You and her appear to be in the same boat with most Biblical critics.
I think knowing where you stand on the supernatural bit, is what seems unclear... at least to me.
You seem deliberately vague, seemingly evasive about your position on the supernatural.
If one doesn't believe in the supernatural, one does not believe in miracles.
If one does not believe in miracles, one does not believe in the supernatural.
It's that simple.
True, one can believe that the Israelites believed in God, and believed God spoke to them, and did things for them, but that doesn't mean one believes God is supernatural.
So you see how the way you are responding is not really addressing my questions.
I don't know if you believe in a supernatural God.
I think I heard you say - though not directly - you don't believe in miracles, so I can only conclude you don't believe in the supernatural.
...because you are not saying directly.
Are you evading the questions? Are you afraid it will reveal something you don't want revealed?
Let me be direct... see what happens.
Do you believe in the supernatural? Do you believe in miracles?
You could just ask, skipping all the calumny
and demonstration of your eccentric reading
of others' words. "Evasive"? "Afraid"?
Thats whay you can find in the book of moldy
rhetorical tricks, not in anything I write,
Supernatural / miracle, no , I do not believe
in them.
They might exist but the lack of evidence as well
as the multitude of reasons that such belief is irrational
put me on the "dont believe till shown" side.
Quite different from the religious mind set of
"believe what I have decided to believe no matter what
disproof is offered". We await a demonstration that
this is not exactly your approach.
The supernatural is neither proved nor disproved.
Are you in the habit of believing in things
that can be proved false even if they are
not on the bible, or only bible-bs?
Lets try to go through this and see if we can come to some sort of common understanding of what this would entail.
Would you agree to the following:
1. We have to somehow establish (demonstrate) that his followers were actual eyewitnesses to these miracles, for this to really be useful as evidence?
2. Since we have no way of asking them or speak with other people at the time when these miracles should have taken place, the only source we have for them being true is the bible?
True. The miracles Jesus is said to have performed would not have left traces.
Only people who witnessed them could relate them by word of mouth, or written word.
The Bible contains the testimony of those who claimed to have witnessed these events.
3. If we can't verify it directly, what we can do is look at the claims themselves and compare it to what we have actually observed. Meaning have we ever observed a person rise from the dead? Walk on water? etc. Lets call it natural evidence and as far as I know, the answer is no. It doesn't proof that it isn't possible to do it, just that nothing currently support that it is. Which only leaves us with this being explained by some sort of supernatural event.
We can do #1.
if we just try to compare them with what we know, and observe without considering other facts, that would limit our investigation.
If other facts don't exist, or have been ruled out under investigation, then the only thing left is, as you said, to "look at the claims themselves and compare it to what we have actually observed".
They can't be proven via naturalistic methodologies.
That would be like using a thermometer to measure how hungry you are, or how loving you are.
However, it doesn't mean you can't prove - that is, to a degree of reasonableness - you are hungry, or loving.
5. So we are left with two options, 1) a natural explanation which suggest that these miracles did not happen, due to the lack of evidence of this being possible or 2) a supernatural explanation for which we have no solid evidence. And anyone have to decide whether they find 1) or 2) most plausible.
Hmmm.
I would change that "we" though.
So you are left with those two options.
See, it all depends on what you call solid evidence.
For example, some accept that deductive reasoning, and inferences, provide them with solid evidence.
Also, as you mentioned, our own observations, so experience, may need to be used, to form our conclusion. Do you consider that solid evidence, or just evidence?
I do agree that in any case, where there is not direct evidence, we still need to decide which explanation seems more plausible.
Furthermore we can find differences in the apostles account of these stories (As pointed out in the last post - citing Bart Ehrman), and also its fairly well established that these different accounts uses each other as sources. So its not all that easy to claim that they were written independent of each other. In fact I think it would be difficult to find anyone supporting that idea.
"We" is such a broad term. It's only two letters, but quite broad. Some scholars can find differences, which other scholars don't see as differences, which should really be an eyeopener for anyone who has such confidence in these experts.
Why not try this...
Take all the texts that your guy Bart Ehrman finds contradictory, and if all scholars agree with him on every one of those texts, you come back and restate your argument.
The truth is, they are disagreements, and why is that? Humans think differently, and see things differently.
When it comes to understanding and seeing from different perspectives, and you have every single person agreeing, we have a problem.
Using J. Warner Wallace's criterion - they either collaborated, or they decided to agreed with each other. Separate them, and see what happens.
Let me demonstrate that, using Mr. Ehrman's first claimed discrepancy I like to use the first, because once that can be shown to be flawed, all the others are rendered invalid. The person's argument collapses - fail.
First, let me mention some discrepancies — not an exhaustive list of them (that would take an entire book), but just a couple of examples to give you the idea. If you read the Gospels carefully enough, you’ll find plenty yourself. The way to do it involves a different method of reading the Gospels from how we normally read them. Normally, we read a passage here or there, as we choose. Sometimes, we read the Gospels straight through, from beginning to end. Both ways of reading the Gospels are perfectly great and fine. But there is another way to read them. I call it a “horizontal” reading. This is when you put two Gospels next to each other, on the same page as it were, and read a story in one of them and then the same story in the other. If they were printed on the same page, you could literally do this horizontally; but you can simply read an account in, say, Mark, and then the same account in Luke, and do a point-by-point comparison that way. It’s very easy to do.
When you do it, you start to find irreconcilable differences among the Gospels. Do it — just to pick an example — with the story of Jairus’s daughter in Mark 5:21–43 and Matthew 9:18–26. In Mark, the man Jairus comes up to Jesus and tells him that his daughter is very sick, near to death. Could he come heal her? Before Jesus can get there, though, he is delayed by someone else who needs to be healed, and while he is taking care of this other person, people from Jairus’s household come and tell him that now it is too late, the girl has already died. Jesus tells Jairus not to fear, but only believe, and he goes and raises the girl from the dead. Fantastic story.
Matthew has the story, as well, but in his account when Jairus comes to Jesus he does not say the girl is very sick. He comes to inform Jesus that the girl has died. Could he come and raise her from the dead? And Jesus goes and does so.
There is a big difference between being very sick and being dead. … It can't very well be both. Someone has changed the story.
Again, this is a small detail, but think about it. It’s rather serious. There is a big difference between being very sick and being dead. Imagine a father who learns that his child has been taken to the hospital as opposed to learning that his child has died. Huge difference. It can’t very well be both. Someone has changed the story. (Presumably, Matthew changed it, since it is widely thought that he was using Mark as his source.)
Bart's first big mistake, demonstrates the human nature - imperfection, which sadly, some humans tend to overlook, and not consider, when it come to "experts" - scientists and intellectual scholars... such as persons like Mr. Ehrman.
What mistake did he make?
Before I point it out, let me use a simple example, that illustrates it. Dave : The sky looks pink. Tom : (who heard Dave) Dave said, the sky is pink.
(Matthew 9:18) A certain ruler : “By now my daughter must be dead, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will come to life.”
The first thing you may notice Yes I know, it's shocking. I am using a translation that has been recognize as a great scholarly work. Of course it has many critics, but every good thing gets its share of that. Especially from believers in false doctrines... like the Trinity, etc.
Though commentators have noted the scholarly effort that went into the translation, critics have described it as biased. "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." - religious writer Alexander Thomson
"on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators," - former American Bible Society board member Bruce M. Metzger
"... the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen." - Unitarian theologian Charles F. Potter
"The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation" - review in Andover Newton Quarterly Robert M. McCoy
Of course, I left out the negatives. There are obviously complaints because it exposes their false doctrines.
Yet they can't help but admit, that it's a great scholarly work.
Anyway, you can check the differences in the translations here.
The Greek word is arti (ἄρτι), which means, now, just now, at this moment. HELPS Word-studies 737 árti (an adverb) – now (this instant); here-and-now; exactly now, in the immediate present.
737 /árti ("now") refers to the present as the time to act – i.e. to live "in the now" (= "being alive unto God" now, cf. Ro 6:11).
So any good Biblical scholar, would know that when this ruler left his daughter, she was alive, but he knew she was dying, and had little time left. So he obviously believe that by the time he found Jesus, his daughter would be dead. So there was a probability. "She's gravely ill. She must be dead now."
A good scholar would know too, that the daughter did not live a stone's throw away from where Jesus was, so they had to travel.
All these facts (language, situation, etc.) are important for good textual criticism. So not surprisingly, your guy is not as good as you credit him for.
So really, there is no discrepancy between Mark 5:21–43 and Matthew 9:18–26.
What may seem to be a discrepancy is just a matter of perspective, as J. Wallace mentioned, two witnesses from different perspective giving different details. One compliments the other.
That won't stop critics though.
So at least in my eyes, I don't think the apostles claiming to be eyewitnesses are strong evidence in support of Jesus being who he claimed. Not saying they are lying, simply that we have to weight these claims versus each other. And that we are not dealing with some mundane claims here, like someone claimed to have won a battle or something, but rather something that really defy what we know about the natural world.
I don't really find this to be a good argument or even that wise. Because it seems to follow a sort of Pascal wager approach.
Acts 5:38-39 38 "I'm telling you to keep away from these men for now. Leave them alone, because if this plan or movement is of human origin, it will fail. 39 However, if it is from God, you won't be able to stop them, and you may even discover that you are fighting against God!" So they were convinced by him.
So if you try to stop them and God is with them, then you can't do it as you are fighting God, who would want that? But if you let them do it, there is a chance that they will fail if God is not with them. But by not stopping them, you are not risking the fight against God. So in the end the outcome or the Pascal wager reasoning or what to call it, would go for not stopping them as that is where you are going to risk the least.
The problem with Pascal wager, is that it doesn't take everything into considered. Like what if you bet on the wrong God? Lets say that God of Judaism or Islam is actually the right one? So it only really works when one assume that they are correct about the two possibilities that they use.
Now, you have lost me. What are we discussing here? Is it not whether what Jesus said did indeed come to past, providing evidence that he is whom he claimed to be? I don't want to get sidetracked.
It's not a matter of opposite.
God does not interfere with your decision - it's your free will to exercise it.
So if God has a purpose, or will, and you decide something against it, it does not change God's will, and purpose.
It may alter how he gets it done. In other words, he may make an adjustment in what he does, but it will be done. What he said, will take place. (Isaiah 55:9-11)
Your free will is yours. God's will is his... if that makes sense.
No, that is not what I say. What I say is, that when for instant the Catholic church, go out and tell the poor in Africa that using pills etc are a sin, because of what they as many other religious people believe is against the word of God, when he say that you should not kill. That it causes people to behave in ways that are causing harm to them, such as the spreading of Aids, children born under poor conditions. That this is caused due the believe that these religious organisations is telling people. Their motive is not to cause aids to spread or kill innocent, but to follow the rules that they believe is in accordance with their beliefs. And we know how some people react when they feel their beliefs are being violated or threaten etc.
Why isn't it Atheists that run around and blow up people in terrorist attacks for instant, but causes others to do these things?
And im not saying that Atheists can't do bad things, they sure can. But their motives for doing so are simply those that any other religious person could also do.
So clearly something about these religions motivate people to do things that atheists at least would not do, even if that is not the intention of these establishments.
I'll say this as simple as possible. There exists false religion, and religious ideas - doctrines of men, that has nothing to do with the Bible, or God.
There is fake money, and real money. No one throws away their money because counterfeit looks similar.
Pretty much all of them, Adam and Eve, Noa, Goliat, Job.
If you read what Bart Ehrman wrote in the article? I think, I would probably be more generous than he is in regards to what I would consider true. But then again, I do not have the knowledge he have and obviously do not know all the stories with supporting evidence and context as he does. But at least that should give you an idea of what my position is.
You could just ask, skipping all the calumny
and demonstration of your eccentric reading
of others' words. "Evasive"? "Afraid"?
Thats whay you can find in the book of moldy
rhetorical tricks, not in anything I write,
Supernatural / miracle, no , I do not believe
in them.
They might exist but the lack of evidence as well
as the multitude of reasons that such belief is irrational
put me on the "dont believe till shown" side.
Quite different from the religious mind set of
"believe what I have decided to believe no matter what
disproof is offered". We await a demonstration that
this is not exactly your approach.
The supernatural is neither proved nor disproved.
Are you in the habit of believing in things
that can be proved false even if they are
not on the bible, or only bible-bs?
When I am finished discussing with Nimos, I will get back to you on what you asked about. I don't have the time right now to handle so many posters at once.
When I am finished discussing with Nimos, I will get back to you on what you asked about. I don't have the time right now to handle so many posters at once.
You can make your job easier by
not devoting a paragraph to a
simple question. And of course,
by not taking time to make up things
about me, or science, ftm.
Pseudoarchaeology
Pseudoarchaeology—also known as alternative archaeology, fringe archaeology, fantastic archaeology, or cult archaeology—refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline. These pseudoscientific interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or materials to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to supplement the pseudoarchaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, use of fallacy, and fabrication of evidence. Pseudoarchaeology - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology
If the Bible were one single account - the only one you seem to find topical - then I would say you have a valid argument. However, because the Flood account is just 0.001% of the Bible, I can focus on the other percentage, which if they appear to be reliable, can be good reason for concluding it is truthful.
The problem with this reasoning is the flood is a big issue as to the historical reliability of the Bible, and you have to include whether Genesis and Exodus is historically accurate as a whole, and known facts and the objective evidence is that the whole of the Pentateuch is not historically accurate. There are 'some' people and events in the Bible that are confirmed by archaeology, by far most of the Pentateuch is not.
This one I find to be the best reason, because I think he make a good case here in regards to what exactly the apostle would get out of it, based on the only 3 options puts forward to why someone would murder, lie or steal, which are financial gain, power or sexsual benefits.
And I think he is correct that neither of the apostles seems to be gaining a lot of that through maintaining their believe in Jesus. However I do not think that he is looking at all possible reasons, one which could be conviction. Sort of like when a terrorist (Not trying to compare the apostle with such) decide to blow themself up for a cause they believe in. One would have a difficult time I think arguing that such person would get any of the three options that he is putting forward. Yet they blow themselves up anyway, so how would he explain that?
But again I find this one to be the most interesting.
Reason 5 - It matches and explain reality -
Not really anything to add here, its basically just a word salad of claims.
The difference between terrorist groups and the followers of Christ, is that, there is nothing at all to be gained by being a martyr for a lie, or myth.
There is only death = the martyr's.
For the former, they gain several things - taking multiple lives, driving fear in the heart of their enemies, and supporting their comrades in the fight.
For the martyr, everything is lost - no glory in heaven, or "afterlife", no family, or friends, or possessions, or pleasures, etc. etc.
The candor of the Bible writers is actually a strong piece of evidence to their credibility.
This is one of the criterion used in determining the historicity of a historical document. More on that later.
I'm surprised at your response to the fifth reason, but maybe I shouldn't be.
What is essentially being stated, is that the Bible - I will include the Hebrew portions, also - are in line with reality, and making sense of what we observe in reality... on every level.
So, in other words, the Bible gives us a complete picture of every aspect of life, without any gaps... unlike the picture painted by the secular worldview.
I can think of a number of examples, but since there is a lot here already, I won't make this an issue, since I want to narrow this down a bit, to just a few main point, I consider to be solid.
The problem with this reasoning is the flood is a big issue as to the historical reliability of the Bible, and you have to include whether Genesis and Exodus is historically accurate as a whole, and known facts and the objective evidence is that the whole of the Pentateuch is not historically accurate. There are 'some' people and events in the Bible that are confirmed by archaeology, by far most of the Pentateuch is not.
There is no big issue with the flood account. None whatsoever.
In the first place, I will repeat what I said before, the Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, is about a supernatural being - God... describing his dealings with the nation of Israel; with his only begotten son, and followers of his anointed, or appointed one - Jesus the Messiah.
The thing about Genesis - particularly creation, and the fall of man... this is a valuable piece of history, which sets the theme for all the scriptures, and the characters (Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Moses, Ruth, Esther, David, Solomon, Judah, Jesus, John), and events (Passover initiation, Temple arrangement, and hundreds more, leading to Jesus's ministry, death, and resurrection) throughout the Bible.
Therefore, the fact that the Bible is not one book written by one person, or a group living during the same period... but rather, is a collection of historical accounts, penned by some 40 different men, from various backgrounds, and walks of life, over a period of 1600 years, describing supernatural events, and prophecies... is compelling evidence that the Bible is divinely authored, as it claims.
With this one proof alone, one has a solid basis for all the historical evidence, as well as the other evidence - both internal, and external.
Regarding the Exodus Since Exodus continues the sacred story of the divine promise to Israel begun in Genesis, it must be seen as part of a larger literary unit that is variously understood to include the first four, five, or six books of the Bible.
.............Each of these strands preserves materials much older than the time of their incorporation into a written work. Exodus thus conserves extremely old oral and written history.
Much of the evidence for the exodus is circumstantial, and could go different directions. However, there is evidence - strong internal evidence, but we have supporting evidence of an external kind also.
Attacking the Pentateuch is no help to you. In the same way the dynasty of king David in 10th century BC caused you to scramble for Genesis and Exodus, I am sure evidence will turn up that will leave you clinging to the flood with just your fingers. Just wait.
There is no big issue with the flood account. None whatsoever.
In the first place, I will repeat what I said before, the Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, is about a supernatural being - God... describing his dealings with the nation of Israel; with his only begotten son, and followers of his anointed, or appointed one - Jesus the Messiah.
The thing about Genesis - particularly creation, and the fall of man... this is a valuable piece of history, which sets the theme for all the scriptures, and the characters (Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Moses, Ruth, Esther, David, Solomon, Judah, Jesus, John), and events (Passover initiation, Temple arrangement, and hundreds more, leading to Jesus's ministry, death, and resurrection) throughout the Bible.
Therefore, the fact that the Bible is not one book written by one person, or a group living during the same period... but rather, is a collection of historical accounts, penned by some 40 different men, from various backgrounds, and walks of life, over a period of 1600 years, describing supernatural events, and prophecies... is compelling evidence that the Bible is divinely authored, as it claims.
With this one proof alone, one has a solid basis for all the historical evidence, as well as the other evidence - both internal, and external.
Regarding the Exodus Since Exodus continues the sacred story of the divine promise to Israel begun in Genesis, it must be seen as part of a larger literary unit that is variously understood to include the first four, five, or six books of the Bible.
.............Each of these strands preserves materials much older than the time of their incorporation into a written work. Exodus thus conserves extremely old oral and written history.
Much of the evidence for the exodus is circumstantial, and could go different directions. However, there is evidence - strong internal evidence, but we have supporting evidence of an external kind also.
Attacking the Pentateuch is no help to you. In the same way the dynasty of king David in 10th century BC caused you to scramble for Genesis and Exodus, I am sure evidence will turn up that will leave you clinging to the flood with just your fingers. Just wait.
LOL! When claiming that archaeologists believe that the Exodus happened it is an outright fail and admission that one is wrong when you can find only Bible sites that support that claim. You really need to find a valid source when you do that. You as much as admit that archaeologists reject the Exodus by using such sources.
The problem with this reasoning is the flood is a big issue as to the historical reliability of the Bible, and you have to include whether Genesis and Exodus is historically accurate as a whole, and known facts and the objective evidence is that the whole of the Pentateuch is not historically accurate. There are 'some' people and events in the Bible that are confirmed by archaeology, by far most of the Pentateuch is not.
There is no big issue with the flood account. None whatsoever.
In the first place, I will repeat what I said before, the Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, is about a supernatural being - God... describing his dealings with the nation of Israel; with his only begotten son, and followers of his anointed, or appointed one - Jesus the Messiah.
The thing about Genesis - particularly creation, and the fall of man... this is a valuable piece of history, which sets the theme for all the scriptures, and the characters (Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Moses, Ruth, Esther, David, Solomon, Judah, Jesus, John), and events (Passover initiation, Temple arrangement, and hundreds more, leading to Jesus's ministry, death, and resurrection) throughout the Bible.
Therefore, the fact that the Bible is not one book written by one person, or a group living during the same period... but rather, is a collection of historical accounts, penned by some 40 different men, from various backgrounds, and walks of life, over a period of 1600 years, describing supernatural events, and prophecies... is compelling evidence that the Bible is divinely authored, as it claims.
With this one proof alone, one has a solid basis for all the historical evidence, as well as the other evidence - both internal, and external.
Regarding the Exodus Since Exodus continues the sacred story of the divine promise to Israel begun in Genesis, it must be seen as part of a larger literary unit that is variously understood to include the first four, five, or six books of the Bible.
.............Each of these strands preserves materials much older than the time of their incorporation into a written work. Exodus thus conserves extremely old oral and written history.
Much of the evidence for the exodus is circumstantial, and could go different directions. However, there is evidence - strong internal evidence, but we have supporting evidence of an external kind also.
Attacking the Pentateuch is no help to you. In the same way the dynasty of king David in 10th century BC caused you to scramble for Genesis and Exodus, I am sure evidence will turn up that will leave you clinging to the flood with just your fingers. Just wait.
The JW's have a very strong weapon that keeps their parishioners in line. It is called dissociation. I posted a video where an almost ex-JW opened up about the pain from that. Think of it how it would be if you loved your family and they all suddenly turned their back on you. And almost all of your friends did the same. The JW's try to keep their cult rather "incestuous". People tend to socialize and befriend other JW's. If a person realizes that what they teach is flapdoodle then they may find that their entire community has turned against them. It is that sort of action by the church that makes the Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and not a sect of Christianity.
People under that sort of pressure can be convinced to believe almost anything.
The JW's have a very strong weapon that keeps their parishioners in line. It is called dissociation.
I posted a video where an almost ex-JW opened up about the pain from that. Think of it how it would be if you loved your family and they all suddenly turned their back on you. And almost all of your friends did the same. The JW's try to keep their cult rather "incestuous". People tend to socialize and befriend other JW's. If a person realizes that what they teach is flapdoodle then they may find that their entire community has turned against them. It is that sort of action by the church that makes the Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and not a sect of Christianity.
People under that sort of pressure can be convinced to believe almost anything.
The JW's have a very strong weapon that keeps their parishioners in line. It is called dissociation. I posted a video where an almost ex-JW opened up about the pain from that. Think of it how it would be if you loved your family and they all suddenly turned their back on you. And almost all of your friends did the same. The JW's try to keep their cult rather "incestuous". People tend to socialize and befriend other JW's. If a person realizes that what they teach is flapdoodle then they may find that their entire community has turned against them. It is that sort of action by the church that makes the Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and not a sect of Christianity.
People under that sort of pressure can be convinced to believe almost anything.
are left with those two options.