Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:36:48 GMT
The NT is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, Sulla. As for your point about the disciples. People would die for what they believe to be true, but no one would die for what they know to be a lie. No text is given a blanket label of "accurate and trustworthy" I didn't accuse the disciples of lying. They could have been mistaken.
The disciples weren't the only witnesses though, there was 500 at one time. What are the chances all these people were mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 18, 2017 18:40:29 GMT
No text is given a blanket label of "accurate and trustworthy" I didn't accuse the disciples of lying. They could have been mistaken.
The disciples weren't the only witnesses though, there was 500 at one time. What are the chances all these people were mistaken? Yeah it's not like the story could have just been completely made up or anything, that would be absurd.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 18, 2017 18:41:23 GMT
I thought the sentence stating WLC made a very compelling presentation was going to be the funniest thing that I would read all day. But then I scrolled down a little further. The NT has continually been found to be accurate on it's places referenced, dates, and records of events. This is a fact. Critics like you have long been questioning the NT and time and time again archeological discoveries have silenced you. OK. Sure.....some of the places, dates and records, as mentioned in the Bible, are indeed accurate. I don't dispute that. That doesn't mean the the entirety of the Bible is factual. It's the supernatural claims that are being disputed (and that hasn't silenced anyone).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:42:09 GMT
This from a guy who believes and accepts virtually anything a scientist throws out there as evidence, even conclusions based on nothing but conjecture or assumptions. This from a guy who has no answer to the point raised, so he ignores it and attacks the person who made the point instead - and does so by lying about him, at that. So much for your strong video. It's so weak that even you are instantly reduced to lying about people instead of defending it. Just pointing out your double standards, dude.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Apr 18, 2017 18:42:09 GMT
No text is given a blanket label of "accurate and trustworthy" I didn't accuse the disciples of lying. They could have been mistaken.
The disciples weren't the only witnesses though, there was 500 at one time. What are the chances all these people were mistaken? Once again. Someone claims 500 people saw it. Who is making the claim? And what are the names of the 500 and where are their accounts? These are standard questions of evidence in historiography. People of faith don't need these answers.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 18, 2017 18:43:47 GMT
The NT has continually been found to be accurate on it's places referenced, dates, and records of events. This is a fact. Critics like you have long been questioning the NT and time and time again archeological discoveries have silenced you. OK. Sure.....some of the places, dates and records, as mentioned in the Bible, are indeed accurate. I don't dispute that. That doesn't mean the the entirety of the Bible is factual. It's the supernatural claims that are being disputed (and that hasn't silenced anyone). There's a Marvel comic that takes place in New York on 9/11. Are you saying that's not a historically accurate book?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:44:30 GMT
The disciples weren't the only witnesses though, there was 500 at one time. What are the chances all these people were mistaken? Yeah it's not like the story could have just been completely made up or anything, that would be absurd. You didn't watch the video I linked at all, did you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:44:53 GMT
This from a guy who has no answer to the point raised, so he ignores it and attacks the person who made the point instead - and does so by lying about him, at that. So much for your strong video. It's so weak that even you are instantly reduced to lying about people instead of defending it. Just pointing out your double standards, dude. Just pointing out that you're resorting to lies because you can't defend your post, dude.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 18, 2017 18:46:10 GMT
Yeah it's not like the story could have just been completely made up or anything, that would be absurd. You didn't watch the video I linked at all, did you? No I did not. What was the compelling evidence I missed out on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:47:37 GMT
No text is given a blanket label of "accurate and trustworthy" I didn't accuse the disciples of lying. They could have been mistaken.
The disciples weren't the only witnesses though, there was 500 at one time. What are the chances all these people were mistaken? You say there were 500 witnesses. How do you know there were 500? How many eye witness statements do we have from these 500 witnesses? In fact, do the references to the number of witnesses even come from an eye witness themselves?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 18, 2017 19:01:26 GMT
The NT has continually been found to be accurate on it's places referenced, dates, and records of events. This is a fact. As are novels by Dan Brown. Doesn't make them factual. Or, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins: The difference between the Bible and a Dan-Brown-novel is that the Bible is old fiction, and Dan Brown is new fiction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 19:02:16 GMT
OK. Sure.....some of the places, dates and records, as mentioned in the Bible, are indeed accurate. I don't dispute that. That doesn't mean the the entirety of the Bible is factual. It's the supernatural claims that are being disputed (and that hasn't silenced anyone). There's a Marvel comic that takes place in New York on 9/11. Are you saying that's not a historically accurate book? What a silly argument. 😂 I'm not saying that because the bible makes accurate claims about places, dates and certain events that we should just accept it all in its entirety. I'm saying it's an important step when one is trying to determine the reliability of a document that is making historical claims. Btw your marvel comic analogy and comparison fails in the sense that it's not intended to be a historical source of information. It's created as a work of fiction by a writer intending to entertain.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 18, 2017 19:02:18 GMT
OK. Sure.....some of the places, dates and records, as mentioned in the Bible, are indeed accurate. I don't dispute that. That doesn't mean the the entirety of the Bible is factual. It's the supernatural claims that are being disputed (and that hasn't silenced anyone). There's a Marvel comic that takes place in New York on 9/11. Are you saying that's not a historically accurate book? Right! That's exactly my point. Just because some information is true - doesn't automatically make the entire book factual.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 18, 2017 19:07:22 GMT
Yeah, I'm sure lots of non-Christian historians accept the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. All four of the alleged facts are hearsay. There are no primary or secondary sources which make those claims nor is there any corroboration from outside sources. The only fact about these are that they were included in the Gospels. We do not have anyone's personal accounts. Even if the disciples did believe Jesus rose from the dead doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many PhDs Craig has in philosophy and theology. He doesn't speak for actual objective historians. All the other History is simply "written by the winners" and every bit of it motivated by personal interests in power. The gospels alone serve as an "undeniably" objective History from the ancient world. The only objective History, because the gospels even state that Jesus had at least four brothers from whose families the apostles could seek a future Messiah from. The resurrection had to hit them hard, and had to be something they didn't want to admit to. The biggest proof, however, is in the maniacs who come up with idiotic reasons to decide that "if the bible says it, it can't be so". There can't be an objective or a natural reason for it, so the supernatural inclination (and I even felt this) to deny it is something a truth seeking person has to admit, or else he's simply a sheep led to slaughter.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Apr 18, 2017 19:18:52 GMT
Yeah, I'm sure lots of non-Christian historians accept the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. All four of the alleged facts are hearsay. There are no primary or secondary sources which make those claims nor is there any corroboration from outside sources. The only fact about these are that they were included in the Gospels. We do not have anyone's personal accounts. Even if the disciples did believe Jesus rose from the dead doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many PhDs Craig has in philosophy and theology. He doesn't speak for actual objective historians. All the other History is simply "written by the winners" and every bit of it motivated by personal interests in power. The gospels alone serve as an "undeniably" objective History from the ancient world. The only objective History, because the gospels even state that Jesus had at least four brothers from whose families the apostles could seek a future Messiah from. The resurrection had to hit them hard, and had to be something they didn't want to admit to. The biggest proof, however, is in the maniacs who come up with idiotic reasons to decide that "if the bible says it, it can't be so". There can't be an objective or a natural reason for it, so the supernatural inclination (and I even felt this) to deny it is something a truth seeking person has to admit, or else he's simply a sheep led to slaughter. Yes, I'm sure your faith serves you well. Just let me know when you have a primary source account of any witnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 19:21:41 GMT
There's a good academic book out there called The Jesus Legend that demonstrates that the Gospels can be understood to be very reliable historical documents. In fact, if you take each of the four biographical writings on their own and put them through the "historical reliability" tests that we use for other ancient documents, they pass with flying colors. The "problem" people have with them is that they contain miracles. So if you rule out the possibility that miracles occurred, you're bound to reject the Gospel accounts out of hand. But if you're open to the possibility that these accounts are accurate, then they give you every reason to believe that they are (again, using historical reliability standards that we use for all other ancient works).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 19:26:30 GMT
All the other History is simply "written by the winners" and every bit of it motivated by personal interests in power. The gospels alone serve as an "undeniably" objective History from the ancient world. The only objective History, because the gospels even state that Jesus had at least four brothers from whose families the apostles could seek a future Messiah from. The resurrection had to hit them hard, and had to be something they didn't want to admit to. The biggest proof, however, is in the maniacs who come up with idiotic reasons to decide that "if the bible says it, it can't be so". There can't be an objective or a natural reason for it, so the supernatural inclination (and I even felt this) to deny it is something a truth seeking person has to admit, or else he's simply a sheep led to slaughter. Yes, I'm sure your faith serves you well. Just let me know when you have a primary source account of any witnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
The gospels are a primary source.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 18, 2017 19:26:38 GMT
All the other History is simply "written by the winners" and every bit of it motivated by personal interests in power. The gospels alone serve as an "undeniably" objective History from the ancient world. The only objective History, because the gospels even state that Jesus had at least four brothers from whose families the apostles could seek a future Messiah from. The resurrection had to hit them hard, and had to be something they didn't want to admit to. The biggest proof, however, is in the maniacs who come up with idiotic reasons to decide that "if the bible says it, it can't be so". There can't be an objective or a natural reason for it, so the supernatural inclination (and I even felt this) to deny it is something a truth seeking person has to admit, or else he's simply a sheep led to slaughter. Yes, I'm sure your faith serves you well. Just let me know when you have a primary source account of any witnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
I have no faith. You have tons more faith than I do. You'd make the best fundamentalist in any religion. I'm merely using logic, mathematics, and deductions. I'm not one of the ones God and Jesus cares much about, because I'm not like you. I have no faith at all. I arrive to the conclusion based on objective reasoning after years of research and living in the world. I've lived in dozens of different places in the world, worked in hundreds of places, played about every role there is in life, socialized with about every single class below the first estate. I'm sorry to say I am worldly, and have savvy. I arrive at the holy ghost through intellectual means, which is not the most blessed way. I miss out on the blessings others have. I'd love to have your amount of faith.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 18, 2017 19:33:07 GMT
The gospels are a primary source. ...and this is the problem, since the Gospels were written by anonymous authors long after the events took place.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Apr 18, 2017 19:36:30 GMT
Yes, I'm sure your faith serves you well. Just let me know when you have a primary source account of any witnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
The gospels are a primary source. No, I'm afraid they're not. Primary sources are eyewitness accounts. Who was the eyewitness present at Jesus' birth? Who was the eyewitness who was with the boy Jesus' parents when they found him in discussions with elders? Who was the eyewitness with Jesus when he wandered alone in the desert and encountered Satan? Who recorded Jesus' comments to God in the Garden of Gethsemane when his followers were left behind and fell asleep? The Gospels were not written as historical accounts. They are hagiographical texts.
|
|