• 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

Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
Sgt. Pepper said:
I'd still like to know if you are familiar with Romans 10:9–13.

I asked you about this in another thread a week ago, but you haven't answered me yet.

A Christian believes --------------------------------?

b) You do not see God everywhere!
www.religiousforums.com
Click to expand...
I believe it is because I am not on every day and I did answer eventaully. BTW I never confessed at the time of salvation. I asked Jesus to be my Lord and Savior and He answered and came into my life.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
CG Didymus said:
Born Again Christians need the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, and they need to take it as literally as possible. But they still interpret some verses in a way to point to Jesus and even a trinity.

But this thread was started by a Baha'i. Baha'is don't need the Bible nor want the Bible to be literally true. That doesn't work at all for them. So, Baha'is have a bunch of symbolic interpretation to make some of the Bible stories fit into the Baha'i beliefs. But they still are dependent on some things being literally true. The main ones being that God is real and their prophet was sent by that God. And anything he said is literally true.

So, both of them have unprovable beliefs at their foundation. The big one being God is real. So, they both take it on "faith". They both believe that their foundation, that they have taken on faith, is rock solid. And they both proceed from there to tell people what they must do to be saved or what they must do to build a peaceful world.

Both of them "know" that their God is real. And I'm sure they feel him in their hearts and minds. They can read their Scriptures and think that such things can only come from an almighty and all knowing God... But each believes in a different version of God.

With such a weak foundation... could it all be in their minds? But again, they tell me, "no"... they "know" it's true... God is real.

And of course it is the doubters and skeptics that are wrong.
Click to expand...
I believe my founation is Jesus, the rock, who has done many amazing things in my life. A book can be in error but experience can't be denied.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Muffled said:
I believe my founation is Jesus, the rock, who has done many amazing things in my life. A book can be in error but experience can't be denied.
Click to expand...
That is called confirmation bias. It is the exact same "foundation" that a Hindu or a Muslim will have. There is nothing wrong with claiming that you believe something, but when you make obvious false claims about your beliefs people will correct you.
 
George-ananda

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
Even worse, it is only claims of eyewitnesses passed down. But no, even your version say that the OP is right.
Click to expand...
You could call even direct testimony of eyewitnesses 'claims of eyewitnesses', right. The 'claims' word only says the obvious. I think it is fair to say the New Testament used eyewitness testimony passed down.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Scientists have never been shown to be wrong by theists. They have only been shown to be wrong by other scientists. And science does not refute God, but it can refute false versions of God.
Click to expand...

It is the job of science, not theology, to refute science.
Sometimes people think that science has refuted the Bible, and the Bible God, but really, assuming the science was right, it has just shown people what the Bible really meant.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
I would not say "full of lies". But I would say definitely wrong. Genesis is wrong if read literally. So is Exodus. The morals of the Bible are wrong if read literally. That is not shown by science. Parts of the Bible are shown to be wrong historically if read literally. The Bible is a very general guide at best. Calling it the "word of God" appears to be blasphemy as a result.
Click to expand...

Genesis is wrong if read literally, and interestingly, reading it literally is something that skeptics seem to insist on.
Exodus has not been shown to be wrong historically. A lot of the time in history there is disagreement about what might have happened, but the truth is not decided by a vote amongst historians, even though that seems to be the way many people decide on the truth.
It does seem that some of the morals of the Bible are wrong but it is hard for us in this day and age to judge the morals of ages past by our standards and understanding.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, most Christians do not even understand the concept of evidence. Skeptics like scientific evidence quite a bit since it has been shown historically to be the most reliable form of evidence that exists today. But there are other forms of evidence as well. A skeptic will accept all proper evidence. They will reject ad hoc explanations since those are not supported by evidence.
Click to expand...

IMO all people like scientific evidence.

Subduction Zone said:
Really? You have no idea of the history of religion or science you are telling us. Way back when even weather was thought to be caused by the gods. As were diseases. Also how man came to be is a favorite when it comes to myths. Right now there does not appear to be a need for a god anywhere. You asked the wrong question.
Click to expand...

Weather and diseases are caused by God who created all things, and science has not eliminated God. If science shows that friction causes heat and so causes things to burn, fire, that does not eliminate God. Seeing every instance of a storm or a disease or a fire as a specific act of God has been eliminated and rightly imo.
When you say that "there does not appear to be a need for a god anywhere", that does not mean that science has shown that a god is not needed.

Subduction Zone said:
No, that is not true. First one has to define "God". One of my favorite questions is "Can God lie?" If he cannot then many versions of God can be eliminated. And remember, when you raise the false accusation of "scientism" you have already lost.
Click to expand...

Why is scientism an accusation? It is just true that many people want science to discover spirits and to discover God before they will believe in them. It does not matter what history and human experience shows, it is only science that counts even when science can only discover and test physical things.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
It is the job of science, not theology, to refute science.
Sometimes people think that science has refuted the Bible, and the Bible God, but really, assuming the science was right, it has just shown people what the Bible really meant.
Click to expand...
That is false. Assumptions are not allowed in the sciences. They are evidence based. Are you willing to learn the basics of science? You really should since you are claiming that God is a liar. The evidence tells us that there was no flood.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
Genesis is wrong if read literally, and interestingly, reading it literally is something that skeptics seem to insist on.
Exodus has not been shown to be wrong historically. A lot of the time in history there is disagreement about what might have happened, but the truth is not decided by a vote amongst historians, even though that seems to be the way many people decide on the truth.
It does seem that some of the morals of the Bible are wrong but it is hard for us in this day and age to judge the morals of ages past by our standards and understanding.
Click to expand...
You insist on reading it literally. For all practical purposes if you insist on the Noah's Ark myth there is almost no difference between you and those that insist that the Earth is flat due to what the Bible says.
 
CG Didymus

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Tony B said:
It's the usual sleight of hand of course, lets assume there were no DIRECT eye witnesses for Jesus who wrote in the New Testament, does that mean the stories are false?
Click to expand...

IndigoChild5559 said:
It means they are totally unreliable, that you cannot say for sure which stories are factual and which are fiction.
Click to expand...
But that's not what the preacher tells them. He gets up there and with a powerful voice declares it is the inerrant, infallible word of God.

Lots of us probably know some very nice people that are Christian. Unfortunately, we know a bunch of people that are just clanging cymbals.

From 1 Corinthians 13​
​
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.​
​
Some people calling themselves Christians are just noisy.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
IMO all people like scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

You don't. You do not even seem to understand the concept.
Brian2 said:
Weather and diseases are caused by God who created all things, and science has not eliminated God. If science shows that friction causes heat and so causes things to burn, fire, that does not eliminate God. Seeing every instance of a storm or a disease or a fire as a specific act of God has been eliminated and rightly imo.
When you say that "there does not appear to be a need for a god anywhere", that does not mean that science has shown that a god is not needed.
Click to expand...

Science has demonstrated that there is no need for a God. You need to try to argue properly. If one claims that science refutes God that is a an error. Science can only refute false versions of God. Like yours.
Brian2 said:
Why is scientism an accusation? It is just true that many people want science to discover spirits and to discover God before they will believe in them. It does not matter what history and human experience shows, it is only science that counts even when science can only discover and test physical things.
Click to expand...
Because it is almost always a lie. People that understand the sciences very rarely abuse them. The scientific method answers scientific questions. It does not answer all questions. If you accuse someone of "scientism" the burden of proof is upon you. If I accused you of being a cannibal the burden of proof would be on me. You would not accept such a false accusation and those that use the sciences properly will not accept false accusations of "scientism".

And yes, when it comes to physical things we go to the sciences. One of the reasons that we do that is because almost all theists believe that God is not a liar. The sciences do not answer spiritual questions. If one tried to do so that would be "scientism".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top