If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[wiske]

How can an atheist acknowledge there is a God and still be an atheist?

They learnt and studied, as the poster to whom you were responding, wrote. And then they rejected their atheism. Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[wiske]

Do you mean Luke as in the Gospel of Luke?

If so, how do we know that he was the author of that book?

We know even more about Luke. He was a medical doctor.

 

[Roonwit]

He identifies himself not the revelation as interesting. He is an outsider who is born later as opposed to all the other "witnesses".

That's probably because in his writing to Corinth he constantly has to defend his own claim to apostleship.

I'm saying the best stories pop up later after the claims can no longer be checked.

In my experience it works the other way round.

If the tomb is a well known narrative earlier than Paul, why doesn't Paul mention it?

There's no particular need. Besides, Paul himself was not an eyewitness of that, so he relates what he does know first hand - that others who were eyewitnesses claim to have seen Jesus alive; and Paul himself has also had an experience of meeting the risen Jesus.

We don't "know" exactly but it is basically agreed upon by biblical scholarship of all sorts.

That scholarship is generally based on the assumption that Jesus cannot have predicted the fall of Jerusalem 40 years before it happened, and therefore the gospels must have been written post-70. That view is no longer widely held in mainstream scholarship.

It's not evidence that they didn't tell anyone at the time either as the other accounts contradict this point.

Mark's account ends very abruptly and the ending may be lost. Even if not, it seems natural enough to me that the three women may not have immediately reported their sighting of the angels until a little later when they heard that others had actually seen Jesus alive. That would be consitent with the other accounts.

The account itself says the witnesses were limited.

So, if we have "disagreement" it is because the witnesses were second hand.

No, the accounts mention only a few people specifically, since it is dealing primarily with the events of that first day. They also say that Jesus appeared a number of times over a 40-day period, and Paul relates that he appeared to over 500 at the same time on one occasion.

The 'disagreement', as you put it (or rather, the difference in accounts) seems to be because the events are being related from different eye-witnesses' points of view. John seems to be recounting from his own experience. Mark and Matthew's focus is on the women at the tomb. Luke's seems to be from the point of view of one or more of the male disciples.

People lie all the time. Even true stories get changed exaggerated ect.

People believe it because they want to believe it.

Generally, facing death for your claims is enough to make most people stop talking about them, if not to actively reject them, unless they are strongly based in truth.

That we don't know the "eyewitnesses" in this case, what they said, or why they said it simply assuming we are getting the proper story is a bit naive.

We have a number of named eye-witnesses; and simply assuming that they are lying is even more naive.

Roonwit

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It has been evident that from the very beginning, these people already have decided in their minds that there is no evidence that can be conclusive or convincing as long as it seeks to validate Christianity. Therefore, the natural response to any evidence for Christianity, however sophisticated or antiquated, is always one of further doubt and questioning. In their minds, there can be no "evidence" for Christianity anyhow, and therefore there is not a need or effort to present them with evidences. A closed mind will not accept anything that contradicts what their mind tells them. Truly:

"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."

We can only pray for them.

You know, there's that, but there's another option worth considering: your religion isn't that convincing and your arguments and evidence aren't as compelling as you suppose.

 

[bhsmte]

They learnt and studied, as the poster to whom you were responding, wrote. And then they rejected their atheism. Is that so difficult to understand?

If someone rejects their atheism, how can they still be an atheist? Did you actually read what the poster wrote, they stated "atheists" acknowledge God is real?

It would be the same thing with a Christian who no longer believes the Christian story and becomes an atheist, they are no longer a Christian, for obvious reasons.

 

[WoundedDeep]

You know, there's that, but there's another option worth considering: your religion isn't that convincing and your arguments and evidence aren't as compelling as you suppose.

That is because the people who respond to the evidences I gave never took the effort to study, examine and test them by themselves. They dismissed my evidence very quickly and demanded me to prove my evidence again and again. Yet, they know that even if I manage to prove my first group of evidence with a second group of evidence, they will still dismiss the second group of evidence and continue to demand me to prove. I have seen that it is nothing but an endless and unreasonable demand and thus decided to stop.

The reason why they do so is because they have already decided in their minds what to believe. As for the reason I quoted to a fellow believer, it is solely a spiritual interpretation of the situation which all Christians know and understand. We know it because God told us so.

 

[WoundedDeep]

If someone rejects their atheism, how can they still be an atheist? Did you actually read what the poster wrote, they stated "atheists" acknowledge God is real?

It would be the same thing with a Christian who no longer believes the Christian story and becomes an atheist, they are no longer a Christian, for obvious reasons.

Both wiske and I have stated what I mean, clearly and concisely. Your attempt to question me based on how I use a certain word is entirely meaningless and off topic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is because the people who respond to the evidences I gave never took the effort to study, examine and test them by themselves. They dismissed my evidence very quickly and demanded me to prove my evidence again and again. Yet, they know that even if I manage to prove my first group evidence with a second group of evidence, they will still dismiss the second group of evidence and continue to demand me to prove. I have seen that it is nothing but an endless and unreasonable demand and thus decided to stop.

Perhaps your evidence isn't as convincing as you think it is?

The reason why they do so is because they have already decided in their minds what to believe.

Perhaps you should speak for yourself on this?

As for the reason I quoted to a fellow believer, it is solely a spiritual interpretation of the situation which all Christians know and understand. We know it because God told us so.

Yes, I'm familiar with the words of comfort apologists trade when their arguments fall flat.

 

[bhsmte]

That is because the people who respond to the evidences I gave never took the effort to study, examine and test them by themselves. They dismissed my evidence very quickly and demanded me to prove my evidence again and again. Yet, they know that even if I manage to prove my first group evidence with a second group of evidence, they will still dismiss the second group of evidence and continue to demand me to prove. I have seen that it is nothing but an endless and unreasonable demand and thus decided to stop.

The reason why they do so is because they have already decided in their minds what to believe. As for the reason I quoted to a fellow believer, it is solely a spiritual interpretation of the situation which all Christians know and understand. We know it because God told us so.

You could not be more wrong.

I was a Christian for 40 years and at one time, actually dived into the bible for support and it took me on a journey I did not plan on; a thorough scholarly and historical review of the NT, by reading the works of many NT scholars and historians. I learned quite a bit in that effort, and it was one of the main reasons, I could not reconcile the Christian story any longer.

The vast majority of atheists are former Christians and they educated themselves and acquired knowledge throughout their life, that made the Christian story not believable. In fact, there was a study done several years ago, in which religious knowledge was tested amongst believers and non-believers and non-believers had a higher degree of religious knowledge than believers did.

Never assume an atheist got to where they are from a lack of learning or looking at the evidence, because it is usually the exact opposite and could also be why, people with higher degrees of education, also have a greater chance of being an atheist.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Perhaps your evidence isn't as convincing as you think it is?

People can only convince themselves what to believe, and that is based on their own study and testing of any evidence presented. You guys have not even begun to study and test the evidences provided for Christianity, what then makes your conclusion so sure that they are unconvincing?

Perhaps you should speak for yourself on this?

I am convinced by my own experiences and careful study. I doubt the same can be said by those who reject the evidences for Christianity.

Yes, I'm familiar with the words of comfort apologists trade when their arguments fall flat.

Call it whatever you will, we know what we believe.

 

[bhsmte]

Both wiske and I have stated what I mean, clearly and concisely. Your attempt to question me based on how I use a certain word is entirely meaningless and off topic.

It's not off topic because I addressed what you stated, which is below:

"Likewise, there are a group of atheists who are of a learning mind, and through their fields of study, they acknowledge that there is a God. So, who is right? I believe it is those who are ready to explore the truth on their own, rather than listening to what others tell them. "

Please explain how an atheist acknowledges that there is a God and is still an atheist.

Or did you mean to say; former atheists, who are no longer atheists, just as we have former Christians, who are now atheists?

 

[Kylie]

We know even more about Luke. He was a medical doctor.

Again, I ask you to provide sources for this.

 

[wiske]

If someone rejects their atheism, how can they still be an atheist? Did you actually read what the poster wrote, they stated "atheists" acknowledge God is real?

Yes, I read what they stated, and I understood it to mean that those atheists had rejected their atheism.

And I had names in mind such as Anthony Flew and Leah Libresco, as well as that poster "themselves".

 

[bhsmte]

People can only convince themselves what to believe, and that is based on their own study and testing of any evidence presented. You guys have not even begun to study and test the evidences provided for Christianity, what then makes your conclusion so sure that they are unconvincing?

People can convince themselves of just about anything, if they have a strong enough psychological need to do so and they have no problem creating the defense mechanisms to protect their beliefs; denial, confirmation bias, selective reasoning, etc.

Some people are motivated to believe based on objective evidence, and they acknowledge the evidence, even if it is not comfortable.

Others, are motivated by comfort and are able to deny any objective evidence that goes against what they deem as comfortable.

 

[Kylie]

Deleted

 

[Kylie]

He also authors Acts, in which he gives some parts of the accounts in the first person. By comparing the accounts with Paul's letters, Luke seems far and away the most likely candidate for being the author. Strong tradition also attaches Luke's name to these books; I've never heard of an alternative author being suggested.

Roonwit

I've read novels written in the first person. Doesn't mean that the characters were the authors.

And just because something is tradition does not mean it is true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

People can only convince themselves what to believe, and that is based on their own study and testing of any evidence presented. You guys have not even begun to study and test the evidences provided for Christianity, what then makes your conclusion so sure that they are unconvincing?

Excuse me, but I once was a Christian. I studied Christianity.

I am convinced by my own experiences and careful study. I doubt the same can be said by those who reject the evidences for Christianity.

Then that only shows how little you know of those you are criticising.

 

[variant]

That's probably because in his writing to Corinth he constantly has to defend his own claim to apostleship.

Well he doesn't say there was a different caricature to Jesus. What he says is different is himself.

In my experience it works the other way round.

Not here, people tend to look into the miraculous right away, and today they are easier to check, so people tend to believe the ones who only a few people witnessed thousands of years ago.

There's no particular need. Besides, Paul himself was not an eyewitness of that, so he relates what he does know first hand - that others who were eyewitnesses claim to have seen Jesus alive; and Paul himself has also had an experience of meeting the risen Jesus.

I like Paul make arguments for positions all the time, and, I can not fathom, why, if he was trying to stress both the importance and the factuality of the resurrection in his letters, why he doesn't count the strongest evidence for it as one of the points that he makes.

He alludes to the basic resurrection story itself, and the witnesses there after of Jesus, but not the place that we know in Jerusalem where witnesses saw an empty tomb after the resurrection...

That scholarship is generally based on the assumption that Jesus cannot have predicted the fall of Jerusalem 40 years before it happened, and therefore the gospels must have been written post-70. That view is no longer widely held in mainstream scholarship.

Even the most conservative biblical scholars do not date Mark before Paul and I thought even you brought Paul up as the first source...

What you are suggesting is that Paul had Mark right in front of him and didn't use some of it's key points ever in his letters.

Mark's account ends very abruptly and the ending may be lost. Even if not, it seems natural enough to me that the three women may not have immediately reported their sighting of the angels until a little later when they heard that others had actually seen Jesus alive. That would be consitent with the other accounts.

The non interpolated one does anyway. And MAYBE if we start making assumptions to buttress the text.

You seem to allow only assumptions that try to buttress the text.

We should assume Paul knew things he didn't say he knew and we should assume Mark was written whenever it is convenient to write it and so on and so on.

No, the accounts mention only a few people specifically, since it is dealing primarily with the events of that first day.

The account only mentions a very select few people who saw the tomb and that they told no one (at the time for generositys sake). They are the only eye witnesses to the "tomb story".

We still get multiple different accounts so that suggests that the eye witnesses weren't the ones interviewed later by the gospel writers.

They also say that Jesus appeared a number of times over a 40-day period, and Paul relates that he appeared to over 500 at the same time on one occasion.

The actual claimed appearances of the risen Jesus are few and for only a brief time.

The story itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense here either, because, if Jesus intended to prove himself via the resurrection than a more broad display seems appropriate here from someone who just rose from the dead and isn't shy about showing off about it.

Alternative history of the Jesus that wants everyone to know:

Jesus goes to the Septuagint and shows himself to them.

Why wouldn't this have happened? Why did Jesus only show himself to the faithful also doubting Thomas and convert Paul?

Paul's claim is found no where else, so, we are basically left with just his closest associates, an untold number of others with no extensive record of the event, and Paul himself. Paul and the others often don't really get into the nature of the appearances of Jesus either.

The 'disagreement', as you put it (or rather, the difference in accounts) seems to be because the events are being related from different eye-witnesses' points of view. John seems to be recounting from his own experience. Mark and Matthew's focus is on the women at the tomb. Luke's seems to be from the point of view of one or more of the male disciples.

Only certain people were said to be at the tomb.

Everyone else is giving a second hand account of the event.

Generally, facing death for your claims is enough to make most people stop talking about them, if not to actively reject them, unless they are strongly based in truth.

Well Paul for instance would have died for his belief that he saw Jesus, but that doesn't mean that that is what he saw...

We don't have a lot of other info on the apostles dieing for this belief in the Bible itself James the Apostle in Acts 12:2, the rest are by church tradition.

We have a number of named eye-witnesses; and simply assuming that they are lying is even more naive.

Roonwit

Who are the named eye witnesses you are talking about?

 

[WoundedDeep]

You could not be more wrong.

I was a Christian for 40 years and at one time, actually dived into the bible for support and it took me on a journey I did not plan on; a thorough scholarly and historical review of the NT, by reading the works of many NT scholars and historians. I learned quite a bit in that effort, and it was one of the main reasons, I could not reconcile the Christian story any longer.

The vast majority of atheists are former Christians and they educated themselves and acquired knowledge throughout their life, that made the Christian story not believable. In fact, there was a study done several years ago, in which religious knowledge was tested amongst believers and non-believers and non-believers had a higher degree of religious knowledge than believers did.

Never assume an atheist got to where they are from a lack of learning or looking at the evidence, because it is usually the exact opposite and could also be why, people with higher degrees of education, also have a greater chance of being an atheist.

The whole difference is, not all Christians who grew up in Christian families have a real experience with God. Being born in a Christian family is simply a privilege for a child to be taught in the Scriptures and to be exposed to the idea of a Creator, it is not a guarantee that someone will remain a professing Christian. To have a conversion experience, every single child or adult needs to have an experience with God. This is what happened to me, and when I was yet an atheist.

So it is clear that you also, changed your beliefs, upon reading men's works. Have you studied and tested the Dead Sea Scrolls? Have you tested the truthfulness of writings of both men who validate and discredit the Bible? Or did you merely assent to the side which made more sense to you? Error always results when someone looks and tests only one side of the story, but wholly ignore the other side.

Did you read for yourself how and what made some ex-atheists turn to Christianity? Many among them are no less educated than professing atheists, so clearly something must have made them reject atheism. Its strange that current hardcore Christian-turned-atheists never thought of asking how these group of ex-atheists converted to Christianity, but instead try to discredit Christianity as though their own conversion to atheism are more convincing than those who converted from atheism to Christianity.

 

[bhsmte]

The whole difference is, not all Christians who grew up in Christian families have a real experience with God. Being born in a Christian family is simply a privilege for a child to be taught in the Scriptures and to be exposed to the idea of a Creator, it is not a guarantee that someone will remain a Christian. To have a conversion experience, every single child or adult needs to have an experience with God. This is what happened to me, and when I was yet an atheist.

So it is clear that you also, changed your beliefs, upon reading men's works. Have you studied and tested the Dead Sea Scrolls? Have you tested the truthfulness of writings of both men who validate and discredit the Bible? Or did you merely assent to the side which made more sense to you? Error always results when someone looks and tests only one side of the story, but wholly ignore the other side.

Did you read for yourself how and what made some atheists turn to Christianity? Many among them are no less educated than professing atheists, so clearly something must have made them reject atheism. Its strange that current hardcore Christian-turned-atheists never thought of asking how these group of ex-atheists converted to Christianity, but then try to discredit Christianity as though their own conversion are more reliable than those who once professed atheism.

Two things:

It is not up to you to decide who had "a real experience with God" and to even say this, reeks of arrogance.

The other thing is this and it is quite clear, the more we learn about religion and it's historical credibility and the world we live in from a scientific standpoint, more and more people leave religion and faith and either become agnostics or atheists.

The non-believers are growing throughout the world, while the believers are declining.