Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Doug Shaver]

Not if in fact those words of the Hebrew Bible was given by God. And you know for a fact that it was not given to men from God how?

I don't need to know that. I have no obligation to believe anything just because I can't prove it isn't true. If you say it is true, the obligation is on you to give me a good enough reason to think it is true. Until you can do that, I'm justified in not believing it.

[Tassman]

On the contrary, if other Christians and I know God, and so in turn would also know the words were given by God. Other Christians and I do know God. So why do you not? You said you do not believe it. But why? You have argued what you called a lack of substantive evidence. Yet you have that lack of substantive evidence because you have in turn denied each piece of substantive evidence. So you effectively do not have any.

Well?

Uncaused existence which is the identity of God. [There could never have been nothingness. Or there could never be anything.]
The universe which is evidence of cause.
Information found in this universe which is evidence of intelligence. [Like DNA. The laws of logic.]
A human history written, claiming to be from God, and given to men to have written it.
Other humans today claiming to know this God.

All adherents of all religions claim to know their god. There is no good reason to believe any of them. As for your list of substantive evidence it is no such thing

[37818]

All adherents of all religions claim to know their god. There is no good reason to believe any of them. As for your list of substantive evidence it is no such thing

Really? Which of them besides the Hebrew-Christian writings have actual historical elements which can be verified with actual history?

[37818]

I don't need to know that. I have no obligation to believe anything just because I can't prove it isn't true. If you say it is true, the obligation is on you to give me a good enough reason to think it is true. Until you can do that, I'm justified in not believing it.

Well believe what you can prove.

God has been identified as uncaused Existence.
The universe is evidence of cause.
The Hebrew-Christian writings have real historical elements.

[37818]

Yes, well, what you're doing in the above is quoting the bible in order to refute the charge that I made about the bible. That doesn't work. In other words you're telling me that the bible is of the holy spirit, because it is written in the bible that it is of the holy spirit.

So? If what the text claims is trute, your problem with it is yours, and anyone else who choose not to believe it. If the text is not true, the problem falls on all who think it is true.

[JimL]

So? If what the text claims is trute, your problem with it is yours, and anyone else who choose not to believe it. If the text is not true, the problem falls on all who think it is true.

Well of course, but the original point being made was that there was no substantive reason to believe that the bible is the word of god, rather than the words of men. You're response to that was to say, well, the bible says that the bible is the word of god. That's a ridiculous defense of your position. I believe that is what's called a circular argument.

[Tassman]

Really? Which of them besides the Hebrew-Christian writings have actual historical elements which can be verified with actual history?

None! Neither can the OT. Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. The sources behind the Genesis creation narrative and flood etc heavily borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology. As well, mainstream history and archaeology consider the Exodus never to have happened, and the story to be an entirely fictional narrative (including the existence of Moses) put together between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE. There is a lot more that cannot be verified.

[37818]

Well of course, but the original point being made was that there was no substantive reason to believe that the bible is the word of god, rather than the words of men. You're response to that was to say, well, the bible says that the bible is the word of god. That's a ridiculous defense of your position. I believe that is what's called a circular argument.

Jesus is attributed to have made an interesting argument. How will you refute it? He argued, ". . . If any man will do His [God's] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself. . . ." John 7:17 and context.

[37818]

None! Neither can the OT. Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. The sources behind the Genesis creation narrative and flood etc heavily borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology. As well, mainstream history and archaeology consider the Exodus never to have happened, and the story to be an entirely fictional narrative (including the existence of Moses) put together between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE. There is a lot more that cannot be verified.

Mythology?

[JimL]

Jesus is attributed to have made an interesting argument. How will you refute it? He argued, ". . . If any man will do His [God's] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself. . . ." John 7:17 and context.

So, Jesus wasn't speaking for himself, he was speaking for god?

[37818]

So, Jesus wasn't speaking for himself, he was speaking for god?

Yes, in verse 16 Jesus is cited to have said, "My teaching is not mine, but His that sent me."

[JimL]

Yes, in verse 16 Jesus is cited to have said, "My teaching is not mine, but His that sent me."

Hmm, interesting, and here I had always been under the impression that christians believed that Jesus is god.

[Doug Shaver]

Hmm, interesting, and here I had always been under the impression that christians believed that Jesus is god.

They do believe he was God. They also believe he was a man. Which one they say he was depends on what they're trying to prove at that moment.

[Tassman]

Mythology?

Yes, mythology!

[Tassman]

Hmm, interesting, and here I had always been under the impression that christians believed that Jesus is god.

He's simultaneously both 'Fully God' and 'Fully Man' at one and the same time...so they say. It's called the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. And, as though this wasn't enough, this God/Man is also at one with the Holy Spirit as defined in the notion of the three in one God, known as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. According to the Athanasian Creed "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary" to believe these things...

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html