Why does god have to be perfect?

[InformedIgnorance]

Personally I fine it simpler to say (since it is clear that not everyone has an equally fine grasp of modal logic) that: possibly = god might exist ; necessary = god must exist

How does one move from might to must without having demonstrating that the existence is essential or fundamentally required? In the case of this argument it has merely been asserted.

 

[idav]

I’ll explain…
“All possible necessary truths must be necessarily true.” No problem with that. (You don’t need the capitals; I’m reasonably adept at following a discussion without them)

I just wanted to add a couple cents.

-Possible truths are not necessarily true.
-True truths are necessarily true
-Possible truths are only possibly necessary as they are only possibly true.

It is also possible for God to be necessary and we not know the attributes, necessary attributes are pure speculation on top of already presuming a deity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Unusually for me I now find I’ve got time on my hands, waiting for an operation on my spine as the result of a motorcycle racing accident back in July.

That is why I don't bang with motocycles. There is very little room for error on those things. I hope all goes well for you under the knife. I will pray for you lol.

We should continue with Plantinga’s modal argument, as I think there’s still a fair bit of mileage left in the debate, and I see no reason why we can’t plod on with this one as well?

Oh so you are saying you have a high pain tolerance?

I first need to know your objections?

My objection is the fact that the universe could not have been temporal during the duration of its existence. Time itself cannot be extended to infinity past.

You asked: "Where did it come from?". But it didn't come from any place or source!

Then it couldn't be in time, either.

I said: “The world is self-existent, i.e. contingent matter sustained within the world by an eternal, immutable quality.”

You still have the infinity problem, cot.

Okay then please let me have them?

The viewpoint that you have regarding the universe PLAGUED with irrationality. So in other words, if your viewpoint was drowning in the ocean, the "problem of infinity" is the big brick tied to its ankle haha.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh so you are saying you have a high pain tolerance?

Lol...

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No that isn't the definition of knowledge. The definition of knowledge is simply "to KNOW". That says nothing about experience. Now on the original issue of how can God be omniscient....I don't know, but if such a being exists that attribute is just as necessary as his existence.

Saying that Knowledge is To know is like saying A=A. It tells you nothing

knowl·edge
ˈnälij/Submit
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
learning, erudition, education, scholarship, schooling, wisdom
familiarity with, acquaintance with, intimacy with
information, facts, intelligence, news, reports, hot tip;
informalinfo, (the) lowdown
antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy
what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.
"the transmission of knowledge"
PHILOSOPHY
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"
synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation; More

The "heavens" in Genesis 1 is synonymous with universe . Second, the OT consistently speaks of the heavens "stretching" as we currently know it is expanding til this very day.

Certainly not the Universe as we know it apparently. Given the description used in Genesis.

Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Completely missed the point

I guess?



[QUOTE}Lets keep pretending like the Bible/Gospels dont mention names, locations, and time frames. Let's keep on..[/QUOTE]

Pretending what? Did I say that they did not? I'm saying they are not inerrant.

But if you take out the interpolation you still have the person of Jesus, just without the theological implications that was added.

If you take out the interpolation in Josephus you get a talk about James

Yes he does....he said the Christians got together to chant verses in honor of "Christ as as if to a God". Clear mention.

Yes he mentions Christ which is a Title, he does not mention Jesus. And he is talking about what others are doing, not what he himself has seen or experienced.

Well, judging by the fact that Jesus died around 33 AD, and your given date is still within 50 years of the crucifixion, just like the assasination of JFK was 50 years ago and people are still talking about it til this day, just like Pliny the Younger did in even the date you gave.

Yes we also have a video of JFK's assassination and pictures too if I remember correctly.

He said the Jews executed their "wise king" and that he was executed due to the new law he laid down. Sounds like Jesus to me. But I understand this is less circumstantial than the others.

Except it was the Romans who did the execution of Jesus. Though Mara is making a strong point about wisdom, and while that gives us a historical Jesus (which I am not denying exists), it does not give us the Jesus as depicted in the Gospels.

Jesus' mention by Tacitus is more than alluded to, it is implied. And no he doesn't talk about the Resurrection, so what? We have other historical evidence for the Resurrection, such as the belief of the disciples of the post-mortem appeareances and the belief of former skeptics.

Except we don't...the post-mortem appearances aren't even the same between the Gospels and Acts.

Now notice what you said, you said the above is facts accepted by scholars...notice in there it is stated that "some of his disciples were persecuted". Why would they risk persecution for something that wasn't true??? Makes no sense. Not only that, but everyhing in the above all points to a historically factual Jesus. The only thing missing is the Resurrection and it is no surprise to me that it stops short of that, because that would just be to much.[/QUOTE}

People have died for lesser things.

It wouldn't make any sense for the disciples to believe in the Resurrection if Jesus' body was still in the tomb, now would it?

Except we don't know how the disciples really felt because we do not have authorship.

Yes they are. Matthew has double the number of chapters as Mark, so how could he do that much copying from Mark? Maybe he did copy some stuff by I mean c’mon, all three of those particular Gospels have similarities, but they also have their differences.

There is the Q Document hypothesis, and yes they do have differences, mostly in the way the story is told. Matthew tries a lot to connect the prophets to help establish Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. This is seen in his use of Isaiah and Jeremiah

Well, technically speaking, we have no idea who wrote ANY ANCIENT book or document because neither one of us were there. This goes for anything in history, not just the Gospels. Second, the authorship of the Gospels was not in dispute among the early church Fathers, and they attributed the names to the books as the same authors were attributed them to.

Did I say they were disputed? My bad if I did, though I don't remember saying that. I said that they were not assigned names until the early church fathers.

As for authorship, you are right we do not know who wrote any book, for things such as the gospels that hold merit, the names very much matter, especially considering that out of the 4, Mark and Luke were not disciples, we don't know who Matthew is (assumed to be the disciple), the closest we have is John, who didn't compose his until 90 AD for whatever reason (maybe to set the others straight lol).

I mean, yeah. If someone gets shot and bleeds to death…if you say “he died because he was shot”…and I say “he died because he bleed to death”…big deal…both are accurate.

I address this

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/potters-field

Reading comprehension is important.

It is made clear that Judas wanted nothing to do with the money, and the reading of Matthew makes it clear that he carried out the act of suicide immediately after fleeing.

Act's however, puts it as the land being purchased and while Judas was working on it he fell and split his belly.

They do not reconcile as easily as that site tries to make it sound. That they purchased the land and gave it to Judas...except why would Judas after admitting his guilt, go and take it?

Regardless of who saw him first the fact of the matter is clear, he was SEEN post-mortem. That is the focal point, not who wants to have bragging rights based on who saw him first.

Umm, it matters because of accuracy. The Gospels say Mary, Paul says James. Why are they telling different stories?

Even the orders are incorrect. It's not at all about bragging rights, I don't understand why you are setting up that as a strawman.

Well, Paul was a Jew and he believed in Jesus, despite what was said in Deuteronomy. So I will go with what Paul thinks about the matter.

You are welcome to do so.

 

[cottage]

@cottage-


Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you're mistaking the form of the argument here a little bit, although it certainly doesn't help Call of the Wild; he doesn't need to say that necessary truths are somehow existent- or that the matter turns on the fact that the purportedly necessary truth is an existential claim; the point is that any proposition A such that A is necessary, is true in all possible worlds. So if A happens to be an existential claim, such as "God exists" or "Lebron James exists", and it is necessary (forgetting for the moment how or why it is necessary, just granting that it is), then that entity exists in every possible world. The same can be said for possibly necessary truths- in certain systems of modal logic, in particular S5; this is just a matter of fact about certain modal logics, and Call of the Wild is correct on this point- so far as it goes (i.e. not very far). The reason is that, in S5, it is a theorem that A->□◊A- (if A, then it is necessary that A is possible); from which it can be derived that ◊□A->A (if A is possibly necessary, then A), because "A is possibly necessary" is equivalent to "A is necessary". So, granted the acceptability of S5 (and that is by no means a given, for precisely the reason that such inferences as this are not intuitively valid), this much of the argument is correct- if it is possible that God exists necessarily, then God exists necessarily, and God exists.

But is it possible that God exists necessarily? In other words, is it possibly necessary that God exists?

Superficially, it sounds like we're just asking whether its possible that God exists- could it be that God exists necessarily? It sounds innocuous enough; and that is precisely the trickery this argument relies on! (in part, aside from its more general, fatal flaws, discussed elsewhere)... We simply don't have a clear intuitive grasp of possible necessity, and (the untutored reader) tends to initially conceive it more as similar to possibility than necessity; but make no mistake, "X is possibly necessary" is logically equivalent to "X is necessary". So rather than be sneaky and ask whether it is possible that God exists necessarily, let's just come out and ask the real question- does God exist necessarily? That is what this crucial premise of the argument boils down to, and clearly it is question-begging. Darnit, eh?

(and RE that question, you're surely right that no existential claim which is possible is necessary, because necessary truths are those propositions whose negations are self-contradictory- and "God does not exist" is NOT self-contradictory, therefore "God exists" is not a necessary truth, and since it is not a necessary truth, it is not a possibly necessary truth either! So much for the "victorious" modal ontological argument- all it simply is is assuming the conclusion it seeks to prove! )

Many thanks for the insightful overview.

Here is a brief summary of the way I view the argument, (and my conclusion once again, which is essentially Humean).

(A=A) A is necessarily A in all possible worlds

If A is possibly necessary, then A is necessary in all possible worlds.

If A is possibly necessary existent then A necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

The first two sentences are expressing the same thing, but the third sentence is informing us that the existence of A is necessarily true. Certainly that sentence is expressing a necessary truth in the sense that it has exactly the same logical structure as the one above, but does it follow that A exists, when no existential proposition follows from the laws of logic alone? My argument is that it does not, for “A does not exist” is not contradictory.

Now there might at first seem to be a difficulty with A as “God does not exist” because although “God” appears to be a proper name it is universally understood to imply omnipotence etc, which is the concept of Supreme Being and therefore necessary existence. So we find ourselves saying “The Necessary Being does not exist”, which is self-contradictory. That’s what the argument is asserting, i.e. not that it is merely possible but that it necessarily is! Though I’m not sure if that is a legitimate predication?

But at bottom, regardless of any tautologies or arcane formulations, it is a question of what can or cannot be thought. And even if we use Hume’s term “Absolutely Necessary Being” or Kant’s description, (ens realissimum) “The most real thing”, God is not self-evident and hence I find the following argument conclusive:

If everything that is possibly necessary true is necessarily true, then nothing can be conceived as necessarily existing unless it is necessarily existent. But there is no necessarily existent thing imposing itself upon my mind and there is therefore nothing existing necessarily.

 

[cottage]

That is why I don't bang with motocycles. There is very little room for error on those things.

So very true.

I hope all goes well for you under the knife.

How kind! Thank you.

I will pray for you lol.

And also for a new set of racing leathers (that had to be cut off me at the hospital) - if that's not pushing it?

Oh so you are saying you have a high pain tolerance?

On the contrary my dear chap, it's a frightfully good debate and one is enjoying the experience immensly. (There's bugger all else that I'm able to do at the moment anyway! )

My objection is the fact that the universe could not have been temporal during the duration of its existence. Time itself cannot be extended to infinity past.

I’m not sure which of the two theses you’re referring to, but in both examples time began with the material world and will end as and when the world ceases to be.

Then it couldn't be in time, either.

If you’re referring to the first thesis (we’ll call them Thesis 1 and Thesis 2) then, no, it wasn’t in time, because there was nothing before it.

You still have the infinity problem, cot.

Only in the case of form and matter, which was begun and is sustained by an eternal, immutable quality.

The viewpoint that you have regarding the universe PLAGUED with irrationality. So in other words, if your viewpoint was drowning in the ocean, the "problem of infinity" is the big brick tied to its ankle haha.

With respect, there is no “problem of infinity”, not in either of the scenarios.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Many thanks for the insightful overview.

Here is a brief summary of the way I view the argument, (and my conclusion once again, which is essentially Humean).

(A=A) A is necessarily A in all possible worlds

If A is possibly necessary, then A is necessary in all possible worlds.

If A is possibly necessary existent then A necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

The first two sentences are expressing the same thing, but the third sentence is informing us that the existence of A is necessarily true. Certainly that sentence is expressing a necessary truth in the sense that it has exactly the same logical structure as the one above, but does it follow that A exists, when no existential proposition follows from the laws of logic alone? My argument is that it does not, for “A does not exist” is not contradictory.

Now there might at first seem to be a difficulty with A as “God does not exist” because although “God” appears to be a proper name it is universally understood to imply omnipotence etc, which is the concept of Supreme Being and therefore necessary existence. So we find ourselves saying “The Necessary Being does not exist”, which is self-contradictory. That’s what the argument is asserting, i.e. not that it is merely possible but that it necessarily is! Though I’m not sure if that is a legitimate predication?

But at bottom, regardless of any tautologies or arcane formulations, it is a question of what can or cannot be thought. And even if we use Hume’s term “Absolutely Necessary Being” or Kant’s description, (ens realissimum) “The most real thing”, God is not self-evident and hence I find the following argument conclusive:

If everything that is possibly necessary true is necessarily true, then nothing can be conceived as necessarily existing unless it is necessarily existent. But there is no necessarily existent thing imposing itself upon my mind and there is therefore nothing existing necessarily.

I would agree that this last paragraph is an adequate response to the argument (one of many)- as I pointed out, the argument boils down to the proposition of whether it is possibly necessary that God exist; or, equivalently, whether it is necessary that God exist. And as you say, "God exists" (or any possible existential claim) has no bizarre force, constraining our minds to be unable to think it any other way; I think this is just a different, less technical way of stating what I said, which is that "God does not exist" is not self-contradictory (unless it be question-begging, if God is defined as a necessarily existing thing), and thus, "God exists" is not a necessary truth.

RE this-

Certainly that sentence is expressing a necessary truth in the sense that it has exactly the same logical structure as the one above, but does it follow that A exists, when no existential proposition follows from the laws of logic alone? My argument is that it does not, for “A does not exist” is not contradictory.

I think you're making more or less the same point. If we grant that "God exists" is possibly necessary, then it follows that God exists necessarily, and so exists in actuality as well. But we don't need to grant this, and you've stated some good reasons why; it is simply not a possibly necessary truth that God exists, because its possible that God NOT exist. However, if we grant that its possibly necessary that God exists, then it is a valid inference, in S5, from this to God's necessary and actual existence; the reason is that modal logic doesn't discriminate on the basis of the content of propositions (i.e. whether they are existential claims or not)- logic is always concerned with the form of arguments/propositions, not their contents. So, for any proposition A, such that A is possibly necessary, A is true (actual)- even when A is an existential claim, negative existential claim, etc. But, as I said, it all boils down to whether it is possibly necessary- or, whether it is necessary; and that God exists is necessarily is supposed to be the conclusion of the argument, it cannot figure as a premise (as it does here) without absolutely deflating any possible force the argument may have.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Saying that Knowledge is To know is like saying A=A. It tells you nothing

So based on the definition you gave, knowledge isn't limited to experience, as I said.

Certainly not the Universe as we know it apparently. Given the description used in Genesis.

Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, Gen 1:1 says "God created the heavens and the earth", and the bible makes it clear that God created all things, as if I need to provide you scripture for that. Second, the bible also states on numerous occasions that God either "stretched", or is "stretching" or "stretches" out the heavens. We know based on observation that the universe is currently expanding...no other ancient book comes even close to corroborating this, but the Bible sure does.

If you take out the interpolation in Josephus you get a talk about James

Hmm...lets see...here is what Josephus said, interpolation included (interpolation is in bold...)

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

Scholars don't believe the whole passage is interpolation, only the select sentences that has theological implications...Josephus wouldn't have called Jesus "the Christ", and so on.

Here is the passage without the interpolation

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

So what do you get even when you subtract interpolations? A historical Jesus.

Yes he mentions Christ which is a Title, he does not mention Jesus.

Ok, so today, in 2013, when anyone mentions the "title" of "Christ", who the heck are they talking about?? Cmon now Frankie.

And he is talking about what others are doing, not what he himself has seen or experienced.

Exactly, he said they honored Christ as they were honoring a god!! Notice he said "as IF to a god"....if they were honoring a god he would have said "to a god", but the fact that he said "as IF to a god" means that they were honoring a MAN and put this man on the same level "as a god"....they were honoring Jesus as if they were honoring a god. And this is no theological implication either...he wasn't saying that Christ is a god or anything, nor am I making that to be the case.. but he is acknowledging the fact that Christ was a man and after his death, his followers chanted verses honoring him as he was "a god".

Yes we also have a video of JFK's assassination and pictures too if I remember correctly.

That wasn't the point...the point is even if there were no videos or pictures the event live on in history and there are still people who lived at the time and witnessed the event that are still alive today, some 50 years later, which is the same thing we have with Jesus, and in a even lesser time.

Also, do we have video and pictures of the stabbing of Ceasar or the assassination of Lincoln? No, but they are all regarded as historical facts, aren't they? Taxi cab fallacy going on here.

Except it was the Romans who did the execution of Jesus. Though Mara is making a strong point about wisdom, and while that gives us a historical Jesus (which I am not denying exists), it does not give us the Jesus as depicted in the Gospels.

I don't see why not when Jesus was also executed for the law he laid down...and that IS depicted in the Gospels.

Except we don't...the post-mortem appearances aren't even the same between the Gospels and Acts.

I wasn't aware of a post-mortem appearance in Acts besides Jesus' ascension in to heaven, so care to enlighten me on the differences?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

People have died for lesser things.

No arguments there. But what I want to know is how many of those people died for what they KNEW to be false? How many people die for what they know to be a lie? Hmmm, I can't think of one. Remember, we are not talking about people who believed from hearsay, not in the case of the apostles. We are talking about people who knew rather their teachings were true or false. People die all the time for what they BELIEVE to be true, but sane people will never die for what they KNOW to be false.

Except we don't know how the disciples really felt because we do not have authorship.

We have early Church testimony from the second century apostles who knew the disciples...they all seemed to agree on the authorship....this was never a dispute between them...so why should it be a dispute between us? Second, we still have the letters of Paul and which not only corroborate the Gospel, but he actually met with the disciples, so it isn't a coincidence that these mysterious Gospels with no names just happen to supplement the letters of Paul..not to mention the fact that Paul's letters predate the GOSPELS!!!

There is the Q Document hypothesis, and yes they do have differences, mostly in the way the story is told. Matthew tries a lot to connect the prophets to help establish Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. This is seen in his use of Isaiah and Jeremiah

The Q documents are just a collection of the sayings and teachings of Jesus, but it isn't a full scale narrative of his life and doings like the Gospels are.

Did I say they were disputed? My bad if I did, though I don't remember saying that. I said that they were not assigned names until the early church fathers.

No you didn't say that they were disputed, my point was the author of the Gospels were never in dispute by them, in fact, it is because of them that we know who wrote them.

As for authorship, you are right we do not know who wrote any book, for things such as the gospels that hold merit, the names very much matter, especially considering that out of the 4, Mark and Luke were not disciples

Which is all the more reason why the Gospels DO hold merit. If I am going to start a false religion to get people to believe it, I would want to give this scam as much credibility as I possibly can...and saying that Mark and Luke, who weren't even disciples, wrote 2 of the 4 Gospels certainly wouldn't help my cause. I would say Matthew, Peter, John, and James, personally. But even though Mark and Luke's names don't carry as much weight as those that I mentioned, it is absolutely positively WORTH mentioning the fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Luke was Paul's physician. Obviously, both Mark and Luke's sources were of credible standing, and the next best thing after Peter and Paul would be Jesus himself.

, we don't know who Matthew is (assumed to be the disciple)

Why do we have to assume?

, the closest we have is John, who didn't compose his until 90 AD for whatever reason (maybe to set the others straight lol).

When he wrote it isn't important, the important thing is; he wrote it.

Reading comprehension is important.

Keep reading lol

It is made clear that Judas wanted nothing to do with the money, and the reading of Matthew makes it clear that he carried out the act of suicide immediately after fleeing.

Right, he wanted nothing to do with the money, and neither did the chief priests and elders...so they bought the field on Judas' behalf, since it was in their eyes still his money...so if they bought it on his behalf, it is HIS field.

Act's however, puts it as the land being purchased and while Judas was working on it he fell and split his belly.

Yet above you tell me "reading comprehension is important". Maybe you should tell yourself this, because no where in the context of Acts 1:18 does it state or imply that Judas was working on the field. Where you got that from, I don't know.

They do not reconcile as easily as that site tries to make it sound. That they purchased the land and gave it to Judas...except why would Judas after admitting his guilt, go and take it?

Ask Judas.

Umm, it matters because of accuracy. The Gospels say Mary, Paul says James. Why are they telling different stories?

Mary isn't even mentioned in Paul's account...Paul failed to mention her, the Gospels do mention her...so what?

Even the orders are incorrect.

You are saying that the orders are incorrect as if you know the correct orders. The orders are actually clear. Paul stated in 1Corith 15:4 that (excluding Mary) Jesus first appeared to Cephas (Peter). So lets start with that...Paul said that he first appeared to Peter. Matthew doesn't have a post-mortem story, so lets go to Mark. Even in the omitted chapter, Jesus appears to two disciples, one whom I will assume was Peter, and the other one, according to Luke, name was Cleopas. So Mark agrees with Paul that Jesus appeared to Peter and and Cleopas (Paul doesn't mention Cleopas). Luke, as just mentioned, shares the same story of Jesus appearing to two of them. So what about John? John doesn't mention Peter's initial encounter with the Resurrected Jesus, but does record him in later appearances.

So the bottom of the line is, at least Mark, Paul, and Luke all agree that Jesus first appeared to Peter (excluding Mary), and that after that he appeared to the rest of the disciples. The other two (Matthew and John) fail to mention Jesus' initial appearance to Jesus. So what are you talking about "the orders are not even correct". They are correct. It all goes back to reading comprehension, right?

It's not at all about bragging rights, I don't understand why you are setting up that as a strawman.

I was just being silly, calm down.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No arguments there. But what I want to know is how many of those people died for what they KNEW to be false? How many people die for what they know to be a lie? Hmmm, I can't think of one. Remember, we are not talking about people who believed from hearsay, not in the case of the apostles. We are talking about people who knew rather their teachings were true or false. People die all the time for what they BELIEVE to be true, but sane people will never die for what they KNOW to be false.

Did I say they believed in something that was false. I'm not denying the historical Jesus, I'm not denying the execution. But if your argument is based on "historicity" of the Resurrection, then you are working on

We have early Church testimony from the second century apostles who knew the disciples...they all seemed to agree on the authorship....this was never a dispute between them...so why should it be a dispute between us? Second, we still have the letters of Paul and which not only corroborate the Gospel, but he actually met with the disciples, so it isn't a coincidence that these mysterious Gospels with no names just happen to supplement the letters of Paul..not to mention the fact that Paul's letters predate the GOSPELS!!!

Except we don't know how they come up with the conclusion. Papias was the one who suggested Matthew.

The Q documents are just a collection of the sayings and teachings of Jesus, but it isn't a full scale narrative of his life and doings like the Gospels are.

No you didn't say that they were disputed, my point was the author of the Gospels were never in dispute by them, in fact, it is because of them that we know who wrote them.

Many of the church fathers in the 2nd century had not even been born by the time of the writing of the scripture, and no where in for instance Matthew is a name attributed to the writing.

Which is all the more reason why the Gospels DO hold merit. If I am going to start a false religion to get people to believe it, I would want to give this scam as much credibility as I possibly can...and saying that Mark and Luke, who weren't even disciples, wrote 2 of the 4 Gospels certainly wouldn't help my cause. I would say Matthew, Peter, John, and James, personally. But even though Mark and Luke's names don't carry as much weight as those that I mentioned, it is absolutely positively WORTH mentioning the fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Luke was Paul's physician. Obviously, both Mark and Luke's sources were of credible standing, and the next best thing after Peter and Paul would be Jesus himself.

All held by tradition, by Papias who also credited Matthew. But again you're arguing the historicity of Jesus which I do not believe is in question.

Why do we have to assume?

Because no name is Given?

When he wrote it isn't important, the important thing is; he wrote it.

Umm...when is just as important. It gives you a timeline, allowing you to identify what was going on during that era what was changing, who was in charge and helps shape the idea of what was going on at the time.

Right, he wanted nothing to do with the money, and neither did the chief priests and elders...so they bought the field on Judas' behalf, since it was in their eyes still his money...so if they bought it on his behalf, it is HIS field.

Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

In Acts, Judas purchased the field, it is known as the field of blood because of Judas's death.

Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Yet in Matthew, the chief priest took the silver pieces, bought the field, and used it bury strangers, and it got the name "field of blood" unto this day. So 40 years later after the death of Jesus the field is still called the field of blood because of the use and the association with blood money, not Judas's death.

Yet above you tell me "reading comprehension is important". Maybe you should tell yourself this, because no where in the context of Acts 1:18 does it state or imply that Judas was working on the field. Where you got that from, I don't know.

You're right it doesn't, it's even worst at how different they were. Look at my acts quote above and look at what Matthew states.



Ask Judas.

Mary isn't even mentioned in Paul's account...Paul failed to mention her, the Gospels do mention her...so what?

Lol so Paul just leaves out the first person to see Jesus?

You are saying that the orders are incorrect as if you know the correct orders. The orders are actually clear. Paul stated in 1Corith 15:4 that (excluding Mary) Jesus first appeared to Cephas (Peter). So lets start with that...Paul said that he first appeared to Peter. Matthew doesn't have a post-mortem story, so lets go to Mark. Even in the omitted chapter, Jesus appears to two disciples, one whom I will assume was Peter, and the other one, according to Luke, name was Cleopas. So Mark agrees with Paul that Jesus appeared to Peter and and Cleopas (Paul doesn't mention Cleopas). Luke, as just mentioned, shares the same story of Jesus appearing to two of them. So what about John? John doesn't mention Peter's initial encounter with the Resurrected Jesus, but does record him in later appearances.


So the bottom of the line is, at least Mark, Paul, and Luke all agree that Jesus first appeared to Peter (excluding Mary), and that after that he appeared to the rest of the disciples. The other two (Matthew and John) fail to mention Jesus' initial appearance to Jesus. So what are you talking about "the orders are not even correct". They are correct. It all goes back to reading comprehension, right?

Mark's 16:8 ending is interesting. The Angel tells them to go and tell Peter and his Disciples that Jesus had gone ahead. Yet...they apparently didn't tell anyone? The Disciples themselves never go to the Tomb in Mark. Ignoring that though, Peter is still not the first to see Jesus in Mark. (thought he longer ending which is not found in earlier manuscripts go into much more detail)

The Longer ending says that Jesus appeared to two of them, two of who? Those two went and told the others (i'm assuming the disciples), but Jesus had to appear to the eleven and rebuked them while they were eating.

In John, Mary is still the first to appear at the tomb (no mention of Mary Mother of James, or Salome or Joanna), the other disciples followed, having outran Peter, who goes into the Tomb, sees the cloth, but still does not see Jesus. So in Mark the disciples never got to the Tomb, but in John they did?

Luke continues in the tradition of Mark. Mary Magadelen, Mary Mother of James, and this time Joanna which I guess is the same name as Salome mentioned in Mark? Luke however has Peter go alone to find the Cloth, not followed by the other disciples.

In none of those situations though, do we have Jesus appearing to Peter first though. Or even James alone...and I guess Pauls encounter with Jesus is the one regarding the fall he has in Acts since he doesn't give much detail about it.

I was just being silly, calm down.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Did I say they believed in something that was false.

It seems as if you were drawing a parallel between what the disciples actually believed and the fact that people "die for lesser things". These "lesser" things are not things they know to be false...and that is what it boils down to anyway.

I'm not denying the historical Jesus, I'm not denying the execution.
But if your argument is based on "historicity" of the Resurrection, then you are working on

On?

Except we don't know how they come up with the conclusion.

Actually, we do, Papias said;

"I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.[1]

The above quote is from wikipedia with direct cited source.
(Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers in English, page 309 (Baker Academic, 2006). ISBN 0-8010-3108-7)

I put certain words in bold for emphasis. So we do know how he (Papias) came up with his conclusions.

Papias was the one who suggested Matthew.

And?

Many of the church fathers in the 2nd century had not even been born by the time of the writing of the scripture

Irrelevant. I will repeat what Papias said;

"I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.[1]"


No one is claiming that the early church fathers were born by the time of the writing of the scriptures. Papias did his research carefully by memorizing and intervieiwing elders of the congregation and listed the names of those that he inquired about. Luke did the same thing in the Gospel that he wrote. Just like I can inquire about other key figures or events in history. I don't have to be "born by the time" of the event to inquire with people that were actually there. That is what history is all about Frankie.

, and no where in for instance Matthew is a name attributed to the writing.

Irenaues confirmed the authorship of Matthew, Frankie. Papias said that Matthew preserved the teachings of Jesus, and Irenaues stated that Matthew published his own Gospel. That is about as clear as it get. I don't know what more you want.

All held by tradition, by Papias who also credited Matthew. But again you're arguing the historicity of Jesus which I do not believe is in question.

When I say "historicity of Jesus", I mean EVERYTHING. His life, death, and Resurrection. I believe there is historical evidence that all these things happened in real life, in history.

Because no name is Given?

No name is given on the Mona Lisa painting either, so I guess Leonard da Vinci didn't paint the painting?

Umm...when is just as important. It gives you a timeline, allowing you to identify what was going on during that era what was changing, who was in charge and helps shape the idea of what was going on at the time.

Ok, well, he wrote it in 90AD. So where do we go from there?

Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

In Acts, Judas purchased the field, it is known as the field of blood because of Judas's death.

Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Yet in Matthew, the chief priest took the silver pieces, bought the field, and used it bury strangers, and it got the name "field of blood" unto this day. So 40 years later after the death of Jesus the field is still called the field of blood because of the use and the association with blood money, not Judas's death.

We are on the subject because you were attempting to point out a contradiction within the Gospels involving Judas. The fact of the matter is, it isn't a contradiction because the difference can be reconciled. Simple as that.

Lol so Paul just leaves out the first person to see Jesus?

Because during that time the testimony of women were not important...or reliable, or whatever you want to call it. The failing of her mention was cultural related, not an accident.

Mark's 16:8 ending is interesting. The Angel tells them to go and tell Peter and his Disciples that Jesus had gone ahead. Yet...they apparently didn't tell anyone?

At first they didn't tell anyone. So what?

The Disciples themselves never go to the Tomb in Mark. Ignoring that though, Peter is still not the first to see Jesus in Mark. (thought he longer ending which is not found in earlier manuscripts go into much more detail)

I've already said that if you exclude the women, Peter WAS the first to see Jesus, and two of the Gospels + Paul confirms this. Did you miss that part?

The Longer ending says that Jesus appeared to two of them, two of who? Those two went and told the others (i'm assuming the disciples)

Very wise assumption :yes:

In John, Mary is still the first to appear at the tomb (no mention of Mary Mother of James, or Salome or Joanna), the other disciples followed, having outran Peter, who goes into the Tomb, sees the cloth, but still does not see Jesus. So in Mark the disciples never got to the Tomb, but in John they did?

In the book of Mark the disciples running to the tomb wasn't RECORDED, Frankie. The incident was recorded in one book, and not the other. Big deal. All you have to do is read Mark 16:10-11 and you can draw the conclusion that the incident happened somewhere in those verses. The book of Mark is not as detailed as the other books are, which is why it is the shortest of the others, Frankie.

In none of those situations though, do we have Jesus appearing to Peter first though. Or even James alone...and I guess Pauls encounter with Jesus is the one regarding the fall he has in Acts since he doesn't give much detail about it.

I've already stated why the women weren't mentioned as the first to see Jesus. Paul met with Peter, Frankie...they discussed these things. It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't an error. It is not a contradiction.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And also for a new set of racing leathers (that had to be cut off me at the hospital) - if that's not pushing it?

I will give that an honorable mention in the prayer lol.

On the contrary my dear chap, it's a frightfully good debate and one is enjoying the experience immensly. (There's bugger all else that I'm able to do at the moment anyway! )

No doubt no doubt *daps*

I’m not sure which of the two theses you’re referring to, but in both examples time began with the material world and will end as and when the world ceases to be.

Well if it began with the material world, the material world also began...and the last I checked everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If you’re referring to the first thesis (we’ll call them Thesis 1 and Thesis 2) then, no, it wasn’t in time, because there was nothing before it.

So what can not exist in time, but be the cause of time?

eternal, immutable quality.

I don't know what the heck that means.

With respect, there is no “problem of infinity”, not in either of the scenarios.

If there was time, there IS a problem of infinity. If there wasn't time, then you need to explain how a timeless cause can create time without free will.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

"I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.[1]

The above quote is from wikipedia with direct cited source.
(Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers in English, page 309 (Baker Academic, 2006). ISBN 0-8010-3108-7)

I put certain words in bold for emphasis. So we do know how he (Papias) came up with his conclusions.

No one is claiming that the early church fathers were born by the time of the writing of the scriptures. Papias did his research carefully by memorizing and intervieiwing elders of the congregation and listed the names of those that he inquired about. Luke did the same thing in the Gospel that he wrote. Just like I can inquire about other key figures or events in history. I don't have to be "born by the time" of the event to inquire with people that were actually there. That is what history is all about Frankie.

Of course you don't have to be born at the time, however relying on memory doesn't help. But of course, this comes down to whether they were actually correct in their stories. Essentially it comes down to the lack of names in the story and the various variants that exist.

Irenaues confirmed the authorship of Matthew, Frankie. Papias said that Matthew preserved the teachings of Jesus, and Irenaues stated that Matthew published his own Gospel. That is about as clear as it get. I don't know what more you want.

Yes, but it still puts the authorship into dispute.

Mark
Tradition holds that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist, as St. Peter's interpreter.[54] Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by St. Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel.[55][56][57][58][59] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[60]
Most scholars believe that Mark was written around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[61][62][63]
The theory that the Gospel of Mark was written first and is the earliest of the Gospels is not without its problems. For example, its author seemed to be ignorant of Palestinian geography. Mark 7:31 describes Jesus going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by way of Sidon (20 miles farther north and on the Mediterranean coast).[64] The author of Mark did not seem to know that you would not go through Sidon to go from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, and there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the 1st century, only one from Tyre.[65][66] Catholic scholars have interpreted this passage as indicating "that Jesus traveled in a wide circle, first north, then east and south".[67]

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[68] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[68] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[69]
Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.[70][71][72][73]
Luke[edit]
Some scholars[74][75] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[76]
Some scholars date the Gospel of Luke to c. 80-90,[77][78] although others argue for a date c. 60-65.[79]
The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author.[80] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to Theophilus, and Acts of the Apostles (1:1-2) says in reference to the Gospel of Luke, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen." (NIV) Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.[81][82] Both books also contain common interests.[83] The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the 1st century. Given that, therefore, Luke was written by the same person who wrote Acts, and that Acts must have been written in the early 60s AD (the book ends before the death of Paul, which most probably occurred during the Persecution of the Christians under Nero between AD 64 and AD 68), it would seem that Luke was written around AD 60.[84][85][86][87]
John[edit]
In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[88][89] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[90] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[91][92]
Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.[52][93]

When I say "historicity of Jesus", I mean EVERYTHING. His life, death, and Resurrection. I believe there is historical evidence that all these things happened in real life, in history.

There's historicity in his life, and his death. The Resurrection there isn't outside of the Bible.

No name is given on the Mona Lisa painting either, so I guess Leonard da Vinci didn't paint the painting?

Except Jesus didn't write anything...or draw anything. We at least know that the picture was painted by someone who goes by the name of Leonardo Da Vinci, we have nothing to attribute to Jesus, outside of the narratives given to his stories.



Ok, well, he wrote it in 90AD. So where do we go from there?

I've already said that if you exclude the women, Peter WAS the first to see Jesus, and two of the Gospels + Paul confirms this. Did you miss that part?

Except in all the Gospels, Peter is not the first to see Jesus. It is even made clear that when Jesus appears to the other Two, that it probably wasn't one of the eleven...why? Because it follows up with "then he appears to the eleven" which Peter would have been part of, and without Judas it would only be 11...so who where the other two? Probably other followers, but not Peter.

Very wise assumption :yes:

But an assumption nonetheless.

In the book of Mark the disciples running to the tomb wasn't RECORDED, Frankie. The incident was recorded in one book, and not the other. Big deal. All you have to do is read Mark 16:10-11 and you can draw the conclusion that the incident happened somewhere in those verses. The book of Mark is not as detailed as the other books are, which is why it is the shortest of the others, Frankie.

Or the others added to Mark, considering that Matthew and Luke pretty much copy Mark almost letter to letter for the most part.

Despite the fact that Mark 16:10-11 are not found in earlier manuscripts, so their addition happened why?

I've already stated why the women weren't mentioned as the first to see Jesus. Paul met with Peter, Frankie...they discussed these things. It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't an error. It is not a contradiction.

Of course you can rationalize it, but end of the day the Gospels tell one story and Paul tells another. Considering that the Gospels were written after Paul it would not have been hard to get the story exactly how Paul told it. They would not have any need to get into another source to get that part right. And of course Paul was still incorrect by leaving out Mary, or the Gospels were wrong for adding her. Considering how important she is (the fact that the first person Jesus speaks too according to the Gospels), I'm surprised that Paul would leave her out.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sorry my last response cut so much out, cause it hit the 10,000 limit. Also Call where do you fall on the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Philip?

 

[Sha'irullah]

God is by default perfect for a Deist. If god predates all and is the source of all then by default it is perfect. God is the philosophical equivalent of natural existence and the ability to create.

The creator on the panendeistic level exceeds creation and is thus limitless. Once the attribute of limitless of acquired then by default perfection is acquired along with anything else we could concoct.

The issue is that we assign personal attributes to what perfect is. We say god is not perfect because it has not given us what we want. This is illogical and only stems from personal greed which is something I find utterly abhorrent in today's society when trying to determine the values of ethics, politics, theology and social welfare.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Why would the assertion that god predates and is the source of all things require the 'default' attribution of perfection? What do you take perfection to mean?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Of course you don't have to be born at the time, however relying on memory doesn't help.

Both Christians and Jews alike at that time were people of oral tradition. There were no video recorders or voice recorders...or cameras and such. They relied on memory, able to recite stories and bible verses in the same way in recent times we are able to remember verses to songs and even quotes from movies. Memory was their bread and butter. How hard is it to remember that Matthew wrote a Gospel? Seriously, Frankie.

But of course, this comes down to whether they were actually correct in their stories.

Yeah, someone else wrote the book of Matthew but SOMEWHERE along the ling Matthew's name got swung up in there somehow. Bogus.

Essentially it comes down to the lack of names in the story and the various variants that exist.

Lack of names in what story?

Yes, but it still puts the authorship into dispute.

Then every written document, story, or book in history should be in dispute then.

Mark
Tradition holds that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist, as St. Peter's interpreter.[54] Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by St. Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel.[55][56][57][58][59] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[60]
Most scholars believe that Mark was written around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[61][62][63]
The theory that the Gospel of Mark was written first and is the earliest of the Gospels is not without its problems. For example, its author seemed to be ignorant of Palestinian geography. Mark 7:31 describes Jesus going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by way of Sidon (20 miles farther north and on the Mediterranean coast).[64] The author of Mark did not seem to know that you would not go through Sidon to go from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, and there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the 1st century, only one from Tyre.[65][66] Catholic scholars have interpreted this passage as indicating "that Jesus traveled in a wide circle, first north, then east and south".[67]

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[68] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[68] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[69]
Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.[70][71][72][73]
Luke[edit]
Some scholars[74][75] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[76]
Some scholars date the Gospel of Luke to c. 80-90,[77][78] although others argue for a date c. 60-65.[79]

All of that is irrelevant, because we still have the letters of Paul, which predate all the Gospels and it is no coincidence that Paul's letters harmonizes with all the Gospels; which is the fact that Jesus lived, was crucified, buried, raised, and seen by his followers. The Gospels confirm this and this is the holy grail of Christianity.

I disagree with the vast majority of everything that you quote above. I have the early church testimony of the early church Fathers, so if "dating" is important as we all claim it to be, the early church fathers were much closer to the "dates" than skeptics and critics who are writing on the subject 2,000 years later. The authorship of the Gospels has always been unanimous and there was never even a hint of disagreement amongsts them, because they knew what the deal was.

There's historicity in his life, and his death. The Resurrection there isn't outside of the Bible.

Why am I not surprised?

Except Jesus didn't write anything...or draw anything. We at least know that the picture was painted by someone who goes by the name of Leonardo Da Vinci

This is the taxi cab fallacy at its finest. First off, you don't "know" anything. All you "know" is what you've been told by someone else. Were you there? No? So why is it ok for you to believe that Leonardo Da Vinci painted all of those paintings and not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus? Just like you claim "we at least know that the picture was painted by someone who goes by the name of Leonardo Da Vinci".

Well, "We at least know that a man was Resurrected from the dead by the name of Jesus Christ". I am about as sure for my belief as you are for yours.

, we have nothing to attribute to Jesus, outside of the narratives given to his stories.

Same thing for anything else in history, Frankie. History is full of narratives and stories, do you not understand that? Every historical person in history, there is a story attributed to the person. How do you know if any of what you are told is true? You believe everything else you are told but when it comes to Jesus, all of a sudden its time to put on the "skeptic custom". Its time to be a skeptic when it comes to Jesus, but everything else, lets just continue to accept by faith. Please.

Except in all the Gospels, Peter is not the first to see Jesus.

For the fourth time, I gave a reason why this was the case, Frankie.

It is even made clear that when Jesus appears to the other Two, that it probably wasn't one of the eleven...why? Because it follows up with "then he appears to the eleven" which Peter would have been part of, and without Judas it would only be 11...so who where the other two? Probably other followers, but not Peter.

Actually you make a good point and I stand corrected, neither of the two was Peter. HOWEVER, my point is still valid, that Peter seen Christ before the others, because Luke 24:33-34 states;

"They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon!!"

Now even if Peter wasn't among those two that Jesus appeared to, by the time those two visited the Eleven, they were bombarded with information about Jesus' appearance to Simon (Peter), which means that Peter had already seen Jesus before they came. In fact, the two didn't get to share their own story of Jesus' appearance to them until after they were told about Jesus' appearance to Peter.

So Luke confirms what Paul said, that Peter saw Jesus first. And not only that, but as I said, Paul met with Peter and the rest of the disciples, so for him to give the "order of appearances" means that he was given that information from the disciples just like he was given the creed.

Or the others added to Mark, considering that Matthew and Luke pretty much copy Mark almost letter to letter for the most part.

As I said before, maybe some parts they did, but not all of it. As I said before, Matthew has double the number of chapters as Mark, and Luke has almost 10 more chapters than Mark...so obviously both Matthew and Luke had a lot more to say than Mark so Mark can't hardly be seen as the "ultimate source" for both Matthew and Luke. Not to mention the fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter, so that is as an excellent source to get any information on Jesus besides Jesus himself.

Despite the fact that Mark 16:10-11 are not found in earlier manuscripts, so their addition happened why?

Doesn't matter. Mark still has the Resurrection in chapter 16, and thats all I need.

Of course you can rationalize it, but end of the day the Gospels tell one story and Paul tells another.

As mentioned, Paul and Luke both say that Jesus appeared to Peter first (excluding Mary). The others Gospels don't speak on this...and their failure to mention it doesn't discredit the overrall message, which is that Jesus died, was crucified, was buried and raised on the third day and seen by skeptics and believers. All agree on that back, the pivital stuff. The meat and potatoes.

Considering that the Gospels were written after Paul it would not have been hard to get the story exactly how Paul told it.

Oh so Paul is their source now? Hahahaha.

They would not have any need to get into another source to get that part right. And of course Paul was still incorrect by leaving out Mary, or the Gospels were wrong for adding her. Considering how important she is (the fact that the first person Jesus speaks too according to the Gospels), I'm surprised that Paul would leave her out.

For the fifth time, Frankie...I already gave a plausible explanation of why Paul left her out...and it is quite foolish to think that Paul would make that mistake if he got his information from the disciples themselves, you know, having met with them and all. I am sure they had a lot to talk about.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Both Christians and Jews alike at that time were people of oral tradition. There were no video recorders or voice recorders...or cameras and such. They relied on memory, able to recite stories and bible verses in the same way in recent times we are able to remember verses to songs and even quotes from movies. Memory was their bread and butter. How hard is it to remember that Matthew wrote a Gospel? Seriously, Frankie.



Yeah, someone else wrote the book of Matthew but SOMEWHERE along the ling Matthew's name got swung up in there somehow. Bogus.



Lack of names in what story?



Then every written document, story, or book in history should be in dispute then.

The Gospels don't have the name of the writers on them anywhere...anywhere.

They are. All work, document, and history is disputed, on a regular basis. We are still critiquing WWII and that is very close to us. The point is information isn't static, you would be surprised how much we learn and change everyday. I remain a skeptic, not because I find the stories to be false, but because I am interested in motive, reason, and of course the politics.

All of that is irrelevant, because we still have the letters of Paul, which predate all the Gospels and it is no coincidence that Paul's letters harmonizes with all the Gospels; which is the fact that Jesus lived, was crucified, buried, raised, and seen by his followers. The Gospels confirm this and this is the holy grail of Christianity.

I disagree with the vast majority of everything that you quote above. I have the early church testimony of the early church Fathers, so if "dating" is important as we all claim it to be, the early church fathers were much closer to the "dates" than skeptics and critics who are writing on the subject 2,000 years later. The authorship of the Gospels has always been unanimous and there was never even a hint of disagreement amongsts them, because they knew what the deal was.

Yes and it was once accepted by people that the earth was the center of the Universe. People accepted Aristotle and while he made great progress, there were quite a bit of things that he said/did that set science back. But people took his word without question for almost 1500 years, until someone said...wait...why dont' we actually look at this. Is that wrong to do? Shrug I guess so.

Why am I not surprised?

So are you incapable of an actual discussion without resulting to snide comments? I've been rather polite with you, but you just keep trying to build strawmen to set on fire.

This is the taxi cab fallacy at its finest. First off, you don't "know" anything. All you "know" is what you've been told by someone else. Were you there? No? So why is it ok for you to believe that Leonardo Da Vinci painted all of those paintings and not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus? Just like you claim "we at least know that the picture was painted by someone who goes by the name of Leonardo Da Vinci".

Well, "We at least know that a man was Resurrected from the dead by the name of Jesus Christ". I am about as sure for my belief as you are for yours.

The standard for the resurrection of Jesus christ is far different than the standard of who painted the mona lisa. What we are sure of is that "some early christians believed that Jesus had risen from the dead" what resurrection actually meant to them, varies. Paul seems to believes that you will get a new body, John seems to indicate that when Jesus was brought back he kept his old body, just with the ability to appear and disappear. There's so much more to learn about what early christians believed, I'm interested in that.

What I am sure of is that there was a man name Jesus who was a wise man, gave an amazing message that would be a core foundation for much of what would later be the western culture and who was executed for some reason by Pilate.

Same thing for anything else in history, Frankie. History is full of narratives and stories, do you not understand that? Every historical person in history, there is a story attributed to the person. How do you know if any of what you are told is true? You believe everything else you are told but when it comes to Jesus, all of a sudden its time to put on the "skeptic custom". Its time to be a skeptic when it comes to Jesus, but everything else, lets just continue to accept by faith. Please.



For the fourth time, I gave a reason why this was the case, Frankie.

So culture was more important than the complete fact of what happened? ok.

And believe everything? Of course every historical person is in history, 100 years from now people won't know about who the heck I am, and if they read this they'll just scratch their heads. That isn't the point. Stop trying to build up a strawman.

Actually you make a good point and I stand corrected, neither of the two was Peter. HOWEVER, my point is still valid, that Peter seen Christ before the others, because Luke 24:33-34 states;

"They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon!!"

And yet Luke somehow forgets to write the part of when Jesus met Simon who we will assume that they are talking about Peter and not another Simon. Again the usage of the 11, (And they found the 11 and those with them), was Peter not part of the 11?

Now even if Peter wasn't among those two that Jesus appeared to, by the time those two visited the Eleven, they were bombarded with information about Jesus' appearance to Simon (Peter), which means that Peter had already seen Jesus before they came. In fact, the two didn't get to share their own story of Jesus' appearance to them until after they were told about Jesus' appearance to Peter.

So Luke confirms what Paul said, that Peter saw Jesus first. And not only that, but as I said, Paul met with Peter and the rest of the disciples, so for him to give the "order of appearances" means that he was given that information from the disciples just like he was given the creed.

Except Luke doesn't. BTW There was another Simon. Simon the Zealot, how do you know that isn't the simon who they were talking about? I mean Peter was used the entire time, and then suddenly it's Simon?

As I said before, maybe some parts they did, but not all of it. As I said before, Matthew has double the number of chapters as Mark, and Luke has almost 10 more chapters than Mark...so obviously both Matthew and Luke had a lot more to say than Mark so Mark can't hardly be seen as the "ultimate source" for both Matthew and Luke. Not to mention the fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter, so that is as an excellent source to get any information on Jesus besides Jesus himself.

Didn't say that it was the only source, the Q document is another source as well to draw sayings, but the spinning of the tale is something different. It is not a fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter, it is taken from tradition.

Doesn't matter. Mark still has the Resurrection in chapter 16, and thats all I need.

Irony

As mentioned, Paul and Luke both say that Jesus appeared to Peter first (excluding Mary). The others Gospels don't speak on this...and their failure to mention it doesn't discredit the overrall message, which is that Jesus died, was crucified, was buried and raised on the third day and seen by skeptics and believers. All agree on that back, the pivital stuff. The meat and potatoes.

Have you not read Luke? Peter doesn't meet Jesus first, so yeah no. In none of the Gospels is Peter the first to meet Jesus. None.

Oh so Paul is their source now? Hahahaha.

Where did I say that? My point is that they had Paul's letters to refer to but yet they don't get the story straight.

For the fifth time, Frankie...I already gave a plausible explanation of why Paul left her out...and it is quite foolish to think that Paul would make that mistake if he got his information from the disciples themselves, you know, having met with them and all. I am sure they had a lot to talk about.

Yeah they did, and as far as we know James and Paul didn't really get along, Peter tried to play the middle man, and John was doing whatever John was doing. I wonder how things would have happened if James the brother of John had not been executed. Peter was apparently not the rock for the church in Jerusalem and after the death of James and the fall of the temple they seemed to just sink into the darkness while the Gentile Christians grew.

Of course that is a plausible reason that he left her out, did I say it wasn't? It's just interesting that Paul would find his cultural upbringing more important than actually telling the story as it was, or maybe the Gospels got it wrong.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why would the assertion that god predates and is the source of all things require the 'default' attribution of perfection? What do you take perfection to mean?

Deistic philosophy states that god does not intervene after the first cause because of lack of necessity. If that is the case then god is perfect as it does not require alterations to it's creation.

But tossing that aside the definition of perfection for a Deist is only in relation to creation. The creation that god exists and it is governed by laws of various kind and no interruption from a deity has been proven to occur. God is perfect simply because of the lack of necessity to intervene.

Perfection is only attributed to god as apart of the natural examination of the creation. On top of this perfection is assigned to god because of the state of being limitless and boundless also naturally applies to god.

Considering that I hold panentheistic views this already means that creation and god equal including attributes beyond. If creation exist then god is perfect by default regardless as well because of the lack of change.


I shall make this all very simple. Please tell me a point in history where physios, reality or the universe have been altered or changed. Has water always been composed of the same atoms?