Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And beyond just only talking about the events, let's also talk about the words that we have recorded as being said or not with the same fervor, k.
I thought you just said the same thing in #1097.
We who do not follow the religion of the book do not give it the credence that those who do *because* it is a religious text. This is the same for non-believers regarding the books of all the religions they don't believe in.
Only because of my own efforts in providing evidence and arguements for the reality of the gospels and Christs resurrection. That I had come to a point where there was little else to offer.
But thats an assumption that its just a religious text. Its also an historical document. In fact one of the best around with more references including non biblical sources than most historical accounts for that time.
Yes if we can find the person who was said to split the moon, the eye witnesses and look at the circumstances and history of this. Christs resurrection happened around a real event with real people and places including non biblical references.
The thread was really about making slurs against non-believers being slippery in their arguments. Is that what you are upholding?
I haven't. You are talking with me, not them.
Not "almost", fully dismising them. The world is full of religious books. I've got no reason to think any of them are about real events or people. Not the Rig Vedas, not the Urantia book, not Quran, not the Bible, not the Book of Morman, not Dianetics, or the religious ramblings of a hundred internet nut jobs.
As far as I can tell, yes.
I hear so of the ancient Egyptians claim to make fine, turned stone wares. You don't seem to believe those.
I already wrote about this IN POST #3. This thread was done on page #1.
I don't think it is about slurs against non-believers. I think it was more about epistemics (how we should know the evidence) and metaphysics (what counts as real or unreal).
I think you are as well when you question and mock the beliefs. You are attacking the quality of the belief as though it was made up or that only fools would believe such things.
I was going to say "fully dismissing them". Ok thats more forthright. So your making an absolute claim without fully knowing these religions.
Wow who were they. Can you link the evidence.
The point is they made these works and attribute them to the gods. They speak of supernatural events which is interwoven in real history. Yet no one is dismissing the complete written works of the Egytians as make believe because it contains some hard to believe stuff.
Lol fair enough and yet you hung in there making arguements over something you say was irrelevant. Sometimes reality is in what we do. Whatever developed from the OP is what naturally came out of the OP.
The OP is just whinging that the non-Christians do just blindly accept the NT as evidence and calls it "changing the goalposts". As we have repeatedly demonstrated we have different standards, not fluid ones. Having good standards does not mean you can't believe, it means you realize that it is only faith upon which you believe. And that's OK.
So you do accept their claims?
Your "evidence" is not what you think it is.
They did not attribute their works to their gods. The Egyptians drew the mechanisms used to make stone vases on the walls of their tombs.
That you still don't know that setting a story in a real place doesn't make it true is rather sad. (Western Civ starts with the Greeks, not the Jews.)
Did you mean "non-Christians don't just blindly accept the NT as evidence. Therefore the OP calls this changing the goal posts.
But you have not stipulated what these good standards are. Its begging the question that you assume the standards are good and being used that way.
Yes, but not as you claim with complete blindness as compared to say a unreal belief that does not have the hallmarks of a true belief. We can determine proper beliefs from unreal beliefs.
How do you know as you have never argued that evidence is not what I think it is ? Or what the majority of scholars in this field acknowledge they are. This is just another unsupported objection.
You keep fixating on the vases when we have ample evidence of the Egyptians claiming all sorts of supernatural feats.
I fully understand this. I am disputing the idea that because there were supernatural events that this makes everything else unreliable as you are doing with the bible.
That was the case. I sometimes start sentences thinking the negation will go in later and then forget it.
THese things have been discussed, though perhaps not with you. This thead is dead, Steve. Let it die.
This is not the position I have been arguing from, but rather the accusation I have been fighting against from post #3 onward
Because you have used a lot of very out of date notions about early Christianity that are what we might call "traditional" (like thinking all/most of the apostles are martyrs, or that the names on the Gospels specifiy actual authors). This is definitely *not* what biblical scholars think, but it is what you can find in apologetics books and from pulpits. It is not that different to what I thought (to the extent that I knew any of it) before I deconverted. I get it that this is what you have been taught to believe and believe it if you must, but you shouldn't think it is in alignment with actual scholarship.
Not what I have done.
I'm trying to return the favor, Steve. You spent months obsessing about Egyptian vases and advanced techonology on at least 2 threads and it turns out one of the vase investigators has demonstrated they are fakes and now you don't want to talk about them? HMMMM.
Even your discussion of the vases was not about supernaturalism, Steve. No need to bring it up here.
The odd thing Steve, is that I haven't been arguing that these things didn't happen because they are supernatural in this thread. I have been arguing about the evidence that we have that is available to biblical scholars and historians.
I don't think Christians want non Christians to blindly accept the gospel. Christians don't blindly accept the gospels. This goes back to how the evidence is seen. Christians still have evidence. Its just atheists don't see or accept it.
I just disagreed with you that the evidence is not as clear as you claim. Now you're more or less dismissing things. Anyway I can see you have had enough.
What accusations. Do you mean these from the OP.
That is itself another unsupported assertion. The evidence that most of the disciples were martryed does not rely on tradition alone. Its based on textual analysis, history and the lived reality of the disciples and Christians at that time.
Not sure what scholars you are talking about. Luke (the physician) and companion of Paul is attributed as author of Luke/Acts. They are often referred to as one work by the same author with Lukes first person introductory prologue in Luke 1:1–4,
reasonabletheology.org
Logically someone who continues to stay in the faith will continue to discover more and more information. So it may be that you need to do more research. Like anything the more you have reason and interest the more informed a person becomes. Rather than basing things on unsupported assumptions or false info.
Thats because I said all I had to say and this was never going to change peoples minds. A bit like how this thread is going. But the vases were not really about supernaturalism. The arguement was the Egyptians had superior technical knowledge of nature. A rational arguement. So I think your creating a false comparison.
Lol I literally just told you that you were making a false analogy. You brought the vases up Hans not me.
If you were then as above you would have researched all the evidence and take an even handed approach epistemically. But I think the tone has been dismissive and one sided.
Steve, that bit you just replied to above has nothing to do with what you wrote. I was talking about writing errors I made on CF.
Perhaps next time, Steve. (Not next post, next month or longer.) I'm done with the topic of this thread here. Let the thread die Steve.
Yes, exactly those accusations against non-believers.
Steve, your reply "refuting" my claim that your posts have been based on low grade apologetics and early church tradition, rather than modern scholarship, comes complete with low-grade apologetics (above) and...That is itself another unsupported assertion. The evidence that most of the disciples were martryed does not rely on tradition alone. Its based on textual analysis, history and the lived reality of the disciples and Christians at that time.
Most scholars agree the disiciples were willing to suffer and be martryed for their belief that Christ had risen from the dead. Thats all we need. This is evidence that the belief was sincere and not a lie as people are not willing to die for something they think is a lie.
This does not necessarily prove Christs resurrection. But it does show that something significant happened that caused the witnesses to beleieve they seen Christ and radically change and be willing to die for their belief. Which lends support that they truely did see the risen Christ. Its one piece of evidence that goes towards building the case.
The Weakness of the "Martyrdom Argument" for the Resurrection
In this episode, Trent responds to critics like Paulogia and Candida Moss who critique the evidence for the Resurrection in the apostle’s willingness to d...www.catholic.com
Not sure what scholars you are talking about. Luke (the physician) and companion of Paul is attributed as author of Luke/Acts. They are often referred to as one work by the same author with Lukes first person introductory prologue in Luke 1:1–4,
The author mentions himself present at specific events with Paul (Acts 16:10–17, 20:5–15, 21:1–18, and 27:1–28:16). It uses the same writing style and themes and both books are addressed to Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1), The earliest tradition attributes the books to Luke and there is no diagreement or objection from that time.
Did Luke Write the Gospel of Luke? | ReasonableTheology.org
Unlike the writings of the apostle Paul, Luke and Acts do not mention an author's name. So how do we know that he really was the author of these works?
... church tradition. No scholars, just apologists whinging about scholars not agreeing with the tradition they want to be true.
Because I'd rather discuss that with you than *ANYTHING* in this thread. This thread is dead; let it be dead. Let's go talk vase technology instead.
Steve, real historians cut around the supernatural claims about divine portents and miraculous healings from Roman emperors and Egyptian pharaohs. I've been doing the same with the bible. (Sort of like Thomas Jefferson Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia did. I like his attempt, but I don't care for the moral teachings much either.)
We haven't done a deep dive into the evidence because:
Didn't we already cover this ad nauseam?
Is that why you just provoked again?So yeah, maybe just let this thread die so the rest of us can have a rest from it.
Not the topic. The evolution of eyes is covered in Darwin (1859). You should check that out and then go to the right sub-section of CF. This is not the one.I am wondering how they justify the creation of the eye. In which is unique for every creature. Get the eye wrong and the poor creature is in for some major problems!
Not that I'm aware of. From my vantage point, there been only a surface scratch. But you and Steve carry on if you feel you must.
And I corrected the error. I then replied to the corrected statement you made. We are discussing the OP claims and not writing errors. You claimed the OP was saying that atheists don't blindly accept the gospel. I disagreed.
OK for you I will let it die. But I may still enegage with others. As you said these kinds of threads interest me. And I would say Christians will have some skin in the game defending the reality of the gospels and Christ.
Then where is your counter evidence.
Like others you offer no evidence to contradict what was said. Can you provide evidence that the disciples and Christians were not willing to suffer and die for their belief ? Can you show how Paul was wrong or said something controversial and was a fool ? Can you show that the gospels and Christs resurrection never happened ?
Seeming you have offered nothing that shows the evidence is malformed I have no reason to think the evidence is malformed. Show me its malformed. You made the claim now back it up.
Are you the thread gatekeeper ? Is it a coincident that you jump into a thread just to say it should die while at the same time acting like you don't want it to die ? I have been brought into the thread again by yourself. It seems you are keeping it alive.
I don't think you are an uneducated person, I doubt you are a stupid person, it seems unlikely that your are unfamiliar with the basics of logic and reasoned argument. And yet it seems you may be capable, on occassion, of displaying great foolishness.
Really? Is this how ridiculous you are going to be? I am not denying - and I don't know of anyone who would deny - that the martyr's believed. History and the present day are replete with examples of people willing to die for their beliefs. All that proves is that human's can be capable of self sacrifice in defence of their beliefs. Are you seriously going to insist that is evidence of their beliefs being true, given the numerous counter examples that can and have been presented?
An ad hominem fallacy. When people start to attack the person instead of providing evidence you know they have no evidence.
I have provided the evidence and this is what you claimed was not evidence. Now you need to show its not valid evidence. I don't want evasions like deferring the evidence to what someone else said. You made the claim so back it up.
You claim to have been following the thread and yet you miss crucial parts. We have already agreed that the disciples and Christians had a belief that Christ had risen. Now we are determining the reality of that belief.
This is a false comparison. Take Islam. Yes they are willing to die for their belief but look at what they are dying for and the destruction and evil they impose. There are certain qualities to a belief which give it substance.
You misrepresent my position.
