Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How can we know that God is?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You write arrogant and uninformed comments about things of which you know very little.

    That is not a particularly admirable trait.
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      [FONT=Verdana]This from a bloke who thinks that "alive" (without any modifications added) doesn't mean "alive" in the conventional sense.
      Why would “alive” be in the “conventional sense” when the only description ascribed to Paul is the far from conventional visionary one on the Damascus Rd.?

      Of course they are. The people who credited the books to particular authors had no idea who might have written the gospels, and assigned authorship to random minor characters (John excepted) to enhance the books' credibility. I would want some sort of evidence (beyond questionable speculation) for all that before accepting the story.
      Nevertheless, given that the gospels were not written until 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death, the text of the gospels represents an evolved edited and undoubtedly embellished text from that of Paul.

      It is strange that evidence for all this editing exists in the form of variant manuscripts - but those manuscripts do not show significant variation in the basic writings
      The earliest canon of the New Testament in its present form was not until Bishop Athanasius’ Easter Letter in CE367. And some books which formed part of the early canon and widely read in churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas) were excluded.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

        Why would “alive” be in the “conventional sense” when the only description ascribed to Paul is the far from conventional visionary one on the Damascus Rd.?
        There have been and are people arguing that he did not die in the conventional sense. Paul maybe never describes the encounter on the road to Damascus, and his description of the relevant encounter is not connected in writing with the road to Damascus event.



        Nevertheless, given that the gospels were not written until 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death, the text of the gospels represents an evolved edited and undoubtedly embellished text from that of Paul.
        It is not a given. There is no demonstrable evidence in the gospels to show that the writers had any awareness of Paul's writing. Recognition by Paul of the gospels is a bare possibility that can be reasonably considered clutching at straws. There are however, cross links between the gospels and Hebrews (written around the same time as Paul's letters). Whether Hebrews draws on the gospels or vice versa, or all draw on the same sources can't be satisfactorily determined.

        Whether or not the gospels were written at a late date, there is no evidence to suggest that the body of the text was subsequently subjected to the kind of radical alteration that you propose. If they had been, the conflicts between the texts and Constantinian church Christology would not have been preserved.



        Last edited by tabibito; 06-22-2022, 12:28 AM.
        1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
        Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        "It is not divine truth that makes the man seem more innocent in what is equally sinful, but human wrong-headedness." AUGUSTINE: re adultery

        "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          It is not a given. There is no demonstrable evidence in the gospels to show that the writers had any awareness of Paul's writing. Recognition by Paul of the gospels is a bare possibility that can be reasonably considered clutching at straws.
          What evidence are you citing for those comments? Or is this all merely your opinion?
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

            You’ve rebutted nothing. You’ve merely assumed what Paul as a Pharisee would have believed in your opinion, about the resurrection of Jesus.

            But the scriptural evidence does not support your assumption. There is NO account of a realistic, touchable, material body of Jesus until the gospels. i.e., two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles.
            That was but one piece of evidence. You've been presented with multiple indications that your chant is not accurate but you ignore it. You don't rebut it. You don't present anything new. You just go on chanting the same thing over and over.

            Maybe if you click your heels together at the same time you start chanting, maybe, just maybe, it will make it true.


            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              You write arrogant and uninformed comments about things of which you know very little.

              That is not a particularly admirable trait.
              And all over the world and even crossing into alternative dimensions, as well as stretching both forward and backward throughout time, every irony meter that ever existed or will ever exist, shattered.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post



                Of course they are. The people who credited the books to particular authors had no idea who might have written the gospels, and assigned authorship to random minor characters (John excepted) to enhance the books' credibility. I would want some sort of evidence (beyond questionable speculation) for all that before accepting the story.

                It is strange that evidence for all this editing exists in the form of variant manuscripts - but those manuscripts do not show significant variation in the basic writings.
                One obvious potential piece of evidence would be is there any indication that any of them had ever been assigned a different author. But when all you can do is chant the same nuh-uh over and over such a thought would even be beyond their grasp.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  What evidence are you citing for those comments? Or is this all merely your opinion?
                  In his An Introduction to the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown brings up a few instances of similar thought and terms, but that doesn't necessitate a familiarity with Paul's letters, particularly considering it is thought that they weren't gathered together until Marcion. More likely they were all using similar themes and terminology common among the early Christians.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                    In his An Introduction to the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown brings up a few instances of similar thought and terms, but that doesn't necessitate a familiarity with Paul's letters, particularly considering it is thought that they weren't gathered together until Marcion. More likely they were all using similar themes and terminology common among the early Christians.
                    One of the sections that Brown points to is the correlation between Pauls' "if I have faith so as to move mountains" (1 Cor 13:2) and Matthew 17:20; 21:21.

                    In Paul's writing no context is provided, which indicates at least a commonly known story. Whether that writing originates with Matthew or not, Paul's throw away line relies on a commonly shared understanding (cultural context), or it makes no sense to the audience. In the same way, reference to flying turtles doesn't make a whole lot sense to people who are not familiar with the concept.
                    1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                    Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    "It is not divine truth that makes the man seem more innocent in what is equally sinful, but human wrong-headedness." AUGUSTINE: re adultery

                    "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                      In his An Introduction to the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown brings up a few instances of similar thought and terms, but that doesn't necessitate a familiarity with Paul's letters, particularly considering it is thought that they weren't gathered together until Marcion. More likely they were all using similar themes and terminology common among the early Christians.
                      Is that it?

                      Oh and just one question, are you tabibito's sock puppet? You seem to like answering for him.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                        There have been and are people arguing that he did not die in the conventional sense. Paul maybe never describes the encounter on the road to Damascus, and his description of the relevant encounter is not connected in writing with the road to Damascus event.
                        Paul’s Damascus Rd conversion as described in Acts is the accepted tradition of the early Church and it’s all we’ve got – is it wrong?

                        It is not a given. There is no demonstrable evidence in the gospels to show that the writers had any awareness of Paul's writing.
                        The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of the gospels is the same Jesus being written about. But Paul nowhere describes a material, touchable body such as we get in the Gospels – merely the visionary body of Jesus at the Damascene conversion.

                        Recognition by Paul of the gospels is a bare possibility that can be reasonably considered clutching at straws. There are however, cross links between the gospels and Hebrews (written around the same time as Paul's letters). Whether Hebrews draws on the gospels or vice versa, or all draw on the same sources can't be satisfactorily determined.
                        Empty speculation.

                        Whether or not the gospels were written at a late date, there is no evidence to suggest that the body of the text was subsequently subjected to the kind of radical alteration that you propose. If they had been, the conflicts between the texts and Constantinian church Christology would not have been preserved.
                        The scholarly consensus is that the gospels were written anonymously by non-eyewitnesses 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death. And their content reflects how the Jesus story had evolved from that of the Pauline writings decades prior to the gospels.




                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                          Paul’s Damascus Rd conversion as described in Acts is the accepted tradition of the early Church and it’s all we’ve got – is it wrong?
                          As to whether the early church had the correct viewpoint and whether you have accurately reported the early church's opinion, I'll reserve judgement. If the tradition is correct much has not been included in the Acts account. It is not unreasonable to believe that Luke did not give a detailed account.

                          The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of the gospels is the same Jesus being written about. But Paul nowhere describes a material, touchable body such as we get in the Gospels – merely the visionary body of Jesus at the Damascene conversion.
                          I don't recall anywhere that Paul describes Jesus as having a "merely visionary body."

                          Empty speculation.
                          Not quite empty, as my (and Rogue's) later posts note. However, in saying that the concept "can be reasonably considered clutching at straws" I have admitted that there is nothing like enough evidence to assert the position.

                          The scholarly consensus is that the gospels were written anonymously by non-eyewitnesses 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death. And their content reflects how the Jesus story had evolved from that of the Pauline writings decades prior to the gospels.
                          Consensus is meaningless without satisfactory supporting evidence. There is a distinct lack of concrete evidence supporting majority consensus - unless you know of claims which I have not encountered. Feel free to proffer examples of the supporting evidence for late dates that you consider satisfactory. "Majority consensus says" does not constitute evidence, it is a mere argument from authority.
                          1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                          Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          "It is not divine truth that makes the man seem more innocent in what is equally sinful, but human wrong-headedness." AUGUSTINE: re adultery

                          "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                            Paul’s Damascus Rd conversion as described in Acts is the accepted tradition of the early Church and it’s all we’ve got – is it wrong?
                            A day or so since, I ran a quick poll to see whether the average person could properly assess the hypothetical

                            Someone says the following

                            "Before the anniversary, the manager learned that he was about to be transferred, and during the dinner he gave his farewell address."

                            At what dinner did the manager give his farewell address?


                            Admittedly, the sample was extremely small, just ten people responding, but the successful return rate was 70%.

                            I have to wonder how it is that 70% of the respondents on "an insignificant web site" can successfully negotiate a reading comprehension exercise that defeats the theolagicians subscribing to the majority consensus on its related scriptural issue*.

                            What value majority consensus?

                            {{* And yes, it relates to what one person is pleased to call my hobby horse.}}
                            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                            Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            "It is not divine truth that makes the man seem more innocent in what is equally sinful, but human wrong-headedness." AUGUSTINE: re adultery

                            "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                              The “evidence” is scriptural. There is NO account of a realistic, material body of Jesus until the gospels. And they were 40 plus years after the fact i.e., two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written two decades after Jesus would have lived and died.
                              I think what also needs to be remembered is that when Paul wrote his letters he was not writing them in the belief he was writing "scripture". His letters were written to his proselytes addressing various issues and problems, while repeatedly reminding them to adhere to his teaching/gospel which was premised entirely on his own beliefs, and not to be led astray by "false teachers" [whomsoever they might have been].

                              It was only later that some of these letters collected together and considered to be "inspired" and included in a canon of what would become "scripture".

                              Hence his comments in I Corinthians 15 are not scripture with regard to what he apparently saw, but merely his own beliefs.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                Is that it?

                                Oh and just one question, are you tabibito's sock puppet? You seem to like answering for him.
                                My, my. Someone is more upset than usual after seeing her assertion being deflated.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
                                37 responses
                                204 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Alien, 03-31-2022, 02:43 PM
                                1,937 responses
                                10,368 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X