There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[YoursTrue]

And yet there are scholars (albeit a minority) that suggest a slightly later date.

Like who? and why?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. Sorry if you cannot follow an argument. I cannot help you on that.

You don't know what you're talking about, but like you said, scientists can be wrong. Remember that? (oh, and so what, by the way...)

 

[YoursTrue]

The authenticity of Peter's letters is a matter of debate amongst scholars

There is evidence and scholarship for an earlier John, even preceding Mark

Can you give references backing up what you're saying please.

 

[Riders]

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

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. The four gospels were written and circulated anonymously and the traditional authorship was secondarily assigned towards the end of the second century CE. There is not a single first person claim to being an eye witness to Jesus' life.

Given what I said above, which is explained in the video below, what logical reason would anyone have to believe that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of the life of Jesus? Why should we believe that what these anonymous authors wrote about Jesus is true?

Do you believe in Josephus accounts of Jesus?

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you believe in Josephus accounts of Jesus?

Sorry, I am not familiar with those accounts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know what you're talking about, but like you said, scientists can be wrong. Remember that? (oh, and so what, by the way...)

Now you are just trolling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe in Josephus accounts of Jesus?

At least one of those accounts was clearly altered. Josephus was a devout Jew and would never have called Jesus the Messiah if he wrote about him. The odds are that he did acknowledge his existence, and his crucifixion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As has been said, unfortunately you do not understand (comprehend) that scientists themselves differ amongst themselves. Have a good one.

I understand this far better than you do so this does not help you either.

Are you a "biblical scholar?"

No, but I know how to reference them. I know better than to use Liars for Jesus to help me in an argument.

 

[Brian2]

Evidence for believers or evidence for the critically thinking empiricists? The interpretations of those experiences by believers are not evidence that they are correct.

The experiences of people are just evidence. Some people accept that evidence as true and others do not. Interpretations either way are not evidence that those interpretations are correct.

Speculation is good enough for you to believe otherwise, but appears to be grounds for you to reject ideas from others.

What I reject from others is the assertion that their ideas are more speculation.

Assuming that they believe those claims, they only mean that that's what they believe, not that they have properly understood their experiences.

Yes.

Yes. If you can't demonstrate your beliefs to be correct, they won't become mine until you can. The faith-based thinker and the empiricist have radically different criteria for belief (the will to believe vs compelling evidence)

I have evidence that is compelling enough for me, you do not. You want to say that the evidence that we have is not really evidence because you do not believe it. You want to say that if the supernatural is real then the area of study that studies the natural world should be able to detect the supernatural world also.

Yet somehow you think you know they do exist.

No, I want to say that I believe they exist. "Belief" no doubt is related to "knowledge". It is said that science does not prove things, so are the discoveries of science called knowledge or beliefs?

The empiricist doesn't need reasons not to believe. He needs reasons *TO* believe. The testimony of believers is not good enough.

Yes, and you preach the belief that everyone should be an empiricist, even when it comes to supernatural things that cannot be tested.
But of course the idea that you think that something might not be true has become blurred with the idea that that thing is not true. You cannot say it is not true. All you can saying is that you need more evidence.
It is interesting that you seem to need natural evidence to say that the supernatural might be true however. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you do say that the supernatural might be true and I guess that would mean that you have a little bit of faith also.

Having no means to rule the idea of gods in or out, the critically thinking empiricist is agnostic on that. Have you still not understood and assimilated the difference between reserving judgment (agnosticism) and claiming that something is false?

Yes it means that in reality, on the scale of faith, you have probably gone to the zero point and reject the positive side altogether. But the question for agnostics is how far they have slid into the negative side, being an atheist. If agnostics are at zero then there should be no assertion from them that believers are wrong.
The line between agnostic and atheist is blurred of course because atheists say that they just lack belief. They also might believe with sufficient evidence or the type of evidence they demand.
I wonder if God came and spoke to an empiricist, would that count as sufficien evidence or just subjective nonsense.

And that's why you believe it is so.

Maybe, or maybe that is believing it is so.

By that reasoning, if somebody claims that the supernatural is nonexistent, you must agree that he might be correct because he made that claim. Or don't you like that reasoning, either?

You misunderstand. When I say "supernatural claims" I am not talking about someone who is just reasoning about the supernatural, I am talking about someone who experiences the supernatural, unquestionably.
You can speculate or claim that their experiences were not unquestionable, but how far do you or an atheist go when claiming that the supernatural is not real after knowing of the experiences of people?
Surely you cannot logically say that they supernatural is definitely not real after the experiences of people with the supernatural. I guess that is why you want to be called an agnostic and not an atheist.

You're contradicting yourself in consecutive sentences. When you have sufficient evidence to justify a belief, faith in in isn't involved or necessary.

What you have is faith. If you could provide that sufficient evidence, then two things:

• Your belief would be evidence-based, not faith-based.
• You would be able to convince empiricists with that evidence.

I do not have the sort of evidence that an empiricist would demand. I suppose you, as an empiricist, see only a certain sort of evidence as real evidence. That is your faith, that only empiricism is worthy of belief in and being a disciple of.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand this far better than you do so this does not help you either.

No, but I know how to reference them. I know better than to use Liars for Jesus to help me in an argument.

what I understand is that scientists ponder over things sometimes like how life began -- some believe it came from a collision from outer space, others believe it could have started from elements on the earth maybe being struck with lightning...they do not KNOW.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand this far better than you do so this does not help you either.

No, but I know how to reference them. I know better than to use Liars for Jesus to help me in an argument.

You don't name your scholarly references. At least we can read about what Miller-Urey did. Who are your biblical scholarly references you refer to? I would think if you're honest you would be happy to say.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now you are just trolling.

Tell you what. Don't answer me anymore. If I have anything to say I will not address it to you...how about it?

 

[Brian2]

Yep. Stop there.

That is where you want to stop, and that is fine.

If you had any, you would/should have presented it by now.

You see evidence in history and you say it is all lies.
You see evidence in nature and you prefer to "believe" that it could and did all just happen.
That's fine, you can believe that. It is however a bit different to saying that you don't know how things got here or that you don't know if the supernatural in the experience of people is real.
I suppose we just have to live with you saying that you don't know and then arguing about why the supernatural answer is not true, as if you have made up your mind.

Given that neither of us have evidence that would demonstrate the existence of a supernatural realm/thing/place/entity, then reasonable position to take is "I don't know."

You claim not to know and I also claim that. You claim you believe there is no supernatural and I claim that I believe there is supernatural.

What isn't reasonable is to declare that such and such is supernatural because we don't understand it.

What isn't reasonableis to declare that we do not understand it so it is not real.

What "truth of stories about the supernatural?"

Not sure I understand you.

 

[Brian2]

Do you not see how circular this is?

You have faith, because you have no evidence. Your evidence is your faith.

That's about as circular and fallacious as it gets.

All I said is that I do not need verification. I do not need scientific testing before I believe. If science shows that my beliefs cannot be true then I can adjust my beliefs then. You otoh want verification before you believe.
It is not that I have no evidence, it is just that I do not demand verification.
Thomas demanded verification before believing. He would not believe the reports of those who had seen the risen Jesus.

Science doesn't do or say anything. Science is a tool and a process.

Yes, and is supposed to be neutral to the existence of the supernatural.

That doesn't make sense.

If science is neutral then to say that God did not have anything to do with it has gone beyond that neutrality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what I understand is that scientists ponder over things sometimes like how life began -- some believe it came from a collision from outer space, others believe it could have started from elements on the earth maybe being struck with lightning...they do not KNOW.

No, that is amazingly wrong. But you do not seem to want to learn.

You don't name your scholarly references. At least we can read about what Miller-Urey did. Who are your biblical scholarly references you refer to? I would think if you're honest you would be happy to say.

I am always willing to do so with an honest interlocutor. At one point you did seem to want to learn, but perhaps it was when you saw that meant that you were wrong that you decided not to. That is a strange reaction. It is as if you are afraid that if you realize that the version of Christianity that you grew up with was wrong that would mean that all versions are wrong. Not even I as an atheist have made that claim. Yes, some versions of Christianity can be shown to be wrong. You would probably admit this too. There are very serious Flat Earth believers that claim teaching the fact that the Earth is a globe is an attempt to refute God. They take biblical literacy one notch up from what most biblical literalists do.

Tell you what. Don't answer me anymore. If I have anything to say I will not address it to you...how about it?

But where would be the fun of doing that? I still think that you can learn if you can put your fears aside. In other words you should be able to believe in God no matter how he made the universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

All I said is that I do not need verification. I do not need scientific testing before I believe. If science shows that my beliefs cannot be true then I can adjust my beliefs then. You otoh want verification before you believe.
It is not that I have no evidence, it is just that I do not demand verification.
Thomas demanded verification before believing. He would not believe the reports of those who had seen the risen Jesus.

Interesting application about Thomas. I like that, makes sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I said is that I do not need verification. I do not need scientific testing before I believe. If science shows that my beliefs cannot be true then I can adjust my beliefs then. You otoh want verification before you believe.
It is not that I have no evidence, it is just that I do not demand verification.
Thomas demanded verification before believing. He would not believe the reports of those who had seen the risen Jesus.

That can be a mistake. But believe as you wish. What is an error is when one is shown that some event did not happen and to insist that it did. As far as Jesus and the resurrection no one has proved that that did not happen, though it appears to be highly unlikely.

Yes, and is supposed to be neutral to the existence of the supernatural.

It is. But rational thought and proper skepticism does oppose it.

If science is neutral then to say that God did not have anything to do with it has gone beyond that neutrality.

Scientists do not say that. They point out that there is no reliable evidence that God did anything and they put the burden of proof upon theists if they want to make such claims. Far too many people misinterpret showing that God was not needed for a particular event as an attempt to refute God. Properly if one is a theist and a scientist one would view it as getting answers to how God did it.

 

[Valjean]

Do you believe in Josephus accounts of Jesus?

Josephus wrote about Christians, their reported beliefs and activities, and the social opprobrium they were attracting. He was reporting the gossip and scuttlebutt of the day. He didn't claim to know or interact with them. His reports were political reportage, not eyewitness accounts.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you preach the belief that everyone should be an empiricist

I think that I should be an empiricist. I don't mind if you're not.

the idea that you think that something might not be true has become blurred with the idea that that thing is not true.

In your mind, perhaps, but not in mine. I'm acutely aware of the difference.

I wonder if God came and spoke to an empiricist, would that count as sufficient evidence

Yes, if it were clear that that was a god.

I suppose you, as an empiricist, see only a certain sort of evidence as real evidence.

Everything I see is evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Like who? and why?

See post # 753 ...