What you had in your post is a THEORY (vs. EVIDENCE) that certain Gospel writers copied others. I asked for evidence, and evidence that the Gospel writers EMBELLISHED the words of Jesus. I didn't see any EVIDENCE of that in your post - just claims and theories.
Too little too late. If your answer were sincere, you would have provided it a week ago when this issue was playing out.
Your lack of an apology or even an explanation for your choice to disregard sounds like excusing yourself for your poor debating and discussion manners. You presumably saw the answers I provided you at your request and chose to disregard them. Now you're making excuses to save face having been called out for it.
The argument provided was much more than claims. It was a cogent argument that still stands unrebutted, one I no longer have any interest in discussing with you. I don't trust you to do your part. Do you recall this recently written by me to you? If your purpose is to be a good will ambassador for your faith, you might want to consider the following :
"Are you familiar with the term ethos from the philosophy of argumentation? Distinct from logos, or the argument itself, this term refers to the audience's perception of the speaker. Is he well-informed? Does he seem he honest? Can we trust that he has presented all of the relevant evidence in his argument as opposed to cherry-picking? Is his agenda to inform or to indoctrinate?"
Could well be that both were uttered. John heard one thing, Luke was told another. Perhaps there was a commotion or a wailing of woman and John didn't hear the last part of what Luke reported. Doesn't mean either one is lying.
Or, the words were just made up at least once once. Maybe all of Jesus' utterances were misheard or not heard by the people present, and nothing attributed to Jesus in the Gospels should be accepted as historical.
Too little too late. If your answer were sincere, you would have provided it a week ago when this issue was playing out.
Your lack of an apology or even an explanation for your choice to disregard sounds like excusing yourself for your poor debating and discussion manners. You presumably saw the answers I provided you at your request and chose to disregard them. Now you're making excuses to save face having been called out for it.
The argument provided was much more than claims. It was a cogent argument that still stands unrebutted, one I no longer have any interest in discussing with you. I don't trust you to do your part. Do you recall this recently written by me to you? If your purpose is to be a good will ambassador for your faith, you might want to consider the following :
"Are you familiar with the term ethos from the philosophy of argumentation? Distinct from logos, or the argument itself, this term refers to the audience's perception of the speaker. Is he well-informed? Does he seem he honest? Can we trust that he has presented all of the relevant evidence in his argument as opposed to cherry-picking? Is his agenda to inform or to indoctrinate?"
Like I said, the window of opportunity for us having this conversation has passed. I'm not interested in repeating my argument nor your response to it
Yeah, maybe that's what happened. Or, the words were just made up at least once once. Maybe all of Jesus' utterances were misheard or not heard by the people present, and nothing attributed to Jesus in the Gospels should be accepted as historical.
Alleged contradictions. Most of which suddenly disappear when you place them on a time line.
As for the resurrection, there's additional evidences the disciples considered it genuine.
The resurrection was the central message of the disciples.
They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem..
James, a family skeptic, was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus.
Paul, a hostile skeptic was converted to the faith because of an encounter with Jesus.
Thomas, a skeptic, believed when he saw the risen Jesus.
Of course all that has to be classified as nonsense in order for your made up claims and unsubstantiated theories to be able to hold water. So nice try!
I'm familiar with the claims, but I'm not seeing too many blessed lives. As I indicated to you (which you have also ignored), there is nothing envious about benefiting from religion - religion meeting some otherwise unmet need. I prefer being able to live without it.
I judge Christianity by its human output - the degree to which those raised in it become good people according to my values. Are they honest? Law abiding? Living exemplary lives? When discussing the likes of Hitler or Stalin, both raised in Christianity, we hear that they weren't true Christians because they turned out so monstrously, and that Christianity is not at fault. Well, it failed to prevent such monstrosities, which is every bit as much of a reflection on Christianity as its successes.
Consider Mother Teresa, an apparent spiritual genius, who tended to the dying, suffering poor, and who said, "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering." and "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you."
That's the effect Christianity had on her, just about the worst possible attitude for somebody running hospices..I am a former hospice medical director. I assure that that is an inappropriate attitude, one that it is well documented led to much needless suffering, which supports Steven Weinberg contention that, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." -
Demolished? Now you're projecting. You demolished nothing but your own ethos with your choices to date.
It's not that I don't want to discuss this subject. I'll gladly discuss just about any topic with anybody, but they have to do their part or I lose interest in them.
If you were interested in this discussion, why did it take you over a week to get around to it? You've still never bothered to explain that except with a bogus claim that you were provided no evidence.
As for the resurrection, there's additional evidences the disciples considered it genuine.
The resurrection was the central message of the disciples.
They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem..
James, a family skeptic, was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus.
Paul, a hostile skeptic was converted to the faith because of an encounter with Jesus.
Thomas, a skeptic, believed when he saw the risen Jesus.
There is no reason to believe that any of those things happened, nor that these interpretations can be trusted, much less that revivification of the dead actually occurred. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Words in a book aren't enough.
I judge Christianity by its human output - the degree to which those raised in it become good people according to my values. Are they honest? Law abiding? Living exemplary lives? When discussing the likes of Hitler or Stalin, both raised in Christianity, we hear that they weren't true Christians because they turned out so monstrously, and that Christianity is not at fault. Well, it failed to prevent such monstrosities, which is every bit as much of a reflection on Christianity as its successes.
Any reasonable research into Hitler and his gang clearly shows they were occultic. Just because some people went to church earlier in life doesn't make them Christians.
If you've got another alleged Gospel contradiction you feel excited about lay it out. Or, you can Google "Answering Bible Contradictions" to get an education on why so many are not contradictions to begin with.
These records are not independent. They are as biased as can be.
And still, they are only more claims. Those are the very claims that are in need of evidence.
No amount of "testimony" can ever be enough to rationally accept that the laws of physics were suspended / violated / defied but by the will of an individual.
Just like no amount of mere testimony would ever be enough to accept the existance of big foot or the idea that aliens are kidnapping humans and doing weird anal sexual experiments on them ==> and that one doesn't even require the suspension/violation of physical laws.
That's crazy.
And where has physics / science ever proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist?
If the bible is the record of who Jesus was and what he supposedly did, then he most surely did....
Turning water into wine, returning from the dead, making the blind see, etc.
Perhaps in a thousand years or so when we have a better handle on all that physics entails, a better determination can be made.
Also, the "advanced technology" bit, will not work either.
Because according to the legends, Jesus didn't use technology. He performed his "miracles" (another hint that it really does concern violations of natural law) through the power of his "will". So those are at the very least psychic abilities. Which are "magic" - not technological.
People have been reporting miracles for ages. Many have been documented. If you want to get up-to-date on that then here's an in-depth study reference.
Biased for the truth. You do know that people can be biased but still truthful, don't you? But for you to claim all those people who wrote the New Testament are liars and charlatans is itself a highly questionable and disingenuous assertion. You are, in effect, assigning dishonesty to people you don't even know. So I can't give you even an ounce of credibility on that claim.
And still, they are only more claims. Those are the very claims that are in need of evidence.
No amount of "testimony" can ever be enough to rationally accept that the laws of physics were suspended / violated / defied but by the will of an individual.
"laws of physics were suspended / violated / defied"? Who are you to know what physics is all about? Scientists are STILL discovering new truths about physics. What's more, where's your peer-reviewed scientific studies that have determined that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? There are none.
And they have done so in the context of many many many religions, much (if not most) of which are mutually exclusive with yours. They also have reported such things in context of no religion at all and just magicians / sorcery, which is essentially the same thing (ie, violations/suspensions of natural law).
We know for a fact that humans have a tendency to be superstitious, to engage in typ 1 cognition errors (the false positive). More then enough reason to never "just believe" fantastical claims - whatever they are, no matter who makes them, no matter when.
Why do you focus on the claimed miracles of YOUR religion?
I dare say that the miracle claims that DO NOT fit into your religion, are a lot more numberous....
Your bias is showing.
As for me, I don't care about mere claims.
Also, good job ignoring the point made....
No, conventional history does not include a "miracle worker" Jesus. It barely even includes a human Jesus at all.
And they have done so in the context of many many many religions, much (if not most) of which are mutually exclusive with yours. They also have reported such things in context of no religion at all and just magicians / sorcery, which is essentially the same thing (ie, violations/suspensions of natural law).
We know for a fact that humans have a tendency to be superstitious, to engage in typ 1 cognition errors (the false positive). More then enough reason to never "just believe" fantastical claims - whatever they are, no matter who makes them, no matter when.
No, they haven't.
Unless by "documented" you mean that some of these people wrote their claims down. Which is not the same.
Why do you focus on the claimed miracles of YOUR religion?
I dare say that the miracle claims that DO NOT fit into your religion, are a lot more numberous....
Your bias is showing.
As for me, I don't care about mere claims.
Also, good job ignoring the point made....
No, conventional history does not include a "miracle worker" Jesus. It barely even includes a human Jesus at all.
Believe whatever you want, TM. I won't give your views any credit until you hop out here with those scientific studies that show God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist. So your whole world view on that is not based in science.
Sure. But being biased isn't something that serves as an indicator to what is actually true. In fact, if there is a clear correlating pattern that in fact only those with the bias believe it, then usually it's pretty safe to ignore it.
But for you to claim all those people who wrote the New Testament are liars and charlatans
I said no such thing.
I happen to assume that the authors of ALL religious scriptures (ANY religious scripture - not just from the religion that you happen to follow by geographic and/or genetic accident) were quite sincere in their beliefs.
I also think they are all very mistaken.
So do you, actually. I'm quite positive that you think that the authors of the Quran were mistaken, right? Or the authors of the bagavad gita, or the iliad, or.... any religious scripture other then the bible.
is itself a highly questionable and disingenuous assertion.
Do you expect them to discover a physics equation or atomic properties that will allow them to turn water molecules into wine molecules by use of just words and / or "will power"?
I sure don't.
One doesn't need to know everything about everything to understand that water molecules won't be turning into wine molecules just because someone "wills it".
What's more, where's your peer-reviewed scientific studies that have determined that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? There are none.
No. Biased for the religion they follow. Obviously they believe their own claims...................
Sure. But being biased isn't something that serves as an indicator to what is actually true. In fact, if there is a clear correlating pattern that in fact only those with the bias believe it, then usually it's pretty safe to ignore it.
I said no such thing.
I happen to assume that the authors of ALL religious scriptures (ANY religious scripture - not just from the religion that you happen to follow by geographic and/or genetic accident) were quite sincere in their beliefs.
I also think they are all very mistaken.
So do you, actually. I'm quite positive that you think that the authors of the Quran were mistaken, right? Or the authors of the bagavad gita, or the iliad, or.... any religious scripture other then the bible.
Good thing I didn't assert such a thing and that you just imagined / invented that, then I guess.
Maybe you should hold of accusing people of dishonesty - especially while arguing a huge strawman.
...because I never made that claim? ;-)
Someone who has a high school level understanding of how atoms and molecules work.
Do you expect them to discover a physics equation or atomic properties that will allow them to turn water molecules into wine molecules by use of just words and / or "will power"?
I sure don't.
One doesn't need to know everything about everything to understand that water molecules won't be turning into wine molecules just because someone "wills it".
Why are you repeating points that have already shown to be fallacious?
The words in a book don't get up off the page and enforce themselves. Violations of what you call Christian teachings, the only one of which is worth preserving - the Golden Rule - a teaching that predates Christ by centuries, these failures are testimony to the inefficacy of Christianity as a system to shape the moral character of the people raised in it.
When you say that the behavior of somebody like Hitler cannot be laid at the feet of Christianity because he didn't follow it's teaching, which is debatable, I call that a failure of Christianity, and blame it in part for turning out somebody like Hitler. The parents are also partly responsible.
Look at the failure of Christianity with white evangelical Americans. They are horrible people, voting for people credibly accused of pedophilia, serial adultery, and serial sexual predation. They don't seem to care about such things. What kind of people are these, and what can we say about the ideology that churns them out onto the streets by the millions. I say we need something better. If America had more secular humanists and fewer Christians, there would be fewer such deformed people voting for criminals.
Christians can't have it both ways - calling America a Christian nation when it serves their agenda, and then trying to separate themselves from the failures of Christianity, generally by calling such people non-Christian, or not true Christians. If they believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the only path to redemption in the afterlife, they're Christians however unspeakable their behavior, whatever scourges they bring the world.
Any reasonable research into Hitler and his gang clearly shows they were occultic. Just because some people went to church earlier in life doesn't make them Christians.
No such claim was made, although, I consider Hitler Christian by the definition just given. He's a Christian to me because he called himself one and because he promoted Christianity in his speeches to Christians, who cheered him on and undoubtedly considered Hitler appointed by their God to rule Germany.
I'm certain you've seen pictures of German clergy offering the Nazi salute. Are you saying that they were not Christians, either?
Your criteria for a Christian might not be mine. I don't require them to be good people, nor disqualify those that I don't approve of.
What would you say were it a fact that every other Ford that is purchased broke down in its first year on the road, you called Ford's automotive manufacturing process a failure, and then they told you that the cars that broke down obviously weren't true Fords? Would you want one?
No problem. Christians do it every day. I gave you the example of Mother Teresa in an earlier post, which, as usual, you failed to acknowledge. She is a fine example of a person born good and worsened by her religion, which taught her that needless suffering was a gift from God. Disgusting, especially giver her mission to run hospices for the suffering, dying, poor. The church also convinced her to send most of the contributions she received to tend to these unfortunate people went to the Vatican instead.
What do you suppose she would have accomplished if she were a secular humanist with the same burden for these people, all of the money given to her to treat the suffering sick was used for that, and nobody had filled her head with ideas like this :
"You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." - Mother Teresa
That's what Weinberg meant by religion making good people do bad things. These people don't need Jesus' so-called kiss. They need effective palliative care.
If you've got another alleged Gospel contradiction you feel excited about lay it out. Or, you can Google "Answering Bible Contradictions" to get an education on why so many are not contradictions to begin with.
I already have an education on Bible contradictions.
I've probably already told you that I don't take biblical exegesis from believers. It's consistent with my rejection of apologetics in general. These are people willing to say or write anything to promote their faith. I need a different frame of mind from a writer, a different agenda. I am looking for those trying to teach rather than persuade or indoctrinate.
Remember the term ethos, or how a speaker or writer is perceived by his audience, and how that affects his ability to be persuasive or informative? Apologists are simply no longer taken seriously by seasoned skeptics. Their ethos is shot. My only interest in their answers is to try to find the deception, which, as I pointed out with the primate chromosome count misleading argument, can't be found in the argument itself. I simply don't turn to such people for information.
Plus, I decide for myself what words mean. I don't need non-technical prose explained to me. Nor for others to tell me how to redefine or understand such language, especially people with a need to make the Bible seem reasonable and rational even where it is not.
I already know that you don't see a contradiction if its in your Bible. You'd see it in the Qur'an, but you've already decided by faith that since the Bible was authored by a perfect god, it contains no contradictions, and that if you see something that looks like a contradiction, it merely needs to be reinterpreted to make the contradiction go away. This is the position that several prominent theologians have articulated explicitly:
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig
That guy's not going to see a contradiction in his Bible, either, because he's already decided that there are none, and whatever appears to be a contradiction is in fact not. That's what faith does to reason.
Here's another prominent theologian weighing in on how faith distorts his thinking :
The moderator in the debate between science educator Bill Nye and Christian creationist Ken Ham on creationism as a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
Do you think that he can see contradictions? In the Qur'an, yes. In the Bible, no.
If one scripture said that Jesus tossed a ball upward toward the sun just before the Last Supper, and another said he tossed it downward at night, the apologist would point out that that is not a contradiction, because on the other side of the earth, Jesus' up would be their down, and Jesus' day, their night. It's amusing to see these verbal gymnastics, but not very enlightening.
Here's a quiz I devised some years ago. Feel free to take it. Fair warning, though. Every question is answered with two or more contradictory scriptures. We've already discussed, [2] What were Jesus' very last words on the cross? Here is the answer to that one:
Although all four gospels tell us what Jesus said on the cross as he was dying, only two actually say that the words they report were his final words, that is, that he died after speaking them without speaking again. John (19:30) says that Jesus' final utterance was, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." Luke (23:46) says it was, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."
That's a contradiction, whether you can see it or not, and your suggestion that perhaps something was said but not heard .
All of the other answers are similar - two or more contradictory scriptures. The challenge for you will be to find two different answers for each question, one that says yes and one that says no. Good luck
According to the Bible,
[1] Is mankind saved by works or faith?
[2] What were Jesus' very last words on the cross?
[3] Is it possible for men to be righteous?
[4] Has man seen God?
[5] Are all words from God true?
[6] Does God grow weary or tired?
[7] How did Jesus answer the Sanhedrin when it asked if he was messiah?
[8] What was the precise wording on the cross (English translation acceptable)?
[9] Was Jesus taken by Satan to the temple or mountain first?
[10] What number of blind men received their sight on the road from Jericho?
[11] Is God content with his works?
[12] Is God perfect, or does he make mistakes that he regrets?
People have also been reporting Bigfoot sightings for years, too, but fewer now that so many people carry a camera with them in their phones. That is also not convincing.
Also, it's pretty unrealistic to expect others to spend over fifty dollars to acquire and read two volumes of words that allege to make the claim that miracles occur seem more credible. Apart from it being more apologetics from somebody with an agenda to promote religion, as I've suggested before, rather than just leaving orphan links and expecting others to research topics of more interest to you than them, present a capsule summary of the argument yourself. If there's something new or intriguing there, you might entice somebody to buy and read the book.
I'm in my sixties now. I've been a student of many subjects, including religious claims, for decades now. People make claims like this author, Keener, continually. People like you. I used to investigate these areas when I was younger and systematically exploring the world of ideas.
But eventually, new ideas and good ideas came along progressively less frequently, and it becomes clear that one has seen a significant enough sample of what's out there to come to the tentative conclusion that those ideas are unlikely to be modified by further experience, especially if they have been working well.
I'm pretty convinced that nobody will ever be able to demonstrate a bona fide miracle, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by a demonstration best understood as a suspension of the laws of physics. Let's see an apple fall upward, or stars rearrange themselves in the night sky to spell out a message in a human language as seen from earth, and I'll revisit the issue. The reports of of impressionable people we know nothing about aren't sufficient evidence that a miracle occurred.
I don't recall anybody but you using those words. What he said was that four Gospels are not four independent reports as you had claimed they were, and that their authors were biased. He is undoubtedly correct. The Gospels are religious apologetics. They were written by faith-based thinkers who wanted to believe that a god walked among them, or else wanted others to believe it.
These are unreliable sources. They are anonymous except for a first name that could be anybody, and we know little to nothing about their character - just their agenda.
Nobody but you is calling these people liars. In fact, I have gone to lengths to argue that they are not liars, just incorrect. From a post I previously left on another thread :
Once somebody has accepted a notion on faith, a filter called a faith-based confirmation bias forms that allows only that which seems to support the faith-based idea through. Nothing else can be seen. No contradictory evidence gets through.
As counterintuitive as this may seem, there is an excellent description of the phenomenon from geologist and former young earth creationist (YEC) Glenn Morton, now an old earth creationist (OEC), of his own experience encased in such a confirmation bias. He anthropomorphizes the experience by equating it to a demon like Maxwell's demon, one which sits at the portal to his inner mind and decides what will enter and what will not. This is from Morton:
"When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data.
"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view ... one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data."
I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. And this is how I now view most creationists and other religious apologists telling me that they see no evidence for biological evolution, for example, even when it is handed to them.
I think that they are wrong, but not lying. They really cannot see the evidence. And from this vantage point, they find the rational skeptic's position unbelievable and insincere. They wonder what it is that they think we consider evidence, in this case, for abiogenesis, and continue to say that no such thing exists.
This is the way I view you, since you can't see contradictions in your Bible that you would see in other books. I don't accuse you of being a liar, just blinded by faith. I assume that you are sincere and telling the truth as you see it. I just don't happen to agree with how you decide what is true about the world or how to evaluate evidence, and therefore what is true about reality.
"laws of physics were suspended / violated / defied"? Who are you to know what physics is all about? Scientists are STILL discovering new truths about physics.
Yes, science discovers new truths. And if scientists claim to have discovered a miracle, and non-religious scientists confirm the report and its interpretation, I'll take heed.
You frequently resort to arguments of the form that what you believe hasn't been disproven. The response is always the same - so what? There is never a need to disprove somebody else's inadequately supported claim. To paraphrase Hitchens, that which can be claimed without sufficient supporting evidence can be dismissed out of hand.
The reason-and-evidence based thinker has a much higher standard for belief than the faith-based thinker. We don't need to have proof that miracles don't occur to not believe the claim that they do. The person making the claim that literal miracles occur has the burden of proof, assuming he wants to be believed by people who can only convinced by a compelling argument and evidence.
Once again, not necessary. Some people claim that there exists an undetectable realm populated by beings like gods and angels with powers not seen in our world. And once again, as per Hitchens, if you have no evidence that such realms and beings exist - in fact, if you define them as undetectible by any means, meaning no evidence is even possible - then the claim can be dismissed without rebuttal or contradictory evidence as being irrelevant.
People have also been reporting Bigfoot sightings for years, too, but fewer now that so many people carry a camera with them in their phones. That is also not convincing.
Also, it's pretty unrealistic to expect others to spend over fifty dollars to acquire and read two volumes of words that allege to make the claim that miracles occur seem more credible. Apart from it being more apologetics from somebody with an agenda to promote religion, as I've suggested before, rather than just leaving orphan links and expecting others to research topics of more interest to you than them, present a capsule summary of the argument yourself. If there's something new or intriguing there, you might entice somebody to buy and read the book.
I'm in my sixties now. I've been a student of many subjects, including religious claims, for decades now. People make claims like this author, Keener, continually. People like you. I used to investigate these areas when I was younger and systematically exploring the world of ideas.
But eventually, new ideas and good ideas came along progressively less frequently, and it becomes clear that one has seen a significant enough sample of what's out there to come to the tentative conclusion that those ideas are unlikely to be modified by further experience, especially if they have been working well.
I'm pretty convinced that nobody will ever be able to demonstrate a bona fide miracle, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by a demonstration best understood as a suspension of the laws of physics. Let's see an apple fall upward, or stars rearrange themselves in the night sky to spell out a message in a human language as seen from earth, and I'll revisit the issue. The reports of of impressionable people we know nothing about aren't sufficient evidence that a miracle occurred.
I don't recall anybody but you using those words. What he said was that four Gospels are not four independent reports as you had claimed they were, and that their authors were biased. He is undoubtedly correct. The Gospels are religious apologetics. They were written by faith-based thinkers who wanted to believe that a god walked among them, or else wanted others to believe it.
These are unreliable sources. They are anonymous except for a first name that could be anybody, and we know little to nothing about their character - just their agenda.
Nobody but you is calling these people liars. In fact, I have gone to lengths to argue that they are not liars, just incorrect. From a post I previously left on another thread :
Once somebody has accepted a notion on faith, a filter called a faith-based confirmation bias forms that allows only that which seems to support the faith-based idea through. Nothing else can be seen. No contradictory evidence gets through.
As counterintuitive as this may seem, there is an excellent description of the phenomenon from geologist and former young earth creationist (YEC) Glenn Morton, now an old earth creationist (OEC), of his own experience encased in such a confirmation bias. He anthropomorphizes the experience by equating it to a demon like Maxwell's demon, one which sits at the portal to his inner mind and decides what will enter and what will not. This is from Morton:
"When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data.
"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view ... one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data."
I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. And this is how I now view most creationists and other religious apologists telling me that they see no evidence for biological evolution, for example, even when it is handed to them.
I think that they are wrong, but not lying. They really cannot see the evidence. And from this vantage point, they find the rational skeptic's position unbelievable and insincere. They wonder what it is that they think we consider evidence, in this case, for abiogenesis, and continue to say that no such thing exists.
This is the way I view you, since you can't see contradictions in your Bible that you would see in other books. I don't accuse you of being a liar, just blinded by faith. I assume that you are sincere and telling the truth as you see it. I just don't happen to agree with how you decide what is true about the world or how to evaluate evidence, and therefore what is true about reality.
Yes, science discovers new truths. And if scientists claim to have discovered a miracle, and non-religious scientists confirm the report and its interpretation, I'll take heed.
You frequently resort to arguments of the form that what you believe hasn't been disproven. The response is always the same - so what? There is never a need to disprove somebody else's inadequately supported claim. To paraphrase Hitchens, that which can be claimed without sufficient supporting evidence can be dismissed out of hand.
The reason-and-evidence based thinker has a much higher standard for belief than the faith-based thinker. We don't need to have proof that miracles don't occur to not believe the claim that they do. The person making the claim that literal miracles occur has the burden of proof, assuming he wants to be believed by people who can only convinced by a compelling argument and evidence.
Once again, not necessary. Some people claim that there exists an undetectable realm populated by beings like gods and angels with powers not seen in our world. And once again, as per Hitchens, if you have no evidence that such realms and beings exist - in fact, if you define them as undetectible by any means, meaning no evidence is even possible - then the claim can be dismissed without rebuttal or contradictory evidence as being irrelevant.
People have also been reporting Bigfoot sightings for years, too, but fewer now that so many people carry a camera with them in their phones. That is also not convincing.
Also, it's pretty unrealistic to expect others to spend over fifty dollars to acquire and read two volumes of words that allege to make the claim that miracles occur seem more credible. Apart from it being more apologetics from somebody with an agenda to promote religion, as I've suggested before, rather than just leaving orphan links and expecting others to research topics of more interest to you than them, present a capsule summary of the argument yourself. If there's something new or intriguing there, you might entice somebody to buy and read the book.
I'm in my sixties now. I've been a student of many subjects, including religious claims, for decades now. People make claims like this author, Keener, continually. People like you. I used to investigate these areas when I was younger and systematically exploring the world of ideas.
But eventually, new ideas and good ideas came along progressively less frequently, and it becomes clear that one has seen a significant enough sample of what's out there to come to the tentative conclusion that those ideas are unlikely to be modified by further experience, especially if they have been working well.
I'm pretty convinced that nobody will ever be able to demonstrate a bona fide miracle, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by a demonstration best understood as a suspension of the laws of physics. Let's see an apple fall upward, or stars rearrange themselves in the night sky to spell out a message in a human language as seen from earth, and I'll revisit the issue. The reports of of impressionable people we know nothing about aren't sufficient evidence that a miracle occurred.
I don't recall anybody but you using those words. What he said was that four Gospels are not four independent reports as you had claimed they were, and that their authors were biased. He is undoubtedly correct. The Gospels are religious apologetics. They were written by faith-based thinkers who wanted to believe that a god walked among them, or else wanted others to believe it.
These are unreliable sources. They are anonymous except for a first name that could be anybody, and we know little to nothing about their character - just their agenda.
Nobody but you is calling these people liars. In fact, I have gone to lengths to argue that they are not liars, just incorrect. From a post I previously left on another thread :
This is the way I view you, since you can't see contradictions in your Bible that you would see in other books. I don't accuse you of being a liar, just blinded by faith. I assume that you are sincere and telling the truth as you see it. I just don't happen to agree with how you decide what is true about the world or how to evaluate evidence, and therefore what is true about reality.
Yes, science discovers new truths. And if scientists claim to have discovered a miracle, and non-religious scientists confirm the report and its interpretation, I'll take heed.
You frequently resort to arguments of the form that what you believe hasn't been disproven. The response is always the same - so what? There is never a need to disprove somebody else's inadequately supported claim. To paraphrase Hitchens, that which can be claimed without sufficient supporting evidence can be dismissed out of hand.
The reason-and-evidence based thinker has a much higher standard for belief than the faith-based thinker. We don't need to have proof that miracles don't occur to not believe the claim that they do. The person making the claim that literal miracles occur has the burden of proof, assuming he wants to be believed by people who can only convinced by a compelling argument and evidence.
Once again, not necessary. Some people claim that there exists an undetectable realm populated by beings like gods and angels with powers not seen in our world. And once again, as per Hitchens, if you have no evidence that such realms and beings exist - in fact, if you define them as undetectible by any means, meaning no evidence is even possible - then the claim can be dismissed without rebuttal or contradictory evidence as being irrelevant.
I've been debating skeptics for some two decades, and there's been quite a number who have called the Gospel writers liars and charlatans, etc.
Subduction Zone said: "No, you rely on idiots and liars far too often."
And to say that all the Gospels authors along with various writers of the epistles, are all mistaken about the resurrection, is pretty far-fetched IMO, and such a claim lacks serious evidences on your part.
But believe what you will. I stand by what I previously presented. And Hitchens has a load of warts all his own.
As for contradictions, none of those have refuted or diminished the resurrection or any other important Christian doctrine.
Look at the failure of Christianity with white evangelical Americans. They are horrible people, voting for people credibly accused of pedophilia, serial adultery, and serial sexual predation. They don't seem to care about such things. What kind of people are these, and what can we say about the ideology that churns them out onto the streets by the millions. I say we need something better. If America had more secular humanists and fewer Christians, there would be fewer such deformed people voting for criminals.
So, we were instead supposed to vote for that crooked, incompetent, lying snake Hillary Clinton? Or the socialist Bernie Sanders? What's the matter with you?
And by the way, why say "white evangelical Americans" are "horrible people"? Black evangelicals voted for Trump also. Are they horrible people also? The way you wrote that sounds like the same old anti-white horse manure that the left-wing loons are always putting out. People like you are always playing the race card. So take your race card on down the pike and don't bother me with that or your revisionist theology again.
I think you need to read a reliable history and evolution regarding the heresies of Sabellius and Arius. They had their chance, took their shot and missed Blu. No roar of the crowd, no banners waving, just a quiet little place where their teachings could rest in peace.
But here you are 1800 years later, a skeptic trying to resurrect a dead teaching. Given you don’t believe in resurrections to begin with it’s quite a wonder to behold.
And explain, at least to yourself, why Jesus constantly denies he's God, and never claims to be God, and says that the Father is the only true god, and the god that Jesus worships.
You should explain, at least to yourself, what it is about Jesus’ “dual nature” you can’t bring yourself to understand. Besides, Jesus was good, and only God is good, unless we deny scripture and deny Jesus died for our sins.
If you understood the heresies you would realize when you’re preaching to the choir. Trinitarians ask the same questions, but they ask them of Modalists.
Nothing in that will stop you being a Trinitarian if that's what you want to be. But you will no longer wish to claim that the NT supports that position.
Lol, I once believed like the Arians, but was dragged…kicking and screaming to the Trinity. It’s the only doctrine that adequately and scripturally explains Christ’s claims to deity without jumping off the cliff into polytheism and which doesn’t have Jesus praying to Himself
It's amazing how everyone says "The Bible told me this" or "God revealed this to me or told me this" and yet, they all end up saying different and even contradictory things. "My interpretation is right and yours is wrong"... "No, my interpretation is right and yours is wrong". And this goes on and on and on, debates make no sense...
It's amazing how everyone says "The Bible to me this" or "God revealed this to me or told me this" and yet, they all end up saying different and even contradictory things. "My interpretation is right and yours is wrong"... "No, my interpretation is right and yours is wrong". And this goes on and on and on, debates make no sense...
I know. Few Christians just let the Bible speak for itself.
How much "interpretation" is required to understand your post? Not much, really none. It just says what it means and means what it says. Why should the Bible be any different? Turns out it isn't.
The debates you mentioned are a result of tradition, not the scriptures themselves. They're fine if we just read what's written and take it at face value.
For example, the OP is about who Jesus is. Some Christians say he is the son of God. Well, that very phrase ("son of God") is found almost 50 times in the New Testament alone. Would you not think it fair to say then that Jesus is God's son? Furthermore would you not think it fair to say that a son can not be his own father and therefore Jesus can not possibly be God? It takes some pretty interesting mental gymnastics to even suggest such a thing, but even then it is impossible. Everybody knows what a father is and what a son is and we all know that they can never be one and the same individual.
While tradition says that Jesus is "God the Son," that phrase is not to be found one single time in the whole book.
Seems like a no brainer to me. I really don't look at anything as my "interpretation" when I say Jesus is the son of God and not God the Son. The whole book is that way. But, as I said tradition is what causes the division.
The religious leaders castigated Jesus for eating without having washed his hands, Now there is nothing in the OT law that mentions anything at all about having to wash one's hands before eating. It was nothing more than a tradition with no scriptural basis whatsoever. Jesus reply to them regarding this tradition was;
Mark 7:13,
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Does his reply require any "interpretation?" I don't think so. No big words, simple grammar, easy to read. It says that God's word is stripped of value by adding tradition, which is unfortunately what the orthodox church is so fond of doing. That's where all the problems you mentioned enter the picture.
Basically, there is nothing wrong with the scriptures themselves as long as they are read without injecting extraneous ideas.
By the way, just out of curiosity, do all Gnostics agree on every point of doctrine? If so, they certainly buck the normal trend of human beings.
I'm sorry to hear that. That's a faith-based assumption, meaning a claim insufficiently supported by evidence but believed anyway.
I hope you have seen that not only do I not fall into that group, I am happy to spread ideas like Morton's Demon that might help others see these matters differently
And to say that all the Gospels authors along with various writers of the epistles, are all mistaken about the resurrection, is pretty far-fetched IMO, and such a claim lacks serious evidences on your part.
What most of us say is that we don't believe them. Biological death is irreversible as far as anybody knows (note that I am not including what is called sudden death or brain death, medical conditions which some people survive).
How about the authority of the Bible? It's the internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, moral and intellectual failures ascribed to a good a perfect god, and the errors in science and history reveal that the Christian Bible is the work of ancient, fallible men, not a god, though many claim to speak for a god. But having not coordinated their tales, they contradict one another. Hence two creation stories and two genealogies of Jesus. The can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.
So, we were instead supposed to vote for that crooked, incompetent, lying snake Hillary Clinton? Or the socialist Bernie Sanders? What's the matter with you?
What's the matter with me? If you voted for Trump, you voted with Putin. Trump was Putin's choice. What's the matter with you?
Clinton and Sanders would have been better presidents, as would most if not all of the other Republicans seeking the 2016 nomination. George Bush, the former worst president ever, would have been better. I doubt that he would have tanked the stock market with injudicious trade wars.
Imagine the conservative apoplexy had Putin endorsed Obama. If the name Bill Ayers means anything to you, multiply the reaction to that endorsement by an order of magnitude.
I wish Manson were still alive to ask him if he was a Trump supporter. That would be as coveted an endorsement as Putins..
That's the demographic that votes for credibly-accused pedophiles, serial adulterers, and serial sexual predators like Roy Moore and Donald Trump in the highest percentages, From Pew :
