Riddle me this

NeverL0ved · Nov 13, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
You said...

Consistent doctrine amongst all believer's should be evident if they all share one unified spirit, don't you think?

I said... "No - it is an interactive relationship with the Spirit of Truth via imperfect individuals, but core beliefs are agreed on.

Added to this the 'Father of Lies' wants to get his oar in and twist truth if he can - Temptation of Jesus is a case in point.

No real believer argues against Jesus being risen in the flesh. Read the Gospels and make your choice... True or not?

There was a typo... Is that clearer?

Absolutely 100%

NeverL0ved · Nov 13, 2019

com7fy8 said:
I do understand that the one Holy Spirit has us in agreement. But we are not perfect; so we can have variation. But I think there are the main things which we agree on.

And the Bible can bring us beyond our present level of maturity's knowledge. We need to grow to certain things. There can be correction of character which makes us able to get into certain things.

A baby can have a different ability to know things, than a senior mature adult can know and understand with the right, and mature perspective.

There's more to knowledge than good or evil.

Resha Caner · Nov 14, 2019

Quackduck said:
There is absolutely no evidence that anything attributed to Jesus in the Bible is true, it all could have been created by the gospel writers years after he was dead.

That statement misunderstands historical method.

Quackduck · Nov 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
That statement misunderstands historical method.

Meaning?

Resha Caner · Nov 14, 2019

Quackduck said:
Meaning?

Meaning the Bible is a historical document, and therefore one source that attributes many things to Jesus, making it similar to many other historical cases where only one source is available.

Quackduck · Nov 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
Meaning the Bible is a historical document, and therefore one source that attributes many things to Jesus, making it similar to many other historical cases where only one source is available.

The Bible is NOT a historical document. Most of its content has nothing in it which can be proved to be factual. Besides which, it is a series of documents written over a long period of time, and put together by people in the Middle Ages. That crazy book of Revelation nearly didn't get put into that book.

Resha Caner · Nov 14, 2019

Quackduck said:
The Bible is NOT a historical document. Most of its content has nothing in it which can be proved to be factual. Besides which, it is a series of documents written over a long period of time, and put together by people in the Middle Ages. That crazy book of Revelation nearly didn't get put into that book.

As a disclaimer, I will inform you I have an M.A. in history. The Bible is most certainly a historical document. Saying that does not mean the Bible is true, and therein lies the misunderstanding. Even forged documents are historical documents. They say something about history.

If you have a citation from a credentialed historian publishing in a peer-reviewed journal arguing the Bible is not a historical document, I would absolutely want to see that source.

So, what it comes down to is that you refuse to accept as evidence, any historical claim based upon a single source. Yes?

Quackduck · Nov 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
As a disclaimer, I will inform you I have an M.A. in history. The Bible is most certainly a historical document. Saying that does not mean the Bible is true, and therein lies the misunderstanding. Even forged documents are historical documents. They say something about history.

If you have a citation from a credentialed historian publishing in a peer-reviewed journal arguing the Bible is not a historical document, I would absolutely want to see that source.

So, what it comes down to is that you refuse to accept as evidence, any historical claim based upon a single source. Yes?

Well then where is your verifiable proof it is historical? There is so much in that book which is less than credible it has a fairy tale status.

Resha Caner · Nov 14, 2019

Quackduck said:
Well then where is your verifiable proof it is historical?

Given the initial misunderstanding, I don't yet know if you understand what it means for something to be historical. Therefore, if you want me to answer your question, you will have to answer mine:

Do you reject all claimed past events when there is only a single source?

Quackduck · Nov 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
Given the initial misunderstanding, I don't yet know if you understand what it means for something to be historical. Therefore, if you want me to answer your question, you will have to answer mine:

Do you reject all claimed past events when there is only a single source?

If there is only a single source then obviously it is questionable, especially if what is being claimed is so remarkable there would be many more people reporting it.

This is a good example of something which was just a story, but people actually claimed to have seen the Angel of Mons!

Angels of Mons - Wikipedia

Resha Caner · Nov 14, 2019

Quackduck said:
If there is only a single source then obviously it is questionable, especially if what is being claimed is so remarkable there would be many more people reporting it.

This is an argument from absence, which is a logical fallacy. There allegedly were many more reports of certain ancient events, but those reports were allegedly destroyed along with the library at Alexandria (or other ancient tragedies). As such, the vast majority of ancient history is based on a single source. In other words, based on your criteria, we don't know if Egypt had Pharaohs or China had Emperors. We don't know if Hannibal crossed the Alps. We don't know if Caesar conquered Britain, etc., etc., etc. The list is too long to name them all.

[edit] In the case of things like Pilate, there should have been reports. Pilate has been established as a historical person, and there are claims of his reports, but none have actually been found. Pilate is not an exceptional case in that regard.

Corroboration certainly improves the credibility of a claim, but lack of corroboration is not used within historical method to reject a source.

As such, the remaining facet of your rejection is the fantastic nature of the claims. Are the events attributed to Jesus impossible?

Quackduck · Nov 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
This is an argument from absence, which is a logical fallacy. There allegedly were many more reports of certain ancient events, but those reports were allegedly destroyed along with the library at Alexandria (or other ancient tragedies). As such, the vast majority of ancient history is based on a single source. In other words, based on your criteria, we don't know if Egypt had Pharaohs or China had Emperors. We don't know if Hannibal crossed the Alps. We don't know if Caesar conquered Britain, etc., etc., etc. The list is too long to name them all.

[edit] In the case of things like Pilate, there should have been reports. Pilate has been established as a historical person, and there are claims of his reports, but none have actually been found. Pilate is not an exceptional case in that regard.

Corroboration certainly improves the credibility of a claim, but lack of corroboration is not used within historical method to reject a source.

As such, the remaining facet of your rejection is the fantastic nature of the claims. Are the events attributed to Jesus impossible?

The virgin birth, the miracles, walking on water, the resurrection are much less than credible. I think a guy called Jesus existed and may have had a charismatic personality which attracted followers. I also think it possible he was crucified as he was a pain in the neck to the religious hierarchy. Years later well after he was dead the gospel writers used him to create the messiah which so called prophets had predicted. It is strange that most Jews who had been expecting a messiah didn't accept him as such, nor apparently did his family.

Resha Caner · Nov 14, 2019

Quackduck said:
Years later well after he was dead the gospel writers used him to create the messiah which so called prophets had predicted.

That is an unsubstantiated statement. It may be your opinion, and that's fine if you acknowledge it as such, but that's not what this conversation is about.

Quackduck said:
The virgin birth, the miracles, walking on water, the resurrection are much less than credible.

I didn't ask if they were credible. I asked if they were impossible.

Quackduck · Nov 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
That is an unsubstantiated statement. It may be your opinion, and that's fine if you acknowledge it as such, but that's not what this conversation is about.

The virgin birth is impossible, the miracles are impossible, once a person is truly dead they stay dead.

I didn't ask if they were credible. I asked if they were impossible.

Resha Caner · Nov 14, 2019

Quackduck said:
The virgin birth is impossible, the miracles are impossible, once a person is truly dead they stay dead.

First, I will note that answering this question takes us out of the realm of history and into the realm of science. Of course historians rely on the expertise of scientists, but history does not explicitly judge whether science is true or false. Therefore, as a historian, I can't judge what is impossible.

I will mention I also have an M.S. in engineering, but my expertise does not apply to these areas. So, we'll have to see what we can find in the literature and discuss those sources as amateurs (unless you have an expertise in this area or already have peer-reviewed sources backing your claims).

I'll just pick 2 from your list. First, the virgin birth. Are you familiar with parthenogenesis, which is an observed phenomena?

Second, the resurrection. The current certified record I am aware of for resuscitation after clinical death is 17 hours. There are claims of much longer. Such is one of the reasons for the tradition of displaying the dead at a wake before burying them. I'm not aware that medicine has proven a time limit, but I'm sure the relevant factor is how much the body decays. That is the whole basis for the idea of cryonics.

I'll just cut to the chase. I've had this conversation with others. In the end, the only demonstrable impossibility involves logical contradictions, none of which are represented on your list.

NeverL0ved · Nov 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
First, I will note that answering this question takes us out of the realm of history and into the realm of science. Of course historians rely on the expertise of scientists, but history does not explicitly judge whether science is true or false. Therefore, as a historian, I can't judge what is impossible.

I will mention I also have an M.S. in engineering, but my expertise does not apply to these areas. So, we'll have to see what we can find in the literature and discuss those sources as amateurs (unless you have an expertise in this area or already have peer-reviewed sources backing your claims).

I'll just pick 2 from your list. First, the virgin birth. Are you familiar with parthenogenesis, which is an observed phenomena?

Second, the resurrection. The current certified record I am aware of for resuscitation after clinical death is 17 hours. There are claims of much longer. Such is one of the reasons for the tradition of displaying the dead at a wake before burying them. I'm not aware that medicine has proven a time limit, but I'm sure the relevant factor is how much the body decays. That is the whole basis for the idea of cryonics.

I'll just cut to the chase. I've had this conversation with others. In the end, the only demonstrable impossibility involves logical contradictions, none of which are represented on your list.

If you are inclined to believe in science as well as the Bible, then how do you approach the scientific evidence that debunks many biblical claims?

Resha Caner · Nov 14, 2019

NeverL0ved said:
If you are inclined to believe in science as well as the Bible, then how do you approach the scientific evidence that debunks many biblical claims?

Would you care to give me an example?

NeverL0ved · Nov 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
Would you care to give me an example?

I can't do that until you reach a place of doubt. You have to be able to accept that all your beliefs could be wrong, and then I can present my argument.

Quackduck · Nov 15, 2019

NeverL0ved said:
If you are inclined to believe in science as well as the Bible, then how do you approach the scientific evidence that debunks many biblical claims?

An excellent question.

Resha Caner · Nov 15, 2019

NeverL0ved said:
I can't do that until you reach a place of doubt. You have to be able to accept that all your beliefs could be wrong, and then I can present my argument.

Where did I say I never have doubts? And if that's your hangup, why ask me the question in the first place? I'll pretend to doubt everything, if you pretend to doubt your argument. So just get on with it.

Riddle me this

Active Member

Active Member

Expert Fool

Active Member

Expert Fool

Active Member

Expert Fool

Active Member

Expert Fool

Active Member

Expert Fool

Active Member

Expert Fool

Active Member

Expert Fool

Active Member

Expert Fool

Active Member

Active Member

Expert Fool

Similar threads