This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Agree. I think Paddington does see these stories as evidence, but for the most part this thread (and its predecessors) lacks a lot of attempts to prove God’s existence to non-believers. But I think some posters think the point of most posts is to provide proofs, when maybe that’s not what’s happening.
Imagine being on a street corner where there is a guy muttering somewhat shocking things to you while you wait to cross. You probably wouldn't try to vet everything he said and instead respond with, "That's cool...Have a great day." There should probably be more of that in this thread.
The problem with your analogy is that on the street corner I’m just trying to get to where I’m going. Here in the forum we’re here to engage with others and discussed topics.
You can always pick and choose who to engage with.
Sure. But as that is the literal purpose of this place the likelihood of engagement is orders of magnitude higher than with the random on the street corner. Especially if it’s a topic you clicked on to read and engage with.
Of course you can ask for links about whether the authors were eyewitnesses.
And that's the earliest. Eyewitness accounts published 100+ years after his death
Methuselah lived to be 969, so there's that.
Nearly 1/6 the age of the earth. Impressive
It’s the earliest of the four Gospels, but not the earliest NT writing.
I get it you're all in on church tradition. In this case the authorship of the various books of the bible. That your second paragraph is all the evidence you need, and everything else is just piling it on.
But Paul is not an eyewitness to Jesus' life and with a few exceptions is uninterested in his letters about it.
I think most of this could be cleared up in no time, especially in relationship to eternity if your brother would just pop in with an "Ask Me Anything" thread and cut this "only God knows" nonsense out.
The Gospels, Acts, and Revelation were not written in real time, but pretty much everything else was. Paul's letters, whether actually written by Paul or not are all addressing real time issues in various churches. Sometimes we can make pretty good guesses about those issues, and sometimes it's just a guess but they are all writing about contemporary issues. But none of these are narrating much of Jesus' life and times so maybe this is irrelevant. Most are examples of pseudonymity, but that is a different point.
I don't follow Church tradition. I am Sola Scriptura, but it does hold weight as to why certain books were accepted verses rejected. They are very good and logical reasons why I do believe we have the very real word of God. I believe that Mid Acts Dispensationalism is the correct interpretation of the Bible. That's the one that actually makes sense and it is the most Literal way to interpret Scripture. I was reading a book about the 70 Non Canonical books of the Bible and this very Liberal narrator actually admitted that the ancients took the Bible.very literally. I believe that is the way it was meant to be taken unless it specifies otherwise.
Page 1 - plants, animals and then man
This is clearly a convincing argument for some, not so much for others. I think from a "know your audience" perspective that this thread has many more "not so much" posters than "convincing" posters. So not really a good argument here. I also think most, even Christians that otherwise believe this could rather easily and convincingly explain all this evidence away if they had to without much of a stretch or even knowledge of the bible, even if those explanations were all wrong.
. I already accept that Jesus is the path for me to best understand God in my part of the world. So, I'm trying to understand who he was and what he taught. This stuff offers little in that regard. Even if I accept that Jesus fits the mold of these prophesies, I only really learn peripheral stuff.Contra Celsus by Origen "as an adequate rebuttal to all criticisms the church would ever face" addresses this directly in the late second, early third century. As do others. Yes, the uneducated masses took it literally and thankfully it offered them a little something. And that continued right up until the masses were educated. At which point in the 18 century the modern literalist movement emerged. A movement which asserts things that the earlier masses would never even have considered because they would never been in a position to ask such questions. So, I think this "ancients took scripture literally" is one of those assertions that is factually true, but somewhat misleading.
He would but unfortunately he was abducted by aliens.
Seems like it's easier to argue God doesn't want us to know him given the methods he's chosen.
When you play hard to get some want you more, some move on.
So, I need to find a copy, and re-read "Chariots of the Gods?"
By a country mile
Only one is meant to be chronological and the other is more of a detailed picture of it. There's absolutely no contradiction. Jesus teachings are in the four gospels as you know. However, the rest of the New Testament is also written by Jesus. Yes it is written through His followers but the message was given to them by Jesus.Page 1 - plants, animals and then man
Page 2 - man, plants and then animals
Is there a common theme or two, certainly. But the different perspectives of the differing authors contradict each other within two pages. Except, I assume you'll assert that Genesis has only one author. While, I say this is only a contradiction if you think the authors are telling you what literally happened. And when you tell me page 1 is about days 1 through 6 and page 2 is only about day 6, you're not really being literal in the interpretation. Maybe you would be correct, but that is based on tradition and not just what is in the text.
This is clearly a convincing argument for some, not so much for others. I think from a "know your audience" perspective that this thread has many more "not so much" posters than "convincing" posters. So not really a good argument here. I also think most, even Christians that otherwise believe this could rather easily and convincingly explain all this evidence away if they had to without much of a stretch or even knowledge of the bible, even if those explanations were all wrong.
But more importantly, this is "evidence" that is not even relevant for me. I'm not looking for signs that "prove" who Jesus is. Fulfilling prophecy, miracles past and present, etc.
Contra Celsus by Origen "as an adequate rebuttal to all criticisms the church would ever face" addresses this directly in the late second, early third century. As do others. Yes, the uneducated masses took it literally and thankfully it offered them a little something. And that continued right up until the masses were educated. At which point in the 18 century the modern literalist movement emerged. A movement which asserts things that the earlier masses would never even have considered because they would never been in a position to ask such questions. So, I think this "ancients took scripture literally" is one of those assertions that is factually true, but somewhat misleading.
And am I really supposed to be impressed by what those that weren't afforded an opportunity to develop whatever intelligence they had understood?
This post is exactly why so many are hostile when they see yet another thread from you. I'm not one of those people. But this post gets to the heart of pretty much every criticism. And to be blunt the word that I would use to best characterize the above would be greatly frowned upon. So, I looked it up and it has 126 synonyms which would either be also frowned upon or too obscure to matter. So, let me try "to be excellent" and still communicate the point that your post to me is arrogant, demeaning, condescending but most of all
.. Am I alone?Or more commonly interpreted "All the rest is commentary". Jesus says the same thing with the greatest commandment (there is just one), various parables but especially the Good Samaritan and the Goats and the Sheep. Paul says the same in the undisputed letters Galatian 5:14 and Romans 13:10. And James 2:8. For this I have no doubts. But what about Jesus? If you believe that Jesus wasn't just a confused, hapless guy that was executed as a troublemaker but someone that went to the cross to save humanity from sin** then isn't Jesus an ultimate example of such love. Is this what Les Feldick taught? If not, I'll arrogantly and condescendingly and probably demeaning state he didn't have a clue. Am I alone?
, but ultimately, I think the kind way of putting it was that it was counterproductive. It didn't bring me closer to you but shoved me away. I recoiled. Which I think I said earlier is the common thread of all of these threads. Am I alone?
Of course not which is why I keep suggesting we stop making the conversation about him. He's trying to change our thinking and we keep trying to change his. It's not happening. Let's move on.
Hey, that sounds familiar
.
Genesis 1 is thought to be written by "P" which is during that exile period. Genesis 2 is thought to be written much (400or so years) earlier, by "J". So "yes" and "no". JEDP
No, you're not. I think the way I've tried to look at this (and really what has become my approach to all threads over the years) is to ask myself if I think I can have a productive conversation with a particular poster. I really don't want that to be about me saying there's something wrong with the other poster, rather that there's something about me and the other poster together that just doesn't work for conversation. With Paddington, I've tried several times to engage but it doesn't really lead to anything so I choose to not engage. I feel bad because I think it would be good for him to feel welcome, but I also just think his goal is to say what he wants to say and that's that. As best I can tell, his goal is to preach and not to have conversation. So, I'm fine with letting him preach and not engaging.
I also, maybe insanely believe that he is being honest when he says he wants to be part of a discussion and I want so very much give the benefit of doubt. My reply was and is in that spirit. I hope that it is read that way by others. I don't think I am going to change anyone or win anything except maybe change me by participating. And I guess if that happens, I just lied, as I would count that as a win.
"I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated people who do not take the Bible literally or even seriously. Despite that, atheists are the most learned and educated Bible (or theology) students. I have now located the reason why you struggle believing in fictional nonsense. It is because you do take the Bible literally. If you studied under an objective historian who considers comparative religion and basic scientific principles the fact that the Bible is not the actual word of an omniscient deity will make sense to you for the first time."Page 1 - plants, animals and then man
Page 2 - man, plants and then animals
Is there a common theme or two, certainly. But the different perspectives of the differing authors contradict each other within two pages. Except, I assume you'll assert that Genesis has only one author. While, I say this is only a contradiction if you think the authors are telling you what literally happened. And when you tell me page 1 is about days 1 through 6 and page 2 is only about day 6, you're not really being literal in the interpretation. Maybe you would be correct, but that is based on tradition and not just what is in the text.
This is clearly a convincing argument for some, not so much for others. I think from a "know your audience" perspective that this thread has many more "not so much" posters than "convincing" posters. So not really a good argument here. I also think most, even Christians that otherwise believe this could rather easily and convincingly explain all this evidence away if they had to without much of a stretch or even knowledge of the bible, even if those explanations were all wrong.
But more importantly, this is "evidence" that is not even relevant for me. I'm not looking for signs that "prove" who Jesus is. Fulfilling prophecy, miracles past and present, etc.
Contra Celsus by Origen "as an adequate rebuttal to all criticisms the church would ever face" addresses this directly in the late second, early third century. As do others. Yes, the uneducated masses took it literally and thankfully it offered them a little something. And that continued right up until the masses were educated. At which point in the 18 century the modern literalist movement emerged. A movement which asserts things that the earlier masses would never even have considered because they would never been in a position to ask such questions. So, I think this "ancients took scripture literally" is one of those assertions that is factually true, but somewhat misleading.
And am I really supposed to be impressed by what those that weren't afforded an opportunity to develop whatever intelligence they had understood?
I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated believers who do take the Bible literally. Dispensationalists are the most literal and educated Bible students. I have now located the reason why you struggle. It is because you do not take the Bible literally. If you study under a good mid-acts dispensational teacher the Bible will make sense to you for the first time.
For the record, as a rebuttal to "it is precisely the educated believers who do take the Bible literally", here are the statistics.
One of the primary factors that drove me to atheism was that I studied Old Testament theology with the priest who literally translated the Old Testament for the St. John's Bible. This is amongst the numerous other hours I spent in private school on the major world religion and into the apologetics.
What do you think it means for the new covenant to replace the old? What does that look like in practice/application?
Starting with the relevant (to my answer) part of Jeremiah and ignoring that Jeremiah is very narrow in focus on who these contracts are with and whole lot of other stuff.
Thanks. This is something I've been learning more about recently. Mostly through the work of Jason Staples and his book Paul and the Resurrection of Israel. It's been a fascinating read so far. He has a ton of interviews out there on the topic if you're interested. I think you might be forced to not "ignore that Israel part" if you listen to his argument. I think that part always confused me, but he's helping me better understand that.
But I'm going to argue that the entirety of the Torah, the law is summed up by "Love Thy Neighbor". Paul said it. Hillel said. The author of James sort of says it. I believe that Jesus says it.
My first thought when I read this passage was that it's missing, "unless they don't accept my son as gift at which point I'll remember for all eternity".
There is a fascinating passage in the Gospel of Philip
The first section is a fascinating take on the fall of man. I guess an apologetic explanation from those times being worked into the larger gnostic writings. Fascinating, but I'm not likely to find reason for posting that other than to keep the rest of the passage in context. I'm going to take a shot at filling in the missing pieces here and requote it as-
While I probably won't advocate for much more of this writing (though it has been a while since I read the whole thing), I think I accept this as gospel truth! And extend it to include "men defining the God in their own image".
That would certainly explain a lot of what we see rather than it being the other way around.
As an agnostic I also find atheism as fascinating as belief in an intelligent creator. Both are absolute and without much wiggle room, there's definitely a god vs there's definitely not a god. I tried to read most of the posts in the thread, but i may have missed if this question was answered, but if you don't mind expanding, why atheism vs agnosticism?
Eh, I know there's a distinction, but to me it's a distinction without a difference. I obviously cannot say there is no God beyond all doubt. But I am firmly convinced there is no God based on reasons I've intended to explain in a longer post.
Most atheists don’t claim to know there “definitely is no god.” We simply don’t believe that one exists. Atheism and agnosticism describe two different things: atheism/theism refers to belief, while agnosticism/gnosticism refers to knowledge.
