God is Imaginary
Replies
-
Nor is the bible compelling as a scientific account. Additionally, you haven't provided any references either, except the bible, which doesn't count as evidence that the bible is true.
You can make this about faith and what feels right to you, and I can't argue with that. But your beliefs don't have any scientific validity, so you shouldn't claim they do. As far as I know (from Wikipedia, I admit), there is no consensus among ancient historians about the accuracy of the new testament's story of Jesus, besides some points (he existed, he was crucified, etc.). Please provide us with the sources that convinced you.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I've provided the eyewitnesses to the resurrection and ascension.
Please do not rely on Wikipedia as any serious research.
It's not serious research, it's a starting point for understanding, and the source of the points I wanted you to refute.
What I'm asking is: why do you need scientific evidence to believe bahet's example story when you haven't provided scientific evidence of Jesus' resurrection? Eye witness testimony is not scientific evidence.
And, why does bahet need to provide a reference when he states there were eyewitnesses to the gods on olympus, when you don't have to provide any references? The bible doesn't count as proof the bible is true. You claim that the people 2,000 years ago were great story tellers and their story wouldn't have changed. Where's your reference for that?
In other words, why do you seem to hold others' beliefs to a higher standard of proof than your own?0 -
You're not understanding what I asked her. I want to know what eyewitnesses she's talking about. I've provided mine.What I'm asking is: why do you need scientific evidence to believe bahet's example story when you haven't provided scientific evidence of Jesus' resurrection? Eye witness testimony is not scientific evidence.0 -
I am not an athiest. This chart just amuses me.
0 -
Lour- I realize you are not an atheist, but this chart is used in every debate I've seen in the existence of God. I hope I've addressed each of these problems. I will be happy to go over them again.
Bahet- Still waiting for you to describe to me a perfect world. What would it be like. I'd like to know how we'd learn compassion, empathy, sympathy, generosity, etc. Or do those things not matter for human existence?0 -
QUOTE:
"In the beginning, Chaos, an amorphous, gaping void encompassing the entire universe, and surrounded by an unending stream of water ruled by the god Oceanus, was the domain of a goddess named Eurynome, which means "far-ruling" or "wide-wandering". She was the Goddess of All Things, and desired to make order out of the Chaos. By coupling with a huge and powerful snake, Ophion, or as some legends say, coupling with the North Wind, she gave birth to Eros, god of Love, also known as Protagonus, the "firstborn". Eurynome separated the sky from the sea by dancing on the waves of Oceanus. In this manner, she created great lands upon which she might wander, a veritable universe, populating it with exotic creatures such as Nymphs, Furies, and Charites as well as with countless beasts and monsters.
Also born out of Chaos were Gaia, called Earth, or Mother Earth, and Uranus, the embodiment of the Sky and the Heavens, as well as Tartarus, god of the sunless and terrible region beneath Gaia, the Earth." -- Why couldn't that be the real story of how the Earth was created?
The genre of the story you cite is mythological. I suspect there are interesting and perhaps even true insights reflected in this myth but it is certainly not compelling as a scientific account and the theology and philosophy implied in it need to be developed and discussed before I can make a judgment on its truth-value.
wineplease, please address the part in bold. It sounds like you're implying that the bible is a scientific account.0 -
wineplease, please address the part in bold. It sounds like you're implying that the bible is a scientific account.
The problem is, of course, that many Christians treat the Bible as a factual description of events written by people who saw the events themselves. However, this is not the case. If we look at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - they are all at least second or third hand accounts written long after the events (it's worth noting that the writers of all of the Gospels are anonymous). There is no evidence (outside of the Bible) that Jesus was even a real person.
With regards to the existence of God* - there is the tired old argument that "the Universe couldn't create itself, therefore the Christian God exists". The implication is that believing in a magical being is somehow more logical than believing the many theories as to the origin of the universe. If we reject all other theories and accept that a magical being did the job then I propose the Universe Creating Imp (UCI). The UCI is eternal, outside time, etc, etc. However, all it does is create Universes - each time fine tuning them in a different way. After that he just leaves them alone.
Now, if no one can disprove the existence of the UCI then it must exist.
*or G-d as some like to call him (apparently calling him G-d is OK, but calling him God is a no-no).0 -
wineplease, please address the part in bold. It sounds like you're implying that the bible is a scientific account.
The problem is, of course, that many Christians treat the Bible as a factual description of events written by people who saw the events themselves. However, this is not the case. If we look at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - they are all at least second or third hand accounts written long after the events (it's worth noting that the writers of all of the Gospels are anonymous). There is no evidence (outside of the Bible) that Jesus was even a real person.
With regards to the existence of God* - there is the tired old argument that "the Universe couldn't create itself, therefore the Christian God exists". The implication is that believing in a magical being is somehow more logical than believing the many theories as to the origin of the universe. If we reject all other theories and accept that a magical being did the job then I propose the Universe Creating Imp (UCI). The UCI is eternal, outside time, etc, etc. However, all it does is create Universes - each time fine tuning them in a different way. After that he just leaves them alone.
Now, if no one can disprove the existence of the UCI then it must exist.
*or G-d as some like to call him (apparently calling him G-d is OK, but calling him God is a no-no).
Member for 9 months and this is your first post. I approve.0 -
The problem is, of course, that many Christians treat the Bible as a factual description of events written by people who saw the events themselves. However, this is not the case. If we look at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - they are all at least second or third hand accounts written long after the events (it's worth noting that the writers of all of the Gospels are anonymous). There is no evidence (outside of the Bible) that Jesus was even a real person.
With regards to the existence of God* - there is the tired old argument that "the Universe couldn't create itself, therefore the Christian God exists". The implication is that believing in a magical being is somehow more logical than believing the many theories as to the origin of the universe. If we reject all other theories and accept that a magical being did the job then I propose the Universe Creating Imp (UCI). The UCI is eternal, outside time, etc, etc. However, all it does is create Universes - each time fine tuning them in a different way. After that he just leaves them alone. Now, if no one can disprove the existence of the UCI then it must exist.
*or G-d as some like to call him (apparently calling him G-d is OK, but calling him God is a no-no).
There are numerous factual errors in what you wrote. Among them are:
1. Matthew was an Apostle chosen by Jesus. Since ancient times, that book has never been associated with anyone except Matthew. Mark was a companion of Peter and Paul and had direct access to eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. Even the most critical of scholars place his Gospel around AD 60. Luke was a companion of Paul and had direct access to eyewitnesses (see Luke 1). Paul’s writings are written in the 40’s to early 60’s of the first century and all give witness to various aspects of the life of Jesus. Historical sources outside the New Testament mention both Jesus and the early Christians (e.g., Josephus, Pliny, Herodotus). Only the most hyper-critical and unrealistic would deny the historical existence of Jesus.
2. I don’t find the argument the existence of God follows from considering various features of the universe that reveal it is not self-explanatory to be a “tired argument.” It is old, of course. Most people intuitively see the validity of the argument when they look around at the world.
3. Is your UCI truly eternal, self-existent, uncaused, etc.? If so, it looks like you believe in God. The next conversation would center around you showing me why you think the UCI continually creates universes and why he/it leaves them alone. Although I know you are not serious, we at least have something to work with.0 -
There are numerous factual errors in what you wrote. Among them are:
1. Matthew was an Apostle chosen by Jesus. Since ancient times, that book has never been associated with anyone except Matthew. Mark was a companion of Peter and Paul and had direct access to eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. Even the most critical of scholars place his Gospel around AD 60. Luke was a companion of Paul and had direct access to eyewitnesses (see Luke 1). Paul’s writings are written in the 40’s to early 60’s of the first century and all give witness to various aspects of the life of Jesus. Historical sources outside the New Testament mention both Jesus and the early Christians (e.g., Josephus, Pliny, Herodotus). Only the most hyper-critical and unrealistic would deny the historical existence of Jesus.
2. I don’t find the argument the existence of God follows from considering various features of the universe that reveal it is not self-explanatory to be a “tired argument.” It is old, of course. Most people intuitively see the validity of the argument when they look around at the world.
3. Is your UCI truly eternal, self-existent, uncaused, etc.? If so, it looks like you believe in God. The next conversation would center around you showing me why you think the UCI continually creates universes and why he/it leaves them alone. Although I know you are not serious, we at least have something to work with.
Who are these scholars? Please provide references.0 -
Actually, it wasn't until the 2nd century CE that the gospel was attributed to Matthew1. Matthew was an Apostle chosen by Jesus. Since ancient times, that book has never been associated with anyone except Matthew.
Again, not attributed to him until the 2nd century CE. The commonly accepted date is 70CE at the earliestMark was a companion of Peter and Paul and had direct access to eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. Even the most critical of scholars place his Gospel around AD 60.
As a matter of interest - which version of Mark do you prefer the longer or the shorter version?
Luke doesn't even pretend that his account is anymore than second hand. Current accepted date is around 100CE - 70 years after the dateLuke was a companion of Paul and had direct access to eyewitnesses (see Luke 1). Paul’s writings are written in the 40’s to early 60’s of the first century and all give witness to various aspects of the life of Jesus.
Josephus wasn't even born until 37CE and Pliny 61CE, so not exactly contemporaries. There are no contemporary and Independent references to Jesus.Historical sources outside the New Testament mention both Jesus and the early Christians (e.g., Josephus, Pliny, Herodotus).
Herodotus - here I'm confused - he was born 400 years before the time of Jesus. Do you mean Tacitus? Again not born until after the event (about 56CE).
To repeat myself - there is no evidence (outside of the Bible) for the existence of Jesus.Only the most hyper-critical and unrealistic would deny the historical existence of Jesus.
No - I don't have to prove that UCI exists. You have to prove that he doesn't. If you can't then he must exist.2. I don’t find the argument the existence of God follows from considering various features of the universe that reveal it is not self-explanatory to be a “tired argument.” It is old, of course. Most people intuitively see the validity of the argument when they look around at the world.
3. Is your UCI truly eternal, self-existent, uncaused, etc.? If so, it looks like you believe in God. The next conversation would center around you showing me why you think the UCI continually creates universes and why he/it leaves them alone. Although I know you are not serious, we at least have something to work with.
With regards to why - he makes them because he likes to. Much in the same way that God creates foreskins but then tells everyone to chop them off. Go figure.0 -
The problem is, of course, that many Christians treat the Bible as a factual description of events written by people who saw the events themselves. However, this is not the case. If we look at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - they are all at least second or third hand accounts written long after the events (it's worth noting that the writers of all of the Gospels are anonymous). There is no evidence (outside of the Bible) that Jesus was even a real person.
With regards to the existence of God* - there is the tired old argument that "the Universe couldn't create itself, therefore the Christian God exists". The implication is that believing in a magical being is somehow more logical than believing the many theories as to the origin of the universe. If we reject all other theories and accept that a magical being did the job then I propose the Universe Creating Imp (UCI). The UCI is eternal, outside time, etc, etc. However, all it does is create Universes - each time fine tuning them in a different way. After that he just leaves them alone. Now, if no one can disprove the existence of the UCI then it must exist.
*or G-d as some like to call him (apparently calling him G-d is OK, but calling him God is a no-no).
There are numerous factual errors in what you wrote. Among them are:
1. Matthew was an Apostle chosen by Jesus. Since ancient times, that book has never been associated with anyone except Matthew. Mark was a companion of Peter and Paul and had direct access to eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. Even the most critical of scholars place his Gospel around AD 60. Luke was a companion of Paul and had direct access to eyewitnesses (see Luke 1). Paul’s writings are written in the 40’s to early 60’s of the first century and all give witness to various aspects of the life of Jesus. Historical sources outside the New Testament mention both Jesus and the early Christians (e.g., Josephus, Pliny, Herodotus). Only the most hyper-critical and unrealistic would deny the historical existence of Jesus.
2. I don’t find the argument the existence of God follows from considering various features of the universe that reveal it is not self-explanatory to be a “tired argument.” It is old, of course. Most people intuitively see the validity of the argument when they look around at the world.
3. Is your UCI truly eternal, self-existent, uncaused, etc.? If so, it looks like you believe in God. The next conversation would center around you showing me why you think the UCI continually creates universes and why he/it leaves them alone. Although I know you are not serious, we at least have something to work with.
The majority viewpoint of Matthew is that it was most likely not written by an eyewitness due to issues within the text. This is supported in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Most experts have it written between 70 and 100 CE.
Mark is traditionally attributed to Luke's translator but due to variances in both the theology and form it is believed to have been compiled from multiple sources. It is commonly believed to have been written after the fall of the Jerusalem in 70 CE. There are also issues with this, though, because it seems as though the author was not familiar with the geography of the region which speaks against it being an eyewitness account.
Luke was written by an associate of Paul, who was not an eye witness to Jesus and, therefore, cannot be seen as an eyewitness account. While Paul is responsible for what is seen to day as Christianity, many believe that he simply took the bal and ran with his own interpretation.
While historical texts do report that there was a cult that followed a Rabbi named Jesus and that he was killed by the Romans, none of them speak to his divinity, miracles or resurrection other than in mentioning that that is what the Christians believed.0 -
It's worth noting that even some early Christians (such as Lucian and Arius) did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. It's also worth noting that the New Testament did not exist as we know it until the 5th century CE - 400 years after the events were supposed to have happened.While historical texts due report that there was a cult that followed a Rabbi named Jesus and that he was killed by the Romans, none of them speak to his divinity, miracles or resurrection other than in mentioning that that is what the Christians believed.0 -
It's worth noting that even some early Christians (such as Lucian and Arius) did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. It's also worth noting that the New Testament did not exist as we know it until the 5th century CE - 400 years after the events were supposed to have happened.While historical texts due report that there was a cult that followed a Rabbi named Jesus and that he was killed by the Romans, none of them speak to his divinity, miracles or resurrection other than in mentioning that that is what the Christians believed.
Agreed. Also, just the fact that many gospels were omitted from the what became the New Testament brings questions about the validity of the narrative it provides due to bias.0 -
m_a_b,
Glad you have joined in the discussion! Your reply displays a fundamental ignorance of historical sources. Here are some comments:
1. There is no evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was ever attributed to anyone except Matthew. All the copies we have of the Gospel have his name attached to them. Already in the second century people refer to the Gospel as belonging to Matthew. You are referring to the second century references to him as a novelty. The second century references are proof that it was common knowledge at that time that the Gospel of Matthew belonged to him.
2. Regarding Mark, the same logic applies as #1. AD 70 is too late for his Gospel. The “shorter” version you refer to only applies to the ending of the final chapter, not the entire work. There is some ambiguity in the textual remains leading some scholars to opt for an ending at verse 8. I suspect the longer ending, if not original, was added early based on other eyewitness accounts. In any case, nothing there conflicts with what we find in the other Gospels, ones that are not disputed on that information.
3. The supposed currently accepted date for Luke is nonsense. I’m not sure what sources you are familiar with but any careful look at the data will show the dates you are using are too late. Luke does indeed insist that his account is an accurate one. Look at his prologue (Luke 1:1-4).
4. Regarding historical sources, you discount the 27 documents of the New Testament as well as the Apostolic Fathers (who knew the Apostles, etc.). My reference to Jewish (Josephus) and Roman sources (yes, I had Tacitus in mind as well as Pliny) was only to show that the existence of Jesus and the early Christians was common knowledge around the time of Jesus. Historians writing within a few decades of the death of Jesus had access to sources that we no longer possess and are writing about things that continued to have historical effects in their world.
5. I can apply your same logic to any ancient historical person and I would end up as a complete agnostic about history. What ancient person do you believe actually existed? Why? The evidence for Jesus, to any reasonable reader, is very significant and compelling. I doubt very seriously you would apply the same standards you are applying to Jesus to any other inductive study. You can’t even “prove” when and where you were born with any certainty using your logic.
6. I never argued that because you can’t prove something does exist that it does exist! That would be absurd. Of course, just because I may be unaware of the evidence for something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, either. My argument is simply this: If something exists now, something has always existed (or else something came from nothing which is nonsense). Something, then, must possess the “power of being” or self-existence. Continuing that thought, something must be eternal, self-existent, uncaused and the reason for the existence of everything else. The only question left is whether or not the world that we see is that reality. I don’t see evidence of it. To the contrary, I see a changing, dependent world (the same qualities I see in myself are also evident in the universe; I find it absurd to suggest that I have always existed and therefore, by extension, find it absurd to suggest that this universe is its own explanation). Conclusion? There must be a reality having those attributes that is not this universe.
7. Regarding circumcision, do you know anything about the significance of that? Every culture develops signs, symbols, rituals, etc., to embody its beliefs, ideals, history, etc. When you look at something like circumcision from the outside, it appears that you want to ridicule it rather than understand it. That would be like someone making fun of you for eating turkey on Thanksgiving or eating cake on birthdays. Those are meaningful to people within a culture and way of life. Circumcision was an external sign associated with the procreative powers of human nature that perpetually reminded the ancient Israelites of God’s relationship to them and their obligations to raise children and future generations that would serve God and carry out his purposes. You might think this is silly (like someone might think your way of celebrating a birthday is silly) but it has rich meaning for people who lived in that culture and served a meaningful purpose.0 -
The majority viewpoint of Matthew is that it was most likely not written by an eyewitness due to issues within the text. This is supported in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Most experts have it written between 70 and 100 CE.
Mark is traditionally attributed to Luke's translator but due to variances in both the theology and form it is believed to have been compiled from multiple sources. It is commonly believed to have been written after the fall of the Jerusalem in 70 CE. There are also issues with this, though, because it seems as though the author was not familiar with the geography of the region which speaks against it being an eyewitness account.
Luke was written by an associate of Paul, who was not an eye witness to Jesus and, therefore, cannot be seen as an eyewitness account. While Paul is responsible for what is seen to day as Christianity, many believe that he simply took the bal and ran with his own interpretation.
While historical texts do report that there was a cult that followed a Rabbi named Jesus and that he was killed by the Romans, none of them speak to his divinity, miracles or resurrection other than in mentioning that that is what the Christians believed.
If you examine the “issues” in the text you will find they are baseless. More contemporary biblical scholars have a bias towards putting documents as late as possible. For instance, in the 19th century it was common to put the Gospel of John well into the second century. When fragments of John were discovered that dated to the end of the first century or early second century, that theory was discarded. There are plenty of weighty scholars who point out the biases and flaws of the trend towards late-dating. At least one scholar, J. A. T. Robinson, dated the entire New Testament, including John’s writings, to pre-70 AD (based on the rather powerful observation that the New Testament nowhere speaks of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple as an accomplished fact. Given the significance of the temple, it is highly unlikely that would not be treated as the most catastrophic event of their time). To give a specific example of my point about dating. Luke’s writings (Luke-Acts) conclude with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (ca.60-62). The books Luke wrote nowhere mention the martyrdom of Peter and Paul (the two main characters of Acts), nor do they mention the destruction of the Temple (even though the Temple is central to the story-line of Acts). This powerful argues for the conclusion that the books of Luke are pre-70 AD (the time of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem). If you think carefully about the arguments used to push the Gospels late in the first century they quickly collapse. With respect to Matthew, it common to suggest that the contents of the book suggest a time-period when there is great friction between the Christian community and synagogues. Since the late first-century was a time of intense friction, that must be the time of writing (so it is claimed). The problem, of course, is that there was obvious serious friction between the same realities as early as shortly after the death of Jesus. Biblical scholars often build castles on clouds since they tend to ignore ancient traditions regarding these books and construct highly suspect theoretical historical scenarios in which to re-date things. There are many New Testament scholars who show the flaws of this reasoning (consider D. A. Carson, Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright).
The comments on Mark are simply false. Luke’s translator? Who is that? Where is that connection made? The ancient sources (Papias, etc.) link Mark with Peter. I think you are gathering sources that you really don’t understand. The same may be said of what you write about Luke. Luke, as a contemporary and companion of Paul had access to all the Apostles and other eyewitnesses (which he claims). How can you possibly treat his account as unimportant to the issue of the historical Jesus? Would anyone really discard the testimony of someone who directly interviewed eyewitnesses to any significant event? This is pure bias and fundamentally illogical, not to mention unfair to the sources.
Your last paragraph is false since it discards and treats as irrelevant the texts of the New Testament which are “historical” by every standard one would want to satisfy for an ancient historical record. What historical source do you accept from the ancient world that is better than what we have for Jesus?0 -
Regarding circumcision, do you know anything about the significance of that? Every culture develops signs, symbols, rituals, etc., to embody its beliefs, ideals, history, etc. When you look at something like circumcision from the outside, it appears that you want to ridicule it rather than understand it. That would be like someone making fun of you for eating turkey on Thanksgiving or eating cake on birthdays. Those are meaningful to people within a culture and way of life. Circumcision was an external sign associated with the procreative powers of human nature that perpetually reminded the ancient Israelites of God’s relationship to them and their obligations to raise children and future generations that would serve God and carry out his purposes. You might think this is silly (like someone might think your way of celebrating a birthday is silly) but it has rich meaning for people who lived in that culture and served a meaningful purpose.
But circumcision is in the old testament as a command from god to Abraham. Is this something that's not supposed to be taken literally? It was not a command from god and they developed it on their own as a symbol?
Genesis 17:10-14
10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.0 -
The majority viewpoint of Matthew is that it was most likely not written by an eyewitness due to issues within the text. This is supported in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Most experts have it written between 70 and 100 CE.
Mark is traditionally attributed to Luke's translator but due to variances in both the theology and form it is believed to have been compiled from multiple sources. It is commonly believed to have been written after the fall of the Jerusalem in 70 CE. There are also issues with this, though, because it seems as though the author was not familiar with the geography of the region which speaks against it being an eyewitness account.
Luke was written by an associate of Paul, who was not an eye witness to Jesus and, therefore, cannot be seen as an eyewitness account. While Paul is responsible for what is seen to day as Christianity, many believe that he simply took the bal and ran with his own interpretation.
While historical texts do report that there was a cult that followed a Rabbi named Jesus and that he was killed by the Romans, none of them speak to his divinity, miracles or resurrection other than in mentioning that that is what the Christians believed.
If you examine the “issues” in the text you will find they are baseless. More contemporary biblical scholars have a bias towards putting documents as late as possible. For instance, in the 19th century it was common to put the Gospel of John well into the second century. When fragments of John were discovered that dated to the end of the first century or early second century, that theory was discarded. There are plenty of weighty scholars who point out the biases and flaws of the trend towards late-dating. At least one scholar, J. A. T. Robinson, dated the entire New Testament, including John’s writings, to pre-70 AD (based on the rather powerful observation that the New Testament nowhere speaks of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple as an accomplished fact. Given the significance of the temple, it is highly unlikely that would not be treated as the most catastrophic event of their time). To give a specific example of my point about dating. Luke’s writings (Luke-Acts) conclude with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (ca.60-62). The books Luke wrote nowhere mention the martyrdom of Peter and Paul (the two main characters of Acts), nor do they mention the destruction of the Temple (even though the Temple is central to the story-line of Acts). This powerful argues for the conclusion that the books of Luke are pre-70 AD (the time of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem). If you think carefully about the arguments used to push the Gospels late in the first century they quickly collapse. With respect to Matthew, it common to suggest that the contents of the book suggest a time-period when there is great friction between the Christian community and synagogues. Since the late first-century was a time of intense friction, that must be the time of writing (so it is claimed). The problem, of course, is that there was obvious serious friction between the same realities as early as shortly after the death of Jesus. Biblical scholars often build castles on clouds since they tend to ignore ancient traditions regarding these books and construct highly suspect theoretical historical scenarios in which to re-date things. There are many New Testament scholars who show the flaws of this reasoning (consider D. A. Carson, Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright).
The comments on Mark are simply false. Luke’s translator? Who is that? Where is that connection made? The ancient sources (Papias, etc.) link Mark with Peter. I think you are gathering sources that you really don’t understand. The same may be said of what you write about Luke. Luke, as a contemporary and companion of Paul had access to all the Apostles and other eyewitnesses (which he claims). How can you possibly treat his account as unimportant to the issue of the historical Jesus? Would anyone really discard the testimony of someone who directly interviewed eyewitnesses to any significant event? This is pure bias and fundamentally illogical, not to mention unfair to the sources.
Your last paragraph is false since it discards and treats as irrelevant the texts of the New Testament which are “historical” by every standard one would want to satisfy for an ancient historical record. What historical source do you accept from the ancient world that is better than what we have for Jesus?
The claim about Mark come from Eusebius who says that Paul brought him on as a companion and interpreter on the way to Rome. He wrote down all of Paul's sermons and wrote the Gospel at that time before he left to found the Church in Alexandria.
My last paragraph is not false since you are unable to use a text to prove that it is accurate. There are no other historical texts that attest to Jesus supernatural acts or origins so I would naturally be unable to independently verify the validity of the Biblical text.0 -
Please provide references to credible eyewitnesses of the descent of the Greek gods.There were eyewitnesses to the Greek Gods coming down and to Cyclops and Medusa too. Are they fact now? Greek Mythology is nothing more than religion that no one believes anymore.
I’ve already explained that God did not come from nothing. God is eternal and self-existent. Since God had no beginning, there is no issue of “coming from nothing.” The universe, on the other hand, prompts the question, “What is its cause?” That is because it exhibits the characteristics of change, expansion, entropy, temporality, etc. The features of the universe present the question, “What is its cause?” If you understand what we mean by “God” no such question arises.Your "something created the universe" argument is also flawed. If something cannot come from nothing then where did God come from? If He has always existed then why can't the universe have always existed? Those aren't evidence of God. Those are nothing more than your beliefs.
The genre of the story you cite is mythological. I suspect there are interesting and perhaps even true insights reflected in this myth but it is certainly not compelling as a scientific account and the theology and philosophy implied in it need to be developed and discussed before I can make a judgment on its truth-value."In the beginning, Chaos, an amorphous, gaping void encompassing the entire universe, and surrounded by an unending stream of water ruled by the god Oceanus, was the domain of a goddess named Eurynome, which means "far-ruling" or "wide-wandering". She was the Goddess of All Things, and desired to make order out of the Chaos. By coupling with a huge and powerful snake, Ophion, or as some legends say, coupling with the North Wind, she gave birth to Eros, god of Love, also known as Protagonus, the "firstborn". Eurynome separated the sky from the sea by dancing on the waves of Oceanus. In this manner, she created great lands upon which she might wander, a veritable universe, populating it with exotic creatures such as Nymphs, Furies, and Charites as well as with countless beasts and monsters.
Also born out of Chaos were Gaia, called Earth, or Mother Earth, and Uranus, the embodiment of the Sky and the Heavens, as well as Tartarus, god of the sunless and terrible region beneath Gaia, the Earth." -- Why couldn't that be the real story of how the Earth was created?
Your Bible is as much mythology to many as stories of Zeus are to you. If I quote from The Odyssey or Socrates you'll brush it off. But your quotes from the Bible are no different at all.
God is eternal and self existent ONLY because that's what you believe. No proof at all. Just opinion.0 -
Bahet- Still waiting for you to describe to me a perfect world. What would it be like. I'd like to know how we'd learn compassion, empathy, sympathy, generosity, etc. Or do those things not matter for human existence?
Third request.0 -
Nor is the bible compelling as a scientific account. Additionally, you haven't provided any references either, except the bible, which doesn't count as evidence that the bible is true.
You can make this about faith and what feels right to you, and I can't argue with that. But your beliefs don't have any scientific validity, so you shouldn't claim they do. As far as I know (from Wikipedia, I admit), there is no consensus among ancient historians about the accuracy of the new testament's story of Jesus, besides some points (he existed, he was crucified, etc.). Please provide us with the sources that convinced you.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I've provided the eyewitnesses to the resurrection and ascension.
Please do not rely on Wikipedia as any serious research.
No you haven't. You've provided stories of eyewitnesses from the Bible to prove that stories in the Bible are true. It doesn't work that way. If someone doesn't believe the Bible is true then why would a story from the Bible prove your point. That's like saying you don't believe in Greek Mythology so I can provide a quote from The Odyssey about eyewitnesses who saw Medusa. Does that prove my point? Of course not! It's just another story.0 -
Bahet- Still waiting for you to describe to me a perfect world. What would it be like. I'd like to know how we'd learn compassion, empathy, sympathy, generosity, etc. Or do those things not matter for human existence?
Third request.
We had those things before the Israelites slaughtered their way through the mideast.0 -
Lour- I realize you are not an atheist, but this chart is used in every debate I've seen in the existence of God. I hope I've addressed each of these problems. I will be happy to go over them again.
Bahet- Still waiting for you to describe to me a perfect world. What would it be like. I'd like to know how we'd learn compassion, empathy, sympathy, generosity, etc. Or do those things not matter for human existence?
A perfect world would be one with no pain and suffering. No one would need compassion because there would be no need for it. To pull from your Bible a perfect world would be what God would have made for everyone if Eve hadn't taken a bite of an apple and caused God to throw the biggest temper tantrum ever and punished her, him, and everyone and every living thing for all eternity.0 -
Bahet- Still waiting for you to describe to me a perfect world. What would it be like. I'd like to know how we'd learn compassion, empathy, sympathy, generosity, etc. Or do those things not matter for human existence?
Third request.
Wow, pissy much? I responded to one post from a previous page and you start sounding off about how many times you've asked a question? (That I answered as I got to it BTW.) How many times have you been asked to provide proof without giving your opinion or quoting the Bible? (Hint: It's a helluva lot more than 3 times.) Still waiting though.0 -
A perfect world would be one with no pain and suffering. No one would need compassion because there would be no need for it. To pull from your Bible a perfect world would be what God would have made for everyone if Eve hadn't taken a bite of an apple and caused God to throw the biggest temper tantrum ever and punished her, him, and everyone and every living thing for all eternity.
But, let's take it further. Would we need to have jobs, or would everything be free? Certainly many people believe having to work for a living isn't a perfect world. Would we need to raise children, or would they be born perfect and know what to do? Would we need to attend school? Or would we be perfectly educated without it? Surely some people find the need for education a "suffering". What if everyone has their own view of what pain and suffering is? Then what?0 -
Wow, pissy much? I responded to one post from a previous page and you start sounding off about how many times you've asked a question? (That I answered as I got to it BTW.) How many times have you been asked to provide proof without giving your opinion or quoting the Bible? (Hint: It's a helluva lot more than 3 times.) Still waiting though.
You don't consider eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus as proof. I bet if God showed up in your living room, you'd still offer some other explanation. You willfully choose to reject God. I get that. I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I have offered quite a bit on the subject supporting the existence of God.0 -
Wow, pissy much? I responded to one post from a previous page and you start sounding off about how many times you've asked a question? (That I answered as I got to it BTW.) How many times have you been asked to provide proof without giving your opinion or quoting the Bible? (Hint: It's a helluva lot more than 3 times.) Still waiting though.
You don't consider eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus as proof. I bet if God showed up in your living room, you'd still offer some other explanation. You willfully choose to reject God. I get that. I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I have offered quite a bit on the subject supporting the existence of God.
But nothing independent. You cannot use the bible to defend the validity of the bible. Especially since the bible had been edited and certain gospels omitted and purged while others pushed to the forefront. It is obviously a biased text that has no independent verifying source.0 -
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I've provided the eyewitnesses to the resurrection and ascension.No you haven't. You've provided stories of eyewitnesses from the Bible to prove that stories in the Bible are true. It doesn't work that way. If someone doesn't believe the Bible is true then why would a story from the Bible prove your point. That's like saying you don't believe in Greek Mythology so I can provide a quote from The Odyssey about eyewitnesses who saw Medusa. Does that prove my point? Of course not! It's just another story.
Right, I provided the names of the eyewitnesses. I can't provide the actual people because they are dead. That is why we rely on historical data.
Prove to me that Confucius existed. I'm going to choose not to believe in any history book, though.0 -
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I've provided the eyewitnesses to the resurrection and ascension.No you haven't. You've provided stories of eyewitnesses from the Bible to prove that stories in the Bible are true. It doesn't work that way. If someone doesn't believe the Bible is true then why would a story from the Bible prove your point. That's like saying you don't believe in Greek Mythology so I can provide a quote from The Odyssey about eyewitnesses who saw Medusa. Does that prove my point? Of course not! It's just another story.
Right, I provided the names of the eyewitnesses. I can't provide the actual people because they are dead. That is why we rely on historical data.
Prove to me that Confucius existed. I'm going to choose not to believe in any history book, though.
There is your problem. The Bible is a religious text, not a history book.0 -
There is your problem. The Bible is a religious text, not a history book.
I'm using that as an example, doorki, and you know it. If someone "doesn't believe in" the bible, then nothing I can offer as proof from the bible is going to be proof for them. Just as if I reject another kind of historical text, nothing you show me in there will convince me either.0 -
There is your problem. The Bible is a religious text, not a history book.
I'm using that as an example, doorki, and you know it. If someone "doesn't believe in" the bible, then nothing I can offer as proof from the bible is going to be proof for them. Just as if I reject another kind of historical text, nothing you show me in there will convince me either.
The bible is not a historical text. It is a religious text and needs to be treated as such.0
