PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Using others to lie in your place is lying by proxy by definition. BTW, how many instances do you think exist in which god lies by omission?
Upvote
0
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.
Using others to lie in your place is lying by proxy by definition. BTW, how many instances do you think exist in which god lies by omission?I didn't forget, I said I didn't want to bother with the other supposed contradictions because all were false.
Using a lying spirit to deceive his enemies does not make God a liar by proxy. I brought up previous context, not just claimed it. Your list of contradictions are not contradictions.
Using others to lie in your place is lying by proxy by definition.
BTW, how many instances do you think exist in which god lies by omission?
Did ya plan on providing that "correct" translation and your evidence that it is the "correct" translation, or have you decided to ignore my request and leave your claim unsupported?
0Using others to lie in your place is lying by proxy by definition. BTW, how many instances do you think exist in which god lies by omission?
Can you give me an example of testimony by an eyewitness given in the Bible?
1 Thessalonians 2:5 You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a
mask to cover up greed
1 Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ's
sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed
35 (This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account. He speaks the truth so that you also can believe.h)
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Luke specifically states he is not an eyewitness. Care to try again?
My atheism has nothing to do with it. Modern (and old) new testament Christian scholarship agrees that Luke was not an eyewitness.
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
You got it wrong again as Luke demonstrates in Luke 1:1-4 (ESV):
He told us where he got the information: 'those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses'.
Do you have the blinders on?
Do you know the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?
What did Luke say in the evidence I provided from Luke 1:1-4? Do you know the meaning of eyewitness testimony?
I do. Luke was not an eyewitness, and he is giving the testimony. The eyewitnesses are not giving their testimony here, so this is not eyewitness testimony. Again I ask, do you know the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?
When I read the local newspaper, I read journalists who obtain information from eyewitness sources. They do not need to have seen the crash on the freeway to know what happened. Gathering eyewitness reports are important.
I consider you are being difficult. Luke gathered information from eyewitnesses.
You have contorted what the text of Luke 1:2 (ESV) states, 'just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us'.
When you deny what the actual words of Luke 1:2 state, we have no further means of discussion because you have committed a burden of proof fallacy. This is fallacious reasoning when you refuse to accept what the text states.
Bye,
Oz
I'm not refusing to accept what the text states. It appears you are. I asked you for an example of TESTIMONY GIVEN BY EYEWITNESSES, which you claim the Bible contains. The text clearly states that the testimony you presented was given by someone who was not an eyewitness.
And how am I committing the burden of proof fallacy? It was YOUR CLAIM in the first place (that the Bible contains eyewitness testimony of the resurrection). The burden is, and always was, on you.
Luke is providing hearsay testimony BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.
It doesn't get any more cut and dry than that.
So are you prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts of the Endeavour ship coming to Australia in 1770 but you are not prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts recorded in the reliable Scriptures?
Would you accept the eyewitness accounts, if they said that this ship was operated by gnomes and unicorns?
Why not?
You did not answer my question but were off and running with your own agenda. We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this as you are using fallacious reasoning.
Is that why detectives go around asking, "What did you see?"1. we know today that "eyewitness" accounts is about the least reliable type of evidence we have
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?