- Mar 17, 2015
- 17,340
- 9,285
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
And both of those borrow extensively from the Bible...so they are going to say more than a few good things, just from that.
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.
And both of those borrow extensively from the Bible...so they are going to say more than a few good things, just from that.Who cares? I'm just testing them like you are testing the Bible/Gospels. All good.
I see. That's why you wrote to me something I clearly already know. (if you have memory problems though, please let me know! I've learned to adjust to a couple of people at church who tend to forget things I've said to them face to face)< shrugs > I don't remember.
I did not try to remember it, nor did I necessarily think you did not clearly already know. Thanks tho.I see. That's why you wrote to me something I clearly already know. (if you have memory problems though, please let me know! I've learned to adjust to a couple of people at church who tend to forget things I've said to them face to face)
btw, fyi, fwiw, this looks like a more accurate way >>>
Luke 1:3
KJ21
it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.
i.e. God is Right, His Word is True, Inspired Fully by Him, not relying nor resting on man/men/scholars at all. He is the Source, the Truth, the Breathing of His Word Accompished and Revealed His Way.
That this is the apologetics section for non believers. And the OP post is for people who do not yet believe, and who question everything routinely -- the type of people that will even question or assume there can be transcription errors, for example...I did not try to remember it, nor did I necessarily think you did not clearly already know. Thanks tho.
If something was in the post /op/ you wanted to remind me of, good. Like bible references, which don't render on the screen many times, especially on phones, it is better I think to spell it all out - quote the whole reference. Thanks again !
Believe that if you want about Luke's account.Luke is an ancient history and isn't really exceptional. And as far as ancient history goes, it's a mixture of things that are credible, and things that are legends.
The fact there are two accounts of Judas's death that are at odds with each other in the details shows that there are legendary accounts at work in the text. The author of Luke obviously used a variety of sources and redacted them into one narrative.
This post/thread is about 1 narrow question:
How can someone who doesn't already believe or hasn't yet tested Christ's words...try to have a preliminary estimation on whether the accounts written down in the gospels are likely to be generally accurate (accurate in all significant ways that have real consequence)?
Instead of you just reeling off your set answer, tho, I'd like to show you something really quite amazing, and not so well known, below.
First a very brief general information (the amazing thing is later): a mainstream consensus view is that the Gospel of Mark was written down in the range of 66-70 AD:
"Mark probably dates from AD 66–70." Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia
Which puts that about 35 years or so after Christ's crucifixion.
As they told others their memories, many listeners would have learned what all the various verbal accounts agreed on -- the widely agreed details from among the dozens or even hundreds of direct witnesses.
But though quite significant, that's not the most interesting thing of all yet to me personally tho. This below is, to me personally.
The first way I learned about this thing below was just as a clue.
A long time college English professor was relating that there were a portion of students that seemed to just remember things in a way that far surpassed other students -- while other students remembered 50% or 60% of stuff right, these individuals would get 100% right.... (at first one might imagine they are only-good-at-one-thing savants, but...that's not what turns out; see below!)
She'd observed this odd fact over time, that in classes she'd notice students that just seemed to have this perfect memory, year after year, individual students.
I got curious. (just pure curiosity; I've long read in various sciences, including psychological research)
Searching later to learn more on it, I found this convenient (not long) video from the long running CBS program 60 Minutes that helps show the phenomena via an top academic researcher investigating it, and one can look up the research also --
(you get to see the researcher and some of his testing in this video also)
A) Thought experiment...
If the Rigveda was written within 25 years of all it's claim(s), would you give this book of assertions any more clout than you do at present? If the answer is no, or likely not, then the above noted observation is likely just as useless to you, as to many of the current 'unbelieving audience', for which you are attempting to engage.
I merely read to find out the ideas so I could test them.
Did you hear that?
I'll pause here. You don't need 1,000 words from me, but instead it's better to at least hear 1 thing correctly.
Just so happens I've got a nice summary post that answers that, (since it was more than just 1 or 2 propositions that I tested, and more than just 5 or 10 times, etc.). There are a lot of questions that should come up, and I've summarized a lot briefly:Let's cut to the chase then....
Your primary test, is in regards to Matthew 7:12, right? This is one of the main reasons you state you are a Christian, right?
Just so happens I've got a nice summary post that answers that, (since it was more than just 1 or 2 propositions that I tested, and more than just 5 or 10 times, etc.). There are a lot of questions that should come up, and I've summarized a lot briefly:
(post #254, a summary of what I tested and how I tested in the first 10 years or so)
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?
For important topics, 1 thing at a time is best, right? When the topic is involved. Don't you agree?I directly addressed your points in the OP. If you care not to address them now, then maybe modify your OP, to state the real reason(s) you believe.
For important topics, 1 thing at a time is best, right? When the topic is involved. Don't you agree?
Would you prefer I address: your questions about "your points in the OP."
or
"state the real reason(s) you believe."
Which?
Neither is a small trivial thing, in my view. Both are potentially involved discussions (or can be).
Since for me these are independent, unrelated even, which is it you really want to ask the most, or first? (I definitely don't have faith because I think Mark is probably pretty accurate: it's not the basis for my faith; though it's a somewhat related, and definitely a meaningful question in and of itself)
1. If God was the providing influence, or even more, God was the complete inspiring information provider for all text, then the human author is merely nothing more than a 'ghost writer' for God.
2. Whom/who actually wrote 'Mark'?
3. How do you know this individual(s) had photographic memory(s)?
4. And even if he/they did, how do you reconcile the verses between Mark 16:8 verses Mark 16:9-20?
(Just as I'm finishing this post I see you responded to the other, and I'll respond to that unrelated question in another thread)
Here's something very pragmatic, before I address these: It's just impractical to chase down every possible objection either one of us can think of simultaneously, because of the geometric effect: each one topic can potentially open 2 or 3 or 4 more new topics, and it would be possible in just a few posts to end up talking about even 7 or 11 different topics, and then you end up with a collapse of discussion or fail to really get to the bottom of some key thing that really is the most meaningful.
Right?
So, when I answer, let's do a hard thing, if you are willing.
Pick the 1 most key issue, only, for the moment, and focus on that, alone.
This is 2 questions.So please tell me more about your testing, and why this testing verifies the claimed truth in 'Jesus as the Messiah'?
This is 2 questions.
1rst is Not about believing, but just testing and how I tested
Look here: (click and wait a second or two till it jumps to that post)
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?
[How] does a human, whom tells others to love their enemies, prove He rose from the dead and died for our sins?
I'm thinking you meant "How" does, instead of "Why" does, right? (or did you mean to say "Why"? -- if so, then I'm not sure just what you are trying to ask due to wording style)
How does He prove He rose from the dead? -- Is that the intended question?
If so, as best I understand, the answer is that there is never a proof before faith and actions, never ahead-of-time proof of Christ perhaps just for the living disciples in that time, those who saw Him in person before He departed physically being here in a human body.
I think the rest of us, after that time, don't get a proof ahead of time about anything.
Of course, if Christ says several remarkable things, and you test some of them, and they work, that at least suggests to one to test additional things. (mere rational self interest)
Instead, from the wordings in His teachings in the accounts, we are to do as He says, and then He says some outcomes that will happen, including the amazing ones also (both more easy to believe outcomes, and also some just jaw dropping outcomes, both). For many, those after-the-fact (after faith and doing instructions) outcomes are a confirmation, and for me they were a partial confirmation. Not the only kind I have actually, but I don't expect people to believe some of the things that happened to me until they experience an amazing thing like it themselves. It's enough to talk about the specified things in the text.
What many don't notice, or don't hear from their preachers for example, is that He does repeatedly put conditions -- if you do X, then Y will happen -- where the condition X is required for Y to happen. Often people don't seem aware of this, which can only be learned typically by careful reading. In other words, never expect outcome Y unless you really do X fully, just as He says, Himself, in the accounts. They work, though it takes years to test more than just a couple of things, in my experience.
As given, but let me add about "love even the ones who harm them" -- it's not necessarily the immediate response, because first comes forgiving them. Now, forgiving is indeed though a part of love, or an aspect. We forgive those we love more readily, and we love those we forgive more readily. When a person harms you before you hardly know them, before you love them, then the first step is to forgive them.Sorry for any confusion. Let me elaborate.
Why does, or how does a human, telling people to love even the ones whom harm them, prove He rose from the dead?
I don't see too much difference either way. But the gist is this... I really don't see how anyone telling others to love everyone, no matter what, would in any way, steer us towards the truth that this particular person is a Messiah?
Do you wish to modify your prior answer? Or should I respond, as given?
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?