Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[ElishaElijah]

It is clear that you two disagree. How would you test your beliefs? "Because I say so" is not very convincing. I am betting that there are parts of the Bible that you will misinterpret due to your religious beliefs.[/QUOTE

You misinterpret the Scriptures to fit your beliefs so you are like the pot calling the kettle black.
Christians have a lot of misconceptions concerning the Holy Spirit. One of those misconceptions is that the Holy Spirit lives inside their bodies and that it talks to them.

The Holy Spirit does not LIVE INSIDE of anyone and it does not TALK to anyone... Rather, God talks to the Messengers of God such as Jesus through the Holy Spirit.... In other words, the Holy Spirit is a medium through which God communicates to the Messengers of God... This IDEA that the Holy Spirit lives inside of Christians is yet another false Christian doctrine that came about by misinterpreting the Bible and it has led Christians astray since the very beginning...

The passage below explains what the Holy Spirit is and how the Holy Spirit works. The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God that comes from the Manifestations of God (Messengers) to humanity. The Holy Spirit reflects upon humans and is associated with their intellectual reality but it does not descend into their bodies as most Christians believe.

Question.—What is the Holy Spirit?

Answer.—The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God and the luminous rays which emanate from the Manifestations; for the focus of the rays of the Sun of Reality was Christ, and from this glorious focus, which is the Reality of Christ, the Bounty of God reflected upon the other mirrors which were the reality of the Apostles. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles signifies that the glorious divine bounties reflected and appeared in their reality. Moreover, entrance and exit, descent and ascent, are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits—that is to say, sensible realities enter and come forth, but intellectual subtleties and mental realities, such as intelligence, love, knowledge, imagination and thought, do not enter, nor come forth, nor descend, but rather they have direct connection.

For example, knowledge, which is a state attained to by the intelligence, is an intellectual condition; and entering and coming out of the mind are imaginary conditions; but the mind is connected with the acquisition of knowledge, like images reflected in a mirror.

Therefore, as it is evident and clear that the intellectual realities do not enter and descend, and it is absolutely impossible that the Holy Spirit should ascend and descend, enter, come out or penetrate, it can only be that the Holy Spirit appears in splendor, as the sun appears in the mirror.

Some Answered Questions, p. 108

Sorry friend but I’m not interpreting the Scriptures just presenting what they say in plain language. What you are doing is disagreeing and using an interpretation.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

We have thousands of indirect evidence of George Washington and what he did in the form of biographies, paintings, and letters, as well as documents and letters written by the man himself.

We do not have such for Jesus. Only a few written by believers long after he died.

Also there is no claims that George Washington did supernatural things unwitnessed before or that anything he did or said affected reality, therefore no reason to doubt that what he did was possible. We can doubt that the claims about Jesus was possible as we have never seen those things done before.

How do you know those documents weren't forged, there's a lot of fake documents around. How can you trust those who claim that George Washington existed, how do you know it's not just a bunch of fabricated stories to make Americans feel good about themselves.

 

[Polymath257]

I never fabricated my evidence, but everything that the secular people believe was fabricated. So there's a big difference right there

And you say this while using a computer based on secular investigations, driving a car based on secular investigations, using electricity based on secular investigations.

What did religion give us? Centuries of ignorance and backwardness.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Friend @ElishaElijah
I don't see any contents from one in one's post #1908 , please. Did something went wrong, please?

Regards

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say in your previous post.

 

[Polymath257]

We know more about Jesus Christ than we do about George Washington, everything He di and teach was recorded and witnessed by countless witnesses and your asking for proof>>>> more like your denying the in your face evidence.

Simply false. We have actual writings about Washington. We have letters going to and from him. We have documents he made while President. ALL produced *while* he was alive. We have the house where he lived.

We have *four* gospels. That is *at most* four witnesses (whether or not the authors *were* witnesses is another issue). Furthermore, even in the most generous reading, they wrote decades after the events in question.

Now, *those* witnesses *claimed* that many others saw Jesus, but we have no actual evidence of this *because we only have four gospels*.

To compare even those whole of the New Testament (even if we say it is reliable, another issue) to all the documentation for Washington is just silly and shows a lack of understanding concerning the types and varieties of historical evidence.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

And you say this while using a computer based on secular investigations, driving a car based on secular investigations, using electricity based on secular investigations.

What did religion give us? Centuries of ignorance and backwardness.

May I remind you that all of the great scient

And you say this while using a computer based on secular investigations, driving a car based on secular investigations, using electricity based on secular investigations.

What did religion give us? Centuries of ignorance and backwardness.

may I remind you that all the greatest scientists who gave us everything we have today were Christians. I could list them all but there are too many to list. So you need to thank Christians for your computer

 

[SalixIncendium]

Simply false. We have actual writings about Washington. We have letters going to and from him. We have documents he made while President. ALL produced *while* he was alive. We have the house where he lived.

We have *four* gospels. That is *at most* four witnesses (whether or not the authors *were* witnesses is another issue). Furthermore, even in the most generous reading, they wrote decades after the events in question.

Now, *those* witnesses *claimed* that many others saw Jesus, but we have no actual evidence of this *because we only have four gospels*.

To compare even those whole of the New Testament (even if we say it is reliable, another issue) to all the documentation for Washington is just silly and shows a lack of understanding concerning the types and varieties of historical evidence.

Four canonical gospels. There are many that didn’t make the cut list for the Bible as it was assembled by the Church and some that are lost.

List of Gospels - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know those documents weren't forged, there's a lot of fake documents around. How can you trust those who claim that George Washington existed, how do you know it's not just a bunch of fabricated stories to make Americans feel good about themselves.

You claimed the evidence for Washington was less than that for Jesus. The basic amount for Washington is *far* more than that for Jesus. Plus the *quality* and types are higher standards.

Yes, forgeries are an issue in any study of history. But they tend to be single documents and not thousands of such. They also show internal inconsistencies of the type we do NOT see when it comes to the evidence for Washington.

It almost looks like you are denying that we can know *anything* about the past by modern observation. Is that your position?

 

[Polymath257]

May I remind you that all of the great scient

may I remind you that all the greatest scientists who gave us everything we have today were Christians. I could list them all but there are too many to list. So you need to thank Christians for your computer

SOME of them were. Others were skeptics. And others were atheists. But for NONE of them did their Christianity affect the type or quality of the evidence they found. The evidence was *always* secular, not religious in nature.

 

[Polymath257]

Four canonical gospels. There are many that didn’t make the cut list for the Bible as it was assembled by the Church and some that are lost.

List of Gospels - Wikipedia

Granted. We also know there was a time when people wrote their own 'creative writing' gospels as expressions of their religious devotion.

From what I can see, the Gospel of Thomas is probably much more accurate in what it says about Jesus and his sayings than the canonical ones.

And again, the comparison in quality and chronology to the evidence for Washington still makes any comparison rather silly.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Granted. We also know there was a time when people wrote their own 'creative writing' gospels as expressions of their religious devotion.

From what I can see, the Gospel of Thomas is probably much more accurate in what it says about Jesus and his sayings than the canonical ones.

And again, the comparison in quality and chronology to the evidence for Washington still makes any comparison rather silly.

I’m not sure how accurate the statement was, but it has been suggested that those gospels that did not portray Jesus as divine were omitted from the Bible.

As I understand it, the Gospel of Thomas is more about Jesus the person, his saying, etc., and it makes no suggestion of Jesus’ divinity.

 

[Polymath257]

I’m not sure how accurate the statement was, but it has been suggested that those gospels that did not portray Jesus as divine were omitted from the Bible.

Well, the gospels chosen for the Bible were also chosen because of the Arian/Athanasian debate that was current at the time. The Bible we know (well, almost) was the Athanasian side of the debate. The Arians had a different collection of writings they considered to be canonical.

As I understand it, the Gospel of Thomas is more about Jesus the person, his saying, etc., and it makes no suggestion of Jesus’ divinity.

Yes, the gospel of Thomas is a sayings gospel: it only has quotes, if you will. It has no commentary, no story.

At one point, it was thought that Thomas might be the Q source, but my understanding is that isn't seen as likely any longer. Nonetheless, it has a number of overlaps with the canonical gospels, but some very interesting extras, probably related to a gnostic bent.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

You claimed the evidence for Washington was less than that for Jesus. The basic amount for Washington is *far* more than that for Jesus. Plus the *quality* and types are higher standards.

Yes, forgeries are an issue in any study of history. But they tend to be single documents and not thousands of such. They also show internal inconsistencies of the type we do NOT see when it comes to the evidence for Washington.

It almost looks like you are denying that we can know *anything* about the past by modern observation. Is that your position?

Yes, my position is anything can be forged and the more modern the document the easier it is to forge so I don't agree with this notion that something has to be true because there are more written articles about it.

The Harry Potter series sold millions of copies but it doesn't make any of it true.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, my position is anything can be forged and the more modern the document the easier it is to forge so I don't agree with this notion that something has to be true because there are more written articles about it.

The Harry Potter series sold millions of copies but it doesn't make any of it true.

So it is impossible to know anything about the past?

You are right: it isn't simply the number of articles. It is also their provenance, the consistency between them, the variety of writing styles, etc.

But, of course, this same criticism applies (even more) to your Bible. is it impossible for it to have been forged? Impossible that the 'prophesies' were actually written *after* the events foretold? Impossible that it is propaganda from a ruling class of priests? Impossible that those who wrote it or assembled it simply didn't understand the actual events?

The further into the past, the less we know about provenance, about motive, about cultural beliefs, etc. And hence, the *less* reliable the writings will be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry friend but I’m not interpreting the Scriptures just presenting what they say in plain language. What you are doing is disagreeing and using an interpretation.

No, that is interpreting. And of course any rational approach to the Bible has to include the fact that some of the stories in the Bible never happened. We were discussing how we know that the Noah's Ark story is myth. Reading the "plain language" of that book leads to a wrong conclusion if God cannot purposefully lie. And I think we agree that if God is real he cannot lie.

Besides that you are back to a version of "because I said so". You dodged a reasonable question. That indicates that you at least sense that you could be wrong. How do you test your beliefs? How do you test the Bible to see if your beliefs about it are correct?

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, that is interpreting. And of course any rational approach to the Bible has to include the fact that some of the stories in the Bible never happened. We were discussing how we know that the Noah's Ark story is myth. Reading the "plain language" of that book leads to a wrong conclusion if God cannot purposefully lie. And I think we agree that if God is real he cannot lie.

Besides that you are back to a version of "because I said so". You dodged a reasonable question. That indicates that you at least sense that you could be wrong. How do you test your beliefs? How do you test the Bible to see if your beliefs about it are correct?

Sorry friend, that’s off topic from my discussion with someone else. We were able to establish some common ground about Scripture and were discussing along those lines.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, my position is anything can be forged and the more modern the document the easier it is to forge so I don't agree with this notion that something has to be true because there are more written articles about it.

The Harry Potter series sold millions of copies but it doesn't make any of it true.

I would argue that it t is easier to forge an ancient document. There were fewer ways to test its veracity back then than it is today to get away with false claims.

It appears that you do not know how we can test modern ideas to test their veracity. How would you test the veracity of the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry friend, that’s off topic from my discussion with someone else. We were able to establish some common ground about Scripture and were discussing along those lines.

No, it isn't. You cannot have common ground if you do not agree on how to interpret the Bible. By running away you admit that you are wrong.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, it isn't. You cannot have common ground if you do not agree on how to interpret the Bible. By running away you admit that you are wrong.

When we’ve finished a discussion, it’s called leaving that person in God’s hands because He has a way of working using time, circumstances and other people. I don’t have to and have nothing to prove per se. What I did say is God has proved to me without a shadow of a doubt who He is and that I have eternal life. You apparently need something else, what proof do you need for yourself? Can you articulate that ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When we’ve finished a discussion, it’s called leaving that person in God’s hands because He has a way of working using time, circumstances and other people. I don’t have to and have nothing to prove per se. What I did say is God has proved to me without a shadow of a doubt who He is and that I have eternal life. You apparently need something else, what proof do you need for yourself? Can you articulate that ?

The problem is that "God has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" to others too. And those beliefs are extremely different from yours. You both can't be right. But you could both be wrong. People that are afraid to test their beliefs seem to be wrong far more often than those with real confidence. If you actually knew that you were right you would have no fear of testing. Your actions do not match your stated beliefs.