Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
August 17, 2016 at 4:28 pm (This post was last modified: August 17, 2016 at 4:30 pm by purplepurpose.)
If, Stevell, agreed himself that if he doesnt sells his current life to the "ultimate good or Gods will" he will go to hell for being such an egotistical being, then lie to people and partially lie to himself is an easy task for him.
Its a mood of "For the ultimate good almost everything is allowed".
(August 17, 2016 at 2:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Also Steve, I noticed you went MIA yesterday when the discussion got down to the nitty gritty of the Epistles. I get you have a life, but care to respond to any of that? Particularly m.h.Brewer's question to you about the non-canonical writings? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these things.
Show me how any of my arguments for the NT could be applied to the gnostic or other "gospels".
I'm not a NT or other gospel scholar. Just saying, they were written around the same time, in the same manor (second hand) about the same subject(s). Other than the NT gospels being canonized years later, how do they differ in origin? Couldn't all the arguments you've given for the NT gospels also be applied for the acceptance/belief for the other gospels?
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
August 17, 2016 at 7:14 pm (This post was last modified: August 17, 2016 at 7:15 pm by brewer.)
Steve, just in case you've forgotten some of your arguments I've condensed them below with the referenced post #.
#336
If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity.
Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?
#346
If you want to know the dates of 27 different documents, look them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible So, your reason why my belief is 'laughable' is...what? There would have been more surviving Roman literature on what happened in Palestine during the life of Jesus? That is the criteria for laughable??? You're sure the evidence of the NT is not solid, yet...nothing of substance has been forthcoming.
#366
What is the world is 'convergent evidence'? Seem like a term you use when you keep moving the bar. You still have not told me why these are not evidence (I numbered them so you can reply more easily):
1. 27 documents of the NT that survived.
2. The fact there were churches across the Roman empire with 20 years of Jesus' death
3. The fact that the gospel writers (still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses) seemed to have even earlier writings available to them (putting those writings even closer to the actual dates.)
4. The fact that we have late first century and second century writers who believed and referred to both the earlier documents, people, and events.
The life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. How do these compare exactly? Actually, you are making things up because you couldn't possible make a case for anything you said in that paragraph. We are back to the life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So by what stretch of imagination do you think anyone applies 'special pleading' to the events that the NT describes?
#375 Re: the NT
Why are they 'untrue'? At most, all you have the grounds to conclude is that 'we don't know'.
#378
Why would you want to build and spread a religion that was based on what you knew to be false? Is there any evidence or hint that might be the case in the 8-9 authors of the NT? The core belief of Jesus coming back from the dead is hardly an event to be mistaken or 'biased' with.
#383
That's ridiculous. I cannot make something 'untrue' because you do not believe the evidence that exists. I never said anything about 'we don't/can't know'. I believe the evidence and you don't. Is there a reason that the NT events could not be true despite the accounts?
#385
I simply responded to an attempt to suggest that the people who wrote the NT were mistaken or biased and pointed out there is no evidence for this so therefore...find another reason not to believe what the writers wrote.
#395
No, we were talking specifically about Christianity and why someone would write an account in the NT that was not true. Do you have anything? While I do believe that the events happened, my belief has absolutely nothing to do with whether the events of the NT happened or not. You seem to claim to know (more than just believe) that they are not true. Why do you know that?
#403
If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.
#405
So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.
#410
Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is. In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it? Aren't all experiences subjective? Why would eyewitness accounts not be good evidence in a historical context?
#420
So, nothing to support your 'start a religion of power and money' theory. No, the NT is not the claim. It catalogs and explains a belief about events that predates it. So, the claim would be that Jesus lived, taught, died and rose again. Paul wrote his letters to churches that very obviously believed the claims prior to his writing them (as did the other epistle authors). Later, the 4 gospel editors used eyewitness accounts and previous documents to try to give a thorough account of the claim. So stop with the nonsense mantra that the NT is the claim. It is not.
#423
Peter, James, John, Luke said he spoke to eyewitnesses to write his 2 books. Paul claimed to know and discuss the events with eyewitnesses.
#429
Except the parts that are not hearsay, the parts that have no evidence of any theory about lying for self interest (oh, that would be all of it), and the parts that are eyewitness testimony (Peter, James, John, Luke reporting the testimony of eyewitnesses, and Paul spending time with and referring to eyewitnesses). You haven't mentioned the churches that pre-existed the NT docs...but I'm sure we can find a way to dismiss those pesky facts. Yes, except for these exceptions you have an exceptional argument. Special pleading? Appeal to popularity? Don't have to. Got the evidence above.
#432
I think all of the NT miracles had a specific purpose. Some were big, purposeful (had context, taught lessons, proved a point), witnessed (many by large groups), and had theological significance (backed up Jesus' claim to be God, means of redemption).
#435
You misunderstood. Peter, James, and John wrote epistles. They were eyewitness, NT writers. 7 books. They witnessed the entire 3 years of Jesus' ministry.
#440
I wrote my sentence poorly. Peter, James and John = eyewitnesses. Luke was kind of a reporter who interviewed eyewitnesses for Luke and Acts. Paul knew some of the apostles and referred to them (so not an eyewitness but confirmed his belief that the apostles and others were eyewitnesses).
#443
Still waiting for some evidence of a conspiracy/fraud/less than honest account... In the meantime, I am going to accept the accounts/facts/period analysis as it was originally written. I have no reason to believe this group of people lied or were confused--especially since my belief in God is properly basic!!
I've placed your NT arguments/comments in bold in which it appears that the same/similar argument could apply to many of the non canonized gospels of the time. Other than condensing and bolding I have not altered your posts. If you believe I have then please correct them/me.
I know that you will claim some/all are taken out of context so they don't apply. If you think so, fine, put them in context.
August 17, 2016 at 7:34 pm (This post was last modified: August 17, 2016 at 7:37 pm by bennyboy.)
(August 17, 2016 at 10:16 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I also think that you have some misconceptions regarding Christianity, shown here. FYI, I do believe in a six day creation, and find it useful. I also acknowledge, that the word used for day, has a number of meanings other than 23 hrs and 56 minutes, that some contend. I did notice, that when you went for evolution to the creation account, that you also changed from useful, to useful and water tight. Why is that?
No, it's just an elaboration, not an important refinement. If you want to see the 6 days as six "ages," then I'd say you are viewing the Bible as metaphorical. In this case, I see much more value in the Bible that I would if it was meant to be taken literally.
For example, I've often seen the story of Adam and Eve as a story about puberty. Girls mature first and develop sexual interest, thereby losing their childish innocence in some sense. Then as the girls grow more beautiful (i.e. sexually mature), boys notice them and soon follow suit, also losing their innocence as they develop sexual interest. To say that God made men out of clay is also figuratively true, since the materials of our bodies are of the Earth, animated by the Sun's energy.
However, if the idea is that humans are separate from the rest of the natural world, because God made man with the breath of God (aka a soul), and that people are therefore the rightful owners of Earth and need not consider the feelings and experiences of animals at all, or take seriously the maintenance of the world, then I have to step off.
This is the problem with literalism-- it leads to behaviors and views that I consider harmful and downright ignorant. But whatever you say about the "real" Christianity, i.e. its misconceptions, I know that millions of Christians themselves also hold to those misconceptions, meaning the Christian institution is rife with ignorance.
(August 17, 2016 at 7:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Steve, just in case you've forgotten some of your arguments I've condensed them below with the referenced post #.
#336
If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity.
Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?
#346
If you want to know the dates of 27 different documents, look them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible So, your reason why my belief is 'laughable' is...what? There would have been more surviving Roman literature on what happened in Palestine during the life of Jesus? That is the criteria for laughable??? You're sure the evidence of the NT is not solid, yet...nothing of substance has been forthcoming.
#366
What is the world is 'convergent evidence'? Seem like a term you use when you keep moving the bar. You still have not told me why these are not evidence (I numbered them so you can reply more easily):
1. 27 documents of the NT that survived.
2. The fact there were churches across the Roman empire with 20 years of Jesus' death
3. The fact that the gospel writers (still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses) seemed to have even earlier writings available to them (putting those writings even closer to the actual dates.)
4. The fact that we have late first century and second century writers who believed and referred to both the earlier documents, people, and events.
The life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. How do these compare exactly? Actually, you are making things up because you couldn't possible make a case for anything you said in that paragraph. We are back to the life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So by what stretch of imagination do you think anyone applies 'special pleading' to the events that the NT describes?
#375 Re: the NT
Why are they 'untrue'? At most, all you have the grounds to conclude is that 'we don't know'.
#378
Why would you want to build and spread a religion that was based on what you knew to be false? Is there any evidence or hint that might be the case in the 8-9 authors of the NT? The core belief of Jesus coming back from the dead is hardly an event to be mistaken or 'biased' with.
#383
That's ridiculous. I cannot make something 'untrue' because you do not believe the evidence that exists. I never said anything about 'we don't/can't know'. I believe the evidence and you don't. Is there a reason that the NT events could not be true despite the accounts?
#385
I simply responded to an attempt to suggest that the people who wrote the NT were mistaken or biased and pointed out there is no evidence for this so therefore...find another reason not to believe what the writers wrote.
#395
No, we were talking specifically about Christianity and why someone would write an account in the NT that was not true. Do you have anything? While I do believe that the events happened, my belief has absolutely nothing to do with whether the events of the NT happened or not. You seem to claim to know (more than just believe) that they are not true. Why do you know that?
#403
If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.
#405
So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.
#410
Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is. In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it? Aren't all experiences subjective? Why would eyewitness accounts not be good evidence in a historical context?
#420
So, nothing to support your 'start a religion of power and money' theory. No, the NT is not the claim. It catalogs and explains a belief about events that predates it. So, the claim would be that Jesus lived, taught, died and rose again. Paul wrote his letters to churches that very obviously believed the claims prior to his writing them (as did the other epistle authors). Later, the 4 gospel editors used eyewitness accounts and previous documents to try to give a thorough account of the claim. So stop with the nonsense mantra that the NT is the claim. It is not.
#423
Peter, James, John, Luke said he spoke to eyewitnesses to write his 2 books. Paul claimed to know and discuss the events with eyewitnesses.
#429
Except the parts that are not hearsay, the parts that have no evidence of any theory about lying for self interest (oh, that would be all of it), and the parts that are eyewitness testimony (Peter, James, John, Luke reporting the testimony of eyewitnesses, and Paul spending time with and referring to eyewitnesses). You haven't mentioned the churches that pre-existed the NT docs...but I'm sure we can find a way to dismiss those pesky facts. Yes, except for these exceptions you have an exceptional argument. Special pleading? Appeal to popularity? Don't have to. Got the evidence above.
#432
I think all of the NT miracles had a specific purpose. Some were big, purposeful (had context, taught lessons, proved a point), witnessed (many by large groups), and had theological significance (backed up Jesus' claim to be God, means of redemption).
#435
You misunderstood. Peter, James, and John wrote epistles. They were eyewitness, NT writers. 7 books. They witnessed the entire 3 years of Jesus' ministry.
#440
I wrote my sentence poorly. Peter, James and John = eyewitnesses. Luke was kind of a reporter who interviewed eyewitnesses for Luke and Acts. Paul knew some of the apostles and referred to them (so not an eyewitness but confirmed his belief that the apostles and others were eyewitnesses).
#443
Still waiting for some evidence of a conspiracy/fraud/less than honest account... In the meantime, I am going to accept the accounts/facts/period analysis as it was originally written. I have no reason to believe this group of people lied or were confused--especially since my belief in God is properly basic!!
I've placed your NT arguments/comments in bold in which it appears that the same/similar argument could apply to many of the non canonized gospels of the time. Other than condensing and bolding I have not altered your posts. If you believe I have then please correct them/me.
I know that you will claim some/all are taken out of context so they don't apply. If you think so, fine, put them in context.
Man, an awful lot of Steve's arguments for the evidence of God seem to require the opponent do all the work. How convenient for him.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
(August 17, 2016 at 7:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Steve, just in case you've forgotten some of your arguments I've condensed them below with the referenced post #.
#336
If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity.
Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?
#346
If you want to know the dates of 27 different documents, look them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible So, your reason why my belief is 'laughable' is...what? There would have been more surviving Roman literature on what happened in Palestine during the life of Jesus? That is the criteria for laughable??? You're sure the evidence of the NT is not solid, yet...nothing of substance has been forthcoming.
#366
What is the world is 'convergent evidence'? Seem like a term you use when you keep moving the bar. You still have not told me why these are not evidence (I numbered them so you can reply more easily):
1. 27 documents of the NT that survived.
2. The fact there were churches across the Roman empire with 20 years of Jesus' death
3. The fact that the gospel writers (still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses) seemed to have even earlier writings available to them (putting those writings even closer to the actual dates.)
4. The fact that we have late first century and second century writers who believed and referred to both the earlier documents, people, and events.
The life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. How do these compare exactly? Actually, you are making things up because you couldn't possible make a case for anything you said in that paragraph. We are back to the life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So by what stretch of imagination do you think anyone applies 'special pleading' to the events that the NT describes?
#375 Re: the NT
Why are they 'untrue'? At most, all you have the grounds to conclude is that 'we don't know'.
#378
Why would you want to build and spread a religion that was based on what you knew to be false? Is there any evidence or hint that might be the case in the 8-9 authors of the NT? The core belief of Jesus coming back from the dead is hardly an event to be mistaken or 'biased' with.
#383
That's ridiculous. I cannot make something 'untrue' because you do not believe the evidence that exists. I never said anything about 'we don't/can't know'. I believe the evidence and you don't. Is there a reason that the NT events could not be true despite the accounts?
#385
I simply responded to an attempt to suggest that the people who wrote the NT were mistaken or biased and pointed out there is no evidence for this so therefore...find another reason not to believe what the writers wrote.
#395
No, we were talking specifically about Christianity and why someone would write an account in the NT that was not true. Do you have anything? While I do believe that the events happened, my belief has absolutely nothing to do with whether the events of the NT happened or not. You seem to claim to know (more than just believe) that they are not true. Why do you know that?
#403
If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.
#405
So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.
#410
Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is. In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it? Aren't all experiences subjective? Why would eyewitness accounts not be good evidence in a historical context?
#420
So, nothing to support your 'start a religion of power and money' theory. No, the NT is not the claim. It catalogs and explains a belief about events that predates it. So, the claim would be that Jesus lived, taught, died and rose again. Paul wrote his letters to churches that very obviously believed the claims prior to his writing them (as did the other epistle authors). Later, the 4 gospel editors used eyewitness accounts and previous documents to try to give a thorough account of the claim. So stop with the nonsense mantra that the NT is the claim. It is not.
#423
Peter, James, John, Luke said he spoke to eyewitnesses to write his 2 books. Paul claimed to know and discuss the events with eyewitnesses.
#429
Except the parts that are not hearsay, the parts that have no evidence of any theory about lying for self interest (oh, that would be all of it), and the parts that are eyewitness testimony (Peter, James, John, Luke reporting the testimony of eyewitnesses, and Paul spending time with and referring to eyewitnesses). You haven't mentioned the churches that pre-existed the NT docs...but I'm sure we can find a way to dismiss those pesky facts. Yes, except for these exceptions you have an exceptional argument. Special pleading? Appeal to popularity? Don't have to. Got the evidence above.
#432
I think all of the NT miracles had a specific purpose. Some were big, purposeful (had context, taught lessons, proved a point), witnessed (many by large groups), and had theological significance (backed up Jesus' claim to be God, means of redemption).
#435
You misunderstood. Peter, James, and John wrote epistles. They were eyewitness, NT writers. 7 books. They witnessed the entire 3 years of Jesus' ministry.
#440
I wrote my sentence poorly. Peter, James and John = eyewitnesses. Luke was kind of a reporter who interviewed eyewitnesses for Luke and Acts. Paul knew some of the apostles and referred to them (so not an eyewitness but confirmed his belief that the apostles and others were eyewitnesses).
#443
Still waiting for some evidence of a conspiracy/fraud/less than honest account... In the meantime, I am going to accept the accounts/facts/period analysis as it was originally written. I have no reason to believe this group of people lied or were confused--especially since my belief in God is properly basic!!
I've placed your NT arguments/comments in bold in which it appears that the same/similar argument could apply to many of the non canonized gospels of the time. Other than condensing and bolding I have not altered your posts. If you believe I have then please correct them/me.
I know that you will claim some/all are taken out of context so they don't apply. If you think so, fine, put them in context.
August 17, 2016 at 8:20 pm (This post was last modified: August 17, 2016 at 8:21 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 17, 2016 at 8:18 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:
(August 17, 2016 at 7:46 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Man, an awful lot of Steve's arguments for the evidence of God seem to require the opponent do all the work. How convenient for him.
Let's just limit this to NT vs the other gospels.
I was pretty sure he wouldn't do the work.
Oh, I just meant because every "argument" he uses is actually just a question challenging US to prove his claims wrong, haha. Sorry for being unclear!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
(August 17, 2016 at 7:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Steve, just in case you've forgotten some of your arguments I've condensed them below with the referenced post #.
#336
If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity.
Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?
#346
If you want to know the dates of 27 different documents, look them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible So, your reason why my belief is 'laughable' is...what? There would have been more surviving Roman literature on what happened in Palestine during the life of Jesus? That is the criteria for laughable??? You're sure the evidence of the NT is not solid, yet...nothing of substance has been forthcoming.
#366
What is the world is 'convergent evidence'? Seem like a term you use when you keep moving the bar. You still have not told me why these are not evidence (I numbered them so you can reply more easily):
1. 27 documents of the NT that survived.
2. The fact there were churches across the Roman empire with 20 years of Jesus' death
3. The fact that the gospel writers (still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses) seemed to have even earlier writings available to them (putting those writings even closer to the actual dates.)
4. The fact that we have late first century and second century writers who believed and referred to both the earlier documents, people, and events.
The life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. How do these compare exactly? Actually, you are making things up because you couldn't possible make a case for anything you said in that paragraph. We are back to the life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So by what stretch of imagination do you think anyone applies 'special pleading' to the events that the NT describes?
#375 Re: the NT
Why are they 'untrue'? At most, all you have the grounds to conclude is that 'we don't know'.
#378
Why would you want to build and spread a religion that was based on what you knew to be false? Is there any evidence or hint that might be the case in the 8-9 authors of the NT? The core belief of Jesus coming back from the dead is hardly an event to be mistaken or 'biased' with.
#383
That's ridiculous. I cannot make something 'untrue' because you do not believe the evidence that exists. I never said anything about 'we don't/can't know'. I believe the evidence and you don't. Is there a reason that the NT events could not be true despite the accounts?
#385
I simply responded to an attempt to suggest that the people who wrote the NT were mistaken or biased and pointed out there is no evidence for this so therefore...find another reason not to believe what the writers wrote.
#395
No, we were talking specifically about Christianity and why someone would write an account in the NT that was not true. Do you have anything? While I do believe that the events happened, my belief has absolutely nothing to do with whether the events of the NT happened or not. You seem to claim to know (more than just believe) that they are not true. Why do you know that?
#403
If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.
#405
So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.
#410
Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is. In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it? Aren't all experiences subjective? Why would eyewitness accounts not be good evidence in a historical context?
#420
So, nothing to support your 'start a religion of power and money' theory. No, the NT is not the claim. It catalogs and explains a belief about events that predates it. So, the claim would be that Jesus lived, taught, died and rose again. Paul wrote his letters to churches that very obviously believed the claims prior to his writing them (as did the other epistle authors). Later, the 4 gospel editors used eyewitness accounts and previous documents to try to give a thorough account of the claim. So stop with the nonsense mantra that the NT is the claim. It is not.
#423
Peter, James, John, Luke said he spoke to eyewitnesses to write his 2 books. Paul claimed to know and discuss the events with eyewitnesses.
#429
Except the parts that are not hearsay, the parts that have no evidence of any theory about lying for self interest (oh, that would be all of it), and the parts that are eyewitness testimony (Peter, James, John, Luke reporting the testimony of eyewitnesses, and Paul spending time with and referring to eyewitnesses). You haven't mentioned the churches that pre-existed the NT docs...but I'm sure we can find a way to dismiss those pesky facts. Yes, except for these exceptions you have an exceptional argument. Special pleading? Appeal to popularity? Don't have to. Got the evidence above.
#432
I think all of the NT miracles had a specific purpose. Some were big, purposeful (had context, taught lessons, proved a point), witnessed (many by large groups), and had theological significance (backed up Jesus' claim to be God, means of redemption).
#435
You misunderstood. Peter, James, and John wrote epistles. They were eyewitness, NT writers. 7 books. They witnessed the entire 3 years of Jesus' ministry.
#440
I wrote my sentence poorly. Peter, James and John = eyewitnesses. Luke was kind of a reporter who interviewed eyewitnesses for Luke and Acts. Paul knew some of the apostles and referred to them (so not an eyewitness but confirmed his belief that the apostles and others were eyewitnesses).
#443
Still waiting for some evidence of a conspiracy/fraud/less than honest account... In the meantime, I am going to accept the accounts/facts/period analysis as it was originally written. I have no reason to believe this group of people lied or were confused--especially since my belief in God is properly basic!!
I've placed your NT arguments/comments in bold in which it appears that the same/similar argument could apply to many of the non canonized gospels of the time. Other than condensing and bolding I have not altered your posts. If you believe I have then please correct them/me.
I know that you will claim some/all are taken out of context so they don't apply. If you think so, fine, put them in context.
Man, an awful lot of Steve's arguments for the evidence of God seem to require the opponent do all the work. How convenient for him.
And this is exactly why I'm telling them to do the work. If you make the assertion, you need to back it up. Don't leave it to us to disprove it. Acceptance is not a given until you do the work.
