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.
On what basis do you feel God is not real?
As does the Qur'an. Claiming that you are telling the truth does not mean that you are, even if you think you are.
This would only then equal the evidence that we do have to support the claims Jesus made.
The problem is that events pertaining to the divinity of Jesus do not have mass witnesses, and the gospels are not first hand accounts. It's extremely unlikely that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses either (or at the very least, it's a massively minority opinion among Biblical scholars). When it comes to John, no one actually knows who wrote it.
On top of that, you have contradictions and historical errors within the Bible that also bring doubt upon the claims of divinity. The main example off of the top of my head is Jesus' birth. The claim is that Mary and Jospeh returned to Bethlehem for a census, but there is no historical evidence that this census ever occured, and even if there was a census it was never a requirement to return to your home town.
To go back to your original example of the trial, I've got three witness, all equally dubious, claiming wildly different things and not a shred of physical evidence to support any of their claims. True, one of them claims to have hundreds of witnesses but none of these witnesses are available to question and I'm not even told who most of them are. On top of that, I've got people claiming the same thing as the Christian, but including claims that Jesus tamed dragons and the like. If I were a judge I'd throw this trial out of court, because none of the claims have a leg to stand on.
To be frank, all three claims are dubious at best. If forced to make a conclusion, numerical advantage is all there is to go on, and it's not in your favour.
What is your source(s) for this comment?
Which I personally think add to the authenticity.
There are alleged errors, and there are minor errors – but these don’t take away from the accuracy of the events they actually describe.
For example, if 4 people went on a holiday to France together for 2 weeks, and then 6 months after returning were each asked for their accounts of the holiday would their accounts match exactly on all levels of detail?
If not, does this mean the holiday they took never really happened?
As I’ve said before, the counter claims regarding who Jesus was or wasn’t can easily be refuted on 3 simple tests
That all seems rather arbitrary and biased to me. Why are you giving Jesus' claims such credence? They're only claims; he doesn't give anything to back them up. The best he does is miracles, and even then that doesn't prove that he is God (there are plenty of characters in the Bible capable of miraculous events).
I'm afraid if this argument is going to work for anyone other than you, you're going to have to start from a far more neutral position than the only you currently occupy.
The case for Christs uniqueness is so great that absolutely no one can compare with Him.
This is why I give his claims such credence.
In all seriousness though, would a NPOV involve compromising anything that I believe to be true?
I'm afraid I don't have 10 or 11 hours to spare. Care to summarise the parts you think are worth discussing?
Essentially disproving science, and proving God. In your spare time, watch all 8 of them. Spoken by an ex-evolutionist.
First, you need to demonstrate that the Biblical claims are correct, and then you can ask me to refute your points. Claims of eyewitnesses are not eyewitnesses, claims of authorship is not proof of authorship, and so on. The Bible is a series of claims; if you want your argument to have any weight you're going to need to demonstrate that these claims are factual.
This is why we need evidence beyond the Bible, because if we were willing to accept claims from only one source, then I could equally claim that any other religion is correct. There is probably more historical evidence for the existence of the prophet Muhammed than there is for Jesus, so does that mean that all claims by Muhammed are automatically correct? Some details in the Qur'an may be wrong, but as you said: "There are alleged errors, and there are minor errors but these dont take away from the accuracy of the events they actually describe."
When all three texts are equally dubious and incorrect (and they are), quantity is all we have to work on. It's up to you to demonstrate otherwise; you can't just make an assertion and demand I refute it. I understand that you're a Christian, but you have to recognise that I and many other people are not, and we're not going to have the same bias towards the Bible that you hold. We have to look at this objectively, which you haven't been doing so far.
All of science? Including the bits that demonstrably work on a day to day basis?
Which bit of science that they "disproved" would you like to discuss further? As I said, I don't have a spare 11 hours to watch Youtube videos that are dragged on far more than they should be.
Not sure what an evolutionist is.Essentially disproving science, and proving God. In your spare time, watch all 8 of them. Spoken by an ex-evolutionist.
But, what I took from it was there being verifiable evidence that validates a universal flood, causing us to start over from 3000-4000 years ago-- which science does not and will not ever admit.
So in reality I cant practically go beyond pointing at the evidence to support my argument. There are clearly limits to how far a discussion of this nature can be taken using an online forum.
I personally would call the account of Jesus in the Quran a major error.
I understand your point here, but in one sense Im in an impossible position. I believe that The Bible is objective in the sense that which is true for all people at all times, not contingent upon one's individual opinions.
If I dont hold this to be true, then through subjectivity there is no way for any other person to prove or disprove it.
I dont need a religion to believe in all I want to do is believe in something that is true. Therefore, what Ive simply done is looked for the historical facts and accepted what is the true version. Its really as simple as that. No hidden agendas, indoctrination, secret handshakes.
True, but it is possible to provide evidence to back it up.
This is only 5 minutes in length.
Anthony Flew renounced atheism because of the evidence in the complexity of of life (DNA)..
If evidence is what is needed, then surely this is it??
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?