There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Trailblazer]

There are different sources and accounts of the French revolution or Caesar's death, that disagree on detail, but an overall picture emerges

That is the Bahai position, that we are to look at the overall picture, not the details.

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

www.bahai-library.com

 

[Kenny]

Yes, you should quit doing that.

All that you have is game playing. You hate valid sources because they all disagree with you. A I have had to point out to you many times, you cannot use sources that have to agree with your position no matter what the evidence shows. You need sources that follow the evidence no matter what it says.

ROFL… all the while you use sources that you agree with. Talking about unequal weights while you never address the point

And you break the Ninth Commandment. Sorry, I have real scholars that can and do publish in professional journals. You only link apologists after it has been endlessly explained to you why they are not valid. And you are also name calling.

All in the figment of your flat-earth imagination.

LOL! Moe name calling. No, they are not "liberal" the are not "pseudo-scholars" they simply make arguments that you have no answer to.

Another unequal weights while you never address points other that continue on falsehoods.

By the way, this behavior of yours only confirms that apologists are "Liars for Jesus". That might be name calling but at least it is highly accurate.

Another biased “anti-Christ” statement. Well… at least I do know where you stand. Jesus had the same problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are different sources and accounts of the French revolution or Caesar's death, that disagree on detail, but an overall picture emerges

You really are not listening. I never claimed that the fact that the Bible is not perfect refutes the Jesus story. Though many Christians cannot bear the thought. It is some Christians, not all of them, that make that mistake. I have only argued against the claims of some of those that demand that the gospels are eyewitness testimony.

 

[Kenny]

No, you gave me a site of apologists Why is that so hard for you to admit?

If your claims are supported by actual scholars then why can't you support yourself with any scholarly works?

As they quote “scholars” your answer will always be “If they don’t agree with me, they are apologist and not scholars” while you never address their balanced approach.

Thank you for the confirmation!

 

[Kenny]

You really are not listening.

Wow, you continue with “everyone who disagrees with me is wrong"

I’m not surprised.

 

[firedragon]

The New Testament was written by people who were not eye witnesses.

But saying that, don't you take it as authentic in the Bahai faith? Don't you quote it like a 100 times as authority?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really do not know how to use facepalms, but keep trying. It is good for a laugh. For you the three monkeys of "see no evil . . ." describe you.

ROFL… all the while you use sources that you agree with. Talking about unequal weights while you never address the point

LMAO! Again, that is how rational people tend to debate. They find valid (please note that one has to have reliable sources) that agree with them. There always is a possibility that that person is wrong, but the only way that one can show that is by using valid sources that disagree with him. You do not seem to understand what sources are valid and what ones are not. We are having a historical debate which means that historical sources are needed. Not apologist sources. It is the same with scientific debates. One had to use science based sources. Not ones that order their workers not to use the scientific method.

All in the figment of your flat-earth imagination.

Dude, if anyone is a flerf here that would be you. You are the one that will not use historical scholars.

Another unequal weights while you never address points other that continue on falsehoods.

No, this is more projection on your part. Once again, historical debates require historical sources.

Another biased “anti-Christ” statement. Well… at least I do know where you stand. Jesus had the same problem.

NO. Not at all. Tell me how is being pro-truth anti-Christ? You are practically calling the Bible false yourself. You need to try to reason logically as well.

 

[firedragon]

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance.

You mean the quote mined passages that suit's your theology?

 

[Kenny]

You really do not know how to use facepalms, but keep trying. It is good for a laugh. For you the three monkeys of "see no evil . . ." describe you.


LMAO! Again, that is how rational people tend to debate. They find valid (please note that one has to have reliable sources) that agree with them. There always is a possibility that that person is wrong, but the only way that one can show that is by using valid sources that disagree with him. You do not seem to understand what sources are valid and what ones are not. We are having a historical debate which means that historical sources are needed. Not apologist sources. It is the same with scientific debates. One had to use science based sources. Not ones that order their workers not to use the scientific method.


Dude, if anyone is a flerf here that would be you. You are the one that will not use historical scholars.

No, this is more projection on your part. Once again, historical debates require historical sources.

NO. Not at all. Tell me how is being pro-truth anti-Christ? You are practically calling the Bible false yourself. You need to try to reason logically as well.

Bias, faulty logic, anti-Christ unsupported statements blah blah.



While you hold a double standard as you don't acknowledge historical verifiable facts. (As I have already shown you)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, you continue with “everyone who disagrees with me is wrong"

I’m not surprised.

No, that is you. I mostly agree with him. He seems to think that I am trying to refute Christianity. That is not the case at all. I am just refuting bogus claims of some Christians. Have you ever tried to think why the Catholic Church, the world's largest sect of Christianity, considers the concept of biblical inerrancy to be heresy? They know where that sort of reasoning leads to. The fastest trip to atheism is to insist that the Bible is literally true cover to cover.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bias, faulty logic, anti-Christ unsupported statements blah blah.



While you hold a double standard as you don't acknowledge historical verifiable facts. (As I have already shown you)

No, I use neutral sources. You use biased ones. You are projecting again.

Historical sources are not "anti-Christ" just because they show some of the Bible to be mythical. Scientific sources are not "anti-Christ" just because they show other parts of the Bible to be mythical. You are so biased for you own side that you cannot even conceive of being wrong. Have I once said "This disproves Christianity!"? You act as if I have done that when I show that parts of the Bible are wrong. How weak is your faith that you have to reject Christianity if any of the Bible is wrong?

 

[Kenny]

No, that is you. I mostly agree with him. He seems to think that I am trying to refute Christianity. That is not the case at all. I am just refuting bogus claims of some Christians. Have you ever tried to think why the Catholic Church, the world's largest sect of Christianity, considers the concept of biblical inerrancy to be heresy? They know where that sort of reasoning leads to. The fastest trip to atheism is to insist that the Bible is literally true cover to cover.

I’m not going for your goal post movement

 

[Trailblazer]

But saying that, don't you take it as authentic in the Bahai faith? Don't you quote it like a 100 times as authority?

Just because I quote from the NT that does not mean I think it is authentic or authoritative.

 

[Kenny]

No, I use neutral sources. You use biased ones. You are projecting again.

No… just calling a spade a spade. But I know in your imagination, anything is possible.

Historical sources are not "anti-Christ" just because they show some of the Bible to be mythical. Scientific sources are not "anti-Christ" just because they show other parts of the Bible to be mythical. You are so biased for you own side that you cannot even conceive of being wrong. Have I once said "This disproves Christianity!"? You act as if I have done that when I show that parts of the Bible are wrong. How weak is your faith that you have to reject Christianity if any of the Bible is wrong?

Again… mumbo jumbo through your personal opinion and myopic limited studying efforts as seen through your bias. I can’t say something different when it is obvious.

 

[Trailblazer]

I’m not going for your goal post movement

You and Sub are fun to watch, but I am not getting involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not going for your goal post movement

Another fallacy that you do not understand. I was trying to explain your errors to you and referred to another Christian church that understands how you are wrong.

 

[Kenny]

You and Sub are fun to watch, but I am not getting involved.

LOL… it is quite funny! I can’t deny it!

I love using the same tactics as Sub uses!

 

[Trailblazer]

You mean the quote mined passages that suit's your theology?

You mean like the quote mined passages that suit Christian theology?

 

[Kenny]

Another fallacy that you do not understand. I was trying to explain your errors to you and referred to another Christian church that understands how you are wrong.

As you view it through your anti-Christ position. I understand… and it’s OK Sub. I give you every right to think what you think even when you are dead wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL… it is quite funny! I can’t deny it!

I love using the same tactics as Sub uses!

I'm not taking any sides because I am just an ignoramus when it comes to the Bible.