The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

I don't speak of any particular group of Christians, as it seem to depend who you ask, whether they think other groups calling themselves Christians are "true" Christians or not in their eyes.

The things that were done, was done in the name of Jesus and God, by interpreting the scriptures as they believed they were meant to be understood.

When you say there were done in the name of Jesus and God, do you mean to say that God approved of what was done? What is your point?
You seem to be driving in two directions at the same time, and it's confusing me, because when I think you are at point A, you appear to be at point Q.

Can we go back to what you said.

So when Christians thought that burning people for being witches were a good idea. If we're talking about objective morality, clearly they and us today must see that it was the moral right thing to do.

How come the earlier Christians did not perceive that as morally wrong when we do? Why did that change if we are talking about objective morality?they were

It would seem from your response just now, that you really don't want to hear anything said to you. Your mind is already made up. So that would make the conversation one way.
Perhaps my assessment is wrong, so I will try again.

In response to your questions, the early "Christians" you speak of, are not the early Christians that followed Christ. There are a later breed - that is, late first, into second century, and beyond, apostates (so-called Christians). Just as there are carpenters, and "carpenters", and there are masons, and "masons". Money, and "money"... There are Christians, and "Christians".
That would mean that your questions would be irrelevant, if you insist that both are the same, and insist on refusing to acknowledge the fact that Christians never killed witches, nor were they instructed to do so.

If you are referring to the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures (the so-called OT), there were no Christians back then.
There were a nation of Jewish, or Israelite people, under God's rule... and under God's rule, the nation - his domain - was required to obey the laws of the land, or face the justice system.
The law said, those who practices sorcery, magic, witchcraft, idolatry, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., etc.,should be removed from the land - put to death.
That was God's moral law.
Has it changed? No. It is still the same. So why are not Christians (God's people) today, required to kill witches? I explained that before. It wasn't just a few words, so I won't repeat it here. You can revisit it at post #937.

Regarding someone doing something, in the name of...
in the name of is to say, by the authority of...as in Open up, in the name of the law!
So if you are saying that anyone who goes to a house, and shouts "Open up, in the name of the law!", is doing so, by the authority of the law, then we have a problem.
You would need to get the facts straight, if we are going to make any progress.
I really would hate to think, that that's what you are saying... so I won't.

Likewise, anyone can scream that they are doing something in the name of Jehovah, and Jesus, but they are not doing it, by their authority - in their (God and Jesus) name. They are mistaken... and so are you.
Jesus said as much...
(John 16:1-4) 1“I have said these things to you so that you may not be stumbled. 2 Men will expel you from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he has offered a sacred service to God. 3 But they will do these things because they have not come to know either the Father or me. 4 Nevertheless, I have told you these things so that when the hour for them to happen arrives, you will remember that I told them to you.. . .

Sure it is, if objective morality were handed down to us from God, clearly these should never change. Otherwise one would have to argue why humans decided to change them.

It not only because I say so, it because millions if not billions of people around the world agree that slavery is wrong, that someone having been raped should not marry their rapist. Morality is not something one just decide, like one day I think slavery is wrong and the next day im on the street with a banner encouraging it, because I suddenly thought it would be good.

I agree morality doesn't change. I said that to you before, when I mentioned they were based on principles that don't change. Do you remember that conversation?
So, perhaps you can give me one moral that has changed. In fact, better yet, give me your full list - the whole boat load.

The reason our morality is the way it is, is because of the society we have been brought up in, we have been taught by our parents what is right and what is wrong, however as we grow we are also capable of acquiring our own knowledge and no longer simply follow what we have been raised to believe, we question our parents authority and might even figure out that some of the things, they believe to be morally good we don't agree with, because we get influenced by other things as well, our friends, I feelings towards something, what we ourself have experience in our world and how we view things that is going on around us and not least the combined knowledge in our current time.

Very true. I agree.

So we as a whole, based on our passed experience as society and individuals, can look at things that have been done in the past and judge whether we think what they did were morally right or wrong. Not a lot different than we can look at witch burnings and say that is wrong, because we know that witches doesn't exist and burning people without evidence is not a good thing. They didn't know that, they were convinced that these were real and by burning them they did good.

Yes. We can look at situations, and behaviors, and make judgments.
However, I think we need to also be reasonable, and consider if we are missing something that may be worth thinking about, and considering.

Sorry, I have to respond to the remainder another time.

 

[Nimos]

When you say there were done in the name of Jesus and God, do you mean to say that God approved of what was done? What is your point?

I have no clue if a potential God would approve of it, its not like he throws his present and opinion around a lot, besides in the bible, and if that is to be believed that it is telling us what God think. Then I do think it seems to suggest that God do not like witches and that they should be killed, so what would make you assume that he would not approve of it?

If you are referring to the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures (the so-called OT), there were no Christians back then.

When I talk about Christians I talk after Jesus, even those following Jesus were not Christians, as you said that came much later.

Has it changed? No. It is still the same. So why are not Christians (God's people) today, required to kill witches? I explained that before. It wasn't just a few words, so I won't repeat it here. You can revisit it at post #937.

I reread post #937 and do not see any answer to this. I saw the example of God being the supreme ruler was that it?

So if you are saying that anyone who goes to a house, and shouts "Open up, in the name of the law!", is doing so, by the authority of the law, then we have a problem.
You would need to get the facts straight, if we are going to make any progress.

That is definitely not the same and I think you know that.

The law or law enforcement is an establish part of a society and its government, which is clearly defined in terms of what it is, what tasks it is suppose to handle and who have the authority to call themselves law enforcement.

When looking at Christians denominations:

There are approximately 30 to 40 thousand denominations of Christianity. Each denomination is a group of Christians who gather under one name such as Roman Catholic, Latter Day Saints, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, etc.

The majority of these probably have most beliefs in common, but might have their own view on what they believe is true as well. So when you compare that to, that of law enforcement, it is obviously not the same. You might disagree that 20000 of these are the so called "Christians" you refer to, and they probably have their own view as well. Remember that a lot of other denominations do not agree that JWs are true Christians. So your comparison makes little sense.

Likewise, anyone can sream that they are doing something in the name of Jehovah, and Jesus, but they are not doing it, by their authority - in their (God and Jesus) name. They are mistaken... and so are you.

Say you, that is the whole argument you don't get. Its no different than another Christians say that JWs are wrong, because you don't do as they think you should. That is why I wrote that, I didn't refer to any particular Christians, because there are so many and it is not up to me to decide which of these 30-40 thousand denominations is and is not true Christians, that would be impossible and stupid to even try.

I agree morality doesn't change. I said that to you before, when I mentioned they were based on principles that don't change. Do you remember that conversation?
So, perhaps you can give me one moral that has changed. In fact, better yet, give me your full list - the whole boat load.

Well obviously not going to write all of them as that would take a very long time.

But to mention a few, women rights, black peoples right, the right to hit children have been change in some countries, slavery. If all these were seem as being morally right and good, people would not have fought to get them changed.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, that would be correct.

However since humans clearly doesn't share his view on what is morally right or wrong, then I think one would have a hard time arguing that he is in fact the creator of morality and therefore subjective morality seem more likely to be correct in my opinion.

How so?
Are you saying that your father would not be your father, simply because people argued that he isn't.
Or the house you live in is not yours, because people argued that they never saw you purchase it, so it's not yours?
That's how you argument comes across to me.

I want to stress that my view is not a "common" view among all atheists and some do believe there is objective morality, just that it doesn't come from God obviously, which as I see it, causes some issues, because if God or a creator did not make them, who did?

I would ask the same question.

So without putting words in his mouth, I do think that Sam Harris argue this as far as I know (Might be wrong) , but I would disagree with this.

However I think William Lane Craig put it rather well here responding to him. My only problem with William Lane Craig is that he makes it sound as if Sam Harris view, is the "Atheistic" view on morality. But besides that I think he is correct.

Atheist making their own standards of conduct is meaningless to me.
You can choose what rules and standards of conduct you will live by. I do the same.

I stopped watching the movie very fast, as it is highly manipulative in how it present the story. 1.10 minute in it is said, that "she put herself in a comprising situation".... what? where did that come from?

Here... (Genesis 34:1) Now Diʹnah, Jacob’s daughter by Leʹah, used to go out to spend time with the young women of the land.

Genesis 34:2
2 When Hamor the Hivite's son Shechem, the regional leader, saw her, he grabbed her and raped her, humiliating her.

I don't really see how that changes anything, so her brothers get upset and make a plan to get all the males circumcised in the village to then take justice into their own hand:

Her brothers acted on their own accord, and their actions were wrong.

Genesis 34:25-29
25 Three days later, while they were still in pain, Jacob's sons Simeon and Levi, two of Dinah's brothers, each grabbed a sword and entered the city unannounced, intending to kill all the males.
26 They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with their swords, took back Dinah from Shechem's house, and left.
27 Jacob's other sons came along afterward and plundered the city where their sister had been defiled,
28 seizing all of their flocks, herds, donkeys, and whatever else was in the city or had been left out in the field.
29 They carried off all their wealth, their children, and their wives as captives, plundering everything that remained in the houses.

That is excellent morality being shown here, so one gets raped, which is really bad. But as justice for this, they intend or kill all the males in the city, and enclave their children and wives. Because Shechem raped her? Why not just kill him, what they hell did all the others do?

Why is this excellent morality? I detect sarcasm, but since you think that the act was God directed - which it wasn't, then I would be happy if you showed me where in the Bible you read that it was a moral.
Or, you could apologize for not reading the Bible with any understanding of what you read.

Well looking at how witches are no longer killed as God wanted them to be. That either we in modern days or those back then have misunderstood the bible and whether we are in fact to kill them or not?

God has determined that he will be judge and executioner, by the one he appointed.
So whereas, he appointed judges to carry out the execution in the nation of Israel. After Christ - the Messiah - arrived, and accomplished God's will in fulfillment of the things said concerning him, God has appointed Jesus Christ judge and executioner. So all withches will be executed when Christ takes up rulership over all the earth. Not only witches though.
(Revelation 21:8) . . .as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and the sexually immoral and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.”

Ok, so what events suggest that a demon or evil spirit is presence?

I just gave you one. Do you want me to give you again?

And how do one know that it is one of those and not something else?

I recall asking you this... How do you explain this with naturalism?
Do you recall that too?
I will take your trying to shift the question, as an admittance that you have no explanation from a naturalistic point of view. Okay?

If one is going to present a case for the super natural these things are important to be able to test and clarify, otherwise it makes no sense. Im really not being unfair here.

...and I presented you with that test. You have not addressed it.
Should I conclude you are just avoiding anything that shakes your worldview? I already reached that conclusion, since it is apparent that you are being evasive.

Ok so when pilots, policeman, farmers, military personal etc. say that they have seen a UFO, then that is also good enough for you? Just from a logical point of view, shouldn't we be a lot more concerned about intergalactic aliens and how to defend our self, with them flying around and mutilating cows and abducting people?
To me that would be far more concerning than potentially demons and spirits, which really doesn't seem to be that huge of a threat. At least I haven't heard a lot of complaining about them in general. So why are you not concerned about aliens, I bet you can find a lot more witnesses to them than that of demons and evil spirits?


What procedure I think you lost me?


What was felt by the person? and what did they witness? I really don't know what you are talking about? Do you have an example... because are we talking about events like in the movie you posted with things flying around or what?

What? I think you have shown, you have no answer, so you are going in circles.
I conclude you do not have a naturalistic explanation. I do not believe you are too "dumb" to understand the simple situation I presented. Evidently you are just being evasive.

What I was trying to show with the image and the above with the UFO witnesses were, that these are not considered very good evidence. Because people make mistakes, may lie etc. Our brain as well is easily fooled, which is what the image were suppose to illustrate. Take 50 people that have never seen a visual illusion before and ask them whether the lines are straight or tilted in the image based on what they think and I bet you, you would get close to, if not more than 50% wrong answers. That is why we rely on data rather than what people think or feel is correct, because it is often wrong.

So it have nothing to do with the example you gave, which is basically just about someone unable to follow instructions, as I see it.

Unbelievable. As I just said, I do not believe you are "dumb". I think you know quite well that you did not address what I put before you, and I don't think it is because you don't understand it. So I conclude that you are avoiding admitting there is no naturalistic explanation for such a situation.
That's two evasions because of being unable to refute conclusive evidence against your worldview.

 

[nPeace]

I have no clue if a potential God would approve of it, its not like he throws his present and opinion around a lot, besides in the bible, and if that is to be believed that it is telling us what God think. Then I do think it seems to suggest that God do not like witches and that they should be killed, so what would make you assume that he would not approve of it?

God's presence is seen in more than just the Bible. The Bible just confirms that.
Assume? I did not assume anything.
I must ask, are you not understanding anything I am saying? Please let me know, as it would make no sense me posting stuff you can't understand, but respond to anyway.

When I talk about Christians I talk after Jesus, even those following Jesus were not Christians, as you said that came much later.

Pardon me, but What? When I talk about Christians I talk after Jesus.... ???
Were you trying to say something else, or is this what you meant to say?
Jesus was never a Christian. Seems you may need help understanding what a Christian is.
I could allow you time to work it out, or I could help you. Just let me know what you decide.

It seems to me, you are not quite comprehending any of this stuff.
Yet, like most Atheist, I'm sure you will of course not admit that, but instead try to give the impression, you do. I understand that.
I did not say that those following Christ came later... nowhere, and at no time, Nimos.

I reread post #937 and do not see any answer to this. I saw the example of God being the supreme ruler was that it?

Is that what you got?
Perhaps you can explain what you understand. Maybe you are reading, but not understanding.

That is definitely not the same and I think you know that.

The law or law enforcement is an establish part of a society and its government, which is clearly defined in terms of what it is, what tasks it is suppose to handle and who have the authority to call themselves law enforcement.

When looking at Christians denominations:

There are approximately 30 to 40 thousand denominations of Christianity. Each denomination is a group of Christians who gather under one name such as Roman Catholic, Latter Day Saints, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, etc.

The majority of these probably have most beliefs in common, but might have their own view on what they believe is true as well. So when you compare that to, that of law enforcement, it is obviously not the same. You might disagree that 20000 of these are the so called "Christians" you refer to, and they probably have their own view as well. Remember that a lot of other denominations do not agree that JWs are true Christians. So your comparison makes little sense.

No. I don't know that. There are the same thing. "In the name of God", and "In the name of the law", both mean the same thing.
Did you follow the links I provided? It's all written on those links, and others.

Say you, that is the whole argument you don't get. Its no different than another Christians say that JWs are wrong, because you don't do as they think you should. That is why I wrote that, I didn't refer to any particular Christians, because there are so many and it is not up to me to decide which of these 30-40 thousand denominations is and is not true Christians, that would be impossible and stupid to even try.

I don't recall saying anything about JWs in anywhere in that post.
When the mailman comes to your door, does he say, "My name is Dick." Or does he say, "Mail", or "Post"?
His personal identify does not matter. His job title does.
So if an imitation "mailman" comes to your door, your concern would be, "Is he the, or a mailman?"
Likewise, the consideration here is not, "Is the Christian SDA, JWs, RC, etc." Rather, are we talking about Christians, or an imitation?
Clearly, you are talking about an imitation.

Well obviously not going to write all of them as that would take a very long time.

Sorry. I don't believe you. You are not fooling me Nimos.

But to mention a few, women rights, black peoples right, the right to hit children have been change in some countries, slavery. If all these were seem as being morally right and good, people would not have fought to get them changed.

What women's rights are a moral issue in the Bible?
What does the Bible have to say about black people, thus creating a moral issue?
What do you mean by hitting children? Do you mean punching them in the face? Please elaborate.
Is slavery wrong? Why? What makes it wrong?

 

[Nimos]

How so?
Are you saying that your father would not be your father, simply because people argued that he isn't.
Or the house you live in is not yours, because people argued that they never saw you purchase it, so it's not yours?
That's how you argument comes across to me.

I think the reason you are not understanding me is because you are not reading what I write. It seems to me that you are not really sure what is meant with objective morality, which causes you to make comparisons to things that are not comparable.

How can you compare the examples you just gave with that of morality?

Here is a quick explanation of objective morality:
Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow.

Here... (Genesis 34:1) Now Diʹnah, Jacob’s daughter by Leʹah, used to go out to spend time with the young women of the land.

And how on Earth does that relate to her putting herself in a compromising situation as shown in the movie, where she is standing in a dark room holding up what looks to be some metal panties or something and the guy entering the room and locking or closing the door?

Its like me showing how Di'nah went to these villages getting all drunk, running around half naked with some other girls and flirting with all the men. And then say that it because of what is said in Genesis 34:1

That is to be manipulative and trying to set a scene for which there are clearly no evidence for, because I assume, they have some moral teaching to share later on in the movie.

Why is this excellent morality? I detect sarcasm, but since you think that the act was God directed - which it wasn't, then I would be happy if you showed me where in the Bible you read that it was a moral.
Or, you could apologize for not reading the Bible with any understanding of what you read.

Yes it was sarcasm.

I never said that God approved of it. But to not get derailed from the original issue about rape victims having to marry their rapist. So if her brothers had not killed them. But instead had accepted the deal that was offered to them. Then you think it would have been good?

God has determined that he will be judge and executioner, by the one he appointed.
So whereas, he appointed judges to carry out the execution in the nation of Israel. After Christ - the Messiah - arrived, and accomplished God's will in fulfillment of the things said concerning him, God has appointed Jesus Christ judge and executioner. So all withches will be executed when Christ takes up rulership over all the earth. Not only witches though.

But if that were the case, then why add a law telling the Jews to kill them, without any instruction on how they should identify them? If God is going to judge and execute them. Then clearly it would have made a lot more sense had the law said something like. "Leave the witches to me, for I know who they are and I will pass judgement on them"

I just gave you one. Do you want me to give you again?

Yes please.

I recall asking you this... How do you explain this with naturalism?

Again, im really having a hard time following you. Because you gave me an example from a movie with things flying around, really don't hope that was the one you were referring to?

But if it were, then there is no naturalistic explanation, because it have not been established that such thing can happen. You present real evidence for it being possible and then we can look at it. And Im not talking about someone simply claiming it.

If your example was the one with people claiming to have some sort of experience of being possessed you have still not presented any evidence for it to be the case, except people claiming they are.

Do you recall that too?
I will take your trying to shift the question, as an admittance that you have no explanation from a naturalistic point of view. Okay?

As a naturalistic explanation for why some might believe they are possessed, we can start looking at the past and see the stuff they made up to explain things and we find this in almost all, if not all cultures.

Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. People with schizophrenia may seem like they have lost touch with reality.

The symptoms of schizophrenia fall into three categories: positive, negative, and cognitive.

Positive symptoms: “Positive” symptoms are psychotic behaviors not generally seen in healthy people. People with positive symptoms may “lose touch” with some aspects of reality. Symptoms include:

• Hallucinations
• Delusions
• Thought disorders (unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking)
• Movement disorders (agitated body movements)

Now even though not all is known about this condition, there are ways to identify whether or not one suffers from this and there is treatment for it. If you want more details on this you will have to look it up.

This could be an explanation for why some people think they are being possessed, others might be straight up lying or being mistaken. And you can probably find a whole list of other psychological explanations of why people believe in these things.

Now I have at least given you some naturalistic explanations.

So now, what could the none naturalistic explanations be and again how do you identify them as being evil spirits or demons, and what known treatment are there, that would offer a better explanation than a naturalistic one?

...and I presented you with that test. You have not addressed it.
Should I conclude you are just avoiding anything that shakes your worldview? I already reached that conclusion, since it is apparent that you are being evasive.

No, you should address the fact, that I already told and explained to you, why the test you presented were terrible. So rather than saying that Im avoiding your question, you should look at my reply and convince me, why you believe the test is good and why my argument of it being bad is wrong?

What? I think you have shown, you have no answer, so you are going in circles.
I conclude you do not have a naturalistic explanation. I do not believe you are too "dumb" to understand the simple situation I presented. Evidently you are just being evasive.

No, you have to be able to see why what you are doing is not fair or even correct, when replying to me. ill back track a bit. This is what you wrote:

Please give an example, so that I can be on the same page as you.
How I know it's not psychological, is because ...
1) various people of various associations, background, ideas, etc., witnessed the events (see above).
2) Time and again - repeatedly, thousands of times, the procedure worked. Once followed... never fails.
3) The results were seen and felt by a) the person who experienced them, and b) the persons associated with the individual, as well as other witnesses, and c) the persons who aided the individual, who recommends the procedure, because they know it works, having seen it before.

So you state that this is how you know it is not psychological.. and the very first reason is this:

1) various people of various associations, background, ideas, etc., witnessed the events (see above).

Now I replied to this with the example of the UFO claims, because you put it forward as evidence or argument for why we ought to trust people that make these claims, purely based on them being varied, having different backgrounds and ideas.

Which is exactly the same that you have with people claiming to have seen UFOs. Which is why I mentioned pilots, policeman etc. So if you find it to be trustworthy when people claimed they are being possessed based on that, then there ought to be no reason why the same logic should not apply to those claiming to have seen UFOs.

2) Time and again - repeatedly, thousands of times, the procedure worked. Once followed... never fails.
You don't give any example of what procedure you are talking about, which were what I asked for. As in the example above with Schizophrenia, you have both ways of identifying it and you have know treatments for it. So you have a procedure for it. And again there are probably lots of psychological conditions that one could look up that could also provide some answers.

Do you see the difference here? You make 2 statements...

repeatedly, thousands of times
I still have no clue what have been repeated thousands of times as you haven't explained it?

the procedure worked. Once followed... never fails.
You haven't shown or referenced any procedure, so I have no clue what you are referring to. And again you haven't specified what on Earth the condition is. And yet you can conclude that if this procedure is followed it never fails?

Im really not sure, why you don't see that its slightly difficult to follow you.

So again can you please answer this question from above:

how do you identify them as being evil spirits or demons, and what known treatment are there, that would offer a better explanation than a naturalistic one?

Continue...

 

[Nimos]

God's presence is seen in more than just the Bible. The Bible just confirms that.
Assume? I did not assume anything.
I must ask, are you not understanding anything I am saying? Please let me know, as it would make no sense me posting stuff you can't understand, but respond to anyway.

I understand some of it, again you are not being very specific when writing, so might miss some.

Again you just throw out statements, which makes little sense:

"God's presence is seen in more than just the Bible. The Bible just confirms that."

What do you mean? no examples, no evidence, no argument.... nothing.

What do you mean its seen in more places than just the bible?

It would be like me writing something like this:
"Evolution is much more than a natural process, we see it all around us in our everyday life. The errors in the bible confirms that."

And then I just move on to something else....

Pardon me, but What? When I talk about Christians I talk after Jesus.... ???
Were you trying to say something else, or is this what you meant to say?
Jesus was never a Christian. Seems you may need help understanding what a Christian is.
I could allow you time to work it out, or I could help you. Just let me know what you decide.

No, that was clearly not what I wrote, so lets go through it, here is what I wrote:

"When I talk about Christians I talk after Jesus, even those following Jesus were not Christians, as you said that came much later."

Christians did not emerge before after the death of Jesus, which is why I wrote "after" Jesus, those following Jesus were Jews, which is why I wrote, that "even those following Jesus were not Christians." And last but not least I agree with you, that they came much later. Which you missed I guess.

So obviously if Christians came after Jesus death, then surely Jesus were not a Christian, but a Jew, just like all the others that followed him. So you completely misunderstood what I wrote.

Is that what you got?
Perhaps you can explain what you understand. Maybe you are reading, but not understanding.

Well if I recall correctly, I understood it as meaning the following:

Now consider the king's rules. Say he makes this one... "HOMOSXUALITY IS A SIN AGAINST THE KING. PUNISHABLE BY DEATH."
Based on what you ask?
Based on the fact that the king says it is wrong, an abomination - harmful to man, woman, and child, and the earth. The king says so.

So the King makes some rules and based on him being the king, then he is right because he says so.

Enter you, in this picture. You, and others like yourself, who decide your own morals, disagree with the king's morals. "Uh. King. We feel that your laws are wrong, and needs adjusting.Really? Reminds me of Ezekiel 18:25.
Yeah? Just break them and see what happens."

Then you refer to me as disagreeing with the rules, because I believe in subjective morality. And if I do so, I will feel the consequences, not really sure what the purpose of that is..

Remember, this is not a king that is weak, or obligated to listen to whiners, complaining about how it's a violation of human rights, to execute someone - by firing squad, the guillotine, the electric chair... or drop from helicopter 500 feet onto rocks between a cliff and the sea. Those that survive, are free to go.
Seriously though, this is a king that enforces the law, he dictates... based on his standards of right and wrong.
He also has a fair justice system - no bribes, and a perfect lie detector.

Then we have some textual surprise , that the king you refer to, might actually not be a king, but something else.... Wonder who it can be
But nonetheless, you highlight that this is not a weak king, but one that have a fair Justice system, which can't be bribed and a perfect lie detector... so now im really curios to who this king can be!!

Earlier, I tried explaining to you, that God chose the nation of Israel, and ruled over them. He set laws for them. That's clear in scripture.
So he not only dictated those laws, he enforced them.
And then it is revealed, that the king you were referring to, were not an actual king, but God. And that he is not only making the laws, but also enforce them.

Also, as king of the whole earth, he chose to give his people land to dwell on, and he cleared out the abominations, from the land they were to dwell in. (He also remove those deserving of death, based on his judgement)
The only problem, lay with the people themselves. Because of the Israelite nation's disobedience, Jehovah did not completely rid the land of their enemies, and so they had problems.
And finally you explain that he is the king of the whole Earth, so he can pretty much do as he pleases.

So in conclusion, it did not address anything in regards to morality, but merely stating that "God is perfect" is "the ruler of everything" and therefore anything he does must be good, since he is also the perfect lie detector. But you did not really address the main issue in what you wrote, which were:

Enter you, in this picture. You, and others like yourself, who decide your own morals, disagree with the king's morals. "Uh. King. We feel that your laws are wrong, and needs adjusting.Really? Reminds me of Ezekiel 18:25.
Yeah? Just break them and see what happens."

Since you completely ignored the fact, that a lot of people around the world, not only atheists, do no agree with the kings morality, which seems strange, if these were objective.

So did I understand it correctly?

No. I don't know that. There are the same thing. "In the name of God", and "In the name of the law", both mean the same thing.

Again you drawing paralles which are not valid. A person stating "in the name of law" and being a policeman, is not the same as some random person doing it. Because the authority of the policeman is well established, whereas it is not for some random person.

Again I want to remind you that this was originally in regards to "Christians" and true Christians.

Likewise, the consideration here is not, "Is the Christian SDA, JWs, RC, etc." Rather, are we talking about Christians, or an imitation?
Clearly, you are talking about an imitation.

From your perspective it might be. I really don't see how you can not see this.
Because you believe that you are a true Christian, doesn't mean that anyone else agree with you. Just as you are constantly referring to Christians and "Christians". It is only from your perspective.

 

[nPeace]

I think the reason you are not understanding me is because you are not reading what I write. It seems to me that you are not really sure what is meant with objective morality, which causes you to make comparisons to things that are not comparable.

So you are not writing these. You mean I have been reading someone else's writing all along...
Please tell me where you have written your stuff, so I can now go read it.

How can you compare the examples you just gave with that of morality?

Oh boy.
Nimos, the examples were not to compare with morality.
The examples were to compare with your statement. This one... However since humans clearly doesn't share his view on what is morally right or wrong, then I think one would have a hard time arguing that he is in fact the creator of morality

Here is a quick explanation of objective morality:
Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow.

You're not done yet Nimos. Now please explain how that differs to anything I said.

And how on Earth does that relate to her putting herself in a compromising situation as shown in the movie, where she is standing in a dark room holding up what looks to be some metal panties or something and the guy entering the room and locking or closing the door?

LOL. Metal panties. Are you sure you are up to this?
You probably think there is only one situation that is considered a compromising situation.
Think outside the box Nimos.

Here goes.
Dinah was a young Israelite girl.
She associated with the Canaanite girls, finding herself where they hung out... with Canaanite guys.
Compromising situation? Indeed it was.
Those guys had different standards, and rules of conduct to the Israelite people.
Think of a Christian girl, customarily associating with Atheist girls.
I could just imagine....
Girl you need to get out and enjoy yourself. Let your hair down and just forget about that god thing. Let us fix you up with a real man. SCREECHHHHHHHH
Wait a minute. That's not how it goes. Like in the movie, the approach is subtle.
Somewhat like this...

Its like me showing how Di'nah went to these villages getting all drunk, running around half naked with some other girls and flirting with all the men. And then say that it because of what is said in Genesis 34:1

Um. What?
Oh, that's connected to your preceding comment.

That is to be manipulative and trying to set a scene for which there are clearly no evidence for, because I assume, they have some moral teaching to share later on in the movie.

Well you didn't watch it, so...

Yes it was sarcasm.

I never said that God approved of it. But to not get derailed from the original issue about rape victims having to marry their rapist. So if her brothers had not killed them. But instead had accepted the deal that was offered to them. Then you think it would have been good?

Deal?
First of all that law was not yet given.
Second, if the situation had occurred after the law was given... Please read Deuteronomy 7:1-6.
(Exodus 34:11-16 ; Genesis 34:8-12)

But if that were the case, then why add a law telling the Jews to kill them, without any instruction on how they should identify them? If God is going to judge and execute them. Then clearly it would have made a lot more sense had the law said something like. "Leave the witches to me, for I know who they are and I will pass judgement on them"

Nimos, have you read the Bible really? What is a witch? Is it a person that goes in their closet at night, and says, "Abracadabra" in a whispered tone?
Perhaps you are thinking of Hollywood movies, or the claims made by superstitious people, to whom everyone is a witch, if they pour lime on their step, in order to clean it.
That's not what is contained in the Bible. A witch was always known in Israel. They practiced their arts as a service to the public. No closet witches.
Even if they were closet witches, how could they hide from the God of Israel? Are you sure you read the Bible?

Yes please.


Again, im really having a hard time following you. Because you gave me an example from a movie with things flying around, really don't hope that was the one you were referring to?

But if it were, then there is no naturalistic explanation, because it have not been established that such thing can happen. You present real evidence for it being possible and then we can look at it. And Im not talking about someone simply claiming it.

If your example was the one with people claiming to have some sort of experience of being possessed you have still not presented any evidence for it to be the case, except people claiming they are.

As a naturalistic explanation for why some might believe they are possessed, we can start looking at the past and see the stuff they made up to explain things and we find this in almost all, if not all cultures.

Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. People with schizophrenia may seem like they have lost touch with reality.

The symptoms of schizophrenia fall into three categories: positive, negative, and cognitive.

Positive symptoms: “Positive” symptoms are psychotic behaviors not generally seen in healthy people. People with positive symptoms may “lose touch” with some aspects of reality. Symptoms include:

• Hallucinations
• Delusions
• Thought disorders (unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking)
• Movement disorders (agitated body movements)

Now even though not all is known about this condition, there are ways to identify whether or not one suffers from this and there is treatment for it. If you want more details on this you will have to look it up.

This could be an explanation for why some people think they are being possessed, others might be straight up lying or being mistaken. And you can probably find a whole list of other psychological explanations of why people believe in these things.

Now I have at least given you some naturalistic explanations.

So now, what could the none naturalistic explanations be and again how do you identify them as being evil spirits or demons, and what known treatment are there, that would offer a better explanation than a naturalistic one?

Thank you for finally answering the question.
No need for me to go over it.
You are right. There is no naturalistic explanation.
The Bible gives a supernatural explanation, and since it is the truthfulness and reliability, as well as its authenticity, that we are looking at, those who accept the Bible's explanation, have evidence that what it says is true.

Your attempts at grabbing at any natural explanation, is not an investigative approach.
Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it never happened. How many of us here saw the great storm? I didn't. Yet I believe it happened. Why? There were eyewitnesses - firsthand accounts.
https://libguides.madisoncollege.edu/primary
The same applies to people with actual experiences witnesses by others, and to claim that all those witnesses were schizophrenic, is just a claim based on emotion - a case of denial.

I'm certain, within my mind - I have no proof - that if all your relatives, friends, hubby, dog, cat claimed they saw a UFO, you would not put it down to them all being schizophrenic.
Even if you said you believed they saw something, but you didn't think it was an alien ship, you would agree that it was indeed some type of UFO... even if it was man made.
The fact of the matter is, you can't explain it. You cannot investigate it. Until you can, what do you tell your husband, your friends and your relatives... "I don't believe you so, you never saw nutting"?

No, you should address the fact, that I already told and explained to you, why the test you presented were terrible. So rather than saying that Im avoiding your question, you should look at my reply and convince me, why you believe the test is good and why my argument of it being bad is wrong?

I explained why the test is good.
Okay, let's put you in it.
You are sharing a room with one of your girlfriends.
She has been telling you about some weird experiences she has been having, but you brush them off as silly imagination
One night, while you both were playing a card / board game, or something, you both hear a door slam, and startled (I don't know what you would do, but this is my script, so...), you both go to investigate. You find the bedroom door closed, and turning the knob, the door seems locked. While trying to open the door, you both hear running water, and on investigation, find the kitchen tap, running - fully opened.
Long story short, you experience some weird stuff like that.
Another friend that was over, witnessed these events.
The police can't help you because they have nothing to go on, and probably think you are pot heads.
Things worsen as time goes by.
Someone recommended your friend join a Bible study program she herself is having.
The conductors are informed of the situation. They make certain recommendations, and over a course of some time your friend no longer experiences these things, and you don't witness them anymore.
Let's hear your verdict.

 

[nPeace]

No, you have to be able to see why what you are doing is not fair or even correct, when replying to me. ill back track a bit. This is what you wrote:

Please give an example, so that I can be on the same page as you.
How I know it's not psychological, is because ...
1) various people of various associations, background, ideas, etc., witnessed the events (see above).
2) Time and again - repeatedly, thousands of times, the procedure worked. Once followed... never fails.
3) The results were seen and felt by a) the person who experienced them, and b) the persons associated with the individual, as well as other witnesses, and c) the persons who aided the individual, who recommends the procedure, because they know it works, having seen it before.

So you state that this is how you know it is not psychological.. and the very first reason is this:

1) various people of various associations, background, ideas, etc., witnessed the events (see above).

Now I replied to this with the example of the UFO claims, because you put it forward as evidence or argument for why we ought to trust people that make these claims, purely based on them being varied, having different backgrounds and ideas.

Which is exactly the same that you have with people claiming to have seen UFOs. Which is why I mentioned pilots, policeman etc. So if you find it to be trustworthy when people claimed they are being possessed based on that, then there ought to be no reason why the same logic should not apply to those claiming to have seen UFOs.

2) Time and again - repeatedly, thousands of times, the procedure worked. Once followed... never fails.
You don't give any example of what procedure you are talking about, which were what I asked for. As in the example above with Schizophrenia, you have both ways of identifying it and you have know treatments for it. So you have a procedure for it. And again there are probably lots of psychological conditions that one could look up that could also provide some answers.

Do you see the difference here? You make 2 statements...

repeatedly, thousands of times
I still have no clue what have been repeated thousands of times as you haven't explained it?

the procedure worked. Once followed... never fails.
You haven't shown or referenced any procedure, so I have no clue what you are referring to. And again you haven't specified what on Earth the condition is. And yet you can conclude that if this procedure is followed it never fails?

Im really not sure, why you don't see that its slightly difficult to follow you.

So again can you please answer this question from above:

how do you identify them as being evil spirits or demons, and what known treatment are there, that would offer a better explanation than a naturalistic one?

Continue...

Oh. You missed the recommendation and procedures. I don't understand why.
Let me see if I can be more clear.
Your friend above, did not tell you, she had met this shaman, and had become close to him. He had given her a gift - some object (doesn't matter what). It was after this, your friend realized, that she began having these experiences.
During her Bible study, your friend considered information on Wicked Spirits.
See the video for a clearer understanding... hopefully.

I understand some of it, again you are not being very specific when writing, so might miss some.

Again you just throw out statements, which makes little sense:

"God's presence is seen in more than just the Bible. The Bible just confirms that."

What do you mean? no examples, no evidence, no argument.... nothing.

What do you mean its seen in more places than just the bible?

It would be like me writing something like this:
"Evolution is much more than a natural process, we see it all around us in our everyday life. The errors in the bible confirms that."

And then I just move on to something else....

Oh, I was just following your lead... not with the specific part. I think I am being specific. However, I realize I need to be more specific with you, so I am sorry. I have taken note of that and will take little steps from here onward.

No, that was clearly not what I wrote, so lets go through it, here is what I wrote:

"When I talk about Christians I talk after Jesus, even those following Jesus were not Christians, as you said that came much later."

Christians did not emerge before after the death of Jesus, which is why I wrote "after" Jesus, those following Jesus were Jews, which is why I wrote, that "even those following Jesus were not Christians." And last but not least I agree with you, that they came much later. Which you missed I guess.

So obviously if Christians came after Jesus death, then surely Jesus were not a Christian, but a Jew, just like all the others that followed him. So you completely misunderstood what I wrote.

I like you , so I will help you.
"Christians did not emerge before after the death of Jesus", is not a proper statement.
When you write, before after, it confuses the sentence. Not only does it cause confusion, but it causes the reader to work their brain harder, to try and understand what the writer is trying to say.
No need to thank me. It's my pleasure to help you, where I can.

I assume you are trying to say Christians did not emerge until after the death of Jesus...
So what you are trying to say is, the early Christians did not come till after Jesus died, but that is not necessary to say.
The early Christians are not the ones you referred to in the Dark Ages. They were the later breed of apostates - those professing to be Christian, but really just an imitation - counterfeit "Christians".
The early Christians were the footstep followers of Christ. Those who were associated with his apostles and early disciples.
So I never said they came later, as in later than the earlier, but now that I know you are thinking of later than Jesus' death, obviously.

 

[nPeace]

Well if I recall correctly, I understood it as meaning the following:

Now consider the king's rules. Say he makes this one... "HOMOSXUALITY IS A SIN AGAINST THE KING. PUNISHABLE BY DEATH."
Based on what you ask?
Based on the fact that the king says it is wrong, an abomination - harmful to man, woman, and child, and the earth. The king says so.

So the King makes some rules and based on him being the king, then he is right because he says so.

Enter you, in this picture. You, and others like yourself, who decide your own morals, disagree with the king's morals. "Uh. King. We feel that your laws are wrong, and needs adjusting.Really? Reminds me of Ezekiel 18:25.
Yeah? Just break them and see what happens."

Then you refer to me as disagreeing with the rules, because I believe in subjective morality. And if I do so, I will feel the consequences, not really sure what the purpose of that is..

Remember, this is not a king that is weak, or obligated to listen to whiners, complaining about how it's a violation of human rights, to execute someone - by firing squad, the guillotine, the electric chair... or drop from helicopter 500 feet onto rocks between a cliff and the sea. Those that survive, are free to go.
Seriously though, this is a king that enforces the law, he dictates... based on his standards of right and wrong.
He also has a fair justice system - no bribes, and a perfect lie detector.

Then we have some textual surprise , that the king you refer to, might actually not be a king, but something else.... Wonder who it can be
But nonetheless, you highlight that this is not a weak king, but one that have a fair Justice system, which can't be bribed and a perfect lie detector... so now im really curios to who this king can be!!

Earlier, I tried explaining to you, that God chose the nation of Israel, and ruled over them. He set laws for them. That's clear in scripture.
So he not only dictated those laws, he enforced them.
And then it is revealed, that the king you were referring to, were not an actual king, but God. And that he is not only making the laws, but also enforce them.

Also, as king of the whole earth, he chose to give his people land to dwell on, and he cleared out the abominations, from the land they were to dwell in. (He also remove those deserving of death, based on his judgement)
The only problem, lay with the people themselves. Because of the Israelite nation's disobedience, Jehovah did not completely rid the land of their enemies, and so they had problems.
And finally you explain that he is the king of the whole Earth, so he can pretty much do as he pleases.

So in conclusion, it did not address anything in regards to morality, but merely stating that "God is perfect" is "the ruler of everything" and therefore anything he does must be good, since he is also the perfect lie detector. But you did not really address the main issue in what you wrote, which were:

Enter you, in this picture. You, and others like yourself, who decide your own morals, disagree with the king's morals. "Uh. King. We feel that your laws are wrong, and needs adjusting.Really? Reminds me of Ezekiel 18:25.
Yeah? Just break them and see what happens."
Since you completely ignored the fact, that a lot of people around the world, not only atheists, do no agree with the kings morality, which seems strange, if these were objective.

So did I understand it correctly?

I think you are reading the information, but I think you are not connecting it to the point I am making. So my point gets lost and replaced by what you find interesting to mention.
You missed the point.

Again you drawing paralles which are not valid. A person stating "in the name of law" and being a policeman, is not the same as some random person doing it. Because the authority of the policeman is well established, whereas it is not for some random person.

Again I want to remind you that this was originally in regards to "Christians" and true Christians.

No. It was not in regard to "Christians" and true Christians.
It is in regard to your saying that they are doing it in the name of God and Christ. Let's deal with that first, then we can consider "Christians" and true Christians.

From your perspective it might be. I really don't see how you can not see this.
Because you believe that you are a true Christian, doesn't mean that anyone else agree with you. Just as you are constantly referring to Christians and "Christians". It is only from your perspective.

I'm saying that is not the issue being considered. You are being distracted by something that is said that has no relevance to the point. What's the point?

So, I am again repeating my scenario, and taking little baby steps.
Eleven (11) people.
Each of these 11 people live in different parts of the world.
They never met, and do not have contact with each other.
They happen to be craftsmen.
Each created a piece of artwork from scratch, from the mind, without a template, or reference.
Here is what each produced. (They are not pretty, but that's not the important thing here)

Spoiler: Pieces

Person 1 created this...


Person 2 created this...


Person 3 created this...


Person 4 created this...


Person 5 created this...


Person 6 created this...


Person 7 created this...


Person 8 created this...


Person 9 created this...


Person 10 created this...


Person 11 created this...

When these crafted items were discovered, it was realized that they had similar, yet fitting features, and when collectively combined, the produced this result.

...with a distinct, coherent message.

What naturalistic explanation is there for the fact that theses pieces were done separately, by different individuals, who did not communicate their thoughts and ideas with each other... in fact did not know each other, and did not follow a reference given to them, but from their own mind produced each piece?
Can you, by the way, explain how you associated a mind that is fooled, with this.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

In the Spiderman Comic Book, Peter Parker aka Spiderman lives in New York. New York is a real place that we can go and visit with loads of documentations and photos of it existing. Does Spiderman exist?

 

[nPeace]

In the Spiderman Comic Book, Peter Parker aka Spiderman lives in New York. New York is a real place that we can go and visit with loads of documentations and photos of it existing. Does Spiderman exist?

Let me take a look.

Spider-Man is a fictional superhero created by writer-editor Stan Lee...

In collaboration with others at Marvel - particularly co-writer/artists Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko - he co-created numerous popular fictional characters, including superheroes Spider-Man, the X-Men, Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, Black Widow, the Fantastic Four, Black Panther, Daredevil, Doctor Strange, Scarlet Witch and Ant-Man.

Marvel Entertainment, LLC (formerly Marvel Enterprises and Toy Biz, Inc., and marketed and stylized as MARVEL) is an American entertainment company founded in June 1998 and based in New York City, formed by the merger of Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. and ToyBiz. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, and is mainly known for its comic books by Marvel Comics, as well as its forays into movies with the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Nope.
Nice strawman though.

 

[nPeace]

The following is not information I rely on, or depend on for my faith, since I am not waiting for modern scholars to confirm (or deny) what I already know, as this thread indicates.
Rather, this information is for those skeptical and critical of the Bible, who request information from the sources they more willingly accept - information from secular sources.

Spoiler: Scholarly View

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,

Spoiler: Excerpts

The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford Bible Series) (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 145. "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God p. 285

Bart Ehrman 2012, p. 4-5: "...It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

...very few scholars have argued for non-historicity and have not succeeded due to abundance of evidence to the contrary.
Michael Grant (1977), Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Charles Scribner's Sons, p. 200. "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus,' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
...few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

Baptism and crucifixion
The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain. He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts'...

Baptism of Jesus - Wikipedia
Baptism of Jesus
Most modern theologians view the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as a historical event to which a high degree of certainty can be assigned. Along with the crucifixion of Jesus, most biblical scholars view it as one of the two historically certain facts about him, and often use it as the starting point for the study of the historical Jesus.

Baptism of Jesus - Wikipedia
Most modern scholars believe that John the Baptist performed a baptism on Jesus, and view it as a historical event to which a high degree of certainty can be assigned. James Dunn states that the historicity of the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus "command almost universal assent". Dunn states that these two facts "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. John Dominic Crossan states that it is historically certain that Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (18.5.2) 1st-century historian Flavius Josephus also wrote about John the Baptist and his eventual death in Perea.

The existence of John the Baptist within the same time frame as Jesus, and his eventual execution by Herod Antipas is attested to by 1st-century historian Flavius Josephus and the overwhelming majority of modern scholars view Josephus' accounts of the activities of John the Baptist as authentic.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia
The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus.

Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him (A Brief Introduction to the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman 2008 page 136). John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be {Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact"). Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus (Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, page 127). Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable (Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 pages 211–214). Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified (The Cambridge Companion to Jesus by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 page 136).

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Spoiler: Outside sources

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia
Excerpts
An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written some time after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD. The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be neither Jewish nor Christian. ...

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate...
Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians. Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus ...
Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. ...

Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging" cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud...
Muslims maintain that Jesus was not crucified and that those who thought they had killed him had mistakenly killed Judas Iscariot, Simon of Cyrene, or someone else in his place. They hold this belief based on various interpretations of Quran 4:157–158, which states: "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], ... Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself".

Some early Christian Gnostic sects, believing Jesus did not have a physical substance, denied that he was crucified. In response, Ignatius of Antioch insisted that Jesus was truly born and was truly crucified and wrote that those who held that Jesus only seemed to suffer only seemed to be Christians.

We do know for a fact - from outside sources - that followers of Christ (Christians) were known in the first century.

Pliny the Younger - Wikipedia
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo (61 – c. 113), better known as Pliny the Younger (/ˈplɪni/), was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome. Pliny's uncle, Pliny the Elder, helped raise and educate him.
Pliny the Younger wrote hundreds of letters, of which 247 survive and are of great historical value.

The largest surviving body of Pliny's work is his Epistulae (Letters), a series of personal missives directed to his friends and associates. These letters are a unique testimony of Roman administrative history and everyday life in the 1st century AD. Especially noteworthy among the letters are two in which he describes the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in August 79, during which his uncle Pliny the Elder died (Epistulae VI.16, VI.20), and one in which he asks the Emperor for instructions regarding official policy concerning Christians (Epistulae X.96).

He was a friend of the historian Tacitus and might have employed the biographer Suetonius on his staff. Pliny also came into contact with other well-known men of the period, including the philosophers Artemidorus and Euphrates the Stoic, during his time in Syria.

...and Christ himself.
Pliny the Younger on Christians - Wikipedia
See also: Tacitus on Christ and Suetonius on Christians
Pliny is one of three key Roman authors who refer to early Christians, the other two being Tacitus and Suetonius. These authors refer to events which take place during the reign of various Roman emperors, Suetonius writing about an expulsion from Rome of Jews because of disturbances instigated by a certain "Chrestus" during the reign of Claudius (41 to 54), and also punishments by Nero (who reigned from 54 to 68), Tacitus referring to Nero's actions after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, while Pliny writes to Trajan. But the chronological order for the documentation begins with Pliny writing around 111 AD, then Tacitus writing in the Annals around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius writing in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars around 122 AD.

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia
Tacitus on Christ
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

Suetonius on Christians - Wikipedia
Suetonius on Christians
The Roman historian Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122) mentions early Christians and may refer to Jesus Christ in his work Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

One passage in the biography of the Emperor Claudius Divus Claudius 25, refers to agitations in the Roman Jewish community and the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius during his reign (AD 41 to AD 54), which may be the expulsion mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2). In this context "Chresto" is mentioned. Some scholars see this as a likely reference to Jesus, while others see it as referring to an otherwise unknown person living in Rome.

So we actually have men (historians) - non-Christians also - who lived during the time of Jesus' early followers (disciples), being in agreement with much of the writings of the Gospels, and letters of apostle Paul.

 

[nPeace]

@metis correct me if I am not quoting you correctly, but I think you said you believe the Genesis account is allegorical.

The writer claims to be giving a historical account.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God.

Genesis 6:1, 9 Now when men started to grow in number on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them,...
This is the history of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God.

Genesis 10:1, 32 This is the history of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Sons were born to them after the Flood.
These were the families of the sons of Noah according to their family lines and by their nations. From these the nations were spread abroad in the earth after the Flood.

Genesis 11:10:26 This is the history of Shem.
Shem was 100 years old when he became father to Arpachshad two years after the Flood.

Genesis 25:19 And this is the history of Isaac the son of Abraham.
Abraham became father to Isaac.

Genesis 36:1 This is the history of Esau, that is, Edom.

Exodus 1:1 Now these are the names of Israel’s sons who came into Egypt with Jacob, each man who came with his household:

How do you respond to those claims? Do you think the writer is lying - Is he a liar? How do you explain these passages as allegory? Do you see all of this as a fairy tale story book?
How do you account for the fact that the entire Tanakh present the same characters and events in Genesis, as history of the beginning of man, and his dealings with God?

For example...
The book of Chronicles gives a genealogical history from Adam to Edom's (Esau) offspring. (1 Chronicles 1)

Many of them refer to the forefathers of the Jewish nation.
(Joshua 24:2) . . .your forefathers lived a long time ago - Teʹrah the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor - and they used to serve other gods.

(1 Kings 18:36) About the time when the evening grain offering is presented, Elijah the prophet stepped forward and said: “O Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, today let it be known that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and that it is by your word that I have done all these things.

(1 Samuel 12:8) “As soon as Jacob had come into Egypt and your forefathers began calling to Jehovah for help, Jehovah sent Moses and Aaron to lead your forefathers out of Egypt and to cause them to dwell in this place.

(Nehemiah 9:7) You are Jehovah the true God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham.

Actually, the verses are too numerous for me to go through right now, but 99% of the Tanakh makes reference to Genesis as history.
(Psalm 105:4-11; Isaiah 29:22; Jeremiah 33:26; Ezekiel 33:24; Micah 7:20)

Then there are the Christian Greek scriptures, which do the same.
So, if Genesis is myth, or just allegory, would that not make any reference to it as history, a lie.
Stephen would actually be the biggest Christian liar in history, after given his speech, which was recorded by Luke, at Acts 7. See this post, and the one directly below it.
Or maybe we would have to give Jesus first spot, since he claimed to be the son of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. ...and the Gospel writers, they would surely deserve to be targeted as liars, by the Atheists, and other skeptics, as they make claims such as...

The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham: (Matthew 1:1)

The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:. . . (Mark 1:1, 2)

Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally. (Luke 1:1-4)

Do you agree with these, or the Atheists?

 

[sooda]

@metis correct me if I am not quoting you correctly, but I think you said you believe the Genesis account is allegorical.

The writer claims to be giving a historical account.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God.

Genesis 6:1, 9 Now when men started to grow in number on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them,...
This is the history of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God.

Genesis 10:1, 32 This is the history of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Sons were born to them after the Flood.
These were the families of the sons of Noah according to their family lines and by their nations. From these the nations were spread abroad in the earth after the Flood.

Genesis 11:10:26 This is the history of Shem.
Shem was 100 years old when he became father to Arpachshad two years after the Flood.

Genesis 25:19 And this is the history of Isaac the son of Abraham.
Abraham became father to Isaac.

Genesis 36:1 This is the history of Esau, that is, Edom.

Exodus 1:1 Now these are the names of Israel’s sons who came into Egypt with Jacob, each man who came with his household:

How do you respond to those claims? Do you think the writer is lying - Is he a liar? How do you explain these passages as allegory? Do you see all of this as a fairy tale story book?
How do you account for the fact that the entire Tanakh present the same characters and events in Genesis, as history of the beginning of man, and his dealings with God?

For example...
The book of Chronicles gives a genealogical history from Adam to Edom's (Esau) offspring. (1 Chronicles 1)

Many of them refer to the forefathers of the Jewish nation.
(Joshua 24:2) . . .your forefathers lived a long time ago - Teʹrah the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor - and they used to serve other gods.

(1 Kings 18:36) About the time when the evening grain offering is presented, Elijah the prophet stepped forward and said: “O Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, today let it be known that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and that it is by your word that I have done all these things.

(1 Samuel 12:8) “As soon as Jacob had come into Egypt and your forefathers began calling to Jehovah for help, Jehovah sent Moses and Aaron to lead your forefathers out of Egypt and to cause them to dwell in this place.

(Nehemiah 9:7) You are Jehovah the true God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham.

Actually, the verses are too numerous for me to go through right now, but 99% of the Tanakh makes reference to Genesis as history.
(Psalm 105:4-11; Isaiah 29:22; Jeremiah 33:26; Ezekiel 33:24; Micah 7:20)

Then there are the Christian Greek scriptures, which do the same.
So, if Genesis is myth, or just allegory, would that not make any reference to it as history, a lie.
Stephen would actually be the biggest Christian liar in history, after given his speech, which was recorded by Luke, at Acts 7. See this post, and the one directly below it.
Or maybe we would have to give Jesus first spot, since he claimed to be the son of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. ...and the Gospel writers, they would surely deserve to be targeted as liars, by the Atheists, and other skeptics, as they make claims such as...

The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham: (Matthew 1:1)

The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:. . . (Mark 1:1, 2)

Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally. (Luke 1:1-4)

Do you agree with these, or the Atheists?

There were TWO creation stories ..One for Israel and the other for Judea. They were cobbled together during the reign of King Omri who at the time was trying to unite them like the United Kingdom of David and Solomon.

 

[nPeace]

There were TWO creation stories ..One for Israel and the other for Judea. They were cobbled together during the reign of King Omri who at the time was trying to unite them like the United Kingdom of David and Solomon.

Evidently you responded to the post, with nothing that relates to anything said in the post. Why is that?
Then when you are asked questions, you don't respond to those with an answer to them, but with some other irrelevant statements. Why?
It seems to me you only want to preach against the Bible. Is that it?

Do you have anything to say, that would allow for discussion, or are you just happy to preach your views?
Would you like to address something in the post, or... Carry on then.

Oh wait @sooda. Perhaps you wanted to say more. Are you saying that Genesis is allegorical. Can you address how you account for the writer claiming it's history?

 

[sooda]

Oh. You missed the recommendation and procedures. I don't understand why.
Let me see if I can be more clear.
Your friend above, did not tell you, she had met this shaman, and had become close to him. He had given her a gift - some object (doesn't matter what). It was after this, your friend realized, that she began having these experiences.
During her Bible study, your friend considered information on Wicked Spirits.
See the video for a clearer understanding... hopefully.


Oh, I was just following your lead... not with the specific part. I think I am being specific. However, I realize I need to be more specific with you, so I am sorry. I have taken note of that and will take little steps from here onward.


I like you , so I will help you.
"Christians did not emerge before after the death of Jesus", is not a proper statement.
When you write, before after, it confuses the sentence. Not only does it cause confusion, but it causes the reader to work their brain harder, to try and understand what the writer is trying to say.
No need to thank me. It's my pleasure to help you, where I can.

I assume you are trying to say Christians did not emerge until after the death of Jesus...
So what you are trying to say is, the early Christians did not come till after Jesus died, but that is not necessary to say.
The early Christians are not the ones you referred to in the Dark Ages. They were the later breed of apostates - those professing to be Christian, but really just an imitation - counterfeit "Christians".
The early Christians were the footstep followers of Christ. Those who were associated with his apostles and early disciples.
So I never said they came later, as in later than the earlier, but now that I know you are thinking of later than Jesus' death, obviously.

The word Christian came out of the church at Antioch.

 

[sooda]

Evidently you responded to the post, with nothing that relates to anything said in the post. Why is that?
Then when you are asked questions, you don't respond to those with an answer to them, but with some other irrelevant statements. Why?
It seems to me you only want to preach against the Bible. Is that it?

Do you have anything to say, that would allow for discussion, or are you just happy to preach your views?
Would you like to address something in the post, or... Carry on then.

Oh wait @sooda. Perhaps you wanted to say more. Are you saying that Genesis is allegorical. Can you address how you account for the writer claiming it's history?

Absolutely its allegorical.. What writer claims its history?

Meanwhile,

It was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first referred to as Christians. A main point of interest, however, is connected with the progress of Christianity among the non-Jewish believers.

Tradition holds that the first Gentile church was founded in Antioch, Acts 11:20-21, where it is recorded that the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians . It was from Antioch that St. Paul started on his missionary journeys.

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying that Genesis is allegorical. Can you address how you account for the writer claiming it's history?

Where do the writers claim that Genesis is intended to be a history?

 

[sooda]

Where do the writers claim that Genesis is intended to be a history?

I asked the same question earlier and didn't get an answer.

 

[sojourner]

I asked the same question earlier and didn't get an answer.

Of course not. The poster is scrambling for a viable backpedal.