There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Trailblazer]

In our camp, we believe God loves the world and that would include you. All within the context of my signature.

That is also true in the Baha'i camp.

"How ignorant therefore the thought that God who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness, and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs even though he be an atheist or materialist nevertheless God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)

Non-believers - Bahai9

bahai9.com

 

[Kenny]

No, I am just demanding that you do not use sources that have already shown themselves to be flawed. You are projecting again because you absolutely refuse to consider unbiased sources.

Opinionated and posting it twice doesn’t make it true.

 

[Kenny]

That is also true in the Baha'i camp.

"How ignorant therefore the thought that God who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness, and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs even though he be an atheist or materialist nevertheless God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)

Non-believers - Bahai9

bahai9.com

Our scriptures say it this way:

Matthew 5:45 New King James Version
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Love can’t help but give.

It is who He is! He is love!

 

[firedragon]

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

If not, why do you quote it as authoritative? That's a bit weird.

Anyway, that's your prerogative.

 

[firedragon]

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

Maybe. Are you saying you are doing the same thing? Well, you should know that at least the Christians believe in the scripture in some way or another as a whole. You have just rejected it, but are still holding a candle to it. Some verses you believe in within your own theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m just interpreting your statements. I’m aloud to have a viewpoint. I didn’t say “YOU were anti-Christ” just that you quote only those who have an anti-Christ position.

You haven’t proven me wrong.

Until you can find a reliable source I have.

 

[Eli G]

You must be an apologist because when you disagree with him, one is automatically an apologist no matter what scholar you quote. .

Sometimes I wonder how I could improve my way of reasoning with others so that I could better help them understand certain issues that are important to their own well-being. I have even thought about whether apologetics would really be useful for that, as in your case, that you only turn to it when you have no other choice. I have always believed that apologetics is not the first option to defend biblical truth, but I think that it is useful sometimes, as in your case.

But I meditate on Jesus, how in addition to being a perfect man, he could perceive people's intentions just by listening to them or seeing them, and sometimes he even discovered their most intimate secrets. And despite all his wisdom and being the best teacher that could have existed, he did not manage to get everyone who listened to him to accept his teachings.

He said:

John 15:20 Keep in mind the word I said to you: A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have observed my word, they will also observe yours. 21 But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know the One who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin.

So it is unrealistic to expect people to always accept our help, nor should we think we are doing it wrong. That should not be the ultimate goal of a Christian when helping others, although I suppose an unsuccessful apologist would feel like a loser. Anyway it is perhaps also their failure that they cannot unsettle a Christian no matter how hard they try, while the Christian has his sights set on something more than a fleeting sense of accomplishment: the future prize that God has reserved for us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Opinionated and posting it twice doesn’t make it true.

Oh the irony!!

 

[Kenny]

Until you can find a reliable source I have.

Only in your imagination - your site only has your viewpoint.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only in your imagination - your site only has your viewpoint.

Yes, but they do not make the mistake that your sites do. They have to explain all of the evidence. Your sites ignore evidence that they have no answers for. Once again, scholars cannot cherry pick. Apologists do it regularly.

 

[Trailblazer]

If not, why do you quote it as authoritative? That's a bit weird.

Anyway, that's your prerogative.

I don't quote it as authoritative. I just quote it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe. Are you saying you are doing the same thing?

I am saying we all do it.

Well, you should know that at least the Christians believe in the scripture in some way or another as a whole. You have just rejected it, but are still holding a candle to it. Some verses you believe in within your own theology.

I also believe in the scripture in some way or another as a whole. I just don't believe all the details.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only in your imagination - your site only has your viewpoint.

Okay, just for fun I checked out your link and read the article. Tell me, how do you think that helps you at all? You do not even understand the gross error that they made. Wow. You might want to read it again:

Was the gospel of Matthew originally written in Aramaic?

Was the gospel of Matthew originally written in Aramaic? In this Q&A we will very simply demonstrate that the gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.

www.neverthirsty.org

You might want to consider the phrase "strawman argument". Sheesh.

 

[Kenny]

Sometimes I wonder how I could improve my way of reasoning with others so that I could better help them understand certain issues that are important to their own well-being. I have even thought about whether apologetics would really be useful for that, as in your case, that you only turn to it when you have no other choice. I have always believed that apologetics is not the first option to defend biblical truth, but I think that it is useful sometimes, as in your case.

Eli, certainly we can alway improve our capacity. That is one of the reasons I am on this site. That being said, with people like Sub, it doesn’t matter how cogent, logical and supportive position you give, it will never be enough. It isn’t your lack of capacity but simply the dogmatic position some people have.

But I meditate on Jesus, how in addition to being a perfect man, he could perceive people's intentions just by listening to them or seeing them, and sometimes he even discovered their most intimate secrets. And despite all his wisdom and being the best teacher that could have existed, he did not manage to get everyone who listened to him to accept his teachings.

Exactly. And sometimes, he didn’t argue… he simply said: John 8:44 New King James Version 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want todo. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Didn’t bother arguing.

He said:

John 15:20 Keep in mind the word I said to you: A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have observed my word, they will also observe yours. 21 But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know the One who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin.

So it is unrealistic to expect people to always accept our help, nor should we think we are doing it wrong. That should not be the ultimate goal of a Christian when helping others, although I suppose an unsuccessful apologist would feel like a loser. Anyway it is perhaps also their failure that they cannot unsettle a Christian no matter how hard they try, while the Christian has his sights set on something more than a fleeting sense of accomplishment: the future prize that God has reserved for us.

So true!

I would still defend an apologist as its definition is: One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity.

Just because a person is an apologist doesn’t mean he isn’t using scholarly information.

People who demean apologist are simply people using coined phrases because they really don’t have an answer. I know, because I was one of them.

 

[Kenny]

Okay, just for fun I checked out your link and read the article. Tell me, how do you think that helps you at all? You do not even understand the gross error that they made. Wow. You might want to read it again:

Was the gospel of Matthew originally written in Aramaic?

Was the gospel of Matthew originally written in Aramaic? In this Q&A we will very simply demonstrate that the gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.

www.neverthirsty.org

You might want to consider the phrase "strawman argument". Sheesh.

I see nothing but opinion here. No substance, a smoke bomb with gaslighting statements but no substance.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, but they do not make the mistake that your sites do. They have to explain all of the evidence. Your sites ignore evidence that they have no answers for. Once again, scholars cannot cherry pick. Apologists do it regularly.

Opinion. No substance.

 

[Kenny]

Until you can find a reliable source I have.

I haven’t found one that you have given that is reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see nothing but opinion here. No substance, a smoke bomb with gaslighting statements but no substance.

I gave you a suggestion. You thought that article helped your case. It does not. You do not even appear to know what the argument was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven’t found one that you have given that is reliable.

Oh please, don't give me that. Just because you cannot refute historically based sources does not mean that they are not suitable. I explained to you why your sources fail. You had no answer to that except to falsely claim that evidence based sources were "anti-Christ" a claim that put a heavy burden of proof upon you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I had no idea my thread would be so popular.

I am going to be post #300 if I hurry.
Oh shoot, I wasn't fast enough.