upon which historians depend to determine history as accurately as possible.

Ohhh so that is very different from your original claim.

Your original claims was

1 Testimonies are not evidence

Now you are saying

2 testimonies could be evidence, (depending on how well the meet those criteria)

You cling to one single one of them and seem to think that's all you need to do to determine that the Bible stories you cite are reliable and accurate.

You're doing it wrong and your questions betray that fact.

Yes I picked one, (multiple independent attestation) because I wanted to deal with one point at the time,

Once you agree that Paul and the Gospels meet, this criteria we can move to the next.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ohhh so that is very different from your original claim.

Your original claims was

1 Testimonies are not evidence

Now you are saying

2 testimonies could be evidence, (depending on how well the meet those criteria)

No, it isn't. I've been saying the same thing the entire time we've been discussing this.

Yes I picked one, (multiple independent attestation) because I wanted to deal with one point at the time,

Once you agree that Paul and the Gospels meet, this criteria we can move to the next.

"Picking one" is rather useless, when all combined are the criteria for which historians use to map out history.


How is it that you think "Paul and the Gospels meet" on your claims about the resurrection, exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wh

Again more pathetic exuses to not support your claims.

I read your source, and agree with it

Now it is your turn,

Based on what the source says, why do you think Paul and the Gospels are not reliable sources?

Just for the record, your sources doesn’t say the ridiculous claims that you have made such as “testimonies are not evidence”……….

How many times do I have to point out that testimonies alone are not evidence (especially in regards to extraordinary claims) before you will understand?

What do you think that whole lesson on the folly of relying solely on eyewitness accounts in a court of law was about??

 

[leroy]

No, it isn't. I've been saying the same thing the entire time we've been discussing this.

ok once again , if testimoines are not evidence, then you cant say that the Council of Nicea ever occurred, because all we have are testimonies

"


How is it that you think "Paul and the Gospels meet" on your claims about the resurrection, exactly?

The meet the criteria of multiple attestation, they both reported the same event, without copyng form each other, nor from a common source

The source that you provided accept this as a good criteria to determine the historicity of an event.

So ether refute this point, or grant it (so that we can move to the next criteria)

 

[leroy]

Wh

How many times do I have to point out that testimonies alone are not evidence (especially in regards to extraordinary claims) before you will understand?

Well then stop contradicting yourself, and stop quoting sources that disagree with you.

If testimonies alone don’t count as evidence, then you should reject all historical facts that are based just on testimonies.

Your own source is about explaining how and when testimonies count as evidence, so even your own source would disagree with you.

What do you think that whole lesson on the folly of relying solely on eyewitness accounts in a court of law was about??

The lesson:

That sometimes testimonies are wrong, sometimes testimonies are not reliable,

Your claim

Testimonies alone are always unreliable, testimonies are never good sources of evidence

The claim of the author of your source (and my claim)

Testimonies may or may not be reliable sources, depending on how well the meet the criteria

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, I'm done.
I should have been done the first fifteen times you repeated yourself.
Sayonara!

 

[Muffled]

The Bible shows lack of knowledge in many areas. So much we know is not true. So you're saying God only has the knowledge they had from thousands of years ago? Sounds suspicious. Don't limit God like that.

I believe God backs up what the Bible says.

 

[Muffled]

[QUOTE="ADigitalArtist, post: 7893650, member: 56353"]I believe you naturally otherize people sufficiently different than you and would have 'known it was wrong' out of tribalism, rather than biblical indication. Which is why you don't also observe dietary, textile, or legal imperatives given in the levitical text, or other instructions for specific congregations.

And again, these scriptures being about homosexuality is an extremely superficial read, which considering the lack of scholarly depth to most Christian beliefs is hardly surprising.

It reminds me of misinformed Christian parents who support corporal punishment on children by citing 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' as if the rod they were talking about wasn't a shepherds crook used to guide sheep back onto paths, usually by slinging pebbles to where the shepherd doesn't want the sheep to go, or by gently turning the sheeps head, not by beating said sheep as punishment for going astray.[/QUOTE]

I believe I certainly do. Women are other than me and I knew this from the age of two. However women do not have a wrongness about them but perverts do.

I believe that is false. I had no teaching on this and already instinctively knew it was wrong. Now that I am more educated, I know why.

I believe not everything in the Bible is pertinent today but the Paraclete does back up the word as relevant at this time as well.

I believe scholars are subject to going off the deep end in their extremities but the word is clear enough for me with the support of the Paraclete.

I believe that is totally speculative with no backing to say whether it is relevant or not.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That is, and has always been my point, your main issue is that you consider resurrections to be “fantastical”

For example Paul and the authors of the gospels mention that Jesus had 12 disciples , do you have any problem in accepting the historicity of that claim?

There is a qualitative difference in those claims: We know disciples exist and 12 people following around a guy is possible with human behavior.

A supernatural resurrection isn't something we know to be possible. We know people can be buried alive or die and then be brought back to life with medical intervention, but that isn't the claim.

So between those two claims, one is more grounded in empirical reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is, and has always been my point, your main issue is that you consider resurrections to be “fantastical”

For example Paul and the authors of the gospels mention that Jesus had 12 disciples , do you have any problem in accepting the historicity of that claim?

Well, in the end it doesn't matter, because I have a different faith than you. So in practice we are both in the everyday world. How we go from there is something else.

 

[leroy]

There is a qualitative difference in those claims: We know disciples exist and 12 people following around a guy is possible with human behavior.

A supernatural resurrection isn't something we know to be possible. We know people can be buried alive or die and then be brought back to life with medical intervention, but that isn't the claim.

So between those two claims, one is more grounded in empirical reality.

Yes, that is and has always been my point you (or @SkepticThinker) consider resurrection to be intrinsically more unlikely than “having 12 disciples” which is why you would require more historical evidence for the former than from the later.

So the issue is not the historical evidence, the issue is the philosophical assumption of not accepting resurrections

The ultimate point that I am making is that from the point of view of someone who already believes in God and already believes in miracles, “a resurrection” is not a big stretch……..and the historical evidence that we have should be more than enough to conclude that Jesus probably did resurrected.

I understand that from the point of view of an atheist (resurrections are likely to be impossible) there is not enough evidnece to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead

Do you understand that from the point of view of a theist (miracles occur and resurrections are likely) there are good reasons to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[Muffled]

There is a qualitative difference in those claims: We know disciples exist and 12 people following around a guy is possible with human behavior.

A supernatural resurrection isn't something we know to be possible. We know people can be buried alive or die and then be brought back to life with medical intervention, but that isn't the claim.

So between those two claims, one is more grounded in empirical reality.

I believe miracles are worth a great deal more than empirical reality which isn't worth much in a pinch.