Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-17-2019 7:04 PM
159 online now:
14174dm, DrJones*, dwise1, Lammy, ramoss, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 152 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,614 Year: 2,651/19,786 Month: 733/1,918 Week: 20/301 Day: 20/38 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Evidence For Belief
GDR
Member
Posts: 4772
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 16 of 46 (846202)
12-31-2018 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
12-31-2018 1:59 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Straggler writes:

That there are lots of alternative and contradictory religious claims about which collection of writings/stories reveal the truth (bible, Koran, Torah, the vedas etc.) and that which one of these religious beliefs any given individual will claim as the truth is basically an accident of birth (if you had been born and raised in Ancient Greece youíd believe in Zeus, if you had been born on the Middle East youíd likely be arguing that the Koran is the book to follow, in 20th century Canada it happens to be Christianity that is the dominant religion)

Yes I am a Christian and certainly one of the reasons that I am is the culture I grew up in. However, there are people all over the world who adhere to religions that were not part of their culture. However, that does not exclude the possibility that Jesus was resurrected.

I also don't think that God didn't reach out to all cultures, and I am prepared to listen to and learn from holy books other than the Bible. However, each of the books you mentioned are quite different. The Koran is the creation of one man. This man had an estimated 25 wives, with the youngest being 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated and when Mohammed was 53. Just the same is doesn't mean that there aren't things to be learned in the Koran.

The Torah as you know is part of the Christian Bible as well as being the sacred text for the Jewish faith. There are conflicting understandings of the nature of Yahweh in the Torah and as I have said elsewhere this understanding does narrow down to a large degree within the Hebrew Scriptures. Certainly we can learn from the Torah.

I don't know a lot about the Vedas except to say that it is a rather disconnected book of various material and dates back to about 1000BC when the book was compiled. I have only read about it, but I would not doubt that there is wisdom to be gained from reading that as well.

The Bible is obviously the book I am most familiar with. It contains the work of no doubt hundreds of authors in its 66 books. There is however a loose narrative that runs through all of it and climaxing in Jesus.

The various holy books aren't always conflicting. Yes there are always parts that will conflict, however as I posted earlier to Percy the Golden Rule is common to all of them.

Bottom line is is that I believe that the Bible is the book that best represents God and His desires for our lives, but I also have no problem with the idea that He can speak to the members of other faiths through their holy books as well.

Straggler writes:

That features of the Christian story (virgin birth, resurrection, ascending to heaven etc.) are similarly featured in various preceding myths.

Most of those myths existed well before the time of Jesus and weren't part of the Jewish culture. The Jesus story is a Jewish story and has to be understood within its Jewish context.

Straggler writes:

That dead people donít come alive again.

They knew that as well as we do but they still vehemently claim that it happened, although not in a body that was subject to the entropy of this world but in a transformed body that seemed to move freely between God's universe and our own.

Straggler writes:

So I donít agree that itís all just subjective interpretation of the same facts. Iím pretty sure that my position incorporates far more of what we know objectively than your subjective beliefs do.

Well, not really. You have given an explanation as to why you reject the authenticity of the historical resurrection of Jesus. However, that is still your subjective conclusion. We are still left with the objective knowledge that the NT accounts exist and claim that Jesus was resurrected.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 12-31-2018 1:59 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AZPaul3, posted 12-31-2018 3:44 AM GDR has responded
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 12-31-2018 7:30 AM GDR has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3756
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 17 of 46 (846204)
12-31-2018 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by GDR
12-31-2018 3:10 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
GDR writes:

We are still left with the objective knowledge that the NT accounts exist and claim that Jesus was resurrected.

We are also left with the objective knowledge that Alice in Wonderland exists and its claim that the Cheshire Cat just fades away leaving only his smile behind.

Fiction is fiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:10 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:19 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6608
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 18 of 46 (846206)
12-31-2018 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
12-30-2018 7:21 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
GDR writes:

You and I can look at that objective evidence and form our own subjective conclusions about it.

Had you been born in Bombay to Hindu parents you would not form the same subjective opinion of the bible. You would now be telling us of the objective truth contained within the Vendas and the importance of dharma and karma.

Your 'evidence' is therefore not merely subjective it's also temporal and spacial. Your current beliefs are very modern and very liberal. You simply could not have held them 300 years ago - there was no church to support them. What GDR is likely to believe is what is in front of him at his birth and what that will be will depends on when and where he is born. What does that say about this belief?

To me it says that the belief is cultural - a learned tradition. It also says that if it is evidence of anything at all, it is only evidence of the power of conditioning and of a need within people in general to believe that they are special, not just another species that will live and die without further consequencies.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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 14 by GDR, posted 12-30-2018 7:21 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 2:08 PM Tangle has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 19 of 46 (846207)
12-31-2018 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
12-30-2018 7:21 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
We also know that there are an awful lot of problems with the resurrection stories.

We know that we have no record of the Empty Tomb story before the Gospels - we have Paul talking about the Resurrction of Jesus, but not the Empty Tomb. We also know that the text of the Synoptic Gospels is often too close for them to be independent- including the Empty Tomb story, and there are reasons to think that John is dependent on the same source.

We also know that the appearance stories are all over the place. Paulís list doesnít tell us only that people thought they saw Jesus in some sense - and in his case we know it was a visionary experience. Mark doesnít actually get to the appearances, simply indicating that they happened in Galilee. Matthew has a single appearance in Galilee. Luke/Acts has an elaborate story which puts all the appearances except Paulís vision in and around Jerusalem. John has the ďdouble endingĒ - there are Jerusalem-set appearance stories and a perfectly good ending, then a set of Galilee-set appearance stories and another ending. None of them actual stories matches, nor do the Gospel stories match Paulís list.

This really does not make any sense if the stories are held to be at all accurate. That they are largely fiction seems to be the only reasonable explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 12-30-2018 7:21 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 20 of 46 (846208)
12-31-2018 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by GDR
12-31-2018 3:10 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
You have given an explanation as to why you reject the authenticity of the historical resurrection of Jesus. However, that is still your subjective conclusion. We are still left with the objective knowledge that the NT accounts exist and claim that Jesus was resurrected.

I have given you a list of objective facts that you have to effectively ignore or dismiss in order to sustain your claim that we are all just subjectively interpreting the same evidence.

Everything suggests that Christian mythology is at least in part an adaptation of preceding mythologies. Of course it has its USP built on top. And of course you as a somebody exposed to, and following of, the Christian belief system will firmly believe that this makes it the truest and most enlightened of the religious myths available. Every religious adherent is of the opinion that their particular belief/holy-book is the most accurate.

You special plead Christianity and the bible over those other religions due to an accident of birth. I have had similar discussions with Muslims who make similar arguments about the superiority of the Koran and why that is more revealing of Godís truths than the bible or the Torah.

We have objective evidence about how religions form and grow. Look at Mormonism or Scientology for recent examples. We know that people will convince themselves utterly of the veracity of things that any objective observer will conclude to be clearly fictional.

Looked at as part of the bigger whole, looked at objectively, Christianity is just another example of all of this.

Of course you will claim that your beliefs are different from all those others. Better evidenced, more convincing, whatever. Every believer is convinced of that about their particular religion.

But look at this without the blinkers of Christianity. Try to look at it from the point of view of an alien unfamiliar with any Earthly religion who deals only with the observable facts. What would they conclude? That the resurrection of Jesus is clearly superior to all those other religiious claims? Or that humans have a bewildering habit of really personally committing themselves to the various stories that they collectively create?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:10 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 12-31-2018 8:35 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:25 PM Straggler has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12033
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 21 of 46 (846210)
12-31-2018 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
12-31-2018 7:30 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
What you say does make sense, but the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one! I have had too much subjective experience that convinced me that the Spirit is real to fully reject Christianity. I would admit, however, that were I to reject Christianity I most certainly would not embrace any of the other beliefs. They make even less sense to me. So in effect, I have proven your theory and observed suggestion.

I think that what GDR is trying to express is a defense of his own reasoning for why he believes as he does. I am in agreement with him because I feel the same way and have the same need to apologetically defend my belief.

I disagree with Tangles premature conclusion that there is no God. He asks how it can be otherwise...and awaits evidence which neither GDR nor I can provide.
Note, however, that he has a particular habit of taking the God of the book and vilifying Him...urging believers to reconsider Whom It Is that they are supporting. In conclusion, I believe that Jesus is alive (ever-present with us in Spirit and I also believe the basic mythos that asserts He will return to Earth again in bodily form or substance. Don't ask me to provide rational reasons---I'll admit it does not make a lot of evidential sense.

Percy brings up a good point when he argues that we fail to be satisfied when our opponents choose to believe differently. Personally, I don't care too much how you, or Stile, or ringo or Tangle believe or accept regarding logic, reason, and reality.

In fact, who gets me most anxious and upset is Faith, for she refuses to even consider that her belief is wrong. The anti Calvinism arguments made sense to me back when we had them though I must admit that my cognitive dissonance levels are through the roof! Pastor ICANT gets my respect not for his observations about science...but for this statement which he made that sums up how I feel as well:

quote:
I don't trust religion or the religious. Most of them belong to the devil.

So make me feel better. Tell me that there is any chance that I can relax without giving up my belief. (Or is faith in "chance" part of my addictive hangups in the first place?

Edited by Phat, : added quote


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ĖRC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ĖMark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 12-31-2018 7:30 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 12-31-2018 9:00 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 23 by Tangle, posted 12-31-2018 9:26 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 12-31-2018 10:57 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 22 of 46 (846211)
12-31-2018 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
12-31-2018 8:35 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Believe what you like I guess.

On subjective experiences Iíd simply ask why ou think they are caused by god(s) rather than undetectable moon rays, psychic badgers or even just plain old mundane psychological and bio-chemical procssses? What is it about these visions and voices that leads you to conclude they are definitely caused by god?

Where I disagree with GDR is this notion that we are all just equally subjectively interpreting the same evidence. It superficially sounds oh-so reasonable but scratch a little deeper and itís palpable nonsense.

If an alien scientist came to Earth with the intention of objectively studying human history, culture, psychology etc. Collating and collecting all the objective evidence to draw their conclusions, to see what they could learn from us and observe what makes us tick. There is no way that this alien scientist would leave having decided that the resurrection of Christ was superior to all other stories and that Christians must therefore be pursuing a truth that everybody else is missing.

Rather they would look at humanity as a whole and conclude that we are creative story-tellers frequently unhindered by the banality of truth in our myriad of fictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 12-31-2018 8:35 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6608
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 23 of 46 (846212)
12-31-2018 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
12-31-2018 8:35 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Phat writes:

I disagree with Tangles premature conclusion that there is no God.

You do understand that that conclusion has no evidential support and is therefore irrational don't you? It's just a belief. Just the opposite of Percy's. The bit I reject totally - on the evidence - is the god of religion. Including yours.

Note, however, that he has a particular habit of taking the God of the book and vilifying Him...urging believers to reconsider Whom It Is that they are supporting.

I think you'll find that all the unbelievers here have that trait in common.

So make me feel better. Tell me that there is any chance that I can relax without giving up my belief. (Or is faith in "chance" part of my addictive hangups in the first place?

The only way you can relax is to take your faith for granted or give it up. This constant gnawing at it is getting you nowhere. Why don't you do what most people do here in the UK, just imagine a nice god that doesn't require anything more of you than to lead a good life? Turn up at church to have a good sing every now and then a chat nicely to your Lord when you feel the need.


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 21 by Phat, posted 12-31-2018 8:35 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16128
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 24 of 46 (846216)
12-31-2018 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
12-31-2018 8:35 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Phat writes:

Pastor ICANT gets my respect not for his observations about science...but for this statement which he made that sums up how I feel as well:

quote:
I don't trust religion or the religious. Most of them belong to the devil.

ICANT is as close to "the devil" as you're likely to get. Remember that "the devil" is the one who tells you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 12-31-2018 8:35 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4772
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 46 (846223)
12-31-2018 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by AZPaul3
12-31-2018 3:44 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
AZPaul3 writes:

We are also left with the objective knowledge that Alice in Wonderland exists and its claim that the Cheshire Cat just fades away leaving only his smile behind.

Fiction is fiction.

That's pretty silly. Obviously A i W was written to be read as fiction. It is just as obvious that the NT wasn't.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by AZPaul3, posted 12-31-2018 3:44 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 12-31-2018 4:16 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4772
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 46 (846224)
12-31-2018 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
12-31-2018 7:30 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Straggler writes:

But look at this without the blinkers of Christianity. Try to look at it from the point of view of an alien unfamiliar with any Earthly religion who deals only with the observable facts. What would they conclude? That the resurrection of Jesus is clearly superior to all those other religiious claims? Or that humans have a bewildering habit of really personally committing themselves to the various stories that they collectively create?


I would agree with all that except for one thing. It all hinges on whether or not the resurrection is an historical event. If it is trying to convey a truth through mythology or metaphor then I agree that you are correct. If however the physical resurrection of Jesus into a renewed physical form of life is historical, then that changes everything. My firmly held belief is that the resurrection is historical.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 12-31-2018 7:30 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 01-01-2019 6:28 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3756
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 27 of 46 (846228)
12-31-2018 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
12-31-2018 3:19 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
AZPaul3 writes:

We are also left with the objective knowledge that Alice in Wonderland exists and its claim that the Cheshire Cat just fades away leaving only his smile behind.

Fiction is fiction.

GDR writes:


That's pretty silly. Obviously A i W was written to be read as fiction. It is just as obvious that the NT wasn't.

Wasn't it? Since the majority of the authors cannot even be identified how can you accurately assess their motivations?

Just before the Branch Davidians burned in Waco David Koresh got some air time on a local radio show as part of a surrender deal with the Feds. He had his air time but then reneged on the surrender.

I heard the broadcast as it happened. The guy was nuts. I'm sure a transcript exists somewhere if you want but the point is that this religious yahoo was so obviously off his feed. I could totally see him 2000 years ago writing scrolls with the help of Jim Jones.

The religious nutjobs of yester-millennia were the archetypes for the modern ones and possessed the same fervor and deluded vision as the ones they spawned.

I refuse to believe (well, anything, actually) that someone could write this stuff, then or now, as anything other than fiction (allegory?) except under extreme religious delusion.

We have them today and humans haven't progressed all that far in intellect from before so I conclude the same type of religious crazy existed back then, and, lacking our religious history, their writings had no impediment to acceptance by the religion-based societies of the era.

So, ya, I submit your books were written as fiction, allegory or delusion, and most certainly not as objective reporting.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:19 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 2:24 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 28 of 46 (846237)
01-01-2019 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
12-31-2018 3:25 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
And Mormons believe that Joseph Smithís interactions with God are historical.

And Muslims believe that God revealing the verses of the Quran to Mohammed is historical.

And so on and so forth.

Of course you believe that the resurrection is historical.

But nobody looking all the belief systems of the world, past and present, objectively would have reason to conclude that the resurrection is historical whilst dismissing all those other claimed events as fiction. Instead they would see all these claims in the context of a wider pattern of human myth making and belief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:25 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4772
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 46 (846246)
01-01-2019 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Tangle
12-31-2018 4:39 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Tangle writes:

Had you been born in Bombay to Hindu parents you would not form the same subjective opinion of the bible. You would now be telling us of the objective truth contained within the Vendas and the importance of dharma and karma.

Quite possibly, but that doesn't tell us anything about the truth or falsehood of either belief, or for that matter, what truth is common to both faiths.

Tangle writes:

Your 'evidence' is therefore not merely subjective it's also temporal and spacial. Your current beliefs are very modern and very liberal. You simply could not have held them 300 years ago - there was no church to support them.

I would dispute the idea that there weren't people who studied the Scripture 300 years ago that couldn't have held my views but it isn't worth the time to argue about it. Actually my views that you call liberal are pretty middle of the road in Anglicanism. The Christian writers who have had the greatest influence on my thinking are all Anglican, (all Church of England for that matter). They are C S Lewis as a Christian philosopher, N T Wright as a New Testament scholar and John Polkinghorne as a scientist/theologian.

If you really want liberal read some of jar's posts.

Tangle writes:

To me it says that the belief is cultural - a learned tradition. It also says that if it is evidence of anything at all, it is only evidence of the power of conditioning and of a need within people in general to believe that they are special, not just another species that will live and die without further consequencies.

Certainly we are influenced by our cultures, but that doesn't mean that our conclusions are false. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by special. I suppose as we are all "I" then we consider are selves special. Personally I think that all of creatures are created by God and are special in their own right. I'm certainly no more special than an atheistic Brit.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 12-31-2018 4:39 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 01-01-2019 4:20 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4772
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 30 of 46 (846248)
01-01-2019 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AZPaul3
12-31-2018 4:16 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
AZPaul3 writes:

I submit your books were written as fiction, allegory or delusion, and most certainly not as objective reporting.

That is not a coherent thought. Fiction is quite differnt than allegory or delusion. Fiction is understood as a story to be read primarily for entertainment although there often is an underlying message, but it is not historical. An allegory, like a Biblical parable, is a story that is truthful but not in a historical sense but that it represents a literal truth. A delusion is is meant to be understood as truthful but where the author was duped. Of course it could also just be a lie.

The Gospels, as pointed out specifically by both Luke and John, were written to be accepted as truthful. That of course isn't evidence that they are historically accurate, but it is evidence that they were not written as fiction, but were written to convey an account of events, that were intended to be understood as historically accurate.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 12-31-2018 4:16 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 01-01-2019 3:02 PM GDR has responded
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 01-01-2019 6:29 PM GDR has responded
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 2:44 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019