Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Like I said, you always run away instead of trying to learn. You have to because you know that you are wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
lol, say what you will, but there are others here who claim to believe in God, gods, triune members of a godhead, transmigrating souls -- better you talk to them really as to why they believe in God/gods/goddesses/whatever -- have a good one and take care. (P.S. I'm assuming you don't pray...)
To the extent mentioned here >Does God live within atheists?<.
Science says what I say ─ that the only way the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains. In other words, there's no satisfactory demonstration of its existence independently out there in the world external to the self.
So the real question might be whether you're serious about testing its actual existence, or only in maintaining your present views of it, no?
A very curious charge. What do you say I believe to be factual while at the same time knowing it's fictional?
Yes. The supernatural exists only in people's minds. The reason it's called "supernatural" is because it isn't found in nature, the world external to the self.
It certainly doesn't mean they did know.
They may be old, they may be tired, but they're the very essence of reason, since they go to the heart of our argument.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Of course if 1Timothy is not Pauline then who knows when that quote was written. I don't live my life on the opinions of some scholars however, but there is wriggle room for anyone who still does not like Luke to have been seen as scripture at the time of Paul.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I suppose it depends which definition of evidence you are using. It cannot be proven that the supernatural is real, science is not up to the task, but supernatural claims do eliminate the conclusion that the supernatural is non existent however imo, but atheists don't like that reasoning.
Humans of course do not know and cannot say that nature is all that was needed for the universe and us to exist.
Saying that God created naturally sounds like a religious belief and one that goes beyond the objective verifiable evidence. I'm not complaining, just saying.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It cannot be shown that the supernatural exists or that it does not exist.
The logical conclusion might be that we do not know, but imo there is evidence for the supernatural even if science has not confirmed my suspicions, so I believe and you either stick to your "neutral" position or say that the supernatural does not exist.
There of course is a lot of objection from neutral people to the truth of stories about the supernatural. It is as if they are not really neutral.
Brian2
Veteran Member
John 2:18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,[c] and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.
Luke 9:21 Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22 “The Son of Man must suffer many things,” He said. “He must be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”
Matthew 28: 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, sas he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
OK, but those passages are not about the resurrection.
So discussion is futile. Good to know ...
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If people do not claim that their God is a liar I am usually cool with what they believe. Why are you afraid?
Science and ordinary approaches like in Law does not try to prove that the supernatural does not exist. Science simply goes by whether there is independent objective verifiable evidence that the supernatural or miraculous can be demonstrated to exist, Law requires a combination of first hand witness testimony, physical evidence and documented facts to legally prove something is true or exists.
evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
Similar: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation ad corroboration.
The determination as to if there is "evidence" for any claim has nothing to do with religious beliefs, and nothing to do with atheism. particualarly in science and the Court of Law
Know? There is no independent objective verifiable evidence for anything else, but nature. Of course they can.
Yes it is a religious belief, but it is in harmony with science and the objective verifiable evidence from any perspective.
It, of course, does not have to try and create its own awkward definition of evidence, which is not evidence to justify claims of the supernatural, Of course, it does not have to prove the existence of God, which cannot be done, and acknowledges this in reality is a religious belief.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I have a faith and for that I do not need to verify my beliefs before believing them. I have enough evidence for my faith. The body of information I have is what indicates to me that my faith is correct.
Humans can and do but science is or should be more neutral about that and so should not say one way or the other.
As you say, it is a religious belief to say that God had nothing to do with it and so goes beyond the bounds of what science can say.
It is important to understand if you are making arguments for the existence of supernatural and miraculous claims. These are claims of "factual" things or occurrences. As with logical arguments it is up to the one making the claims to demonstrate, prove, confirm or substantiate the claim in this the existence of the supernatural and miraculous. The burden of proof is on yo not someone else to prove something is "not true,"
It would be virtually impossible for you to substantiate or prove your supernatural claims in a Court of Law,
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Just as Jesus must not have "proved his case" in a court of law. Have a good day.
Any one is perfectly of the right to believe what they want, but your arguing beyond this, and claiming "evidence" for your claims. No you do not have any evidence for your claims by definition of what is required to convince other regardless of what they believe
the ten thousandth time you have said this,
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Could be...but I truly doubt it was 10,000 times. May seem like it...
(Have a good one...)
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well, interesting that you perhaps may not believe in miracles, but Jesus went to the jewish court at the time and was found guilty. Then Pilate questioned him but didn't really think he should be executed. But he was. So Jesus died and he was raised from the dead.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Some are killed because of their beliefs.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
From Bart Ehrman book "Forged":
The anonymity of the Gospel writers was respected for decades. When the Gospels of the New Testament are alluded to and quoted by authors of the early second century, they are never entitled, never named. Even Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. For Justin, these books are simply known, collectively, as the "Memoirs of the Apostles." It was about a century after the Gospels had been originally put in circulation that they were definitively named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This comes, for the first time, in the writings of the church father and heresiologist Irenaeus, around 180-85 CE.
Irenaeus wrote a five-volume work, typically known today as Against Heresies, directed against the false teachings rampant among Christians in his day. At one point in these writings he insists that "heretics" (i.e., false teachers) have gone astray either because they use Gospels that are not really Gospels or because they use only one or another of the four that are legitimately Gospels. Some heretical groups used only Matthew, some only Mark, and so on. For Irenaeus, just as the gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be four and only four Gospels, and they are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 4
Modern readers may not find this kind of logic very compelling, but it is not difficult to see why orthodox writers like Irenaeus wanted to stress the point. Lots of Gospels were in circulation. Christians who wanted to appeal to the authority of the Gospels had to know which ones were legitimate. For Irenaeus and his fellow orthodox Christians, legitimate Gospels could only be those that had apostolic authority behind them. The authority of a Gospel resided in the person of its author. The author there- fore had to be authoritative, either an apostle himself or a close companion of an apostle who could relate the stories of the Gospel under his authority. In the year 155, when Justin was writing, it may still have been perfectly acceptable to quote the Gospels without attributing them to particular authors. But soon there were so many other Gospels in circulation that the books being widely cited by orthodox Christians needed to be given apostolic credentials. So they began to be known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
The traditional names were not ascribed early on. When the authority of the writings had to be secured the supposed authors became two apostles and two companions (of Peter and Paul).
If we look at the texts it doesn't appear so. Books themselves don't claim to be written by these people. The authors also never speak in the first person.
If we look at the texts it doesn't appear so. Books themselves don't claim to be written by these people. The authors also never speak in the first person.
They never claim to be personally connected with any of the events they narrate or the persons about whom they tell their stories. The books are thoroughly, ineluctably, and invariably anonymous. (Ehrman)