A Pondering of the Peculiar

[Mr Strawberry]

Oh, so you're assuming distant authorship?

That doesn't work the other way around?

And here I thought you were hinting that Jesus' step-brothers wrote the Gospels!

Just imagine how excited you'd be if the evidence was on your side. Unfortunately it isn't.

 

[anyathesword]

Anya,

For someone who believes the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were those of the same name and were not anonymous as the vast majority of scholars agree on, has obviously not taken any time to investigate the book you rely on so heavily. Your understanding of the book is based on dogma, not objective analysis.

I fully understand why many christians stay away from an objective analysis of the book, because of the realities they would have to face, or come up with a rational to ignore, as they do with certain scientific findings that contradict the bible.

I never said that Mark, Luke, and John were written by Matthew. I said Matthew was probably written by Matthew.

What the heck is up with dogma? That's not a very polite word.

Like I also stated, I have not come even close to studying everything there is in the Bible, I admit. There is just an unbelievable amount of information that can be gathered from this Book. But I start again and I pursue it as fast as I can! No one in their lifetime can even get close to the treasures this book possess.

Sometimes what is more important is WHAT is written in each book. The books are put together for a reason.

Luke was a doctor and the book of Luke is wriiten from a doctors perspective, it focuses alot on Healing and diagnoses, read it to see what I mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just imagine how excited you'd be if the evidence was on your side. Unfortunately it isn't.

I couldn't care less about evidence.

Evidence can take a hike.

I've learned to be able to worship without it.

When I sing:

My hope is built on nothing less,
Than Jesus' blood and righteousness.

... I don't need to believe there's a vial of it in the Smithsonian.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I never said that Mark, Luke, and John were written by Matthew. I said Matthew was probably written by Matthew.

What the heck is up with dogma? That's not a very polite word.

Like I also stated, I have not come even close to studying everything there is in the Bible, I admit. There is just an unbelievable amount of information that can be gathered from this Book. But I start again and I pursue it as fast as I can! No one in their lifetime can even get close to the treasures this book possess.

Sometimes what is more important is WHAT is written in each book. The books are put together for a reason.

Luke was a doctor and the book of Luke is wriiten from a doctors perspective, it focuses alot on Healing and diagnoses, read it to see what I mean.

The wiki page about the new testament has a very brief but fair (in my opinion) overview of the authorship of the gospels. It's not very long so you might find it useful to skim through.
New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[anyathesword]

Definition of omnipotent: can do anything. If you can't do something, then you aren't omnipotent, it is as simple as that. Therefore, if god cannot lie, then god isn't omnipotent, because there is something that god is incapable of doing, whereas an omnipotent being finds nothing impossible.

The Greek word translated as “Omnipotent” here is pantokrator, meaning “All-ruling” or (as it is more frequently translated) “Almighty.” When we say God is “Almighty,” we are stating our belief in His authority and rulership over all creation, and the Bible is firm in declaring this fact. Even though Satan is now the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), it belongs to him only because Almighty God has granted it to Him: “And the devil said to Him, ‘All this authority [over all the kingdoms of this world] I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish’” (Luke 4:6).

It is God who ultimately reigns in the universe, and all legitimate authority must derive from Him. If we let Scripture tell us of God’s authority, we must agree that He has all authority to do all His pleasure (Isaiah 46:10–11), and to see to the fulfillment of His plans without fail. If we accept the Scriptural definition of “almighty”—and we must accept no other!—we can rightly call God omnipotent. Indeed, Christ says clearly that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

However, if we were to insist that omnipotent meant God could do anything and everything at all, we would need to reject that description, because His word says He cannot! For example, God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2), and He “cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). The Bible clearly shows that God cannot act contrary to His nature. But do these “cannots” mean He is not omnipotent—not almighty? Not if we let Scripture define its own terms!
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?

 

[anyathesword]

The wiki page about the new testament has a very brief but fair (in my opinion) overview of the authorship of the gospels. It's not very long so you might find it useful to skim through.
New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't always trust wikipedia!!!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You can't always trust wikipedia!!!

Absolutely true. But it's a starting point.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

But do these “cannots” mean He is not omnipotent—not almighty? Not if we let Scripture define its own terms!
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?

"Not if we let scripture define its own terms." Hmm. That's called making it up as we go along.

 

[bhsmte]

You can't always trust wikipedia!!!

And there is evidence the bible can not be trusted as being accurate either.

To answer your question from the other thread that was closed below:

Originally Posted by bhsmte
Anya,

The majority of the world's population don't believe in the christian God, don't believe Jesus was God and also don't see the evidence you claim to have.
And why would you think that?
__________________

This is why, about 31% of the worlds population is christian and many sources confirm this number. That would mean the majority of the population does not believe Jesus is God and therefore, would be doomed to eternal torment, according to christianity.

List of religious populations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

"Not if we let scripture define its own terms." Hmm. That's called making it up as we go along.

But, making it up as you go along allows so much flexibility.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But, making it up as you go along allows so much flexibility.

And that's why evolution is so flexible, they make it up as they go along.

 

[bhsmte]

And that's why evolution is so flexible, they make it up as they go along.

Yea sure, and what a coincidence, they have evidence to support what they claim!!!!

What a concept!

 

[EternalDragon]

Yea sure, and what a coincidence, they have evidence to support what they claim!!!!

What a concept!

You mean their conclusions to the evidence. We all have the same evidence yet draw different conclusions from it.

 

[46AND2]

You mean their conclusions to the evidence. We all have the same evidence yet draw different conclusions from it.

And your conclusions are demonstrably wrong, because you don't adequately account for the evidence.

 

[CabVet]

You mean their conclusions to the evidence. We all have the same evidence yet draw different conclusions from it.

By all means, do present the evidence that supports that the earth and everything living on it was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days, I am all ears.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

The Bible itself says that it is true.

Bingo, and therein lies your problem.

Prophecies claimed and fulfilled! All within the same book that's authorship is questionable which also claims, with circular reason, that it is true.

Just go ahead and claim what you know you have to claim in order to justify your cognitive dissonance: Faith

Because you know you can't prove us wrong with anything objective.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Bingo, and therein lies your problem.

Prophecies claimed and fulfilled! All within the same book that's authorship is questionable which also claims, with circular reason, that it is true.

Just go ahead and claim what you know you have to claim in order to justify your cognitive dissonance: Faith

Because you know you can't prove us wrong with anything objective.

Sort of like your "faith" that life evolved from non-life? Sort of like your "faith" that mutations produce new genes, when 50+ years of mutational research proves otherwise? Sort of like your "faith" in transitional species, when all fossils are found to be in stasis?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[juvenissun]

No, a god who can lie is not excluded, because he only has to fit Definition 1, God is omnipotent.

If so, where does the property "lie" come from? You have to define it first somewhere and somehow.

(Sigh, you still do not learn this very first item in a logic argument! I guess I should quit.)

No there isn't. If you want to believe in the Christian God, you have to DEFY logic.

Your "better way to define God" is to ignore the logical contradictions about how he is defined.

In other words, you'll define God as loving, and caring, and just, and completely ignore the parts that are contradictory:

Like how can Jesus be both 100% man, and 100% god at the same time?

Or, how can God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit be only ONE god?

Or, how can Jesus, an eternal being, sacrifice his life? He's eternal.

ALL the above issues HAVE valid logic arguments. Once the term God is properly defined, then everything followed is logical, EVERYTHING. Tell you what, that is why I accept Christianity. It is the most beautiful logic system in the universe.

Your questions were my questions. It took me two decades to discover logic solutions of them. You can't just browse the Bible and find the answers.

Hope God will open the eyes of your mind.

 

[juvenissun]

Bingo, and therein lies your problem.

Prophecies claimed and fulfilled! All within the same book that's authorship is questionable which also claims, with circular reason, that it is true.

Just go ahead and claim what you know you have to claim in order to justify your cognitive dissonance: Faith

Because you know you can't prove us wrong with anything objective.

I can. Do you want to try. (I am sort of done with that 46AND2 guy).

 

[Seipai]

Sort of like your "faith" that life evolved from non-life? Sort of like your "faith" that mutations produce new genes, when 50+ years of mutational research proves otherwise? Sort of like your "faith" in transitional species, when all fossils are found to be in stasis?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Boy that must be some article. You keep siting it but you don't tell us how it supports your beliefs.

And the formation of new genes has been shown to happen in several ways. Why do you think that new genes cannot be formed? In fact your article is about new genes being formed. Mutations are by definition changes in the DNA changing the DNA of an animal is making new genes. There are several methods of making new genes.

Here is an article on how new genes are formed:

Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes | Learn Science at Scitable

Now you can't say that all articles on mutations support you.

ETA: And what do you mean by "all fossils are found in stasis"? Of course fossils don't change. They are dead. We can trace the change in populations by the fossils that are left behind and those definitely are changing over time. Yes, no one fossil can change, but a series of changes can be shown.