Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Minimalist]

Peter, the illiterate fisherman writing letters in Koine Greek, huh?  Moron.

I think Steve intended to say that Paul wrote the letters, not Peter. Peter wrote nothing. So how Peter established the Christian church is beyond me, or at the very least it is beyond me how one actually determines that.

There are 2 epistles by "peter" in the NT canon.  Both are forgeries.

[TheBeardedDude]

So if Paul had never existed, the Christian church would exist?

edit to add: I am asking the questions because it is clear you don't know the history of your religion and its books as well as you think you do. I would have thought it apparent that when the questions I was asking were to you because I want to see you try to answer them and not because I want to simply make statements. I like questions that allow someone to highlight their own ignorance instead of statements outlining it

That's kind of evident in the fact that Paul was writing to pre-existing churches. Here is a secret code to keep them straight...the name of the church is in the letter's title...Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.

LOL. You think I don't know the history of Christianity? You can't even get two sentences without messing them up! 

You're in over your head in both knowledge of the subject in and in critical thinking skills.

Paul was writing to pre-existing "churches?" Is that so? So Paul has nothing to do with the foundation of Christianity? Without Paul, Christianity would still be around?

Here, let's explore a second related piece. Which was more important to the Christian religion: Jesus or the Romans adopting Christianity?

---

I think Steve intended to say that Paul wrote the letters, not Peter. Peter wrote nothing. So how Peter established the Christian church is beyond me, or at the very least it is beyond me how one actually determines that.

There are 2 epistles by "peter" in the NT canon.  Both are forgeries.

But I don't think he was alluding to any writings by a "Peter." I think he was referencing the writings of Paul

[Minimalist]

He'll have to speak for himself on that.  BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

[LadyForCamus]

The quote you were referring to was about Paul. Even Bart Ehrman firmly believes Paul was real and wrote most of the epistles ascribed to him. He also believes the the NT is 99% today what it was when it was written.

Thank you for your response regarding that particular quote, though I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions I asked based on your statements: "I believe Paul was who he said he was", and, "I believe the epistles are what they appear to be."

My questions are: 

1. What evidence lead you to these two beliefs?

2. Why do you find this evidence persuasive?

[Minimalist]

Don't hold your breath, LfC.

[LadyForCamus]

---

[hide[[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1618925' dateline='1505286463']
Okay, so 'gullible' it REALLY is then, Huggy.  People saw it with their own eyes after they were explicitly directed to do so.  The pastor literally TELLS the audience that there is a light hovering over someone's head, and he doesn't even stop there.  He baldly suggests to them,  "just like in the picture," specifically so that none of his rapt believers miss the biblical parallel he's trying to draw. This is common stage hypnotism.  Highly suggestable folks who are eager to believe are easy to manipulate.

Shame on you for being taken by such foolishness.  Please, quit while your behind.

So we've gone from stage magic to stage hypnotism? NONE OF WHICH EXPLAIN THE PICTURE! You can't psychologically fool a mechanical device  

If you want to claim that the picture is just a "glitch" as Astreja  put it, that does not explain why there is eye witness accounting of it.

If you want to claim that people were "hypnotized" into seeing something that wasn't there, that does not explain why there is a thoroughly vetted picture.

Try as you guys might, you can't attempt to debunk one without acknowledging the other.

And to answer your earlier question:

Since your own scientific source determined only that the cause of image was light, how did you reach the conclusion that the source of the light was the Holy Spirit?

Jesus returned back to the form he was at the beginning of creation, which was light. When Paul saw Jesus, he saw a light...

To be clear the examiner of the photo never said the light was supernatural in the official report (no scientist would), it was his personal opinion that the light was supernatural, meaning there was no scientific explanation for why it appeared on film.

William Branham stated that the light was the Holy Spirit, He said he's  seen that light all his life, even before he ever was a christian.

In the audio recording I posted



if you turn on the caption you'll see Branham state:  

I'm just waiting. If He don't tell me, I can't say a thing.

also

Can't you see that Light? Looky here. The amber Light like you see in the picture… There It is right over the lady. It's moving around. Forgive me if I ask you that. This is another dimension. I realize that I'm in an auditorium. And I realize I'm looking at a woman, and she's praying, and I'm watching her. I never see her in my life. But I can… If I would to tell you by the Holy Spirit what you're praying about, you'll know whether it's the truth or not.

Then Braham goes on to tell people their names and what they're thinking (at the beginning of the clip, in the interest of transparency, he pointed out all the people he knew).

Branham never claimed to have any special powers, there is something there that is showing him these things.

The Carl Sagan states in the video (in his example of interacting with being from another dimension, in this case 2d creature (square) interacting with a 3d creature (apple)).

Starting at around 3:04

So the square, as time goes on, sees a set of objects mysteriously appear from nowhere, inside a closed room and change their shape dramatically. His only conclusion could be that he's gone bonkers.

Well the apple might be a little annoyed at this conclusion, and so in not a friendly gesture from dimension to dimension, makes a contact with the square from below and sends our flat creature fluttering and spinning above flatland.

At first the square has no idea whats happening, he's terribly confused this is utterly outside his experience, but after a while he comes to realize that he his seeing inside closed rooms in flatland, he's seeing inside his fellow flat creatures, he is seeing flatland from a perspective no one has ever seen it before to his knowledge.

Getting into another dimension provides as an incidental benefit a kind of x-ray vision.

Does not Carl Sagan describe what Branham was describing in the audio clip? Did not Branham state that he entered another dimension?

This is another dimension. I realize that I'm in an auditorium. And I realize I'm looking at a woman, and she's praying, and I'm watching her. I never see her in my life. But I can…

If I would to tell you by the Holy Spirit what you're praying about, you'll know whether it's the truth or not. You're praying about a rupture. That is right. Also an intestinal trouble, complications. If that is right, raise up your hand like this? If I'm a stranger to you, raise you other hand up. There's a certain sign of His resurrection.

She touched something. Is that right?

What about you all? Do you believe? Spinal trouble.

I don't know you, do I? We're strangers to one another. You got trouble in your spine. What if God would tell me who you were, would you believe me to be His prophet? Miss Hollanbach. That's right. That helped your friend setting next to you. I don't know you either, but God knows you. But you're not praying for yourself; you're praying for somebody else. If I tell you what it is, would you believe me to be His prophet? You're praying for a nephew that's an alcoholic. That's right. Raise your hand.

---

 

Carl Sagan described it perfectly, why is it so hard for you guys to see it?

Huggy, do you think if you had presented this case to Carl Sagan with the evidence you've presented here, he would have come to the conclusion that the light in your picture was, beyond reasonable doubt, caused by the Holy Spirit of the Christian God of The Bible?  Why, or why not?

[RoadRunner79]

BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

[TheBeardedDude]

BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

Personally, the fact that no two "divinely-inspired" texts agree with one another is a great example of how human these texts are and how lacking they are in divining inspiration. You'd think a god would ensure that the method that they chose to communicate with humans with was at least more reliable than a game of "telephone."

[SteveII]

That's kind of evident in the fact that Paul was writing to pre-existing churches. Here is a secret code to keep them straight...the name of the church is in the letter's title...Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.

LOL. You think I don't know the history of Christianity? You can't even get two sentences without messing them up! 

You're in over your head in both knowledge of the subject in and in critical thinking skills.

Paul was writing to pre-existing "churches?" Is that so? So Paul has nothing to do with the foundation of Christianity? Without Paul, Christianity would still be around? [1]

Here, let's explore a second related piece. Which was more important to the Christian religion: Jesus or the Romans adopting Christianity?  [2]

1. Yes, that is what he was doing. No, Paul did not found Christianity. He came later on the scene. His conversion was not until Acts 9--four years of activity before he comes on the scene. His first missionary journey was not for another fourteen years.  He didn't start writing for at least another two after that. You really need to read Acts. It is actually the book written to answer these questions (Luke actually says that). 

2. What kind of question is that? Constantine did not come for over 275 years (11 generations) after the first Christians. We have hundreds of surviving Christian writings from before Roman got involved.

[TheBeardedDude]

Paul was writing to pre-existing "churches?" Is that so? So Paul has nothing to do with the foundation of Christianity? Without Paul, Christianity would still be around? [1]

Here, let's explore a second related piece. Which was more important to the Christian religion: Jesus or the Romans adopting Christianity?  [2]

1. Yes, that is what he was doing. No, Paul did not found Christianity. He came later on the scene. His conversion was not until Acts 9--four years of activity before he comes on the scene. His first missionary journey was not for another fourteen years.  He didn't start writing for at least another two after that. You really need to read Acts. It is actually the book written to answer these questions (Luke actually says that). 

2. What kind of question is that? Constantine did not come for over 275 years (11 generations) after the first Christians. We have hundreds of surviving Christian writings from before Roman got involved.

lol

Okay. So let me get this straight. You believe that neither the Romans nor Paul are responsible for the Christian Church being around? I think you might need to rethink what the important steps were for your religion to ever become anything more than a series of isolated cults wandering around the Middle East.