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

[ElishaElijah]

Yes, Bart Ehrman became a born-again fundamentalist evangelical Christian at the age of 15. He is also a distinguished professor of religious studies at The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and is one of America's most widely read scholars of early Christianity and the New Testament.

CITATION

Now if Dr Ehrman said you were not really a Christian, I'd be forced to point out he was using a no true Scotsman fallacy, just as I have done to you, when you use these.

I could probably dig up my confirmation certificate if I still have it. There'd be photos after the service, church records etc etc...

So all I would need is a letter that God miraculously delivered me in treatment from the Counselor at that facility. A certificate of baptism and how I was changed from the Pastor and Church about my conversion and that’s proof enough for you? Great then, if you accept Ehrman’s testimony then not sure why you have a problem with mine or others, even when atheists become believers.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You believe it is authoritative, but that is an unevidenced subjective belief. However you are still missing the point, and failing to grasp that it is open to subjective interpretation, and all Christians claim they know bets what it means. If it were a reliable source of truth then it would not have produced 45000 different sects and denominations globally. This point can't be waved away with irrational arguments from assertion fallacies.

The Bible is very clear on the major issues of faith,
It’s easy to spot false teaching so unless you have a specific teaching to look at an examine it’s your own fallacious idea about the Bible.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You bought into the mumbo jumbo

What is the mumbo jumbo exactly? Some people were taught that in a church thinking it was Scripture but wasn’t.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Acts? We know what it says. Historians have demonstrated Acts is absolutely 100% historical fiction.


The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story Richard Purvoe (American biblical scholar, former Episcopal priest, and Fellow of the Westar Institute. Specialist on Acts)

The author of Acts unwittingly committed a near-perfect crime: He told his story so well that all rival accounts vanished with but the faintest of traces. And thus future generations were left with no documents that recount the history of the early Christian tradition; because Acts is not history. According to Richard Pervo, 'Acts is a beautiful house that readers may happily admire, but it is not a home in which the historian can responsibly live.' Luke did not even aspire to write history but rather told his story to defend the gentile communities of his day as the legitimate heirs of Israelite religion. In The Mystery of Acts, Pervo explores the problem of history in Acts by asking, and answering, the fundamental questions: Who wrote Acts? Where was Acts written? When was Acts written? Why was Acts written? How was Acts written? The result is a veritable tour-de-force that enlighten, entertains, and brings Acts to life.

Pervo writes with verve and has a commanding knowledge of the literature on Acts, and his assessment of the theological intent of Acts is informative. --The Bible Today

Richard Pervo, who has dedicated most of his scholarly life to the study of Acts, is an international authority in this area. His new book is intended specifically to introduce the non-specialist to recent research in the field by focusing on the problems of attempting to derive history from the text; indeed, Pervo appreciates the author of Acts more as a creative catechist than as an historian.

-This is the most important book I have read in five years. Bravo Pervo! Summarizing the discoveries made during the writing of his magisterial commentary on Acts, this little book makes it wonderfully clear that there is little if anything of historical value in the book of Acts, apart from what it can tell us about the community that wrote it. In one fell swoop, the only basis of support for the traditional model of Christian origins has been eliminated. It is now possible to entertain seriously other models of Christian origins, including the theory that Christianity did not begin at any particular place in space or moment in time, but rather began like the ancient religions of Egypt, India, Greece, and Rome. The fact that as soon as the curtain goes up on the stage of Christian history there is evidence of division and "heresies" such as Docetism--inexplicable on the basis of traditional notions of an historical "Jesus of Nazareth"--now becomes understandable if "Christianity" developed (and continues to develop) as the intertwining of threads of religious tradition into braids of tradition that change as time goes on. The origins of some threads disappear into the mists of prehistory, others enter the braid at known points in time and space. Some threads leave the braid, the braid fragments into various "Christianities," and the color of the various threads may change as a function of time and place.




As we can see, in order for Acts to be any kind of history, one would have to assume that all of these parallels are merely historical coincidences which is orders of magnitude less probable than that they are simply inventions that were intentionally created to reflect one another. It’s certainly possible for a couple of these coincidences to be historical, but it is nigh impossible for all of them to be historical. Either way, there isn’t any way to weed out any of the possible historical details from within this plethora of fictional constructions. Overall, Acts just shares far too many features with popular adventure novels that were written during the same period, in order to lend it any trust as history. Here’s an overview of those features:

1) They all promote a particular god or religion.
2) They are all travel narratives.
3) They all involve miraculous or amazing events.
4) They all include encounters with fabulous or exotic people.
5) They often incorporate a theme of chaste couples that are separated and then reunited.
6) They all feature exciting narratives of captivities and escapes.
7) They often include themes of persecution.
8) They often include episodes involving excited crowds.
9) They often involve divine rescues from danger.
10) They often have divine revelations which are integral to the plot

Since Acts shares all of these features and thus looks exactly like an ancient novel of the period, there is simply no good reason to assume that all of the parallels it has with other literary sources are merely historical coincidences. Rather, we should conclude that they are in fact what they have been shown to be: literary constructs and other elements of fiction.

You say you know what it says, but don’t actually say what it says. All you communicate is you don’t believe it. I already know that and not the point.

 

[ElishaElijah]

He stated on a news show that he had become "born again"

I don’t have a problem with that but you have a big problem when it goes the other way, very inconsistent and dishonest. You can’t have it both ways. Be a man then and just say, you will not have Jesus Christ as your Lord. Leave it at that instead of all this other stuff.
The problem is that people are saying they were a Christian but are no longer, when I hear their story and testimony it says to me that they thought they were but really weren’t, they just took a bath and followed some rules, were taught something false.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t have a problem with that but you have a big problem when it goes the other way, very inconsistent and dishonest. You can’t have it both ways. Be a man then and just say, you will not have Jesus Christ as your Lord. Leave it at that instead of all this other stuff.

I don't want you in my life relevant for it being up to me and accept that in the other direction as from your POV. Can you say the same?

 

[ElishaElijah]

I don't want you in my life relevant for it being up to me and accept that in the other direction as from your POV. Can you say the same?

What do you mean? Not quite following you here

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean? Not quite following you here

I will let you believe what you want as how you do your life as you. Will you do the same when it comes to me?

 

[ElishaElijah]

I will let you believe what you want as how you do your life as you. Will you do the same when it comes to me?

You can believe whatever you want to, when talking about what the Bible actually says and teaches is a different matter altogether. If you say that red apple is blue and want to believe that then fine with me, I’m still going to tell you it’s red.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can believe whatever you want to, when talking about what the Bible actually says and teaches is a different matter altogether. If you say that red apple is blue and want to believe that then fine with me, I’m still going to tell you it’s red.

Well, I am of a Protestant culture, so we disagree. You can have your view of the Bible and I can have mine. I am not going to tell you that yours are wrong or any of that. Just that I do it differently, but if you don't accept that, then you are claiming authority over my faith. I don't accept that and would like you to stop doing that if that is the case.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Well, I am of a Protestant culture, so we disagree. You can have your view of the Bible and I can have mine. I am not going to tell you that yours are wrong or any of that. Just that I do it differently, but if you don't accept that, then you are claiming authority over my faith. I don't accept that and would like you to stop doing that if that is the case.

You are free to not reply but the Bible is the authority and the Church is the pillar and support of the Truth. Since I am part of the Church, Body of Believers I do have that authority to rightly explain and teach the Bible.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭3:16-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
If you aren’t part of the Church then you don’t have any say in the matter. You can feel free in your community of belief to talk of that all you want to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are free to not reply but the Bible is the authority and the Church is the pillar and support of the Truth. Since I am part of the Church, Body of Believers I do have that authority to rightly explain and teach the Bible.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭3:16-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
If you aren’t part of the Church then you don’t have any say in the matter. You can feel free in your community of belief to talk of that all you want to.

I am a member of another Church than yours. So I could do the same as you, but I don't. I just want to let me be a member of my Church and I will let you be a member of yours.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I am a member of another Church than yours. So I could do the same as you, but I don't. I just want to let me be a member of my Church and I will let you be a member of yours.

Oh sorry, getting you mixed up with another person. Seen as you are part of the Church, what disagreement do you have with my view of the Bible? Do you agree with 2 Timothy 3:16?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh sorry, getting you mixed up with another person. Seen as you are part of the Church, what disagreement do you have with my view of the Bible?

I am not a member of the Church. I am a member of another Church, than yours.

 

[Sheldon]

So…that’s also what Jesus said:

You don't know what Jesus said, the bible contains pure hearsay. Even were that not the case I don't see any reason to attach any significance to what he purportedly said, that's just an appeal to authority fallacy.

You also seem to have responded by preaching at me, rather than addressing anything I said, which is verboten.

Sheldon said: ↑
Well I was lucky that where I live Christianity was a mild type of indoctrination, some people have had to endure far worse. Also atheism is no big deal here in the UK, the godless are rapidly reaching the majority.

many people don’t know what the Bible says or teaches about what it means to be a Christian.

Well I have encountered Christians who were shockingly ignorant of the bible's origins, many for instance don't seem aware that the names assigned the gospels, Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictional, and that there are no eyewitness accounts, only claims for the same, and even the earliest written accounts were penned decades after the alleged events they describe. Or that beyond the crucifixion of someone called Jesus, there is no independently validated or historical evidence for any of it.

They were taught a false concept and rail against that false teaching thinking they were a Christian but were not.

As you're doing here, obviously, since your subjective opinion is no more credible than all the rest.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I am not a member of the Church. I am a member of another Church, than yours.

The Church is the Whole Body of Christ worldwide and from the beginning with Jesus Christ as the Head. Are you saying you are not part of this Body of believers?
This is my Church and what I mean when I say The Church.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You don't know what Jesus said, the bible contains pure hearsay. Even were that not the case I don't see any reason to attach any significance to what he purportedly said, that's just an appeal to authority fallacy.

You also seem to have responded by preaching at me, rather than addressing anything I said, which is verboten.





Well I have encountered Christians who were shockingly ignorant of the bible's origins, many for instance don't seem aware that the names assigned the gospels, Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictional, and that there are no eyewitness accounts, only claims for the same, and even the earliest written accounts were penned decades after the alleged events they describe. Or that beyond the crucifixion of someone called Jesus, there is no independently validated or historical evidence for any of it.



As you're doing here, obviously, since your subjective opinion is no more credible than all the rest.

You’re off target again and not talking about any of that but the question is “What does the Bible actually say and teach?

 

[Sheldon]

So all I would need is a letter that God miraculously delivered me in treatment from the Counselor at that facility.

No idea what you're talking about sorry, you asked for objective evidence and I gave it.

A certificate of baptism and how I was changed from the Pastor and Church about my conversion and that’s proof enough for you?

Of what? You asked for objective evidence I gave some.

if you accept Ehrman’s testimony then not sure why you have a problem with mine or others,

Where have I claimed you're not a Christian? You're the one using a no true Scotsman fallacy not me.

even when atheists become believers.

Where have I claimed atheists don't become theists, all theists were once atheists obviously, since we are all born without any beliefs and then learn them. Some just see through the claims, as I did, and Dr Ehrman did for example.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
You believe it is authoritative, but that is an unevidenced subjective belief. However you are still missing the point, and failing to grasp that it is open to subjective interpretation, and all Christians claim they know bets what it means. If it were a reliable source of truth then it would not have produced 45000 different sects and denominations globally. This point can't be waved away with irrational arguments from assertion fallacies.

The Bible is very clear on the major issues of faith,

That's why it has 45k different sects and denominations globally?

It’s easy to spot false teaching so unless you have a specific teaching to look at an examine it’s your own fallacious idea about the Bible.

It's easy to make a subjective claim that the teachings of others false more like. Again you seem to think your argument from authority fallacy is compelling, it isn't though.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No idea what you're talking about sorry, you asked for objective evidence and I gave it.



Of what? You asked for objective evidence I gave some.



Where have I claimed you're not a Christian? You're the one using a no true Scotsman fallacy not me.



Where have I claimed atheists don't become theists, all theists were once atheists obviously, since we are all born without any beliefs and then learn them. Some just see through the claims, as I did, and Dr Ehrman did for example.

We are talking different things so you’re not hearing me, take it easy.