Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Huggy Bear]

I see we're down to arguing semantics now...

You clearly stated that the words "timeless" and "eternal" contradict each other when they are actually synonymous.

Re-read my post. I was very clear about which sense of the word is a contradiction and which was not. By using the word as a synonym for 'eternal', you're having a completely different conversation from the rest of us. We're talking about William Lane Craig's interpretations and expansion on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In that argument, 'timeless' is used in the sense of 'there being no time'. If there's no contradiction, then you're off topic.

We wouldn't need to be arguing semantics if you were using the term consistently with what's actually being discussed.

I'm sorry webster jr. but it's not up to YOU to define the word timeless how ever you see fit, I gave you the dictionary definition.

Time does not exist for an eternal being, because is has no beginning or end, so at what point are you going to measure time? As I have constantly been trying to explain to you guys, time is relative, it can only be measured in relation to something else, hence why we measure it by the rotation / revolution of the earth in relation to the sun, but that measurement is only unique to the earth.

Since there is no time for an eternal being, trying to make a distinction between "eternal" and "there being no time" IS ARGUING SEMANTICS.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oh, it's in John! Well, that certainly wasn't full of material later added on to make Jesus seem more divine than the original claims, not at all!

[Huggy Bear]

Feel free to present proof.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Feel free to present proof.

Is this your new gig, now? Just saying "prove it" every time we mention something not in the evangelical version of events?

Look at *any* scholarly articles on the differences between the Synoptic gospels and the later-written Gospel of John. 

Hell, you don't even need to do that. Just make a chart (some Bibles already have them, conveniently laid out for you) listing the miracles attested to be performed by Jesus, and SEE FOR YOURSELF that they increase with time, with the earliest-written gospel (Mark) containing few, while the last-written gospel (John) containing more than the others combined, and of much higher magnitude.

The VERY earliest document, Q, which is hypothetical but generally accepted by religious scholars as being a thing that existed, based on comparisons between the two earliest gospels, shows that there were no claims of magic that were identically-worded sharing between the two, meaning that Q was basically a collections of sayings (like the Sermon on the Mount) by Yeshua the rabbi. Others have noted that the earliest writings (Paul and James) we have make no mention of him being God Incarnate, and the latter also refers to the sayings that are common with the hypothetical Q. In other words, it's apparent that people added to the legend, as the years went by.

It is obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head up their "I'd rather believe this great story so I'm going to stop thinking about it unless it's already in the story" asses.

FFS, man... you can lead a horse to water...

[Cyberman]

Also your link only states what "most scholars believe" not what they can prove.

Proof outstrips belief now? Is this a concession?

[Huggy Bear]

Feel free to present proof.

Is this your new gig, now? Just saying "prove it" every time we mention something not in the evangelical version of events?

Is this your new gig, now? Just saying "prove it" every time we mention something not in the evangelical version of events?[/quote]
Actually, that would be the atheist motto, you're just not used to being on the receiving side of it.

Look at *any* scholarly articles on the differences between the Synoptic gospels and the later-written Gospel of John. 

Hell, you don't even need to do that. Just make a chart (some Bibles already have them, conveniently laid out for you) listing the miracles attested to be performed by Jesus, and SEE FOR YOURSELF that they increase with time, with the earliest-written gospel (Mark) containing few, while the last-written gospel (John) containing more than the others combined, and of much higher magnitude.

The VERY earliest document, Q, which is hypothetical but generally accepted by religious scholars as being a thing that existed, based on comparisons between the two earliest gospels, shows that there were no claims of magic that were identically-worded sharing between the two, meaning that Q was basically a collections of sayings (like the Sermon on the Mount) by Yeshua the rabbi. Others have noted that the earliest writings (Paul and James) we have make no mention of him being God Incarnate, and the latter also refers to the sayings that are common with the hypothetical Q. In other words, it's apparent that people added to the legend, as the years went by.

It is obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head up their "I'd rather believe this great story so I'm going to stop thinking about it unless it's already in the story" asses.

FFS, man... you can lead a horse to water...

As I've stated before, what scholars "believe" is irrelevant, what determines if Jesus's statement of "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also" is true or not, is if anyone is actually doing the same works, agree?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Actually, that would be the atheist motto, you're just not used to being on the receiving side of it.

As I've stated before, what scholars "believe" is irrelevant, what determines if Jesus's statement of "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also" is true or not, is if anyone is actually doing the same works, agree?

I'm always accustomed to being on the receiving side of it. It's how we live our lives. What I'm not accustomed to is having someone say it when they're willing to ignore the scholarly consensus on anything they'd prefer to ignore, knowing they won't accept research and won't question why their holy book says what it now says, as if it was the result of God giving dictation to His Divine Secretary.

And no, I don't agree. I'm not even sure exactly what you mean. I'm assuming you refer to magical powers supposedly granted by Jesus to followers who believe, as claimed in the holy books... except that such things are always debunked when put to the actual test by scientific means.

[Huggy Bear]

Actually, that would be the atheist motto, you're just not used to being on the receiving side of it.

As I've stated before, what scholars "believe" is irrelevant, what determines if Jesus's statement of "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also" is true or not, is if anyone is actually doing the same works, agree?

I'm always accustomed to being on the receiving side of it. It's how we live our lives. What I'm not accustomed to is having someone say it when they're willing to ignore the scholarly consensus on anything they'd prefer to ignore, knowing they won't accept research and won't question why their holy book says what it now says, as if it was the result of God giving dictation to His Divine Secretary.

And no, I don't agree. I'm not even sure exactly what you mean. I'm assuming you refer to magical powers supposedly granted by Jesus to followers who believe, as claimed in the holy books... except that such things are always debunked when put to the actual test by scientific means.

Ok, let's just say (hypothetically) that if a supernatural event was verified scientifically, would you accept it?

---

Also your link only states what "most scholars believe" not what they can prove.

Proof outstrips belief now? Is this a concession?

Unless you're trying to say in a round about way that you can prove God doesn't exist, I'm not sure this is a road you want to go down.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Sure. It would take quite a lot for me to accept it, simply because I see humans making up magical bullshit explanations for natural phenomena all the time (I like to refer to the gods of thunder and lightning, when highlighting this sort of ignorance-leads-to-storytelling habit in humanity), and I currently think that everything we once considered magical is either part of our imaginations or is the result of an undiscovered natural phenomenon.

But yes, if magic was ever demonstrated to be a real thing, and not just a human fabrication, I would accept that.

[Huggy Bear]

What do you mean by "it would take a lot"? I thought scientific verification was enough...