There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Sheldon]

That’s his opinion and yours, some scholars say different, my Bible shows the traditional views and timelines as well as the other views, reasons for both.

Nope it's not just my opinion, it is a well established fact.

CITATION
"The original texts of the gospels had existed for about a hundred years with no names. The Church Fathers in the 2nd century CE assigned the names; none of the writers signed their work. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. One exception is Luke, who says he interviewed witnesses but gives no further details. In their attempt to provide backgrounds for the writers the Church Fathers tried to align them as close to the original circle of Jesus as possible. They were also aware of a fundamental problem; the first disciples of Jesus were fishermen from Galilee who could not read and write the level of Greek in these documents."

"The gospels were produced from c. 70 CE to perhaps 100 CE. Their portraits of Jesus, who he was, and why he was here, differ in relation to both later reflections and changes in the demographics of the earliest Christian communities over time. The four gospels vary in some of the details of Jesus. The two nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are thrown together under the Christmas tree, although they differ in many ways. (Matthew has the star and the Magi; Luke has the stable and the shepherds.) However, when the gospels agree on details, this does not indicate four different sources. Mark, being first, was used and edited by the other three."

 

[ElishaElijah]

Nope it's not just my opinion, it is a well established fact.

CITATION
"The original texts of the gospels had existed for about a hundred years with no names. The Church Fathers in the 2nd century CE assigned the names; none of the writers signed their work. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. One exception is Luke, who says he interviewed witnesses but gives no further details. In their attempt to provide backgrounds for the writers the Church Fathers tried to align them as close to the original circle of Jesus as possible. They were also aware of a fundamental problem; the first disciples of Jesus were fishermen from Galilee who could not read and write the level of Greek in these documents."

"The gospels were produced from c. 70 CE to perhaps 100 CE. Their portraits of Jesus, who he was, and why he was here, differ in relation to both later reflections and changes in the demographics of the earliest Christian communities over time. The four gospels vary in some of the details of Jesus. The two nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are thrown together under the Christmas tree, although they differ in many ways. (Matthew has the star and the Magi; Luke has the stable and the shepherds.) However, when the gospels agree on details, this does not indicate four different sources. Mark, being first, was used and edited by the other three."

Oh I see what you’re saying now, so in your opinion, because no names were assigned the gospels till later on although they were written during the lifetime of the people assigned to the Gospels who walked with Jesus, you’re saying therefore they are in your opinion not eyewitness accounts.
Is it possible that the Gospels were assigned to the correct people? Yes. All the Apostles were eye witnesses, other books of the Bible were from eye witnesses, John and Peter.

 

[InChrist]

You were just questioning my use of the pronoun "it" with regard to my search for the Christian deity.

​

I was not questioning your use of the word “it” in reference to gender, since God is Spirit, according to the scriptures, not male or female in any human, physical sense. The scriptures also indicate that God possesses all the non-physical qualities of both male & female when it is stated God created human beings in His image (Genesis 1:27). My question was about why , if you were truly seeking God, you were not addressing God in the way “He” had revealed “Himself” in the scriptures? So again, it wasn’t about gender... and you already answered my question very adequately.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They’ve been verified since the beginning so just because you’re skeptical of those sources from the Bible and historians doesn’t make it so. I keep saying this because skeptics seem to overlook the obvious and place more credence in the current skeptic historians of this century.

Nope, they have not been "verified since the beginning." That's an odd claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe get out a little more or see the news, or maybe you just don’t recognize the demonic activity around you even how people are being influenced to think certain way.
“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:1-9‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

So you're going to just double down on more claims.

Demonic activity? When did anyone demonstrate that demons exist and can carry out "activities?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only according to your 4 percent of the population. So we can just ignore you.

Oh no dear, we're talking about believers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So when Jesus returns is that when you are saying it becomes a verifiable fact that He rose from the dead 2000 years ago, the Bible then becomes a fact, the witnesses then are reliable? Or what would you say then?

If that ever happened, then it would become a fact that Jesus returned. As of right now, it's not a fact. Nor are any of the other things you keep claiming as facts.

 

[ElishaElijah]

If that ever happened, then it would become a fact that Jesus returned. As of right now, it's not a fact. Nor are any of the other things you keep claiming as facts.

It would mean that it was always a fact but people denied that fact and were deceived.

 

[Sheldon]

Oh I see what you’re saying now,

Nope, deleted since none of it is even close to anything I said, try again:

Sheldon said: ↑
Nope it's not just my opinion, it is a well established fact.

CITATION
"The original texts of the gospels had existed for about a hundred years with no names. The Church Fathers in the 2nd century CE assigned the names; none of the writers signed their work. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. One exception is Luke, who says he interviewed witnesses but gives no further details. In their attempt to provide backgrounds for the writers the Church Fathers tried to align them as close to the original circle of Jesus as possible. They were also aware of a fundamental problem; the first disciples of Jesus were fishermen from Galilee who could not read and write the level of Greek in these documents."

"The gospels were produced from c. 70 CE to perhaps 100 CE. Their portraits of Jesus, who he was, and why he was here, differ in relation to both later reflections and changes in the demographics of the earliest Christian communities over time. The four gospels vary in some of the details of Jesus. The two nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are thrown together under the Christmas tree, although they differ in many ways. (Matthew has the star and the Magi; Luke has the stable and the shepherds.) However, when the gospels agree on details, this does not indicate four different sources. Mark, being first, was used and edited by the other three."

This time maybe read what it says, and follow the citation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

all you have presented is two anecdotal claims, the first that you changed your life, the second that this was caused by your belief. Even if you can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for those two claims, this would not be sufficient evidence for the belief itself. Since others make this identical claim citing beliefs in different religions and deities, or even no deity at all.

empirical evidence doesn’t mean that you personally have to observe what happened does it?

It does if you're calling it empirical evidence for you.

The word evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident. Evidence is that which is evident to the senses. However firm your belief that a deity was involved, there is no reason for a skeptic to believe that you are correct if you cannot provide what you call your evidence to HIM that you are. Based on your words and their apparent sincerity and honesty, I have good evidence to believe that you had a transformative experience that you attribute to a deity, but not that a deity was involved. Why? I can see your words, but not any deity.

even when Jesus rose from the dead, skeptics said all kinds of things like maybe He wasn’t really dead, or let’s bribe the soldier’s, say they came and stole His body. So yes skeptics have been known for explaining things away. I’ve even heard some say it wasn’t really Jesus in the cross, he was switched somehow.

Of all the things that may have happened leading to that story, resurrection from the dead is the least likely. Most likely, a man was crucified, died, and nobody expected him to rise from the dead or believed he did until that part of the story was added later to conform to other regional resurrection myths. Were you aware of the following? From Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia :

• "A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus.[5]"

I have yet to find anyone except believers that have had the same testimony as mine.

The only thing different about your story and mine, my "salvation" from smoking and Christianity is that mine doesn't invoke a god, just myself.

 

[Sheldon]

Nope, they have not been "verified since the beginning." That's an odd claim.

The more his posts blindly ignore the facts, the less compelling his beliefs look, so its hard to see what he hopes to achieve with this Ostrich impression.

The gospels are of unknown authorship, and beyond the existence of an historical Jesus and the crucifixion, nothing is known or has been independently substantiated, least of all supernatural claims involving magic.

 

[Sheldon]

So you're going to just double down on more claims.

Indeed, as he has been doing from the start of course.

Demonic activity? When did anyone demonstrate that demons exist and can carry out "activities?"

Ohh, lots of doubling down on that claim will be the result of this question.

 

[Sheldon]

Only according to your 4 percent of the population. So we can just ignore you.

Nope, Christianity alone has over 45000 sects, and this is another argumentum a d populum fallacy as well. The number of people who hold a belief, rationally tells us nothing about the validity of that belief.

 

[Sheldon]

It would mean that it was always a fact but people denied that fact and were deceived.

Ah I see, so you're saying if something turns out to be a fact it is in fact a fact, but a fact is not a fact if it has not in fact, been demonstrated to be a fact, in fact, the fact is there are no facts that support the hearsay claims in the gospels, and this is a fact, so in fact, this fact always was a fact, in point of fact you are denying that fact, while also speculating in fact, that something that is not fact. might in fact, be a fact if it turns out to be a fact after all, in contradiction of the facts.

The fact is I am dubious about the value of your reasoning here, in fact..

 

[SkepticThinker]

It would mean that it was always a fact but people denied that fact and were deceived.

As of right now, it's a claim.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Ah I see, so you're saying if something turns out to be a fact it is in fact a fact, but a fact is not a fact if it has not in fact, been demonstrated to be a fact, in fact, the fact is there are no facts that support the hearsay claims in the gospels, and this is a fact, so in fact, this fact always was a fact, in point of fact you are denying that fact, while also speculating in fact, that something that is not fact. might in fact, be a fact if it turns out to be a fact after all, in contradiction of the facts.

The fact is I am dubious about the value of your reasoning here, in fact..

Except there are facts that confirmed the facts of the resurrection, but the people with the facts have died and now the fact remains which some doubt so they call it hearsay although someone stands before them with a changed life telling them otherwise. When Jesus returns the facts will again be confirmed and then what will you do?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Nope, Christianity alone has over 45000 sects, and this is another argumentum a d populum fallacy as well. The number of people who hold a belief, rationally tells us nothing about the validity of that belief.

There is only 1 Body of Christ which is His Bride.
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:4-6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[ElishaElijah]

Indeed, as he has been doing from the start of course.




Ohh, lots of doubling down on that claim will be the result of this question.

Double down is a term used in gambling, seems the gamble is all yours seen as all you have is a what if it didn’t happen like the Bible and historians of that time period have said and recorded. All you’ve said is the name wasn’t listed on the Gospels until later and your gamble is that they may not have gotten right even though the traditional view is they did get it correct.
You’re also gambling with the fact that many witnesses to the life changing power of the Gospel is still active and available to everyone who calls on the name of the Lord in truth, today.
I’m confident and positive about what I’ve experienced, that God did deliver me, that He is also empowering me to live a holy life and I will receive eternal life forever with Him in the next.
This is something a skeptic does not have, just questions, doubt and hopelessness in the afterlife.

 

[samtonga43]

What do you mean by "greater"?

I assume Anselm used the word as a comparative adjective.

 

[InChrist]

He/him denotes a particular gender.
So you're telling me that referring to god as he/him denotes qualities of care, provision and protection? What does a particular gender pronoun have to do with those particular qualities?



I'm with that other poster. I think we should refer to God(s) as "it."

Well, since you are a non-believer you can refer to God any way you like. You may find the linked article and quoted portion interesting...

“We know that God is a spiritual being. Strictly speaking, He does not have a gender. However God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity using masculine pronouns and imagery. In the Bible, God does not refer to Himself using gender-neutral terms; He uses masculine terms. Since God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity in language that specifies the masculine gender, we can and should refer to Him in similar language. There is no biblical reason to stop using masculine pronouns to refer to God.

From the very start in the Bible, God refers to Himself using masculine pronouns: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). God refers to Himself from the beginning in masculine terms. Ancient Hebrew had no grammatically neutral-gender pronouns, so all items were intentionally given a grammatical gender of masculine or feminine. That pronoun was deliberate. In the Old Testament, the pronouns referring to God are grammatically masculine.

The same thing is found in the New Testament. The epistles (from Acts to Revelation) contain nearly 900 verses where the Greek word theos—a masculine noun—is used to refer to God. Although Koine Greek had gender-neutral terms, God is still referred to in the masculine gender.

In addition to the grammatical constructions, the imagery used in the Bible also confirms that God has chosen to refer to Himself as possessing male qualities. Several metaphors and titles are used to describe God. There are hundreds of references to God as a Father, King, and Husband. ”

Since God is not male, should we stop using masculine pronouns to refer to God? | GotQuestions.org