Why does god have to be perfect?

[arcanum]

I like how the Gnostics addressed this question: They basically looked around them and saw all the pain, violence, inequality, misery in this life and asked themselves how could a perfect god have created this pain factory? they reasoned that this must world must be the creation of a lesser god, and the true god is beyond this world and therefore only created this world inadvertently. Sound crazy? The more I think about it the more it makes sense. Maybe the true god is perfect but the creator of this world was not.:yes:

 

[Sha'irullah]

I like how the Gnostics addressed this question: They basically looked around them and saw all the pain, violence, inequality, misery in this life and asked themselves how could a perfect god have created this pain factory? they reasoned that this must world must be the creation of a lesser god, and the true god is beyond this world and therefore only created this world inadvertently. Sound crazy? The more I think about it the more it makes sense. Maybe the true god is perfect but the creator of this world was not.:yes:

Funny you mention gnosticism considering that I extracted a lot from it.

I hold the view that the creator is perfect despite the suffering but that all matter has the right to function as it pleases. The Gnostic values are selfish since they imply that this world is not suited for mankind alone. What about the poor bacteria which need to feast on our flesh .

Perfection does not apply to the perfection conditions for our pleasures. It applies to purpose. The atomic bomb although being a weapon of mass destruction does it's job quite "perfectly"

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

Already responded to this...and it is also worth mentioning the fact that even if the Gospels writers began their book with something like "I am MATTHEW, disciple of Jesus, and I am writing this DANG book", that still wouldn't mean that skeptics won't then say "Well, how do we know that MATTHEW actually wrote it, anyone could have wrote it and claimed to be Matthew." Skeptics are going to be skeptics and the name of the writers don't have to be on them, when you have uniform Church testimony of who wrote it.

They are. All work, document, and history is disputed, on a regular basis.

I am talking about even the stuff that isn't disputed. EVERYTHING. Nothing is reliable.

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.

Nothing is reliable in history based on your logic.

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.

Actually it wasn't a snide comment, it is a fact, that people will accept the historicity of Jesus minus the miracles and Resurrection...that is what I was saying...why am I not surprised? Context Frankie, context.

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.

The disciples believed in a bodily/physical Resurrection as it is apparent in the Gospels, and by Paul's writings. So nothing varied, everything is clear cut.

Paul seems to believes that you will get a new body

And?

John seems to indicate that when Jesus was brought back he kept his old body, just with the ability to appear and disappear.

Point?

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.

And that is exactly my point...you believe everything but stop short when it comes to the Resurrection...that is the exact point I made above.

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

Regardless of how you feel about it, if that is the reason he left Mary out, then it isn't a contradiction.

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.

I am not building a straw man. You are making this big fuss about the Gospel writers and how their name isn't attached to the books...and if someone asked you "Who wrote the book of Matthew?" You would say "I don't know". Yet if that same person asked you who painted the Mona Lisa, you would say "Leonardo Da Vinci", DESPITE the fact that his name isn't attached to the painting either. If having names attached to documents, books, stories, paintings, etc is YOUR standard of credible evidence then you basically don't believe in history, PERIOD. This is CLEARLY the taxi cab fallacy going on here, it has become quite apparent.

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.

First off neither one of the Gospels record Jesus' appearance to Peter first, so saying Luke forgot it is disingenuous. Second, why am I not to assume that the Simon in question isn't Peter, when Paul said Jesus met Peter and fails to mention the "other" Simon in his breakdown of Jesus' appearance and to who. Not to mention the fact that Paul could hardly be mistaken on his account considering the fact that he met with Peter and the rest of the disciples as he mentioned in the creed that was "passed dow to him" from them...as I am bringing to your attention for about the third time now.

Again the usage of the 11, (And they found the 11 and those with them), was Peter not part of the 11?

Irrelevant.

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?

Yeah Peter was used the entire time, yet Paul calls Peter "Cephas" in 1Corin, despite the name "Peter" being used the entire time otherwise. I guess to Paul it really didn't matter what he was called the other times, and if it didn't matter to Paul, it doesn't matter to me either.

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.

Well Papias called him "interpreter" of people, whatever. He was a companion of Peter, bottom line, which is about the most credible source one can have regarding Jesus outside from James and John. And as far as the Q document is concerned, once again, that isn't a narrative of Jesus like you have in Matthew, and if you ASSUME that Matthew copied from Q source (which no one takes seriously anyway), then he would be copying from even earlier sources than himself, and the early you get to the event, the more credible your story becomes.

Irony

Yeah, the irony is the fact that all Gospels record the Resurrection. That is irony for unbelievers.

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.

Again, Paul, a guy who not only meet Peter but also the rest of the disciples PERSONALLY, claims that Jesus was first seen by Peter (excluding the women). That is why we can conclude that the Simon mentioned in Luke 24 is actually Peter, because Paul didn't even mention Simon the Zealot in his breakdown of Jesus' appearances.

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.

All the Gospels do get the story straight, that Jesus lived, died, was buried, was raised, and was seen alive by the disciples (minus omitted verses in Mark). That is what Christians hold our hats on. All of this other stuff you are talking about is petty.

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.

Yeah, it was one big reality show in early first century Palestine.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Already responded to this...and it is also worth mentioning the fact that even if the Gospels writers began their book with something like "I am MATTHEW, disciple of Jesus, and I am writing this DANG book", that still wouldn't mean that skeptics won't then say "Well, how do we know that MATTHEW actually wrote it, anyone could have wrote it and claimed to be Matthew." Skeptics are going to be skeptics and the name of the writers don't have to be on them, when you have uniform Church testimony of who wrote it.



I am talking about even the stuff that isn't disputed. EVERYTHING. Nothing is reliable.

Everything is disputed, there are majority consensus that lean to one side more than the other, especially with new evidence that comes to light.

Historically it was common for people to write and attribute the names of other to it.

Nothing is reliable in history based on your logic.

Yes that is true, which is why we continue to look for evidence. The more evidence we have the more reliability there is.

Actually it wasn't a snide comment, it is a fact, that people will accept the historicity of Jesus minus the miracles and Resurrection...that is what I was saying...why am I not surprised? Context Frankie, context.

No some will even except the miracles without the resurrection. So do you take the Gospels of Phillip and Thomas to be written by those two as well? They give a different outlook of Jesus compared to the canon gospels.

The disciples believed in a bodily/physical Resurrection as it is apparent in the Gospels, and by Paul's writings. So nothing varied, everything is clear cut.

The story outline certainly did.



And?

Point?



And that is exactly my point...you believe everything but stop short when it comes to the Resurrection...that is the exact point I made above.

Actually a question the accounts of the Resurrection.

Regardless of how you feel about it, if that is the reason he left Mary out, then it isn't a contradiction.

If.

I am not building a straw man. You are making this big fuss about the Gospel writers and how their name isn't attached to the books...and if someone asked you "Who wrote the book of Matthew?" You would say "I don't know". Yet if that same person asked you who painted the Mona Lisa, you would say "Leonardo Da Vinci", DESPITE the fact that his name isn't attached to the painting either. If having names attached to documents, books, stories, paintings, etc is YOUR standard of credible evidence then you basically don't believe in history, PERIOD. This is CLEARLY the taxi cab fallacy going on here, it has become quite apparent.

You do realize that scholars have continued to search to see if the Mona Lisa was actually a work done by Da Vinci right? You realize that it was not just accepted face value. Do you take part in any research, scholarly or otherwise in your life? If you would you'd understand how the process works, and why history is not something set in stone. Heck the confirmation given that Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa happened in 2005, and I'm sure there is still some on the other side who question it.

But do you know what else helps when it comes to investigating these things? Style. See artists have their own particular type of style that they would employ over their work. So when people say that Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa it is because it matches the style of designs that they know belonged to Leonardo, but even then that still is not enough reason.

First off neither one of the Gospels record Jesus' appearance to Peter first, so saying Luke forgot it is disingenuous. Second, why am I not to assume that the Simon in question isn't Peter, when Paul said Jesus met Peter and fails to mention the "other" Simon in his breakdown of Jesus' appearance and to who. Not to mention the fact that Paul could hardly be mistaken on his account considering the fact that he met with Peter and the rest of the disciples as he mentioned in the creed that was "passed dow to him" from them...as I am bringing to your attention for about the third time now.

Wait you said that Luke has Peter meeting Jesus first.



Irrelevant.

Yeah Peter was used the entire time, yet Paul calls Peter "Cephas" in 1Corin, despite the name "Peter" being used the entire time otherwise. I guess to Paul it really didn't matter what he was called the other times, and if it didn't matter to Paul, it doesn't matter to me either.

Peter means stone, Cephas also means stone. Cephas is aramaic, Peter is Greek. They mean the same thing, not at all like Simon which is Hebrew.

Well Papias called him "interpreter" of people, whatever. He was a companion of Peter, bottom line, which is about the most credible source one can have regarding Jesus outside from James and John. And as far as the Q document is concerned, once again, that isn't a narrative of Jesus like you have in Matthew, and if you ASSUME that Matthew copied from Q source (which no one takes seriously anyway), then he would be copying from even earlier sources than himself, and the early you get to the event, the more credible your story becomes.

Not just the writer of Matthew, but the writer Mark (Secret Gospel of Mark is considered among them) as well seem to have drawn from earlier sources. The question isn't whether or not those sources exist, but what was drawn from them, what was the competing knowledge.

Yeah, the irony is the fact that all Gospels record the Resurrection. That is irony for unbelievers.

You used Irony wrong, but I probably had as well.



[/QUOTE]Again, Paul, a guy who not only meet Peter but also the rest of the disciples PERSONALLY, claims that Jesus was first seen by Peter (excluding the women). That is why we can conclude that the Simon mentioned in Luke 24 is actually Peter, because Paul didn't even mention Simon the Zealot in his breakdown of Jesus' appearances.

Except Luke leaves out the encounter. And yes him leaving out the woman (who was important), still matters.

All the Gospels do get the story straight, that Jesus lived, died, was buried, was raised, and was seen alive by the disciples (minus omitted verses in Mark). That is what Christians hold our hats on. All of this other stuff you are talking about is petty.

Except they don't get it straight. They get several things no straight, leaving good ol' fashion gaps for people to try to reconcile them.

Yeah, it was one big reality show in early first century Palenstine.

It pretty much was.

But hey you seem to not care enough anyway so no point to continue with this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Everything is disputed, there are majority consensus that lean to one side more than the other, especially with new evidence that comes to light.

My point is nothing should be considered a historical fact if it wasn't video-taped.

No some will even except the miracles without the resurrection.

Well if they accept miracles without the Resurrection, then they believe in the supernatural, and thus naturalism is defeater, so either way, they have problems.

So do you take the Gospels of Phillip and Thomas to be written by those two as well?

Those two were not thought to be divinely inspired by God and they were rejected by the early Church, and we don't have the uniform view by the early Church that they wrote the gospels that bear their names.

They give a different outlook of Jesus compared to the canon gospels.

Which is why they weren't accepted, Frankie.

The story outline certainly did.

Based on what?

Actually a question the accounts of the Resurrection.

But they all agree that there was a bodily Resurrection, Frankie. No matter how different you claim the accounts are, you can't deny the Resurrection itself. All Gospels plus Paul attest to this.

If.

And that "if" is plausible based on the reasons I mentioned. All we need is plausibility for to demonstrate a non-contradiction, and you were given that.

You do realize that scholars have continued to search to see if the Mona Lisa was actually a work done by Da Vinci right?

That may be true, but unlike the Gospels, Da Vinci is "guilty" of painting the Mona Lisa until proven innocent, instead of being "innocent" until proven guilty of painting the painting. That is not the same way skeptics look at the Gospel authorship...they want the alleged Gospel writers to be innocent until proven guilty, unlike Da Vinci. Taxi cab.

You realize that it was not just accepted face value. Do you take part in any research, scholarly or otherwise in your life? If you would you'd understand how the process works, and why history is not something set in stone. Heck the confirmation given that Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa happened in 2005, and I'm sure there is still some on the other side who question it.

But it doesn't matter because even if his name was on the painting, skeptics could still question it because no one alive today was there when it was painted!!

Wait you said that Luke has Peter meeting Jesus first.

Right, and that is based on the Luke 24 scripture I gave you. But the actual narrative of the encounter is not recorded by Luke or any other Gospel.

Peter means stone, Cephas also means stone. Cephas is aramaic, Peter is Greek. They mean the same thing, not at all like Simon which is Hebrew.

Right, they mean the same thing, but you were the one harping about the fact that they called Peter "Simon"...guess what....THAT WAS HIS NAME. My cousin is a rapper and guess what...we call him by his rap name...his government name...AND his nick name...he answers to all three and is identified by others based on all three of those names. So once again, petty stuff.

Not just the writer of Matthew, but the writer Mark (Secret Gospel of Mark is considered among them) as well seem to have drawn from earlier sources. The question isn't whether or not those sources exist, but what was drawn from them, what was the competing knowledge.

You still have the letters of Paul which confirms Jesus...his life...death...burial...Resurrection...and appearances. The letters of Paul supports, corroberate, and harmonizes with the current canon of the Gospels.

You used Irony wrong, but I probably had as well.

I may have used it wrong, but I guarantee you got the picture.

Except Luke leaves out the encounter. And yes him leaving out the woman (who was important), still matters.

Judgement Day:

Jesus: Frankie, why did you not believe in me?

Frankie: Because in 1Corin 15:3, Paul failed to mention Mary in order of appearances that you made to your followers

Jesus: You based your eternal salavation on that?

Frankie: Yes, because him leaving her out matters

Jesus: .........

Except they don't get it straight. They get several things no straight, leaving good ol' fashion gaps for people to try to reconcile them.

Yeah, they don't get it right...but good ol' Frankie, some 2,000+ years after the events...longg and far in to the future...he has it allll right.

It pretty much was.

But hey you seem to not care enough anyway so no point to continue with this.

You know the reality show "Desperate Housewives of Atlanta"....they got that idea from reading the bible: "Desperate Disciples of Palestine".

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

My point is nothing should be considered a historical fact if it wasn't video-taped.

I don't think you know what facts are.

Well if they accept miracles without the Resurrection, then they believe in the supernatural, and thus naturalism is defeater, so either way, they have problems.

Those two were not thought to be divinely inspired by God and they were rejected by the early Church, and we don't have the uniform view by the early Church that they wrote the gospels that bear their names.

And Revelations and Hebrew was rejected by some of the early churches, and lets not forget Luthers proclamation that James was an Epistle of Straw.

Which is why they weren't accepted, Frankie.

Like Revelations and Hebrew?

Based on what?



But they all agree that there was a bodily Resurrection, Frankie. No matter how different you claim the accounts are, you can't deny the Resurrection itself. All Gospels plus Paul attest to this.



And that "if" is plausible based on the reasons I mentioned. All we need is plausibility for to demonstrate a non-contradiction, and you were given that.

Except it is still an if. It could also be because it didn't actually happen the way the Gospels say it did...That is a plausibility as well.

That may be true, but unlike the Gospels, Da Vinci is "guilty" of painting the Mona Lisa until proven innocent, instead of being "innocent" until proven guilty of painting the painting. That is not the same way skeptics look at the Gospel authorship...they want the alleged Gospel writers to be innocent until proven guilty, unlike Da Vinci. Taxi cab.



But it doesn't matter because even if his name was on the painting, skeptics could still question it because no one alive today was there when it was painted!!

Hence the use of facts and evidence and contemporaries.

Right, and that is based on the Luke 24 scripture I gave you. But the actual narrative of the encounter is not recorded by Luke or any other Gospel.

Why not?

Right, they mean the same thing, but you were the one harping about the fact that they called Peter "Simon"...guess what....THAT WAS HIS NAME. My cousin is a rapper and guess what...we call him by his rap name...his government name...AND his nick name...he answers to all three and is identified by others based on all three of those names. So once again, petty stuff.

So when did Simon, meet Jesus in Luke? At what point? So you just assume that it must be Peter, though it very much could have been Simon the Zealot, or another Simon. Because those are also fully plausible.

You still have the letters of Paul which confirms Jesus...his life...death...burial...Resurrection...and appearances. The letters of Paul supports, corroberate, and harmonizes with the current canon of the Gospels.

Yet tell differing stories. Not to mention the issues with Matthew and Acts account of the death of Judas. And the uncertainty of who actually arrived at the Tomb, was it Salome or Joanna?

I may have used it wrong, but I guarantee you got the picture.

If you used it wrong how am I supposed to get it?

Judgement Day:

Jesus: Frankie, why did you not believe in me?

Frankie: Because in 1Corin 15:3, Paul failed to mention Mary in order of appearances that you made to your followers

Jesus: You based your eternal salavation on that?

Frankie: Yes, because him leaving her out matters

Jesus: .........

Huh? What's with the Strawman? Why do you accept revelations when some of the early Church fathers did not? But is this an ad hominem?

]Yeah, they don't get it right...but good ol' Frankie, some 2,000+ years after the events...longg and far in to the future...he has it allll right.

Strawman

You know the reality show "Desperate Housewives of Atlanta"....they got that idea from reading the bible: "Desperate Disciples of Palestine".

Another strawman.

 

[Harari Rajul]

The Creator must be Perfect, i.e. free of flaw, as the opposite would entail God to be a creation, which is a contradiction. E.g., being ascribed with a shape denotes imperfection, as that which has a shape takes up space, it requires space to exist, (not to mention it is dependent on something other than itself to designate it with that specific shape as it could not have given itself that shape). The Creator does not need anything so to ascribe a shape to The Creator would in contradiction with The Creator's Transcendence. This is the Islamic Perspective.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't think you know what facts are.

I don't think you do either.

And Revelations and Hebrew was rejected by some of the early churches, and lets not forget Luthers proclamation that James was an Epistle of Straw.

Take away Revelations and Hebrew and we still have the life, crucifixion, and Resurrection, and post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ in the other books. Keep on playing.

Like Revelations and Hebrew?

Same answers as above.

Except it is still an if. It could also be because it didn't actually happen the way the Gospels say it did...That is a plausibility as well.

Then nothing in history happened the way we currently think it did, based on your logic. That isn't how the study of history works, Frankie. All the Gospels agree that Jesus lived, died, was buried, crucified, Ressurected, and was seen post-mortem by skeptics and believers. That is Christianity, Frankie. All of this other petty stuff you are talking about is actually irrelevant.

Hence the use of facts and evidence and contemporaries.

Taxi cab fallacy.

Why not?

Because maybe Luke didn't think it was important as some guy on a religious forum would some 2,000+ years later.

So when did Simon, meet Jesus in Luke?

I've already acknowledged the fact that Peter's encounter with the risen Christ isn't in the narrative, Frankie. So why you are asking me this, I don't know.

At what point? So you just assume that it must be Peter, though it very much could have been Simon the Zealot, or another Simon. Because those are also fully plausible.

I think it was Peter for the reasons I already gave. Second, Paul doesn't even mention Cleopas, but Luke does...so does that mean that Paul is wrong for not mentioning Cleopas? No. You are just digging for reasons to continue in your unbelief, obviously. Paul's message is clear, Jesus was seen by individuals, and also by groups of people. Luke's message is also clear, that Jesus was seen by small groups, and big groups. The overrall message in ALL Gospels is the fact that Jesus was seen post-mortem. This petty cherry picking you are doing does nothing to negate that fact.

Yet tell differing stories. Not to mention the issues with Matthew and Acts account of the death of Judas.

I've already answer that.

And the uncertainty of who actually arrived at the Tomb, was it Salome or Joanna?

Um, Frankie, you are over-analyzing man. Luke 24:10 states "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James, and the OTHERS with them who told this to the apostles."

Keyword: OTHERS. That mean there were MORE people than those that were specifically mentioned in Luke, and if another Gospel (Mark) include another person by name that was not mentioned in Luke, that would mean that that person was included in the OTHERS that Luke mentions. Cmon now, Frankie

If you used it wrong how am I supposed to get it?

I am sorry that I thought you would have understood it. Apologies.

Huh? What's with the Strawman? Why do you accept revelations when some of the early Church fathers did not?

I don't know how the early Church Fathers took Revelations, but what I do know is Revelations has nothing to do with my faith in the Resurrection. So take Revelations out, and you still have the biblical Resurrection.

But is this an ad hominem?

Take it how you want to take it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't think you do either.



Take away Revelations and Hebrew and we still have the life, crucifixion, and Resurrection, and post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ in the other books. Keep on playing.



Same answers as above.



Then nothing in history happened the way we currently think it did, based on your logic. That isn't how the study of history works, Frankie. All the Gospels agree that Jesus lived, died, was buried, crucified, Ressurected, and was seen post-mortem by skeptics and believers. That is Christianity, Frankie. All of this other petty stuff you are talking about is actually irrelevant.



Taxi cab fallacy.



Because maybe Luke didn't think it was important as some guy on a religious forum would some 2,000+ years later.



I've already acknowledged the fact that Peter's encounter with the risen Christ isn't in the narrative, Frankie. So why you are asking me this, I don't know.



I think it was Peter for the reasons I already gave. Second, Paul doesn't even mention Cleopas, but Luke does...so does that mean that Paul is wrong for not mentioning Cleopas? No. You are just digging for reasons to continue in your unbelief, obviously. Paul's message is clear, Jesus was seen by individuals, and also by groups of people. Luke's message is also clear, that Jesus was seen by small groups, and big groups. The overrall message in ALL Gospels is the fact that Jesus was seen post-mortem. This petty cherry picking you are doing does nothing to negate that fact.



I've already answer that.



Um, Frankie, you are over-analyzing man. Luke 24:10 states "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James, and the OTHERS with them who told this to the apostles."

Keyword: OTHERS. That mean there were MORE people than those that were specifically mentioned in Luke, and if another Gospel (Mark) include another person by name that was not mentioned in Luke, that would mean that that person was included in the OTHERS that Luke mentions. Cmon now, Frankie



I am sorry that I thought you would have understood it. Apologies.



I don't know how the early Church Fathers took Revelations, but what I do know is Revelations has nothing to do with my faith in the Resurrection. So take Revelations out, and you still have the biblical Resurrection.



Take it how you want to take it.

And Matthew and John says something different about who was at the Tomb. Either way either Paul or the Gospels were incorrect in the order of who met Jesus. All the Gospels were written around 10 to 20 years apart from each other, it would be very easy to get a corroborated straightline story, but they didn't. Why? Because they had to rely on human memory. See the point isn't to say that the Gospels were lying, if that is your thought process, I can certainly tell that you have very little understanding of how textual criticisms, and even research works.

All the other stuff is irrelevant to you, but it hasn't been to those who have been discussing Christianity for the past 2,000 years. I understand that you are incapable of entertaining a thought in your head without having to accept it, it is very difficult for some people.

 

[cottage]

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.

Nothing in the material world begins to exist: there is mutation, movement, division and expansion in form and matter, but no object or life-form is observed to come into existence from nothing.

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

My Thesis 2

I don't know what the heck that means.

Same as God basically but without the beard, cloud and halo – or the absurd need for a Supreme Being to seek a relationship with its own finite, imperfect creation!

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.

There was no time or space in either example. A timeless cause doesn’t require free will unless it is a personal being.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And Matthew and John says something different about who was at the Tomb.

Absolutely not. One account is more DETAILED than the other. That's all, Frankie. You are making it seem as if the accounts have to be an EXACT match, word for word. If that is the case, then all we would need is one Gospel, right? One person may not be as detailed as the other person, Frankie. Ask any lawyer, police officer, judge, interrogator, etc, and they will tell you, that is life.

Either way either Paul or the Gospels were incorrect in the order of who met Jesus.

Well, as Christians we don't care about who met Jesus first. All we care about is whether Jesus rose from the dead, and both Paul and the Gospels agree that this is the case, and thus, we have Christianity.

All the Gospels were written around 10 to 20 years apart from each other, it would be very easy to get a corroborated straightline story, but they didn't.

All Gospels were written between 20-40 years after the Resurrection, and Paul's letters confirming the belief OF the disciples was written even earlier than that. The dates are within the lifetime of the disciples or friends of the disciples, making the Gospels a good and credible source regarding the life, death, burial, Resurrection, and appearances of Jesus Christ.

it would be very easy to get a corroborated straightline story, but they didn't.

Oh but all the stories are corroberated...that Jesus lived, died, was buried, Resurrected from the dead, and appeared to skeptics and believers alike. All the Gospels confirm this plus the letters of Paul confirm this.

Why? Because they had to rely on human memory.

No, they relied on experience. If you experience something as magnificent than your best friend rising from the dead, that would be etched in your memory forever. It isn't something that you will forget.

See the point isn't to say that the Gospels were lying

Just sorely mistaken, right?

, if that is your thought process, I can certainly tell that you have very little understanding of how textual criticisms, and even research works.

Hey, you keep criticising, and I will keep offering responses accordingly.

All the other stuff is irrelevant to you, but it hasn't been to those who have been discussing Christianity for the past 2,000 years. I understand that you are incapable of entertaining a thought in your head without having to accept it, it is very difficult for some people.

The Gospels are clear...that Jesus lived, died, was buried, Resurrected, and was seen post-mortem following his death. You can say what you want about who was at the tomb, but you will have a hard time NOT acknowledging the fact that all Gospels and Paul all attest to the empty tomb, regardless of who was there. You can say what you want about who Jesus appeared to first...but you will have a hard time NOT acknowledging the fact that all Gospels and Paul attest to the fact that Jesus was seen post-mortem. That is the point, the man was buried, his tomb was found empty, and he was seen post mortem. That is the central issue, the focal point. All of this cherry picking CRAP about why didn't Paul mention Mary and all of that other nonsense is irrelevant. Christianity isn't about all of that, Christianity is about Jesus rising from the dead, and history supports this fact. All that other CRAP is for the birds.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nothing in the material world begins to exist:

So, if nothing in the material world begins to exist, then you are eternal, right?

there is mutation

Presupposes evolution at the molecular level.

movement

Can't have movement without time, and time cannot be past eternal.

, division and expansion in form and matter

Fine tuning problem and also presupposes molecular evolution and also infinity problem.

, but no object or life-form is observed to come into existence from nothing.

Infinity problem, entropy/thermodynamics problem

My Thesis 2

I forgot.

There was no time or space in either example.

But above you said there was movement. To be in motion is to be in time, and if you have matter changing you have to also have space, because if you have matter with no space, where would you put it? And if you have matter with no time, when would you put it?

A timeless cause doesn’t require free will unless it is a personal being.

Right, and before I can get to why a personal being is required, I have to get past that mess you left yourself above lol.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Absolutely not. One account is more DETAILED than the other. That's all, Frankie. You are making it seem as if the accounts have to be an EXACT match, word for word. If that is the case, then all we would need is one Gospel, right? One person may not be as detailed as the other person, Frankie. Ask any lawyer, police officer, judge, interrogator, etc, and they will tell you, that is life.



Well, as Christians we don't care about who met Jesus first. All we care about is whether Jesus rose from the dead, and both Paul and the Gospels agree that this is the case, and thus, we have Christianity.



All Gospels were written between 20-40 years after the Resurrection, and Paul's letters confirming the belief OF the disciples was written even earlier than that. The dates are within the lifetime of the disciples or friends of the disciples, making the Gospels a good and credible source regarding the life, death, burial, Resurrection, and appearances of Jesus Christ.



Oh but all the stories are corroberated...that Jesus lived, died, was buried, Resurrected from the dead, and appeared to skeptics and believers alike. All the Gospels confirm this plus the letters of Paul confirm this.



No, they relied on experience. If you experience something as magnificent than your best friend rising from the dead, that would be etched in your memory forever. It isn't something that you will forget.



Just sorely mistaken, right?



Hey, you keep criticising, and I will keep offering responses accordingly.



The Gospels are clear...that Jesus lived, died, was buried, Resurrected, and was seen post-mortem following his death. You can say what you want about who was at the tomb, but you will have a hard time NOT acknowledging the fact that all Gospels and Paul all attest to the empty tomb, regardless of who was there. You can say what you want about who Jesus appeared to first...but you will have a hard time NOT acknowledging the fact that all Gospels and Paul attest to the fact that Jesus was seen post-mortem. That is the point, the man was buried, his tomb was found empty, and he was seen post mortem. That is the central issue, the focal point. All of this cherry picking CRAP about why didn't Paul mention Mary and all of that other nonsense is irrelevant. Christianity isn't about all of that, Christianity is about Jesus rising from the dead, and history supports this fact. All that other CRAP is for the birds.

Like I said to entertain a thought in your mind without accepting it is difficult for some people. You are the one who called for historicity, if the Gospel stories and Paul's account are not corroborated perfectly relying rather on memory (as even Papias remarks that the writer of Mark just wrote things as Peter accounted them to him as best as he could remember, and that what he does mention as written by Matthew indicates that it was written in Aramaic (or maybe it was Hebrew)), that is not an experience, that is memory.

This isn't about what Christianity is about, that's the theology the message in the Bible is clear. If you want to debate that go ahead, but this is about what is recorded and whether or not it falls properly into the frame of history.

As far as history is concerned. Jesus Lived, Jesus Died; the resurrection has no extra-biblical sources to confirm that and the sources in the bible give varying point of views of the account. Does that make them wrong? No, but it certainly brings up questions to what was the goal of each Gospel, and who was telling who the information.

Have a great Thanksgiving though.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Like I said to entertain a thought in your mind without accepting it is difficult for some people. You are the one who called for historicity

I have good reasons to believe it.

, if the Gospel stories and Paul's account are not corroborated perfectly relying rather on memory

Based on a culture that memorized psalms, stories, and quotes...yup.

(as even Papias remarks that the writer of Mark just wrote things as Peter accounted them to him as best as he could remember, and that what he does mention as written by Matthew indicates that it was written in Aramaic (or maybe it was Hebrew)), that is not an experience, that is memory.

Sometimes, it just isn't worth it...

As far as history is concerned. Jesus Lived, Jesus Died; the resurrection has no extra-biblical sources to confirm that and the sources in the bible give varying point of views of the account.

Then provide an explanation that can explain the origin of the disciples belief and the empty tomb.

Does that make them wrong? No, but it certainly brings up questions to what was the goal of each Gospel, and who was telling who the information.

Sometimes, it just isn't worth it

Have a great Thanksgiving though.

You do the same..

 

[cottage]

So, if nothing in the material world begins to exist, then you are eternal, right?

No! Contingent matter is finite. So, forgive me, but this is what I said: “Nothing in the material world begins to exist: there is mutation, movement, division and expansion in form and matter, but no object or life-form is observed to come into existence from nothing”. In other words nothing seen to be created, this means the inference: “Everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence” is empirically false. Now note, none of this is to say the material world itself didn’t begin to exist; in fact I’ve argued that it did.

Presupposes evolution at the molecular level.

Entirely compatible with evolutionary theory, yes.

Can't have movement without time, and time cannot be past eternal.

Well of course it can’t, and I’ve not implied otherwise.

Fine tuning problem and also presupposes molecular evolution and also infinity problem.

There is no infinite regress in what I described.

Infinity problem, entropy/thermodynamics problem

Not applicable.

I forgot.

Never mind. All will be explained in the fullness of time.

But above you said there was movement. To be in motion is to be in time, and if you have matter changing you have to also have space, because if you have matter with no space, where would you put it? And if you have matter with no time, when would you put it?

Sure, I can find no argument with any of that.

Right, and before I can get to why a personal being is required, I have to get past that mess you left yourself above lol.

With respect, there is no “mess” but only your misconception of my argument.

Although I prefer proper argument I thought it might be fun to continue, at least for a while, by dragging out the debate with this style of obtuse one or two-line responses. <cottage giggles>

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No! Contingent matter is finite.

So lets take this slow, cot....if contingent matter is finite, as you just said, that would mean all contingent matter began to exist, correct? There was a time at which no contingent matter existed, right?

So, forgive me, but this is what I said: “Nothing in the material world begins to exist: there is mutation, movement, division and expansion in form and matter, but no object or life-form is observed to come into existence from nothing”. In other words nothing seen to be created, this means the inference:

Did you, "cottage"....begin to exist? Yes or no?

“Everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence” is empirically false.

This is presupposing naturalism/materialism.

Now note, none of this is to say the material world itself didn’t begin to exist; in fact I’ve argued that it did.

So basically you are saying the material world came in to existence, but it is the result of pre-existing matter. Got it. As I said, this cannot happen without the concept of time...thus, the problem of infinity + the problem of entropy.

Entirely compatible with evolutionary theory, yes.

There is no good theory at the organic level/molecular level, cot.

Well of course it can’t, and I’ve not implied otherwise.

Sorry cot, but what the heck are you talking about? There is just no way logically possible you that you can posit any kind of material world/universe without positing time. There is no way your mind can take both time and God out the equation and still have a past-eternal chain of cause and effect relation. No way. So just what are you talking about here?

There is no infinite regress in what I described.

Yes there is, as I just described.

Not applicable.

No escape from the problems that are plaguing your position there, cot.

Although I prefer proper argument I thought it might be fun to continue, at least for a while, by dragging out the debate with this style of obtuse one or two-line responses. <cottage giggles>

Ohhh, I thought it was two boxers in the ring, and one of which is taking a beating while trying to hang on for dear life...waiting for the sound of the bell which would be music to his ears...you sure that's not what it is, cot?

 

[Willamena]

Did you, "cottage"....begin to exist? Yes or no?

Are you addressing flesh? spirit? mind? being? an avatar?

Who is "cottage"?

 

[cottage]

So lets take this slow, cot....if contingent matter is finite, as you just said, that would mean all contingent matter began to exist, correct? There was a time at which no contingent matter existed, right?

Yep, that’s what I’ve said, repeatedly.

Did you, "cottage"....begin to exist? Yes or no?

No. “Cottage” is merely an identity given to a change in matter.

This is presupposing naturalism/materialism.

Now I thought my argument had indicated that not to be the case?

So basically you are saying the material world came in to existence, but it is the result of pre-existing matter. Got it. As I said, this cannot happen without the concept of time...thus, the problem of infinity + the problem of entropy.

Nope! I am not saying matter came from matter

There is no good theory at the organic level/molecular level, cot.

As I said to you, the material world is entirely compatible with evolutionary theory.

Sorry cot, but what the heck are you talking about? There is just no way logically possible you that you can posit any kind of material world/universe without positing time. There is no way your mind can take both time and God out the equation and still have a past-eternal chain of cause and effect relation. No way. So just what are you talking about here?

Once again, I’ve not implied otherwise.

Yes there is, as I just described.

Indeed there is, but then that isn’t my argument.

No escape from the problems that are plaguing your position there, cot.

My position isn’t affected by any plague, but it seems yours might be so afflicted.

Ohhh, I thought it was two boxers in the ring, and one of which is taking a beating while trying to hang on for dear life...waiting for the sound of the bell which would be music to his ears...you sure that's not what it is, cot?

I’m quite sure. It is Yours Truly who is holding the bell and I will decide when to ring it. And I’ve made the decision that the debate will carry on in this fashion for a while longer.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are you addressing flesh? spirit? mind? being? an avatar?

Who is "cottage"?

Obviously the guy I am talking to, but actually it doesn't really matter because hey, the question applies to flesh, spirits, minds, and avatars...since those are things that can be said to "begin to exist".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yep, that’s what I’ve said, repeatedly.

Ok, good...so if there was a time at which NO MATTER existed...yet matter currently exists...what caused matter to come in to existence??? There is just no way out of this cot, but I reckon I am going to love to see you dazzle yourself out of it.

No. “Cottage” is merely an identity given to a change in matter.

So if Leonardo Da Vinci is staring at the paint that he will use to paint the Mona Lisa three days before he began the painting, the painting that he is staring at is in fact the Mona Lisa?

Now I thought my argument had indicated that not to be the case?

Ok, fine. Then my question above applies to this....if there was a point at which matter DIDN'T exist, what could have caused matter to exist...and you can't posit anything material, because that is precisely what didn't exist. I will wait.

As I said to you, the material world is entirely compatible with evolutionary theory.

Then describe how life can come from non-life, cot.

Once again, I’ve not implied otherwise.

So, time itself began to exist, right? Time is not past eternal, correct?

My position isn’t affected by any plague, but it seems yours might be so afflicted.

You think so?

I’m quite sure. It is Yours Truly who is holding the bell and I will decide when to ring it. And I’ve made the decision that the debate will carry on in this fashion for a while longer.

Prolonging your demise? Kinda like death and taxes...sooner or later, it is going to get to you