Ask God for Me

[Oncedeceived]

It is not good evidence to say that because someone cannot give evidence against a claim is evidence for the claim. So not knowing what the originals said is somehow evidence toward faith?

Do you understand what faith is? When there is no evidence for or against a claim one must look to all the other support to make a determination on what you believe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What did Irenaeus write about it?

Irenaeus wrote, “Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: ‘The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord; make the paths straight before our God.’ Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord, Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make straight paths before our God.’”
The Text of the Gospels: Mark 1:2 (Part 3) - Irenaeus and Tatian

I have read arguments on both sides but the real answer seems to be I don't know who wrote it and when.

The material is presented as Mark, so a Mark wrote it (there were many who were called Mark that followed Christ) and we know there is a quote in 180 that pre-dates the later copies that haven't got the longer version.

I think I have but I will go back and look.

Ok.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does he describe supernatural events? Also, some of his writings can be verified by other means as well. The difference is that the gospels describe extraordinary events that require better evidence than mundane historical events.

Why? Throughout history there were unknowns for which were called supernatural. Lightening at one time was thought to be supernatural. So supernatural doesn't have the necessity of exceedingly more evidence than anything else in history. There is supportive evidence in other sources than the Bible about events that happened at Christ's death. There were hundreds of people that witnessed Christ after His death. Christianity grew enormously almost immediately and what that means to me is that people knew it was the truth. People will die for something they believe to be true but will not die for a lie.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What would you consider as evidence?

I don't know. Doesn't matter. But, does your omniscient god know?

Heal an amputee in front of me. Let's try that.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Do you understand what faith is? When there is no evidence for or against a claim one must look to all the other support to make a determination on what you believe.

Why? I don't know is the honest answer. I don't know leads to more investigation. If you just decide to believe something then your investigation ends and you can believe false things.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Irenaeus wrote, “Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: ‘The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord; make the paths straight before our God.’ Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord, Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make straight paths before our God.’”
The Text of the Gospels: Mark 1:2 (Part 3) - Irenaeus and Tatian

How is this a reference to Mark 16:9-20?

The material is presented as Mark, so a Mark wrote it (there were many who were called Mark that followed Christ) and we know there is a quote in 180 that pre-dates the later copies that haven't got the longer version.

What is the quote in 180?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why? Throughout history there were unknowns for which were called supernatural. Lightening at one time was thought to be supernatural. So supernatural doesn't have the necessity of exceedingly more evidence than anything else in history. There is supportive evidence in other sources than the Bible about events that happened at Christ's death. There were hundreds of people that witnessed Christ after His death. Christianity grew enormously almost immediately and what that means to me is that people knew it was the truth.

And the only way we know any of this is through the gospels. Who wre the 500 people and where are their testimonies? Also Tinker Grey has a good comment:

I would further argue that since I have no evidence of the supernatural, that testimonies of the supernatural are automatically suspect. That is to say, first show me the supernatural and then we can discuss whether some particular supernatural event occurred. If there is no such thing as the supernatural, then it doesn't matter how reliable some text is; the supernatural claims are false.

People will die for something they believe to be true but will not die for a lie.

Yes, they will die for something they believe to be true, that does not mean that what they believe is true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why? I don't know is the honest answer. I don't know leads to more investigation. If you just decide to believe something then your investigation ends and you can believe false things.

.... ever hear of the term "provisional truth," Clizby?

Yes, they will die for something they believe to be true, that does not mean that what they believe is true.

Christians during the 1st century through the 3rd centuries met occasions where they were provided an ultimatum: deny your Christ, or die!

Now, do you honestly think that each and every .... single .... Christian in those centuries was just a gullible, naive sap who believed anything and would die for anything? I don't. And neither should you!

In fact, if you need some more to think about on this, maybe see the following thread from about 4 years ago from here on this same forum (Apologetics). It might give you more to think about in this area, and maybe especially see the post (below) that I made. And maybe see some of the things in that same thread that were said by some of my fellow Christians as well:

A straight answer about Paul please

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

.... ever hear of the term "provisional truth," Clizby?

That does not sound like truth at all. Why is I don't know a bad answer?

Christians during the 1st century through the 3rd centuries met occasions where they were provided an ultimatum: deny your Christ, or die!

Now, do you honestly think that each and every .... single .... Christian in those centuries was just a gullible, naive sap who believed anything and would die for anything? I don't. And neither should you!

I never said any of this or called anyone a naive sap. If they believe denying Christ will send them to hell and that if they are killed they will go to heaven then yes it is reasonable that they picked death. But that does not give evidence to the truth of their belief only evidence in their belief that it is true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That does not sound like truth at all. Why is I don't know a bad answer?

Because you can have provisional truth and still know something about some phenomena X without knowing the whole of it: and your belief in phenomena X could very well be true, but what you know OF IT is provisional and subject to additional insights.

You don't always wait until you THINK you have ALL the details about some phenomena X in the world before you believe it. If we did, science, as well as historical thought, could never get off of the ground.

I never said any of this or called anyone a naive sap. If they believe denying Christ will send them to hell and that if they are killed they will go to heaven then yes it is reasonable that they picked death. But that does not give evidence to the truth of their belief only evidence in their belief that it is true.

Wrong. What this means is that YOU DON'T KNOW if each Christian in the past who died for their faith, particularly those in the first few centuries A.D., had 'enough' evidence or not. So, you need to be open to the realistic possibility that a number of Christians who died didn't have to die, but they chose to be martyrs anyway because they had the understanding they had.

Some Christians who died during those first few centuries likely carried a naive level of belief; other Christians who died along with them could have been quite savvy in having a substantial praxis of inquiry by which they made informed decisions. So, how does this play into your understanding now? It means that you can't say for sure whether they had 'enough' data by which to form valid beliefs or not, so you'd be wise (like a historian) to keep the possibility open.

And my might also take a look at the link I added in an edit to my previous post above. It might provide a little additional education in this area for you. Unless, of course, you're not interested in having further education about it ...............................................

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why? I don't know is the honest answer. I don't know leads to more investigation. If you just decide to believe something then your investigation ends and you can believe false things.

That is ridiculous. How is just as important to investigation as I don't know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How is this a reference to Mark 16:9-20?

What is the quote in 180?

Sorry.

Irenaeus makes a direct reference to it to the ending of Mark, and this reference is to the long ending. He quotes the Scripture (Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God, KJV) and places the words at the end of Mark’s Gospel. This can be found in Against Heresies, with an estimated date range of AD 175-185.
Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths: Irenaeus and Mark 16

 

[Oncedeceived]

And the only way we know any of this is through the gospels. Who wre the 500 people and where are their testimonies? Also Tinker Grey has a good comment:

Their testimony is becoming Christians and most likely dying for it.

Yes, they will die for something they believe to be true, that does not mean that what they believe is true.

You miss the point, people would have known if it were true or not. They would not die for something they knew for certain was not true.

 

[Kylie]

I don't know. Doesn't matter. But, does your omniscient god know?

Heal an amputee in front of me. Let's try that.

Yeah, that would get me to sit up and take notice.

 

[miknik5]

It's not my place to make that sort of judgment, and therefore I don't. I think what's telling is what you believe now about your own experience as a Christian. And now, today, you don't believe God spoke to you, and you don't believe that the Spirit led you, and you don't believe that God convicted you of sin. That's what matters.

I don't need to, nor am I interested in doing that. It would be enough for me that you acknowledged that God exists. Acknowledging that God exists is the first step, then we can get into specifics about God.

I think it's more likely that God exists because the alternative is that some person who hardly knew me randomly decided to give me $2,037. Except that isn't even accurate because they did it because they believed it was the Holy Spirit prompting them. So when I look at the situation as it occurred:

1. My wife and I had needs that equaled $2,037.
2. We didn't share the need with anyone.
3. A person in our community, who we weren't close with was spending time in prayer.
4. As a result of the time they spent in prayer, they believed that God wanted them to give us exactly $2,037.
5. They obeyed and did what they were prompted to do even though they didn't know us well and didn't know our need.

So when I look at what happened, I think the more realistic explanation is that God was involved in the situation. Sure, some person that we didn't know well could have wrongly believed that God was telling them to give us exactly what we needed, but I think that is harder to believe than God being involved.

But of course, as an atheist, you aren't capable of accepting it as a work of God because it would result in a complete paradigm shift of the foundation of your entire worldview.

I think "another supernatural" explanation would also mean that there is something beyond the natural, which I didn't think was an acceptable answer for an atheist. But sure, it's altogether possible that my body had some natural, internal healing ability turn on that is currently unknown to the human race and for some unknown, completely natural reason, my body was able to heal 6 fractured bones. Sure, that's possible. Anything's possible, right?

I've never had a Muslim tell me that Allah healed them after they prayed to him. Have you?

Allah is just the Arabic word for God, so I suppose it wouldn't be altogether unfathomable that God might heal a Muslim after they prayed. Granted, I would think that God would have done that in the hope that the Muslim would eventually learn the Truth about Christ. But who am I to say that God can't heal a Muslim?

A beautiful testimony to GOD...
Thank you for sharing it....

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That is ridiculous. How is just as important to investigation as I don't know.

What are you asking?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Sorry.

Irenaeus makes a direct reference to it to the ending of Mark, and this reference is to the long ending. He quotes the Scripture (Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God, KJV) and places the words at the end of Mark’s Gospel. This can be found in Against Heresies, with an estimated date range of AD 175-185.
Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths: Irenaeus and Mark 16

This is interesting. I did not know of this reference. If Mark was written prior to 70 then there is about 100 years or so between the original and this reference to be added. The earliest book of Mark we have in full form is around 350 and does not contain this ending. If you think it was original then why was it omitted?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What are you asking?

Its a statement.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Their testimony is becoming Christians and most likely dying for it.

So there is not any eyewitness testimony available.

You miss the point, people would have known if it were true or not. They would not die for something they knew for certain was not true.

How would they know if it was true? How do you know they knew it was true?

 

[miknik5]

So there is not any eyewitness testimony available.

How would they know if it was true? How do you know they knew it was true?

There is actually. Maybe a brother or sister can remind me of the historical writings of one outside of the disciples regarding the resurrection of CHRIST? I can´t remember if it was Justinius?

And WE know it is true, because the same outpouring which happened upon the disciples yesterday, continues to happen up to this very present day...

And will continue until all has been accomplished.