|
Post by nathan on Nov 13, 2017 15:05:26 GMT -5
Amen, dmg we don't see mark 16 happening to Paul near the end of his life and he could NOT perform such miracles to his co-workers preaching the same gospel.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 13, 2017 16:58:00 GMT -5
*** If Timothy, Silas, Titus were false apostles because the didn't and couldn't do any healing or performing any miracles then WHY? Paul sent them to appoint church elders... Timothy, Titus, Silas, John mark became churches leaders after the death of Paul. Your interpretation of apostleship with miracles for every apostle doesn't make too much sense or scripture sound doctrines. I never said that those were false apostles but just that the bible nowhere says that they are apostles of jesus christ. They were apostles delegated by men - apostles representing elders or churches or paul or whoever actually commissioned and sent them - that they were apostles representing others doesn't make them false but they did not have and were not successors to the authority of the apostles of jesus christ because they weren't eyewitnesses and didn't have the direct commissioning from him and they didn't have the qualifications etc. What would make someone who was an authorized representative of person X a 'false apostle' would be to claim that they are the apostle/representative of person Y or anyone else when they weren't sent by that person or persons at all. Old Will-I did that right in the beginning days when he claimed to be just like the apostle paul - an authorized earthly representative of jesus christ - even tho he had none of the qualifications that paul had. Paul wasn't an "eyewitness" of Jesus either. Neither was Paul given any kind of "direct commission" as an "authorized earthly representative of Jesus."
All the information that we have about Paul is in Paul's own words!
It is amazing that Paul's self-claimed authority was never questioned by others. Of course it was questioned early on by John and James back in Jerusalem
But later history ignored most of what they said and Paul's authority wasn't questioned for several reasons. Probably the main one was Luke.
Luke, the writer of Luke–Acts, whose theology points to a gentile Christian writing for a gentile audience was an advocate for Paul, -whose vision was also Gentile oriented
And since Luke & Acts made up a large part of the history of Christian thought, that is why it is said that without Paul we wouldn't have Christianity as it is know today.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 13, 2017 17:15:56 GMT -5
I never said that those were false apostles but just that the bible nowhere says that they are apostles of jesus christ. They were apostles delegated by men - apostles representing elders or churches or paul or whoever actually commissioned and sent them - that they were apostles representing others doesn't make them false but they did not have and were not successors to the authority of the apostles of jesus christ because they weren't eyewitnesses and didn't have the direct commissioning from him and they didn't have the qualifications etc. What would make someone who was an authorized representative of person X a 'false apostle' would be to claim that they are the apostle/representative of person Y or anyone else when they weren't sent by that person or persons at all. Old Will-I did that right in the beginning days when he claimed to be just like the apostle paul - an authorized earthly representative of jesus christ - even tho he had none of the qualifications that paul had. Paul wasn't an "eyewitness" of Jesus either. Neither was Paul given any kind of "direct commission" as an "authorized earthly representative of Jesus."
All the information that we have about Paul is in Paul's own words!
It is amazing that Paul's self-claimed authority was never questioned by others. Of course it was questioned early on by John and James back in Jerusalem
But later history ignored most of what they said and Paul's authority wasn't questioned for several reasons. Probably the main one was Luke.
Luke, the writer of Luke–Acts, whose theology points to a gentile Christian writing for a gentile audience was an advocate for Paul, -whose vision was also Gentile oriented
And since Luke & Acts made up a large part of the history of Christian thought, that is why it is said that without Paul we wouldn't have Christianity as it is know today.
Paul was so off base he was made to repent for the things he was teaching when he visited Jerusalem. He did, probably because he feared for his life. But that didn't stop him from heading back out and teaching the same things again once he left the apostles jurisdiction. He was a self proclaimed apostle and he changed Christianity into what we see today. I doubt Jesus would recognize what he was teaching if he were to see how it became a whole new religion it is today. Jesus was first and foremost a Jew and he totally backed the OT laws and in some instances didn't feel they went far enough. Christianity is Paul's version more than Jesus'. I found it interesting in something I was reading lately, that it was the Pauline Christians that became martyrs not the Peter 'Christians'. Rome accepted those Christians and made Peter their first pope. Paul's Christians were not accepted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 17:32:42 GMT -5
Snow, if you read it somewhere, then it MUST be true, huh? But nothing I quote/reference from the Bible can possibly be true...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 17:32:53 GMT -5
Snow, if you read it somewhere, then it MUST be true, huh? But nothing I quote/reference from the Bible can possibly be true...?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Nov 13, 2017 17:40:02 GMT -5
Paul wasn't an "eyewitness" of Jesus either. That's far from certain. Many Pharisees saw Jesus and we know that Paul (Saul) was a Pharisee. That is false. Besides Paul's words, we have the book of Acts which was written by Luke and an epistle written by Peter. So you've heard of Luke.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 13, 2017 17:40:26 GMT -5
Amen, dmg we don't see mark 16 happening to Paul near the end of his life and he could NOT perform such miracles to his co-workers preaching the same gospel. Nathan I expect you know better than that - paul is shown in the final chapter of Acts displaying just such miracles and thats among the last things we know about paul's life.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 13, 2017 17:44:52 GMT -5
Amen, dmg we don't see mark 16 happening to Paul near the end of his life and he could NOT perform such miracles to his co-workers preaching the same gospel. Nathan I expect you know better than that - paul is shown in the final chapter of Acts displaying just such miracles and thats among the last things we know about paul's life. why couldn't Paul heal his own eyesight near the end of his life? or his co-workers Timothy often stomach infirmities but Paul told him to take some wine, and another servant sick that almost die and Paul could NOT do a thing for them.
What happened to signs, and miracles follow them in Mark 16? they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 13, 2017 17:57:35 GMT -5
Paul wasn't an "eyewitness" of Jesus either. Neither was Paul given any kind of "direct commission" as an "authorized earthly representative of Jesus."
All the information that we have about Paul is in Paul's own words!
It is amazing that Paul's self-claimed authority was never questioned by others. Of course it was questioned early on by John and James back in Jerusalem
But later history ignored most of what they said and Paul's authority wasn't questioned for several reasons. Probably the main one was Luke.
Luke, the writer of Luke–Acts, whose theology points to a gentile Christian writing for a gentile audience was an advocate for Paul, -whose vision was also Gentile oriented
And since Luke & Acts made up a large part of the history of Christian thought, that is why it is said that without Paul we wouldn't have Christianity as it is know today. Actually saul/paul would have been in judea and jerusalem during jesus's 3-year ministry and would have hardly been unaware of him as were thousands of others among the unnamed in the crowds and as he later bore witness before herod 'this thing was not done in a corner' - and yes he claimed to have seen the risen christ too which is another qualification. It would have been exceptional to state such bold claims during the time when those who could confirm or disprove such claims were still around. Theres absolutely no evidence that he was contradicted on that point at the time or after - not even by james and john - and paul himself invited folks to check out the things he preached with those who were still alive at the time. As for luke authoring Acts - thats speculation with very little backing - we have precious little to go on - not even tradition - as to who wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 13, 2017 18:01:53 GMT -5
why couldn't Paul heal his own eyesight near the end of his life? or his co-workers Timothy often stomach infirmities but Paul told him to take some wine, and another servant sick that almost die and Paul could NOT do a thing for them.
What happened to signs, and miracles follow them in Mark 16? they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover. I already answered that question previously - the signs to confirm the apostles's words were just that and not a commandment to heal everyone or raise everyone from the dead etc. Paul says that his infirmity - whatever it was - had its purpose and even if the command was to heal everybody paul came across - timothy wasn't with paul when he wrote for him to take a little wine. Paul did lay hands on and cure a man in the last chapter of Acts and so he was exhibiting his credentials as an apostle even at that late date.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 13, 2017 18:18:59 GMT -5
Paul wasn't an "eyewitness" of Jesus either. That's far from certain. Many Pharisees saw Jesus and we know that Paul (Saul) was a Pharisee. That is false. Besides Paul's words, we have the book of Acts which was written by Luke and an epistle written by Peter. So you've heard of Luke. ( Oh, My! -Do you mean that YOU hadn't heard of Luke before? )
You say, " Besides Paul's words, we have the book of Acts which was written by Luke and an epistle written by Peter.
Isn't that what I said? That Luke & Acts were written by Luke?
There is much more of Acts about written about Paul, than John and James in Jerusalem.
I said a LARGE part of the history of Christian thought, was Luke–Acts. I didn't say ALL.
Yes, I know that we have the Petrine epistles (First and Second Peter) "Petrine epistles is an important question in biblical criticism, parallel to that of the authorship of the Pauline epistles, -since scholars have long sought to determine who were the exact authors of the New Testament letters.
Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.
from wiki
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 13, 2017 18:20:12 GMT -5
Blandie,your statement about me:
"You completely reject the bible except when it suits you to rail against a god which you turn around and claim not to believe."
Of course I reject those "miracles" in the bible as expressed in Mark 16:
'These signs will accompany those who have committed/entrusted - in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues and they will pick up serpents and if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them and they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover.' and the passage ends with 'And they went out and preached everywhere while the lord worked with them and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.'
As for my "railing against a god" that "I don't believe exists; -how else am I to communicate with those who insist there IS such a god unless I use the language of their own beliefs?
Again, Your comment:
"Your biased standard of verification and standard of what is possible and what isn't possible would have us rejecting near all recorded history and much science in the bargain.
I am NOT "rejecting near all recorded history and much science in the bargain," - just because I reject the "miracles."
But you already know that if you are being honest even with yourself! So just what is "biased " about my standard for verification of that passage in Mark 16?
Do you believe hannibal existed? or aristotle? or mohammed? or eleanor of aquitaine? or shakespeare? all people for whom there is very scant evidence apart from copies of accounts drafted well after their times. Yet you've repeatedly poohed the bible as unreliable. You declare things as impossible for which there are multiple accounts and argue from absence of evidence as if that is a reason for rejecting anything and blithely dismiss things out of hand and demand 'proof' of sorts which are neither logical or scientific. Reality is a far stranger thing than you imagine and if you'd kept up with what science actually has shown - incomplete as it will always be - your zealous evangelism for the 'good news' of neo-atheism might not seem so hypocritical. You may not give any credence to 'miracles' but that doesn't make them 'impossible' as you put it.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 13, 2017 18:21:56 GMT -5
why couldn't Paul heal his own eyesight near the end of his life? or his co-workers Timothy often stomach infirmities but Paul told him to take some wine, and another servant sick that almost die and Paul could NOT do a thing for them.
What happened to signs, and miracles follow them in Mark 16? they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover. I already answered that question previously - the signs to confirm the apostles's words were just that and not a commandment to heal everyone or raise everyone from the dead etc. Paul says that his infirmity - whatever it was - had its purpose and even if the command was to heal everybody paul came across - timothy wasn't with paul when he wrote for him to take a little wine. Paul did lay hands on and cure a man in the last chapter of Acts and so he was exhibiting his credentials as an apostle even at that late date. but it was signs and miracles follow them in Mark 16.... Are you saying Paul and the apostles could only heal certain ones? So, Paul could pick and choose which one he could heal? WOW!
Timothy was Paul constant co-worker, who traveled with him in many places.... Paul knew of Timothy often infirmities and he didn't heal him? hmmmmmmm....
If Paul exhibiting his credentials as TRUE apostle with signs, miracles and healing then how come the Corinth doubt and questions his apostleship in I Cor. chapter 9?
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 13, 2017 18:26:22 GMT -5
but it was signs and miracles follow them in Mark 16.... Are you saying Paul and the apostles can only heal certain ones? So, Paul could pick and choose which one he could heal?
If Paul exhibiting his credentials as TRUE apostle with signs, miracles and healing then how come the Corinth doubt and questions his apostleship in I Cor. chapter 9?
The signs were to confirm their authority and the word they delivered. The signs were demonstrations of the credentials of a true apostle but that was hardly the only qualification to be examined. He doesn't criticize them for challenging his claim to be an apostle - he answered it at length in both letters to the corinthians. Timothy was Paul constant co-worker, who traveled with him in many places.... Paul knew of Timothy often infirmities and he didn't heal him? hmmmmmmm.... He wasn't always with paul - or else there would be no need to write him 2 letters. Paul elsewhere refers to timothy being absent as well.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 13, 2017 18:30:07 GMT -5
but it was signs and miracles follow them in Mark 16.... Are you saying Paul and the apostles can only heal certain ones? So, Paul could pick and choose which one he could heal?
If Paul exhibiting his credentials as TRUE apostle with signs, miracles and healing then how come the Corinth doubt and questions his apostleship in I Cor. chapter 9?
The signs were to confirm their authority and the word they delivered. The signs were demonstrations of the credentials of a true apostle but that was hardly the only qualification to be examined. He doesn't criticize them for challenging his claim to be an apostle - he answered it at length in both letters to the corinthians. How come God didn't give Timothy, Silas, Luke, John Mark, Apollo the same power/authority with signs, working miracles to prove their credentials as true apostles? We read without their power of working miracles the believers accepted them as God's true apostles and let them move among the believers freely as the servants of God just like Paul and Barnabas.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 13, 2017 18:35:29 GMT -5
How come God didn't give Timothy, Silas, Luke, John Mark, Apollo the same power/authority with signs, working miracles to prove their credentials as true apostles? We read without their power of working miracles the believers accepted them as God's true apostles and let them move among the believers freely as the servants of God just like Paul and Barnabas. Because they were sent out as the emissaries of people other than christ jesus and they were not given authority as jesus's earthly representatives and were not his witnesses and because of that they didn't have those signs to confirm their authority as his representative/ambassadors/emissaries/apostles.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 13, 2017 18:41:06 GMT -5
How come God didn't give Timothy, Silas, Luke, John Mark, Apollo the same power/authority with signs, working miracles to prove their credentials as true apostles? We read without their power of working miracles the believers accepted them as God's true apostles and let them move among the believers freely as the servants of God just like Paul and Barnabas. Because they were sent out as the emissaries of people other than christ jesus and they were not given either the authority of jesus's representatives and were not his witnesses and because of that they didn't have those signs to confirm their authority as his representative/ambassadors/emissaries/apostles. So, who are going to represent Jesus Christ as His apostles until His returns if there were ONLY those who showed their credentials with Mark 16? How MANY apostles do you KNOW that can perform and fulfill all of qualification of Mark 16 today? It has been 2000 years now... name any apostle could do that after the death of Paul.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 13, 2017 20:59:27 GMT -5
Blandie,your statement about me:
"You completely reject the bible except when it suits you to rail against a god which you turn around and claim not to believe."
Of course I reject those "miracles" in the bible as expressed in Mark 16:
'These signs will accompany those who have committed/entrusted - in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues and they will pick up serpents and if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them and they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover.' and the passage ends with 'And they went out and preached everywhere while the lord worked with them and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.'
As for my "railing against a god" that "I don't believe exists; -how else am I to communicate with those who insist there IS such a god unless I use the language of their own beliefs?
Again, Your comment:
"Your biased standard of verification and standard of what is possible and what isn't possible would have us rejecting near all recorded history and much science in the bargain.
I am NOT "rejecting near all recorded history and much science in the bargain," - just because I reject the "miracles."
But you already know that if you are being honest even with yourself! So just what is "biased " about my standard for verification of that passage in Mark 16?
Do you believe hannibal existed? or aristotle? or mohammed? or eleanor of aquitaine? or shakespeare? all people for whom there is very scant evidence apart from copies of accounts drafted well after their times. Y Yet you've repeatedly poohed the bible as unreliable. You declare things as impossible for which there are multiple accounts and argue from absence of evidence as if that is a reason for rejecting anything and blithely dismiss things out of hand and demand 'proof' of sorts which are neither logical or scientific. Reality is a far stranger thing than you imagine and if you'd kept up with what science actually has shown - incomplete as it will always be - your zealous evangelism for the 'good news' of neo-atheism might not seem so hypocritical. You may not give any credence to 'miracles' but that doesn't make them 'impossible' as you put it. Blandie, you say: "Do you believe hannibal existed? or aristotle? or mohammed? or eleanor of aquitaine? or shakespeare? "
Just what has that got to with the subject?
That is is often one of the last resorts. I Can almost bet that one will come along sometime in a discussion.
Where did I say anything about someone NOT existing? Did I say that Jesus or Paul didn't exist?
AS for the the bible, -it is a lot of different books. So, yes , - there certainly is a lot that I reject as being "unreliable." Do YOU believe it all is reliable?
It doesn't matter if there ARE multiple accounts of something happening if it defies the laws of physics! You are talking about "miracles" .
And the very Definition of a "miracle" is:
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. 2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
I find that supporters of religious ideas like "miracles" often want to enjoy BOTH sides of that issue.
They believe that they can retain the religious superstitions that are the result of lack of knowledge as well as a fear of the unknown and yet, - they want all the benefits of the knowledge that science provides as well.
They seem to want their cake & eat it too! Just leave Science out of any discussion about "miracles!"
I doubt that you keep up with the discoveries of science any better than I. I do know one thing for sure, I can't have my cake & eat it as too!
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 14, 2017 7:06:57 GMT -5
It just doesn't make sense to refute the principle tenet of your belief system by denying the faith claims of other persons who also follow the same text as you do. The only difference being the relatively minor variations in interpretative styles. There are many people who, like @dennisj, were once convinced they were true followers, but now retrospectively deny this. Our stories is a link on this website titled "The Clergy Project" and covers the moving experiences of individuals whose existance was once deeply rooted in a faith which they ultimately lost. To dismiss one christian faith due to a lack of evidence for miracles and healing, and other perceived deficits, is logically consistent with the dismissal of all variances of christianity.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 14, 2017 15:25:24 GMT -5
Blandie, you say: "Do you believe hannibal existed? or aristotle? or mohammed? or eleanor of aquitaine? or shakespeare? "
Just what has that got to with the subject?
That is is often one of the last resorts. I Can almost bet that one will come along sometime in a discussion.
Where did I say anything about someone NOT existing? Did I say that Jesus or Paul didn't exist?
AS for the the bible, -it is a lot of different books. So, yes , - there certainly is a lot that I reject as being "unreliable." Do YOU believe it all is reliable?
It doesn't matter if there ARE multiple accounts of something happening if it defies the laws of physics! You are talking about "miracles" .
And the very Definition of a "miracle" is:
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. 2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God
I find that supporters of religious ideas like "miracles" often want to enjoy BOTH sides of that issue.
They believe that they can retain the religious superstitions that are the result of lack of knowledge as well as a fear of the unknown and yet, - they want all the benefits of the knowledge that science provides as well.
They seem to want their cake & eat it too! Just leave Science out of any discussion about "miracles!"
I doubt that you keep up with the discoveries of science any better than I. I do know one thing for sure, I can't have my cake & eat it as too!
Briefly - because I'm not going to go to much length in debating off-topic with someone who is about as close-minded as they get - Whether hannibal and the others I mentioned are considered 'historical' when they are on far more shaky ground as to historicity is a glaring double standard no matter how you or anyone else cuts it. For someone who claims to 'keep up with the discoveries of science' you certainly seem to be stuck with some antiquated notions. You are the one who has repeatedly appealed to a really twisted version of 'science' - 'natural laws' and 'scientific fact' and 'the laws of nature' and 'the laws of physics' - to make out that this or that is or was 'impossible' repeatedly when science has long given no truck to such claims or restrictions. I expect you do know that things which were considered impossible or miraculous 50 or 100 or 200 years ago are now known not to be impossible or even improbable and have even been observed but you still fall back on obsolete and/or neo-atheist rhetorical reading which shows just how far from 'science' that dogma has fallen. Since you claim to 'keep up with' science I expect you to know that science is just a point or points of understanding and does not represent itself to be conclusive or fact or truth - and instead you use it as a rhetorical tool. If anything science is agnostic and doesn't claim to be able to either prove or disprove god - or much of anything - it accepts observations but doesn't claim to prove or disprove anything beyond employing the mathematical term 'proofs' - which more often than not get tossed out the window when challenged by new data. So yes - stop bringing up 'science' and if you think its absolutely necessary make sure it is science and not fallacious appeals to supposed authority or derived from speculation or slanted data or prejudicial presentations. Its fine to examine claims that are supposedly based in the bible by the bible which is something you haven't shown the slightest willingness to do - its irrelevant to you because your mind is firmly made up on the existence of god and religion and the bible. I wonder why you put in your oar on subjects like this? It comes across as proselytizing for your atheistic - and seemingly dogmatic - beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 14, 2017 18:08:23 GMT -5
Snow, if you read it somewhere, then it MUST be true, huh? But nothing I quote/reference from the Bible can possibly be true...? Most of what I just said above IS in the bible. The other is true too, it tended to be the Hellenistic Jews that were martyred. Since the RCC became the respected Christian branch and they have Peter as their first pope, what part of my above statements do you know to be false?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 14, 2017 18:13:17 GMT -5
Blandie,your statement about me:
"You completely reject the bible except when it suits you to rail against a god which you turn around and claim not to believe."
Of course I reject those "miracles" in the bible as expressed in Mark 16:
'These signs will accompany those who have committed/entrusted - in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues and they will pick up serpents and if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them and they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover.' and the passage ends with 'And they went out and preached everywhere while the lord worked with them and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.'
As for my "railing against a god" that "I don't believe exists; -how else am I to communicate with those who insist there IS such a god unless I use the language of their own beliefs?
Again, Your comment:
"Your biased standard of verification and standard of what is possible and what isn't possible would have us rejecting near all recorded history and much science in the bargain.
I am NOT "rejecting near all recorded history and much science in the bargain," - just because I reject the "miracles."
But you already know that if you are being honest even with yourself! So just what is "biased " about my standard for verification of that passage in Mark 16?
Do you believe hannibal existed? or aristotle? or mohammed? or eleanor of aquitaine? or shakespeare? all people for whom there is very scant evidence apart from copies of accounts drafted well after their times. Yet you've repeatedly poohed the bible as unreliable. You declare things as impossible for which there are multiple accounts and argue from absence of evidence as if that is a reason for rejecting anything and blithely dismiss things out of hand and demand 'proof' of sorts which are neither logical or scientific. Reality is a far stranger thing than you imagine and if you'd kept up with what science actually has shown - incomplete as it will always be - your zealous evangelism for the 'good news' of neo-atheism might not seem so hypocritical. You may not give any credence to 'miracles' but that doesn't make them 'impossible' as you put it. When you only have one book you can quote to prove someone's existence, that is more what comes into question. All the other people you have mentioned are mentioned in more than one book, have more than one source. The bible is self contained mentioning characters that aren't mentioned anywhere else. You can't prove something using the same book you got it from as proof. That's one reason why I am skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Nov 14, 2017 18:20:46 GMT -5
When you only have one book you can quote to prove someone's existence, that is more what comes into question. All the other people you have mentioned are mentioned in more than one book, have more than one source. The bible is self contained mentioning characters that aren't mentioned anywhere else. You can't prove something using the same book you got it from as proof. That's one reason why I am skeptical. snow , the Bible is actually a collection of many books, written by different men. It does not depend on the testimony of one man alone... you know this but perhaps it was not considered convenient for the argument you were trying to make here?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 14, 2017 18:29:46 GMT -5
When you only have one book you can quote to prove someone's existence, that is more what comes into question. All the other people you have mentioned are mentioned in more than one book, have more than one source. The bible is self contained mentioning characters that aren't mentioned anywhere else. You can't prove something using the same book you got it from as proof. That's one reason why I am skeptical. snow , the Bible is actually a collection of many books, written by different men. It does not depend on the testimony of one man alone... you know this but perhaps it was not considered convenient for the argument you were trying to make here? Yes, I do understand that. What I don't understand is why the outside world never knew these things were happening and wrote about them. I'm not questioning anyone's actual historical existence, just the accuracy of the bible itself as a historical document. I don't believe it was ever written with that in mind. The early followers didn't even deem themselves to be Christians but rather Jews. My question when I read some of the things that supposedly happened with the crucifixion for example is why didn't anyone else notice people rising from their graves and walking the streets? You would think there would be at least some reference to that day in other writings if such a thing happened. It would be of interest I'm sure. But, oddly, the world was silent, except for writings from those who were deemed to be the 'right' inner circle. There are other gospels that didn't make the bible that are deemed heretical and so they didn't make the cut. Some of the things written in them contradict what the RCC wanted to proclaim. I find the subject interesting actually. I have read just about all the Nag Hammadi Library and found them interesting.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 15, 2017 0:33:12 GMT -5
Blandie, you say: "Do you believe hannibal existed? or aristotle? or mohammed? or eleanor of aquitaine? or shakespeare? "
Just what has that got to with the subject?
That is is often one of the last resorts. I Can almost bet that one will come along sometime in a discussion.
Where did I say anything about someone NOT existing? Did I say that Jesus or Paul didn't exist?
AS for the the bible, -it is a lot of different books. So, yes , - there certainly is a lot that I reject as being "unreliable." Do YOU believe it all is reliable?
It doesn't matter if there ARE multiple accounts of something happening if it defies the laws of physics! You are talking about "miracles" .
And the very Definition of a "miracle" is:
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. 2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God
I find that supporters of religious ideas like "miracles" often want to enjoy BOTH sides of that issue.
They believe that they can retain the religious superstitions that are the result of lack of knowledge as well as a fear of the unknown and yet, - they want all the benefits of the knowledge that science provides as well.
They seem to want their cake & eat it too! Just leave Science out of any discussion about "miracles!"
I doubt that you keep up with the discoveries of science any better than I. I do know one thing for sure, I can't have my cake & eat it as too!
Briefly - because I'm not going to go to much length in debating off-topic with someone who is about as close-minded as they get - Whether hannibal and the others I mentioned are considered 'historical' when they are on far more shaky ground as to historicity is a glaring double standard no matter how you or anyone else cuts it. For someone who claims to 'keep up with the discoveries of science' you certainly seem to be stuck with some antiquated notions. You are the one who has repeatedly appealed to a really twisted version of 'science' - 'natural laws' and 'scientific fact' and 'the laws of nature' and 'the laws of physics' - to make out that this or that is or was 'impossible' repeatedly when science has long given no truck to such claims or restrictions. I expect you do know that things which were considered impossible or miraculous 50 or 100 or 200 years ago are now known not to be impossible or even improbable and have even been observed but you still fall back on obsolete and/or neo-atheist rhetorical reading which shows just how far from 'science' that dogma has fallen. Since you claim to 'keep up with' science I expect you to know that science is just a point or points of understanding and does not represent itself to be conclusive or fact or truth - and instead you use it as a rhetorical tool. If anything science is agnostic and doesn't claim to be able to either prove or disprove god - or much of anything - it accepts observations but doesn't claim to prove or disprove anything beyond employing the mathematical term 'proofs' - which more often than not get tossed out the window when challenged by new data. So yes - stop bringing up 'science' and if you think its absolutely necessary make sure it is science and not fallacious appeals to supposed authority or derived from speculation or slanted data or prejudicial presentations. Its fine to examine claims that are supposedly based in the bible by the bible which is something you haven't shown the slightest willingness to do - its irrelevant to you because your mind is firmly made up on the existence of god and religion and the bible. I wonder why you put in your oar on subjects like this? It comes across as proselytizing for your atheistic - and seemingly dogmatic - beliefs.
Where do I start ? Where did I apply a "double standard" to any historical figures, -biblical or other wise?
How can I have used a "twisted" version of 'science' -when that is precisely what I do use, -the 'natural laws' and 'the laws of physics?" - which is also what science use on which to base their work
Definition of Science:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
But "science" as 'agnostic? How can you find that as a way science works?
Definition of agnostic
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human
Yes, some things which were considered "impossible or miraculous" years ago weren't "miracles" after all.
They either didn't happen at all or now we understand their cause, -either way they weren't "miracles."
Such as the dead rising from the dead!
Those truly dead do NOT rise again! They do NOT now and they never DID.
BECAUSE THAT WAS AND STILL IS IMPOSSIBLE!
PS:
YOUR quote:
'"Its fine to examine claims that are supposedly based in the bible by the bible which is something you haven't shown the slightest willingness to do - its irrelevant to you because your mind is firmly made up on the existence of god and religion and the bible.
You are apparently unaware that is exactly what I DID do, -"examine claims that are supposedly based in the bible by the bible " And It definitely WAS NOT " irrelevant to me!" It was very important to me.
How do you think that I, - as a firm 2x2believer came to where I am now? Yes, after studying ALL religions, my mind is firmly made up.
There is no more evidence for the god of the bible than there is for all the other god & goddesses present or past.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 15, 2017 0:58:10 GMT -5
*** If Timothy, Silas, Titus were false apostles because the didn't and couldn't do any healing or performing any miracles then WHY? Paul sent them to appoint church elders... Timothy, Titus, Silas, John mark became churches leaders after the death of Paul. Your interpretation of apostleship with miracles for every apostle doesn't make too much sense or scripture sound doctrines. I never said that those were false apostles but just that the bible nowhere says that they are apostles of jesus christ. They were apostles delegated by men - apostles representing elders or churches or paul or whoever actually commissioned and sent them - that they were apostles representing others doesn't make them false but they did not have and were not successors to the authority of the apostles of jesus christ because they weren't eyewitnesses and didn't have the direct commissioning from him and they didn't have the qualifications etc. What would make someone who was an authorized representative of person X a 'false apostle' would be to claim that they are the apostle/representative of person Y or anyone else when they weren't sent by that person or persons at all. Old Will-I did that right in the beginning days when he claimed to be just like the apostle paul - an authorized earthly representative of jesus christ - even tho he had none of the qualifications that paul had. Here are some verses in the Bible where it says Paul, Silas and Timothy were the apostles of Christ I Thess 1:1 Paul, and Silas, and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I Thess 2:6-7 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children:
~~ Timothy and Silas were NOT eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection and NOT authority or sent by Jesus in person, but Paul wrote Timothy and Silas as the apostles of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 15:06:13 GMT -5
When you only have one book you can quote to prove someone's existence, that is more what comes into question. All the other people you have mentioned are mentioned in more than one book, have more than one source. The bible is self contained mentioning characters that aren't mentioned anywhere else. You can't prove something using the same book you got it from as proof. That's one reason why I am skeptical. There is a large amount of evidence for the bible other than just the bible. For instance there are those who like to claim that the new testament wasn't written until long after the lifetimes of those purported to have written its various accounts and that those accounts weren't considered authoritative until a couple centuries later - neither of which holds up under examination - skepticism if you will - and during the century following paul we have the works of writers apart from apocryphal literature - some of who were alive during the time of the apostles - who back up the bible accounts and show them to have been authoritative from early on and the new testament books were in existence even then and are quoted by them. Its not even just a few that have come down to us - the volumes can take up whole shelves in your local library and they make interesting reading as they respond to many questions raised from the start that folks today tend to think are new problems or discoveries or ideas. Theres nothing wrong with skepticism and questioning. On the other hand atheism is a faith-based denial of even the possibility that there is a god or gods just as much as any other - no matter the attempts of its evangelists to blur the lines to meaning mere lack of belief - which is properly agnosticism and not atheism.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 15, 2017 15:32:40 GMT -5
Where do I start ? Where did I apply a "double standard" to any historical figures, -biblical or other wise?
How can I have used a "twisted" version of 'science' -when that is precisely what I do use, -the 'natural laws' and 'the laws of physics?" - which is also what science use on which to base their work
Definition of Science:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
But "science" as 'agnostic? How can you find that as a way science works?
Definition of agnostic
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human
Yes, some things which were considered "impossible or miraculous" years ago weren't "miracles" after all.
They either didn't happen at all or now we understand their cause, -either way they weren't "miracles."
Such as the dead rising from the dead!
Those truly dead do NOT rise again! They do NOT now and they never DID.
BECAUSE THAT WAS AND STILL IS IMPOSSIBLE!
PS:
YOUR quote:
'"Its fine to examine claims that are supposedly based in the bible by the bible which is something you haven't shown the slightest willingness to do - its irrelevant to you because your mind is firmly made up on the existence of god and religion and the bible.
You are apparently unaware that is exactly what I DID do, -"examine claims that are supposedly based in the bible by the bible " And It definitely WAS NOT " irrelevant to me!" It was very important to me.
How do you think that I, - as a firm 2x2believer came to where I am now? Yes, after studying ALL religions, my mind is firmly made up.
There is no more evidence for the god of the bible than there is for all the other god & goddesses present or past.
Your science seems to be stuck in the blackstocking era. Concepts such as 'laws of physics' and 'natural law' and such are blandishments that carry NO weight in science and haven't for a century. You don't admit to the possibility of any existence or god or force beyond your ken so I'm not going to beat my head against your wall. God has proved himself to me - I don't expect that to carry any weight with you or anyone else and it shouldn't - period. Your response shows more about a dogmatic mindset - just like some of the heartier friends - than it does about science and historical studies and basic logic. Are you really so inflated in your own mind that you actually believe that you have studied 'ALL religions'? And yes your mind is 'firmly made up' so why bother you with facts that you've ignored or flatly rejected on your say-so - thats bias and a firmly closed mind - not anything to do with science or history.
|
|