Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 10:25 AM
354 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, halibut, Heathen, jar, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (10 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,689 Year: 27,295/21,208 Month: 1,208/1,714 Week: 51/365 Day: 7/44 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3738
39
4041
...
53NextFF
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 571 of 793 (823481)
11-10-2017 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by Faith
11-10-2017 3:25 PM


Re: Real faith, real knowledge
Faith writes:

When I said the concept of faith is really only a Christian concept, I supposed that it isn't even mentioned in the writings of other religions, certainly not in the same kind of context.

Your underlying premise, that other religions must be like Christianity in order to claim any legitimacy, is still false. There are no set of standards or criteria that religions must meet before claiming legitimacy (unless they're seeking tax-exempt status, but that's a completely different set of criteria ). I'm sure everyone on this thread is willing to grant that different religions are different, so you don't have to keep finding differences between Mormonism and Christianity, and between Islam and Christianity, and between Hinduism and Christianity, and all the rest. We get it. Different religions are different from Christianity.

But different doesn't mean illegitimate. Again, Christianity is not the standard by which all other religions are measured. There are no standards. Even if we grant for the sake of discussion that not a single other religion in the world encompasses the Christian concept of faith, that grants no religion any more or less legitimacy. At heart you're just revealing your prejudices against religions that hold beliefs different from yours, deeming them illegitimate just for not being Christianity. Of course, your prejudices extend beyond the realms of non-Christian religions and into the realms of Christianity itself, deeming whole classes of Christian religions to be non-Christian. If anyone has let intolerance be their guide, it is you. It's like you have some kind of religious xenophobia.

Faith is central to Christianity, it's all over the New Testament, we are to put our lives on the line if necessary for faith in Christ's gift of eternal life.

I hadn't heard this claim before. Where does the Bible say this?

I would, however, point out that Islam began in the seventh century after Christ and is known for incorporating parts of the Bible, weirdly twisted however.

How do you know which has it right, Bible or Koran? And please don't reply with your stock answer, "No other religion combines Christianity's unique qualities of...etc..." As I said above, we know religions are different, and we know "not-Christian" is not a synonym for wrong.

Yes I do get very impatient when unbelievers carry on as if they know better than Christians do what Christianity is all about,...

You get very impatient with everyone who disagrees with you, whether unbeliever, believer in God, or other Christians.

...and say stupid things as if we never thought of them ourselves and know they are false.

So if you "know" they are false then you must have the evidence showing that they are false. Yet when asked about evidence all you could do was point to unevidenced stories while repeatedly claiming they somehow represented evidence. Yet the thing we have the most evidence for in this thread is that you don't have any evidence for all the claims you make, particularly the claim that the Bible is full of evidence. The closest you came to making a religiously true statement was when you spoke of having faith in things unseen.

Yes I've already said all I want to say so far on this thread, barring something new that catches my attention.

So is this your way of announcing that you'll not be responding to the detailed responses to you that appear above, that you're basically resetting the thread and abandoning all the currently active lines of argument? How...consistent of you.

I took something like five years of reading about all kinds of religions before I became a Christian in my forties, and since then I've read hundreds upon hundreds of books on the subject and heard probably thousands of sermons, and in my old age I'm getting very impatient with know-nothings...

Ah, there's another display of Faith's good old Christian tolerance again.

...who feel free to pontificate against my accurate statements,...

If you do say so yourself.

I suppose I'm getting impatient with debate as such, what a waste of time in an atmosphere where so many are determined to kill the truth.

No one's trying to kill the truth. Probably what many of us are trying to do is discuss with you without setting off your hair trigger.

To get back to where you started your message, this thread is about faith. As long as you continue to insist on a definition of faith that claims it must be backed by evidence, then the main question is, "Where's the evidence?"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by Faith, posted 11-10-2017 3:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1411
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 572 of 793 (823484)
11-10-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by Percy
11-10-2017 3:35 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
Percy writes:

GDR writes:


GDR writes:
I think that you are showing that your point is invalid. What you call is information is evidence. If it wasn´t there would be no longer the need to look for further information to either verify or discount the original account. Once again, it is about the strength of the evidence.

I couldn't make sense of this paragraph, but let me take another stab at it by rephrasing it. Would it be an accurate paraphrase to say, "I think your argument disproves itself. What you call information is evidence. If the information wasn't evidence then there would no longer be the need to look for further information to verify the original information."

Hmmm. I thought rephrasing would help me understand what you were saying, but I still can't make sense out of it, at least not as a response to what I said. I'll try explaining again.

A newspaper article that says, "The fingerprints at the crime scene matched the suspect's," is presenting information, not evidence, and wouldn't appear at trial. Images of the fingerprints at the crime scene and the fingerprints of the suspect is both information *and* evidence, and would be introduced as evidence at trial. The Bible contains information, not evidence.


I think GDR is correct here. You are treating "evidence" in a Boolean fashion, and further are giving "evidence" a very restrictive definition. But in reality, there are different types of evidence and different strengths of evidence.

A written record such as the gospels is indeed "evidence". At the very least, it is evidence of what someone wrote at a specific time in history. Most of us would agree that it is also evidence of what the writer and his followers believed. Whether or not the gospels are evidence of actual history is a separate question which must be evaluated on separate criteria.

Making a blanket, black-and-white statement that the gospels are not "evidence" does not help the discussion, in my opinion.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 3:35 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by Tangle, posted 11-10-2017 6:07 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 6:20 PM kbertsche has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5155
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 573 of 793 (823487)
11-10-2017 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by kbertsche
11-10-2017 5:08 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
kb writes:

Making a blanket, black-and-white statement that the gospels are not "evidence" does not help the discussion, in my opinion.

It's shorthand. The bible is evidence that someone wrote some stories known as the bible.

Beyond that you have to specify the claim and the evidence that it's trying to support.

So is the story in the bible of the feast of Cana evidence that water was turned into wine? Obviously not, it's evidence only of a claim. The story requires corroboration before it can be taken seriously.

If this was a crime we'd call the claim an allegation. The police would then investigate the allegation for corroborating evidence. No further evidence, no prosecution.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2017 5:08 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 574 of 793 (823488)
11-10-2017 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by kbertsche
11-10-2017 5:08 PM


ting Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
kbertsche writes:

I think GDR is correct here. You are treating "evidence" in a Boolean fashion, and further are giving "evidence" a very restrictive definition. But in reality, there are different types of evidence and different strengths of evidence.

I remain puzzled that GDR is arguing the point. I at first thought he was supporting Faith's position that faith is backed by evidence, but he says no. But he also says that he believes the Bible *does* contain evidence, citing Corinthians 15:3-8. So I'm, as I said, puzzled. Why is he arguing that evidence exists in the Bible if his faith has no need of the backing of evidence?

So what's your position about faith and evidence? Does faith require evidence, otherwise there's no reason to believe, as Faith would argue the point? Or is faith something believed without evidence or perhaps without sufficient evidence?

I'm treating the word "evidence" the same way the dictionary treats it. There isn't an ounce of difference between us. Here's the Corinthians passage GDR gave as providing supporting evidence for the Gospel accounts:

quote:
15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born,...

Where do you see evidence in this passage?

A written record such as the gospels is indeed "evidence".

Well, let's get a little more accurate in characterizing the Gospels. They're not so much "written records" as they are religious works, and there are many religious works of great variety across all the world's religions. We're all very familiar with the nature of religious works.

So when you say the Gospels contain evidence, by which I assume you mean evidence of the details in their stories, then I have to ask, "Where is this evidence?" That census, for example. Where in Luke is the evidence for this census? All it says is that there was a census and that it was the reason for Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem. Where is the evidence for this census in any historical records of the period? Where is the evidence of a census anywhere and anytime in the history of the world that requires people to return to the town of their birth?

At the very least, it is evidence of what someone wrote at a specific time in history.

Yeah, I'll give you that, while keeping in mind that large numbers of scribal errors and insertions have been identified.

Most of us would agree that it is also evidence of what the writer and his followers believed.

Sure, but I don't think that's GDR's argument.

Whether or not the gospels are evidence of actual history is a separate question which must be evaluated on separate criteria.

It was my understanding that both Faith and GDR are arguing that the Bible contains evidence of the truth and accuracy of its own content, and it is this position that I am arguing against.

But this thread is really about faith, so there's no need to argue about evidence unless some want to insist that faith requires it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2017 5:08 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 11-10-2017 10:18 PM Percy has responded
 Message 579 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2017 2:06 PM Percy has responded
 Message 586 by kbertsche, posted 11-11-2017 10:42 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10059
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 575 of 793 (823497)
11-10-2017 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Percy
11-10-2017 10:07 AM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
All I'm really saying is that there's a difference between original evidence and descriptions of the original evidence. Original evidence is all that really counts.

Is that how you evaluate, for example, claims that Jews were tortured during World War 2? Do you think it is important that your descendants require the same kind of original evidence?

I think you are expressing a hard line that nobody actually uses for anything and insisting that we apply it to the Bible when we don't apply it to anything else. There is a difference between the accounts of Jesus ministry, his death, and his resurrection, and a story of Lincoln's life and death, but I sincerely doubt that you have accepted one account and rejected the other account based on anything like the line of reasoning you've used here.

We read and trust the WSJ article because the WSJ has a long history of reliable and accurate reporting, and there is corroborating reporting from equally reliable sources

I am personally suspicious of stories I read in the WSJ. I think there is a tendency to give the stories in our modern publications more credence primarily because they are describing ordinary events. If I read an article in the WSJ or Scientific American about a perpetual motion machine, I would be extremely skeptical.

In short, the stories in the Bible are descriptions of extraordinary events, and you rightly or wrongly require stronger evidence before you will believe them. I believe that such behavior is completely logical.

A WSJ article about Trump's meetings in Asia? That's information.

I have no idea what point this statement makes. Is there something more here than an expression that you would accept such an account as factual? Should someone reading the same story 1000 years from now make the same assumptions that you make about the stories credibility, or would he simply say that the story is a statement of what people of that past millennium believed to be true?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 10:07 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 9:51 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 576 of 793 (823498)
11-10-2017 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Percy
11-10-2017 6:20 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
Well, let's get a little more accurate in characterizing the Gospels. They're not so much "written records" as they are religious works, and there are many religious works of great variety across all the world's religions. We're all very familiar with the nature of religious works.

And the gospels are clearly written records, description of actual events, and your calling them "religious works," whatever that is, makes discussion with you impossible.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 6:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-10-2017 11:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 578 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2017 1:41 AM Faith has responded
 Message 590 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 10:29 AM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 577 of 793 (823499)
11-10-2017 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Faith
11-10-2017 10:18 PM


Even the earliest Gospel has unhistorical additions.
Mark is the earliest, and it was the first Gospel (that we know of) that has a chronological outline of the life of Jesus.

But the last 12 verses are apparently forgeries.

quote:

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
2nd edition
(Hendrickson Publishers, 2005)
p.123

Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them


The Gospels that the early "church" used lacked Mark 16:9-20

It was glaringly obvious back then.

It is obvious to Greek scholars who say the style and vocabulary of the last 12 verses are very obviously an addition.

There is a problem with not knowing what was unhistorical verses what was historical.

And it is written in a European language (not exactly a reassuring thing since the early followers of Jesus were all Semitic Middle Easterners).

Paul never quoted from any of the Gospels either.

So he didn't have them (or know anybody who had them it seems).

He had a message though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 11-10-2017 10:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 3:41 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13307
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 578 of 793 (823502)
11-11-2017 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by Faith
11-10-2017 10:18 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
quote:

And the gospels are clearly written records, description of actual events, and your calling them "religious works," whatever that is, makes discussion with you impossible.

Of course the Gospels were written to promote religious belief, and it is pretty clear that objectively determining the “actual events” - as a good historian would - was not part of the agenda.

The Gospel of John has already been quoted as saying that it was written to promote religious beliefs. (And I do not see how anyone could read John:1 1-3 and not see those verses as religious in nature).

And if Percy knowing that is fatal to your arguments then your arguments are deceptions. And I am reminded of how you don’t like “unbelievers” knowing about Christianity (even the “unbelievers” who are Christian).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 11-10-2017 10:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 3:59 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13307
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 579 of 793 (823510)
11-11-2017 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Percy
11-10-2017 6:20 PM


The Evidence Of 1 Corinthians 15:5-8
quote:

I'm treating the word "evidence" the same way the dictionary treats it. There isn't an ounce of difference between us. Here's the Corinthians passage GDR gave as providing supporting evidence for the Gospel accounts:

quote:
15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born,...

Where do you see evidence in this passage?


I see evidence that Jesus was not physically resurrected.

The passage tells us that at the time of Paul - still quite early - the main line of argument for the resurrection was that various people claimed to have - in some sense - seen Jesus after his death, at various times. While the claims may have been (and likely were) exaggerated by the time of writing down, it seems likely that there was some basis for it.

Since one of these sightings was a visionary experience the qualifier “in some sense” is certainly needed. The passage gives no real details of any of them, so we can’t be sure what any of the other “appearances” actually were.

Also, it is certainly odd that if Jesus were physically resurrected his followers would only know of it through scattered sightings.

It is also of interest that we could say much the same concerning Elvis Presley - without the qualification “in some sense”.

Supposing that the appearances were only dreams, hallucinations, mistaken identity or even examples of pareidolia fits with the text, explains why there were only scattered sightings and requires no assumptions as unlikely as an actual resurrection. This is clearly a better explanation of why the passage presents the “evidence” it does.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 6:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 12:21 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 580 of 793 (823512)
11-11-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by LamarkNewAge
11-10-2017 11:49 PM


Re: Even the earliest Gospel has unhistorical additions.
There are no "unhistorical additions," there are, however, subtractions galore showing an anti-supernatural bias in the so-called "earliest" manuscripts which are heretical forgeries.

You buy all the BS the modern textual critics throw at you, and the lies about the "earliest" manscripts, so we have little we can agree about. Mark was NOT the earliest gospel, Matthew was, which is why the books are arranged as they are. And the last twelve verses of Mark are genuine, clumsily erased from Sinaiticus leaving a big gaping obvious hole in the text, because either the early heretic that produced it didn't like it, or the later forger didn't. And Bruce Metzger should never have been allowed to get his profane paws on the Bible.

All today's "Greek scholars" are deceived and deceiving. I have a whole blog on this subject by the way.

Paul didn't need to have the physical gospels, he spent time with the disciples and with the Lord and everything he wrote shows agreement with the gospels.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-10-2017 11:49 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-11-2017 6:47 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 588 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-11-2017 11:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 581 of 793 (823514)
11-11-2017 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by PaulK
11-11-2017 1:41 AM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
John would not have said that he wrote what he hoped would persuade readers to Christ if he wasn't writing the straight truth about Christ. You can't put your trust in a fictional character in a fictional "religious writing," obviously he wrote what he witnessed and expected that the truth of the miracles would show the reader the true nature of Christ.

It's so obvious it's clear that the opposition here refuses to see the truth, they just don't like it so they say ridiculously false things to support their bias. John's writing proves that Jesus is God incarnate, that He died so that those who believe in Him could have eternal life. But what inconvenient ideas those are for people who just don't like them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2017 1:41 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2017 4:19 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13307
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 582 of 793 (823516)
11-11-2017 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by Faith
11-11-2017 3:59 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
quote:

John would not have said that he wrote what he hoped would persuade readers to Christ if he wasn't writing the straight truth about Christ.

Obviously the author of John could do exactly that. And he almost certainly didn’t write the “straight truth about Christ”.

quote:

You can't put your trust in a fictional character in a fictional "religious writing," obviously he wrote what he witnessed and expected that the truth of the miracles would show the reader the true nature of Christ.

Of course you can be fooled into doing exactly that. So long as you don’t know it’s fiction. (And you have been fooled into believing fictions - some rather obvious).

Even if the story is not complete fiction, a biased author will likely be wrong on some things to start with and may well add spin on top of that.

And let us not forget that the Gospel includes things that John did not witness.

quote:

It's so obvious it's clear that the opposition here refuses to see the truth, they just don't like it so they say ridiculously false things to support their bias.

It is obviously a ridiculous falsehood invented to support your bias. Adding a massive dose of projection to such foolishness hardly helps you.

quote:

John's writing proves that Jesus is God incarnate, that He died so that those who believe in Him could have eternal life. But what inconvenient ideas those are for people who just don't like them.

Oh look, Faith is trying to make Christianity look like a stupid lie.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 3:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 4:33 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 583 of 793 (823518)
11-11-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 582 by PaulK
11-11-2017 4:19 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
Christian theology for two thousand years fully affirms the actual historical reality of Christ and the actual historical reality of His miraculous acts as intended for evidence of His deity, and John is one of the many honest authors of scripture inspired by God. Only an anti-supernatural bias explains all the lying debunkery on this thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2017 4:19 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2017 4:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13307
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 584 of 793 (823521)
11-11-2017 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by Faith
11-11-2017 4:33 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
quote:

Christian theology for two thousand years fully affirms the actual historical reality of Christ and the actual historical reality of His miraculous acts as intended for evidence of His deity,

Then what Christian theology says and what a rational person would conclude are very different things. Which I guess speaks very much to the point that Faith goes way, way beyond the evidence.

quote:

and John is one of the many honest authors of scripture inspired by God.

The author of John was not a historian, likely not a witness to any of it and his story is clearly influenced by his theology - to its detriment as an account of the actual events.

quote:

Only an anti-supernatural bias explains all the lying debunkery on this thread.

It doesn’t take an “anti-supernatural” bias to be sceptical of an ancient document. Especially one written by an unknown but obviously biased individual who doesn’t cite any sources (added to by another equally biased and unknown individual). It’s simple common sense. The fact that you tell obvious falsehoods in a bid to make it seem unreasonable doesn’t change that. Nor is disagreeing with those falsehoods “lying debunkery”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 4:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 585 of 793 (823526)
11-11-2017 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Faith
11-11-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Even the earliest Gospel has unhistorical additions.
quote:

There are no "unhistorical additions," there are, however, subtractions galore showing an anti-supernatural bias in the so-called "earliest" manuscripts which are heretical forgeries.

The " 'earliest' manuscripts" were not mentioned by me, because even the earliest are quite late and almost irrelevant.

But are you saying that Mark ending at verse 8 proves or disproves something about the supernatural?

What does the difference make between "Mark" writing the verses 1-8 alone one the one hand and 16:9-20 on the other?

Is it significant?

quote:

You buy all the BS the modern textual critics throw at you, and the lies about the "earliest" manscripts, so we have little we can agree about. Mark was NOT the earliest gospel, Matthew was, which is why the books are arranged as they are. And the last twelve verses of Mark are genuine, clumsily erased from Sinaiticus leaving a big gaping obvious hole in the text, because either the early heretic that produced it didn't like it, or the later forger didn't. And Bruce Metzger should never have been allowed to get his profane paws on the Bible.

All today's "Greek scholars" are deceived and deceiving. I have a whole blog on this subject by the way.


Sinaiticus being among the "earliest" complete extant New Testament Bible's (which have the same books as our modern English Bible's), is irrelevant since it is 4th century.

(You can give me your evidence for Matthew being the earliest if you want)

I was more interested in which "version" of Mark was most in use in the 4th century (when the canon was set). And the testimony is important.

quote:

Eusebius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Eusebius of Caesarea)

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Eusebius (disambiguation).

Eusebius of Caesarea

Eusebius of Caesarea.jpg
Eusebius in a modern imagining

Born
Eusebius
260/265

Died
339/340 (aged 74–79)

Occupation
Bishop, historian, theologian

Period
Constantinian Rome

Notable works
Ecclesiastical history, On the Life of Pamphilus, Chronicle, On the Martyrs

Eusebius of Caesarea (/juːˈsiːbiəs/; Greek: Εὐσέβιος τῆς Καισαρείας, Eusébios tés Kaisareías; AD 260/265 – 339/340), also known as Eusebius Pamphili, was a historian of Christianity, exegete, and Christian polemicist. He became the bishop of Caesarea Maritima about 314 AD. Together with Pamphilus, he was a scholar of the Biblical canon and is regarded as an extremely learned Christian of his time.[1] He wrote Demonstrations of the Gospel, Preparations for the Gospel, and On Discrepancies between the Gospels, studies of the Biblical text. As "Father of Church History" he produced the Ecclesiastical History, On the Life of Pamphilus, the Chronicle and On the Martyrs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius


Wikipedia SAID ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 ) "Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Gospel Problems and Solutions to Marinus #1, writes toward the beginning of the fourth century:

quote:

EUSEBIUS

One who athetises that pericope would say that it [i.e., a verse from the ending of Mark] is not found in all copies of the gospel according to Mark: accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man whom the women saw, and who said to them: “'Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the Nazarene that you are looking for, etc. …' ”, after which it adds: “And when they heard this, they ran away, and said nothing to anyone, because they were frightened." That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark. What occasionally follows in some copies, not all, would be extraneous, most particularly if it contained something contradictory to the evidence of the other evangelists.


Why on earth would Eusebius lie?

It wasn't like Mark had anything important that other Gospels (by the 4th century) lacked.

Jerome used verses 9-20 in his Vulgate translation.

quote:

Paul didn't need to have the physical gospels, he spent time with the disciples and with the Lord and everything he wrote shows agreement with the gospels.


Paul liked to quote scripture.

He didn't have any quotes from the "New Testament" books.

The "Gospel" he talks about isn't a term for a written book.

I was more interested in the testimony of the Bishop Eusebius that the vast majority or USED Mark books lacked the verses 9-20.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3738
39
4041
...
53NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017