Why dont YOU believe in God?

For the most part I agree with what you said in your post. Personally, I prefer belief and spirituality based on observable effects and reasoning, not just on some 2000 year old book which all indications point to being a written collection of spoken-word folklore and allegorical tales.

theone86

That is simply not true, lets take into consideration teh New testament by which all historical evidence leads us completely against such a conclusion. We have ample evidence as to the authorship of these works within the second century from multiple different places and writings and the text in of itself indicates as much as well. I'm not an expert in defending the New testament hence why i would reccomend the Lecture series by Dr Timothy Mcgrew (just type his name in youtube and you'll find it) and he goes over the positive reasons as tow hy we can trust the new testament and its accounts. Take in mind we have more reason to believe in the genuine nature of the New testament than we do with other works which are completely undisputed like that of Tacitus.

Although one example of how it cannot be simply folklore is the witness of Saint paul, whom was a Jewish pharisee and learnt of Jesus within Jeruselum. This is inexplicable that Saint Paul should claim that Jesus had been risen from the dead if his body had not been stolen and it is also inexplicable to suggest Saint Paul who was a learned man would simply believe in things which would have been regarded as merely legendary around his time by his contemporaries.

I like how atheists go such length to label god as a "bad guy" while at the same time labeling Satan as a "good guy". Comic gold. That what it is. You know it's god himself that give us freewill not Satan. So the "God wanted us to be slaves" is thrown out the window. Satan giving us carnal pleasure? Where the fvck do you reach that conclusion?alexside1

I like how atheists go such length to label god as a "bad guy" while at the same time labeling Satan as a "good guy". alexside1

[QUOTE="theone86"]

For the most part I agree with what you said in your post. Personally, I prefer belief and spirituality based on observable effects and reasoning, not just on some 2000 year old book which all indications point to being a written collection of spoken-word folklore and allegorical tales.

Philokalia

That is simply not true, lets take into consideration teh New testament by which all historical evidence leads us completely against such a conclusion. We have ample evidence as to the authorship of these works within the second century from multiple different places and writings and the text in of itself indicates as much as well. I'm not an expert in defending the New testament hence why i would reccomend the Lecture series by Dr Timothy Mcgrew (just type his name in youtube and you'll find it) and he goes over the positive reasons as tow hy we can trust the new testament and its accounts. Take in mind we have more reason to believe in the genuine nature of the New testament than we do with other works which are completely undisputed like that of Tacitus.

Although one example of how it cannot be simply folklore is the witness of Saint paul, whom was a Jewish pharisee and learnt of Jesus within Jeruselum. This is inexplicable that Saint Paul should claim that Jesus had been risen from the dead if his body had not been stolen and it is also inexplicable to suggest Saint Paul who was a learned man would simply believe in things which would have been regarded as merely legendary around his time by his contemporaries.

Ah, it's religious idiot time. Alright, I'll bite.

I wasn't being entirely literal, but let me specify. The Old Testament is a bookwhich all indications point to being a written collection of spoken-word folklore and allegorical tales, the New Testament is a book written by a bunch of Jewish revivalists who wrote a bunch of tales about a man performing miracles who may or may have not intended to portray himself as the son of god. This is all irrelevant to my point, though, as the New Testament doesn't establish god but builds upon the Old Testament conception of god. The Old Testament says that there is a monotheistic god, the New Testament doesn't try to contradict that but rather builds upon it, ergo the question of the Christian god's existence is inextricably tied to the Old Testament.

As for believing the New Testament, I have never seen any good evidence as to why we should objectively. At best it's a bunch of hearsay, at worst it's outright fabrication.

There are plenty of explanations for why Paul would come to believe in Jesus and how he would learn about these things, such as becoming acquainted with people who followed Jesus' teachings and accepting their ideology. Good lord, someone accepting a different worldview? Yeah, that's totally impossible:roll:

That is simply not true, lets take into consideration teh New testament by which all historical evidence leads us completely against such a conclusion. We have ample evidence as to the authorship of these works within the second century from multiple different places and writings and the text in of itself indicates as much as well. I'm not an expert in defending the New testament hence why i would reccomend the Lecture series by Dr Timothy Mcgrew (just type his name in youtube and you'll find it) and he goes over the positive reasons as tow hy we can trust the new testament and its accounts. Take in mind we have more reason to believe in the genuine nature of the New testament than we do with other works which are completely undisputed like that of Tacitus.

Philokalia

That is simply not true. Tacitus' work is commonly disputed for content and authorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Authenticity_and_historical_value

It is the same texts from the New Testament, as described by the synoptic gospels issue, at least 7 of the Paulean epistles, and other anomalies that cast doubt on the authorship of NT books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Authenticity_of_the_epistles

Although one example of how it cannot be simply folklore is the witness of Saint paul, whom was a Jewish pharisee and learnt of Jesus within Jeruselum. This is inexplicable that Saint Paul should claim that Jesus had been risen from the dead if his body had not been stolen and it is also inexplicable to suggest Saint Paul who was a learned man would simply believe in things which would have been regarded as merely legendary around his time by his contemporaries.

Philokalia

I think it odd how Paul never described any of Jesus' miracles or his divine birth in his 13 epistles. I suggest you read "Who Wrote the New Testament", by Burton L Mack for a more accurate presentation of bibical evidence.

Rational atheist you have missed my point, people may dispute the historical information presented in Tacitus but little to no one disputes it was Tacitius who wrote it despite a lack of internal attribution which those same critics would demand of the Gospels and comparably less authors writing as to the genuineness of it, that is the authorship of the New testament and Tacitus respectfully. We have good reasons to believe who wrote the gospels and if you are going to post a "source" like wikipedia in evidence of your point I feel it only necessary to refer to actual arguments in favour of the New testament, its authorship and realiability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldvim1yjYM

Who wrote the gospels?

And I would reccomend parts two and three as well. But if you feel it is the case that Tacitus didn't write the Histories perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you would consider good criteria to believe a work to be authentic?

Now theone, the problem is that it lacks a satisfying explanation for why Saint Paul actually converted. How does one explain the apostles belief in the ressurected lord and the empty tomb? Saint Paul was not a dumb man and he had an intense hatred for Christians, to suggest he would have kept to the faith despite (if what the atheist claims is true and reussrection never happened) is perplexing as he was there are a position to know whether it did happen. He was in Jeruselum he was there amongst those who believed and went to talk with the apostles and

Now I suggest that it is not simple hearsay and the lecture I have given shows this and there is historical credibility as to the gospels that you cannot simply dismiss as you would any other work. if historians applied the same criteria they do to other works to the new testament you would see how the New testament rings true. Just give it a shot.

And please can we avoid calling each other names?

I think it odd how Paul never described any of Jesus' miracles or his divine birth in his 13 epistles. I suggest you read "Who Wrote the New Testament", by Burton L Mack for a more accurate presentation of bibical evidence.

RationalAtheist

An argument of silence is not evidence of Ignorance. Saint Paul wrote to people and places and might not have had those things in mind. We cannot use such arguments in history unless theres an overwhelming reason to do so, and in the case of Saint Paul there isn't.

Rational atheist you have missed my point, people may dispute the historical information presented in Tacitus but little to no one disputes it was Tacitius who wrote it despite a lack of internal attribution which those same critics would demand of the Gospels and comparably less authors writing as to the genuineness of it, that is the authorship of the New testament and Tacitus respectfully. We have good reasons to believe who wrote the gospels and if you are going to post a "source" like wikipedia in evidence of your point I feel it only necessary to refer to actual arguments in favour of the New testament, its authorship and realiability.

Philokalia

The wiki articles I linked to have plenty of sources listed for further investigation. I also listed a book "Who wrote the New Testament" for your information. People (including historians) do dispute that Tacitus wrote what he did. Your denials of existing documentary evidence against authenticity seem bizarre.

Who wrote the gospels?

And I would reccomend parts two and three as well. But if you feel it is the case that Tacitus didn't write the Histories perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you would consider good criteria to believe a work to be authentic?

Now theone, the problem is that it lacks a satisfying explanation for why Saint Paul actually converted. How does one explain the apostles belief in the ressurected lord and the empty tomb? Saint Paul was not a dumb man and he had an intense hatred for Christians, to suggest he would have kept to the faith despite (if what the atheist claims is true and reussrection never happened) is perplexing as he was there are a position to know whether it did happen. He was in Jeruselum he was there amongst those who believed and went to talk with the apostles and

Now I suggest that it is not simple hearsay and the lecture I have given shows this and there is historical credibility as to the gospels that you cannot simply dismiss as you would any other work. if historians applied the same criteria they do to other works to the new testament you would see how the New testament rings true. Just give it a shot.

And please can we avoid calling each other names?

Philokalia

It is all hear-say evidence from disputed sources. You claim for the contents of the texts, yet you refuse to see how they were created by using documentary analysis. Your claims to the nature of Paul is surely faulty, as at least 6 of the Paulean books have been attributed by positive evidence to other people. You have not shown me any credibility to historical accounts by your imagined personification of a disputed author. You are relying on isolated sources of tainted evidence to produce more anecdotal hear-say and can not be trusted as completely valid.

I would also suggest you read A History of God, by Karen Armstrong (a bit too "spiritual" for me, but still recommended), as well as the Burton L Mack book "Who Wrote the New Testament" I suggested.

An argument of silence is not evidence of Ignorance. Saint Paul wrote to people and places and might not have had those things in mind. We cannot use such arguments in history unless theres an overwhelming reason to do so, and in the case of Saint Paul there isn't.

Philokalia

That seems like a meek excuse for such glaring ommission from this "most trusted" of authors. How can you claim that Paul kew Jesus well, when in 13 or 14 books no miracles came up at all?

It's not so much that I don't believe in God as I am completely apathetic about faith in general. I've wasted too much time and energy trying to figure it out. Doesn't help that most Christians are people I do not want to associate with.

The wiki articles I linked to have plenty of sources listed for further investigation. I also listed a book "Who wrote the New Testament" for your information. People (including historians) do dispute that Tacitus wrote what he did. Your denials of existing documentary evidence against authenticity seem bizarre.

It is all hear-say evidence from disputed sources. You claims for the contents of the texts, yet you refuse to see how they were created by using documentary analysis. Your claims to the nature of Paul is surely faulty, as at least 6 of the Paulean books have been attributed by positive evidence to other people. You have not shown me any credibility to historical accounts by your imagined personification of a disputed author. You are relying on isolated sources of tainted evidence to produce more anecdotal hear-say and can not be trusted as completely valid.

I would also suggest you read A History of God, by Karen Armstrong (a bit too "spiritual" for me, but still recommended), as well as the Burton L Mack book "Who Wrote the New Testament" I suggested.

RationalAtheist

RA simply dismissing this as "hearsay" is not good enough nor is it good enough to simply point out people think some of the Paulian corpus is not authentically of Paul. Very well, lets grant that, we don't need the "inauthentic" ones to establish Saint paul as a witness to the credibility of the Christian Gospel. The acts of the Apostles is more than enough as well as his account in Galations which is regarded as truely Paulene. But Karen Armstrong huh? The one who asserts that Gnosticism was in the earliest church? I think I'll stick with more accepted scholarship, but I'll get to reading them only if you get to reading the Ressurection of the son of God by NT Wright and the other books in that series of his.

But please give some reasons as to why, say Mathew didn't write the gospel.

Rational atheist you have missed my point, people may dispute the historical information presented in Tacitus but little to no one disputes it was Tacitius who wrote it despite a lack of internal attribution which those same critics would demand of the Gospels and comparably less authors writing as to the genuineness of it, that is the authorship of the New testament and Tacitus respectfully. We have good reasons to believe who wrote the gospels and if you are going to post a "source" like wikipedia in evidence of your point I feel it only necessary to refer to actual arguments in favour of the New testament, its authorship and realiability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldvim1yjYM

Who wrote the gospels?

And I would reccomend parts two and three as well. But if you feel it is the case that Tacitus didn't write the Histories perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you would consider good criteria to believe a work to be authentic?

Now theone, the problem is that it lacks a satisfying explanation for why Saint Paul actually converted. How does one explain the apostles belief in the ressurected lord and the empty tomb? Saint Paul was not a dumb man and he had an intense hatred for Christians, to suggest he would have kept to the faith despite (if what the atheist claims is true and reussrection never happened) is perplexing as he was there are a position to know whether it did happen. He was in Jeruselum he was there amongst those who believed and went to talk with the apostles and

Now I suggest that it is not simple hearsay and the lecture I have given shows this and there is historical credibility as to the gospels that you cannot simply dismiss as you would any other work. if historians applied the same criteria they do to other works to the new testament you would see how the New testament rings true. Just give it a shot.

And please can we avoid calling each other names?

Philokalia

So it seems unlikely that he would actually have converted, therefore god? Nope, doesn't fly. There are plenty of alternative explanations for conversion with a higher inductive probability than a divine one. And like I said, it's really irrelevant as god's existence is inherently an Old Testament issue, unless you wish to completely discard the Old Testament and say that the New Testament god is a completely different god.

I don't have the time to Spend watching an hour and a half video on who wrote the gospels, regardless I doubt anything in the video amounts to more than certain events from one written record lining up with certain events from another written record. Written records are inherently unreliable, some less so than others, but still. Just because something was written a long time ago does not make it true, and if I were to accept for the moment that certain recorded events were true that amounts to nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Okay, some of the Bible lines up with historical events, that does not mean that we can abstract that to more of the Bible, that's the fallacy of composition. The supposed miracles that Jesus performed, the ressureaction, it's all hearsasy.

I will stop name-calling when you stop making sophist arguments.

That seems like a meek excuse for such glaring ommission from this "most trusted" of authors. How can you claim that Paul kew Jesus well, when in 13 or 14 books no miracles came up at all?

RationalAtheist

Glaring omitions exist in all forms of history Rational, you cannot expect people to write or mention certain things as the mind isn't that clear. For example we know Paul was acqainted with the apostles but he never mentions all their names! You cannot infer from silence that the author is ignorant. It wasn't the intent of Paul to write about the complete life of JEsus. This is like saying that because Socrates scholasticus didn't record everything in history known that he thought it didn't happen. No Socrates scholasticus wrote specifically about the history of the church and relegated to that subject. The comparison with Saint Paul here is clear. Silence does not equal ignorance. It simply doesn't.

So it seems unlikely that he would actually have converted, therefore god? Nope, doesn't fly. There are plenty of alternative explanations for conversion with a higher inductive probability than a divine one. And like I said, it's really irrelevant as god's existence is inherently an Old Testament issue, unless you wish to completely discard the Old Testament and say that the New Testament god is a completely different god.

I don't have the time to Spend watching an hour and a half video on who wrote the gospels, regardless I doubt anything in the video amounts to more than certain events from one written record lining up with certain events from another written record. Written records are inherently unreliable, some less so than others, but still. Just because something was written a long time ago does not make it true, and if I were to accept for the moment that certain recorded events were true that amounts to nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Okay, some of the Bible lines up with historical events, that does not mean that we can abstract that to more of the Bible, that's the fallacy of composition. The supposed miracles that Jesus performed, the ressureaction, it's all hearsasy.

I will stop name-calling when you stop making sophist arguments.

theone86

The Video demonstrates, rather the audio demonstates teh wide geographical spread of the tradition of the names of the authors of the New testament. That they were always regarded as the authors, lack of rival traditions in regards to the authorship of these books/. But you can dismiss it, this isn't by some evangelical minister, this is a lecture by a Historian, a PHD, he knows what hes talking about more than anyone here does and thus I think he deserves the time of the day if you are going to make such claims about the gospels and just baselesely dismiss them. Now I never inferred that Saint Paul's conversaion alone is what convinces people of the ressureciton, thats only one aspect and its hard to explain his conversion away naturally, as it is also hard to explain away the empty tomb naturally and the apostles belief naturally. It all fits together into one giant puzzle and is solved by the ressurection. That being said, the idea taht the old testament and the new testament God are completely different from one another betrays a lack of understanding on your part. The writers of the New testament were intimately familiar with the God of the Old testament, they quote from it many times, reference it indirectly many times. Thus I suggest you understanding of old testament is but a product of lay atheists trying to find evil in it without trying to actually understand it. The Old testament was not written for our modern minds and thus it requires that we study it and understand it which Is why I am so hesitant as to speak about the Old testament because I actually understand the need for trying to understand it and my lack of knowledge of it.

RA simply dismissing this as "hearsay" is not good enough nor is it good enough to simply point out people think some of the Paulian corpus is not authentically of Paul. Very well, lets grant that, we don't need the "inauthentic" ones to establish Saint paul as a witness to the credibility of the Christian Gospel. The acts of the Apostles is more than enough as well as his account in Galations which is regarded as truely Paulene. But Karen Armstrong huh? The one who asserts that Gnosticism was in the earliest church? I think I'll stick with more accepted scholarship, but I'll get to reading them only if you get to reading the Ressurection of the son of God by NT Wright and the other books in that series of his.

But please give some reasons as to why, say Mathew didn't write the gospel.

Philokalia

Hear-say evidence is becoming less and less credible, as can be seen in the western legal system - for good reasons. Other sources of evidence, like analysis, are far more credible. People tend to distort hear-say accounts, especially when recounting supernatural experiences. Modern history is far more analytical and less prone to bias these days. The Dead Sea scrolls would support an early gnostic Christian movement.

Your refusal to read an author (an ex-nun) you don't agree with shows how you re-enforce your view with narrow reasearch only.

Are you asking me to criticise each book of the New Testament in-turn? The SynopticGospels article I linked to has some discussion of the documentary evidence to suggest that Matthew shares authorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

Now I suggest it is not merely hear say evidence and that you suggest it baseleslly. Again we have good reasons ot believe in the authenticity more so than other historical works. Within the second century we can witness a wide geographical spread of the tradition of athorship of the New testament that is from Lyon, to Alexandria to Antioch and other places we see it testified that the authors are who they are claimed. And if these works were truely anonymous, that is their authorship not known I would expect quite reasonably, that there would be different traditions of who wrote them but that simply isnt the case, every single text of the New testament it self bares the same author there are no disparities and this goes to show I think a single source for its origin and makes it difficult to suggest that these were simply only later attributed.

But who said I refused to read that author? Don't mentally project RA, its unbecoming. I might get around to reading that author or other critical authors but that isn't my concern at the moment. But would you ever read NT Wright? A well renowned new testament hsitorian? I doubt it.

Now the so called Synoptic problem doesn't so much strike me as a problem, lets discuss only one book for now, that is mathew. What postiive reasons would you have for saying Mathew was not hte author? Or what leads you to not believe he was the author?

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] God wanted to keep us slaves to his will. Lucifer (or at least, the snake, since Lucifer/Satan was only originally in the Job myth) wanted to give us free will and the knowledge of carnal pleasure.alexside1

they are neither good or bad, because neither exists

"free will" is pointing a gun to your head and saying do as i say or burn in hell? free will indeed.

Glaring omitions exist in all forms of history Rational, you cannot expect people to write or mention certain things as the mind isn't that clear. For example we know Paul was acqainted with the apostles but he never mentions all their names! You cannot infer from silence that the author is ignorant. It wasn't the intent of Paul to write about the complete life of JEsus. This is like saying that because Socrates scholasticus didn't record everything in history known that he thought it didn't happen. No Socrates scholasticus wrote specifically about the history of the church and relegated to that subject. The comparison with Saint Paul here is clear. Silence does not equal ignorance. It simply doesn't.

Philokalia

I didn't know Socrates Scholasticus was a biblical author and wrote supposedly inerrant and perfect books.

The ommissions are enought for me to raise an eyebrow over how well Paul would have known Jesus. Far more worrying is the clear docuemtary evidence against his authorship of some of his epistles though.

That is not the only hangup though; For instance I still get confused over the 2 different Judas accounts (in Acts and Matthew) - one saying he was free of guilt and had his stomach explode in a field, then the other that says he was riddled with guilt and hung himself!

[QUOTE="alexside1"] I like how atheists go such length to label god as a "bad guy" while at the same time labeling Satan as a "good guy". Zensword

he did create the devil FULL KNOWING what as going to happen, and humanity, not caring billions of people wiould suffer both in earth and hell

how can people believe in this and more so defend it is beyond me

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] God wanted to keep us slaves to his will. Lucifer (or at least, the snake, since Lucifer/Satan was only originally in the Job myth) wanted to give us free will and the knowledge of carnal pleasure.Krelian-co

they are neither good or bad, because neither exists

"free will" is pointing a gun to your head and saying do as i say or burn in hell? free will indeed.

I didn't know Socrates Scholasticus was a biblical author and wrote supposedly inerrant and perfect books.

The ommissions are enought for me to raise an eyebrow over how well Paul would have known Jesus. Far more worrying is the clear docuemtary evidence against his authorship of some of his epistles though.

That is not the only hangup though; For instance I still get confused over the 2 different Judas accounts (in Acts and Matthew) - one saying he was free of guilt and had his stomach explode in a field, then the other that says he was riddled with guilt and hung himself!

RationalAtheist

I didn't know you like to make bad arguments. Socrates scholasticus was a church history author around about the year 400, he wrote concerning the period between constantine and himself. The argument quite simply if we follow your logic was that he did not know of any other history besides that, after all he never reported it mentioned it. Though this would go against plain reaosn because he was familiar with Eusbius's work and burrrowed from it and obbviously knew the hsitory of the church before Saint Constantine. The same applies to Paul, you cannot logically assert that a simply silence is evidence of ignorance or not knowing. It simply doesn't follow, the most you can say is that you are not sure. This would be the reasonable and historic position to take.

One has to realise the purpose of Saint Paul in his epistles, he never soguht to write a life of the messiah and more than often he would go to the Old testament because he was a jew first and foremost. This doesn't suggest that Saint paul knew nothing of the details of the life of Christ other than what he said, this is simply rediculous. As recorded in acts and in his own letter to the galatians he spent time with the apostles in Jeruselum, learning from them, most likely the details of Christ's life.

Silence is not enought to say Saint paul had the idea of Jesus that you are saying he did. Its not good enough. It is tantamount to saying that Josephus didn't know anything about Philo other than what he recorded. One cannot simply jump to that conclusion.

[QUOTE="Zensword"][QUOTE="alexside1"] I like how atheists go such length to label god as a "bad guy" while at the same time labeling Satan as a "good guy". Krelian-co

he did create the devil FULL KNOWING what as going to happen, and humanity, not caring billions of people wiould suffer both in earth and hell

how can people believe in this and more so defend it is beyond me

Now I suggest it is not merely hear say evidence and that you suggest it baseleslly. Again we have good reasons ot believe in the authenticity more so than other historical works. Within the second century we can witness a wide geographical spread of the tradition of athorship of the New testament that is from Lyon, to Alexandria to Antioch and other places we see it testified that the authors are who they are claimed. And if these works were truely anonymous, that is their authorship not known I would expect quite reasonably, that there would be different traditions of who wrote them but that simply isnt the case, every single text of the New testament it self bares the same author there are no disparities and this goes to show I think a single source for its origin and makes it difficult to suggest that these were simply only later attributed.

Philokalia

But it is more than a belief in other historical works to you. It is the basis for your faith. You are free to prefer attributed authorship over other, disparate and more accurate means of evidence. If you think there is no disparity while refusing to acknowledge strong evidence against, then you are deliberately not looking for it.

But who said I refused to read that author? Don't mentally project RA, its unbecoming. I might get around to reading that author or other critical authors but that isn't my concern at the moment. But would you ever read NT Wright? A well renowned new testament hsitorian? I doubt it.

Philokalia

Well you said "But Karen Armstrong huh? The one who asserts that Gnosticism was in the earliest church? I think I'll stick with more accepted scholarship", then went on to make a condition that I read a whole series of books by one Christian apologist. How do you know I haven't read NT Wright, or that I wouldn't? I'm looking through his Amazon book list right now. Hardly projecting, though is it? - Only stating what you actually said.

Now the so called Synoptic problem doesn't so much strike me as a problem, lets discuss only one book for now, that is mathew. What postiive reasons would you have for saying Mathew was not hte author? Or what leads you to not believe he was the author?

Philokalia

Did you look at the simple picture I posted in my previous post, or bother looking at the synpotic gospels page? You can't look at the Synoptic problem by isolating the books. The point is they all share the same words!

alexide is mad :lol:Zensword

I didn't know you like to make bad arguments. Socrates scholasticus was a church history author around about the year 400, he wrote concerning the period between constantine and himself. The argument quite simply if we follow your logic was that he did not know of any other history besides that, after all he never reported it mentioned it. Though this would go against plain reaosn because he was familiar with Eusbius's work and burrrowed from it and obbviously knew the hsitory of the church before Saint Constantine. The same applies to Paul, you cannot logically assert that a simply silence is evidence of ignorance or not knowing. It simply doesn't follow, the most you can say is that you are not sure. This would be the reasonable and historic position to take.

Philokalia

You seem to be constructing irrelevant arguments from scholastic authority here. You don't pray to Constantine though, so those works are not supposedly inerrant or divinely inspired. The most I am saying is I'm not sure. I agreethat is the most reasonable and historic position to take.

One has to realise the purpose of Saint Paul in his epistles, he never soguht to write a life of the messiah and more than often he would go to the Old testament because he was a jew first and foremost. This doesn't suggest that Saint paul knew nothing of the details of the life of Christ other than what he said, this is simply rediculous. As recorded in acts and in his own letter to the galatians he spent time with the apostles in Jeruselum, learning from them, most likely the details of Christ's life.

Silence is not enought to say Saint paul had the idea of Jesus that you are saying he did. Its not good enough. It is tantamount to saying that Josephus didn't know anything about Philo other than what he recorded. One cannot simply jump to that conclusion.

Philokalia

You seem to be the one jumping to conclusions. I'm saying we should analyse the evidence and be skeptical.

Now Rational if you want to assert the traditional authorship is wrong against the evidences in the texts themselves (which Dr Tim Mcgrew goes over) and the wide geographical and early attestation outside of the bible that?s fine, but I would prefer reasons other than simply saying it is based on the so called Synoptic problem. This is why I suggest for the sake of convenience we ought have our conversation relegated right now to Mathew, or some other work of the New testament and we can argue as to the authenticity and genuineness of them. But if I am ignoring the evidence against, what are you doing other than ignoring the evidence for it?

Now RA, I don?t what you mean by me thinking that these works have to be inerrent. Im not treating the new testament as inerrent or perfect, in fact I would be willing to concede for the sake of the discussion that there are errors in it, but that does not affect the whole of the new testament in regards to its authenticity and realiability. Plenty of authors of history make mistakes but that doesn?t mean we reject them. So before placing on my a belief or an assumption you ought clarify if I had such an assumption. But the bottom line is that an argument from silence is not positive proof of ignorance. Indeed Ignatius of Antioch makes subtle references to the gospels but never names them, are we to conclude from that he doesn?t actually know of the gospels? Clearly not

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"] According to Bible itself: "I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)alexside1

he did create the devil FULL KNOWING what as going to happen, and humanity, not caring billions of people wiould suffer both in earth and hell

how can people believe in this and more so defend it is beyond me

what pitiful tactic? is it not true that god is supossed to be all knowing? he knew what was going to happen when he created the devil, humanity and the tree of knowledge

so try to come with an intelligent argument instead of insulting, but i guess thats too much for you.

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

he did create the devil FULL KNOWING what as going to happen, and humanity, not caring billions of people wiould suffer both in earth and hell

how can people believe in this and more so defend it is beyond me

Krelian-co

what pitiful tactic is it free will when one outcome of the choise is burn in hell for eternity? you are just in denial

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] Are you guys fuc*ing trolling me here? You guys took that post out of fu*cking context. Are you insisting on bashing that you throw you brain out the window? Fox understand what I'm saying. You guys do not. And feel the f*cking urge to bash so you retort to these pitiful tactics?alexside1

what pitiful tactic is it free will when one outcome of the choise is burn in hell for eternity? you are just in denial

ah insulting what else can someone expect from you

can't argue let's insult and derail the topic!

such a butthurt

Now Rational if you want to assert the traditional authorship is wrong against the evidences in the texts themselves (which Dr Tim Mcgrew goes over) and the wide geographical and early attestation outside of the bible that?s fine, but I would prefer reasons other than simply saying it is based on the so called Synoptic problem. This is why I suggest for the sake of convenience we ought have our conversation relegated right now to Mathew, or some other work of the New testament and we can argue as to the authenticity and genuineness of them. But if I am ignoring the evidence against, what are you doing other than ignoring the evidence for it?

Now RA, I don?t what you mean by me thinking that these works have to be inerrent. Im not treating the new testament as inerrent or perfect, in fact I would be willing to concede for the sake of the discussion that there are errors in it, but that does not affect the whole of the new testament in regards to its authenticity and realiability. Plenty of authors of history make mistakes but that doesn?t mean we reject them. So before placing on my a belief or an assumption you ought clarify if I had such an assumption. But the bottom line is that an argument from silence is not positive proof of ignorance. Indeed Ignatius of Antioch makes subtle references to the gospels but never names them, are we to conclude from that he doesn?t actually know of the gospels? Clearly not

Philokalia

Do you really want to go through the specific problems with each book of the New Testament? Do you have a view on the Judas/Matthew/Acts death contradiction? I initially only responded to your erroneous post :

Take in mind we have more reason to believe in the genuine nature of the New testament than we do with other works which are completely undisputed like that of Tacitus

Philokalia

Clearly your statement is not true, since there is a genuine concern of the authorship of many New Testament books, based on documentary criticism. The same is true for Tacitus. The bible is supposed to be perfect and inerrant, isn't it? Is that what your religion preaches? Isn't that what you were promoting earlier?

I wonder why you keep repeating the "argument from silence" thing. That has little to do with documentary analysis of authorship and everything to do over the doubtful relationship Paul had with Jesus in the New Testament.

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

what pitiful tactic is it free will when one outcome of the choise is burn in hell for eternity? you are just in denial

Krelian-co

ah insulting what else can someone expect from you

can't argue let's insult and derail the topic!

such a butthurt

The church holds the bible as inspired, but not inerent but for the sake of argument I am not asserting any special about the gospels. I never do in regards to these discussion RA so please don't assume such things on me. I suggest within teh texts themselves there are good reasons to believe their authorship and their realiability. And yes I would say it is true we have good reasons to believe in the New testament and not so comparably good reasons to reject the traditional authorship of the New testament. so which book would you start with?

so try to come with an intelligent argument instead of insulting, but i guess thats too much for you.

Krelian-co

Quoting me out of context and then proceed to create a straw-man out of it is not even by a long shot an intelligent argument.

Get off your F8cking high-horse.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] No, you are just a dumb*ass.alexside1

ah insulting what else can someone expect from you

can't argue let's insult and derail the topic!

such a butthurt

oh well, ignoring the questions i made and answering with insults, very religious like, at least ypu have that

btw i couldn't care less what you call me you just showed what kind of piece of crap you are, have a nice day and keep ignoring questions that are too though to answer, ignorance is bliss they say

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

so try to come with an intelligent argument instead of insulting, but i guess thats too much for you.

alexside1

Quoting me out of context and then proceed to create a straw-man out of it is not even by a long shot an intelligent argument.

Get off your F8cking high-horse.

calm down, take your pill, take 5 mins, breathe in breathe out, gotta love these disfunctional people and their rage bursts

The church holds the bible as inspired, but not inerent but for the sake of argument I am not asserting any special about the gospels. I never do in regards to these discussion RA so please don't assume such things on me. I suggest within teh texts themselves there are good reasons to believe their authorship and their realiability. And yes I would say it is true we have good reasons to believe in the New testament and not so comparably good reasons to reject the traditional authorship of the New testament. so which book would you start with?

Philokalia

You are saying that you trust texts that you know to be faulty. You also seem to reject documentary analysis entirely without rebuttal.

Why not start at the beginning of the bible - At Genesis? You could refer to the book, "Some Mistakes of Moses", by Robert Green Ingersol for inspiration for these first few chapters. I warn you, this thread might go on for a bit!

oh well, ignoring the questions i made and answering with insults, very religious like, at least ypu have that

btw i couldn't care less what you call me you just showed what kind of piece of crap you are, have a nice day and keep ignoring questions that are too though to answer, ignorance is bliss they say

Krelian-co

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

so try to come with an intelligent argument instead of insulting, but i guess thats too much for you.

Krelian-co

Quoting me out of context and then proceed to create a straw-man out of it is not even by a long shot an intelligent argument.

Get off your F8cking high-horse.

calm down, take your pill, take 5 mins, breathe in breathe out, gotta love these disfunctional people and their rage bursts

You are saying that you trust texts that you know to be faulty. You also seem to reject documentary analysis entirely without rebuttal.

Why not start at the beginning of the bible - At Genesis? You could refer to the book, "Some Mistakes of Moses", by Robert Green Ingersol for inspiration for these first few chapters. I warn you, this thread might go on for a bit!

RationalAtheist

I know them to be faulty? Um no. you don't understand how history works RA. A mistake in a book doesn't mean its faulty or that in general it is not to be trusted. Do you really think that? That being said the Synoptic to me doesn't seem to contradict the actual authorship of the New testament, you need to establish as much RA, that is if we accept this in the first place. So lets start with a book of the New testament, perhaps Mathew? Give your reasons as to why Mathew cannot possibly the author.

I believe in God. I am Catholic.Kevlar101

While I'm not trying to destroy your belief, I mean I have no such right but what evidence do you have for God?

I know them to be faulty? Um no. you don't understand how history works RA. A mistake in a book doesn't mean its faulty or that in general it is not to be trusted. Do you really think that? That being said the Synoptic to me doesn't seem to contradict the actual authorship of the New testament, you need to establish as much RA, that is if we accept this in the first place. So lets start with a book of the New testament, perhaps Mathew? Give your reasons as to why Mathew cannot possibly the author.

Philokalia

I think the simple chart below will establish authorship within the synoptic gospels:

As you can see, only 20% of Matthew is unique to Matthew.

Because the Bible cannot prove itself. It doesn't even consist of original content.

Long before even the first monotheistic religion that is Judaism. Israelites were polytheistic; just like every religion at the time. They believed in a number of gods. One of those gods was Yahweh; the god of war. Yahweh is one of the names of god in the Hebrew Bible. That would certainly explain why god was so sickly violent and evil in the old testament. Anyone with a little bit of common sense could see how "dark" and twisted it truly is. I reccomend anyone who is unsure of this to actually read the old testament and see for yourself. It makes you wonder why did god change in the new testament? Or why did the individuals change when creating it...?

The Bible also almost certainly borrows stories and concepts from other, older religions. Such as the great flood from ancient Sumeria.

The magnitude of the world and the universe leads me to be think there is a Creator. And, with the use of cause and effect, it is easy to justify the existence of a God.

kingkong0124

I think the simple chart below will establish authorship within the synoptic gospels:

As you can see, only 20% of Matthew is unique to Matthew.

RationalAtheist

This alone doesn't go to show the traditional authenticity wrong. That being said I will come back later with a respnce to this "problem."