Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Alien]

Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.

Hi there Floo, thought it might be a good idea to wheel out this quote of our Thomas Paine's:

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? 

True two hundred years ago and it hasn't dated yet, thank goodness we live in our U K oasis where terrible bigots like Hope, thank goodness, are on the wane.

ippy

It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156

[jeremyp]

If you really want to be logical and rational you have to put those who believe in a God/supreme being/gods - external being(s) in other words - on one side, and those who don't on the other.

Why would you do that when people of different religions believe in different (often mutually exclusive) gods and frequently kill each other over their differences?

[ippy]

Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.

Hi there Floo, thought it might be a good idea to wheel out this quote of our Thomas Paine's:

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? 

True two hundred years ago and it hasn't dated yet, thank goodness we live in our U K oasis where terrible bigots like Hope, thank goodness, are on the wane.

ippy

Here's one for you, Ippy:  "If a scientist says something is possible, he is probably right;  if a scientist says something is impossible, he is probably wrong."    Who said that?

Since what you say about scientists has always been and still is the same, can't see that it matters who else has said it.

ippy

[SweetPea]

"Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?"

Thrud, are you familiar with 'The Chronological Gospels' The Life and Seventy Week Ministry of the Messiah by Michael Rood? Well worth a look.

[Outrider]

So, religious people are really no different to other people: many groups have attempted to force people to comply with their (often political) edicts.

Yes, there have been any number of people who have tried to impose particular modes of thought or life on people purely for ideology, and that's inherently dangerous. Evidence-based decisions are infinitely superior.

For you to simply assert that they're different is meaningless. They have exactly as much justification, there's just fewer words and pages used to fail to demonstrate any validity when it comes to unicorns or pixies.

Do they?  If you really think this, then I pity any children you are/have been responsible for.

I thank you for your concern, though I suspect it's needless - I'll note that completely fails to in any way suggest why I should treat claims of an Abrahamic god as any more or less likely than leprechauns or unicorns or pixies.

You can maintain as much as you like, but that which is asserted without basis can be dismissed on the same grounds.

Which is largely why I dismiss your position.

Except that my position is that you've yet to make a position - you've  suggested there's a 'correct' order to the works of the New Testament, without suggesting what it is and why it is (by implication at least) different to the standard order.

O.

[jeremyp]

It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156

We have masses of evidence of people lying and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.

If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.

[Hope]

I doubt the Jewish authorities would have had chapter and verse of what Jesus was supposed to have said, there are no records to that effect, as far as I am aware.

They watched him carefully enough, so I'm sure that they would have been able to produce something.  After all, wasn't it the carefully choreographed misquoting of his comments about the temple that was used to convict him of blasphemy?

[Hope]

We have masses of evidence of people lying and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.

Actually, we do have plenty of evidence of the laws of nature being suspended, jeremy.  One only has to look at the medical world and its amazing record of spontaneous healings (the euphemistic phrase used to refer to healing events that run competely against the received wisdom of what is natural and what isn't).

[jeremyp]

One only has to look at the medical world and its amazing record of spontaneous healings (the euphemistic phrase used to refer to healing events that run competely against the received wisdom of what is natural and what isn't).

What? Sick people getting better is a miracle? 

[Alien]

It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156

We have masses of evidence of people lying

So what? I've never claimed people don't lie.

and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.

Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.

If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.

Or genuinely mistaken. Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).

[Hope]

Has anyone yet come up with the answer to the question that several folk posed early on on the thread - what is the correct order?

[trippymonkey]

Hope
How long is a piece of string??
And, YES, it IS that ridiculous a question.

Nick

[BeRational]

It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156

We have masses of evidence of people lying

So what? I've never claimed people don't lie.

and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.

Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.

If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.

Or genuinely mistaken. Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).

How do you know Jesus was resurected?
How have you ruled out the more likely answers?

[jjohnjil]

It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156

We have masses of evidence of people lying

So what? I've never claimed people don't lie.

and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.

Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.

If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.

Or genuinely mistaken. Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).

How do you know Jesus was resurected?
How have you ruled out the more likely answers?

How can you even dare think it possible that Jesus wasn't resurrected!  Wasn't it proved that two women found an empty tomb?  Wasn't it prove that 500 people saw and heard him speaking days after he was killed? 

Oh no, you're right, it's just a story in that Big Book of Fables.  Sorry!

[Hope]

How do you know Jesus was resurected?
How have you ruled out the more likely answers?

The 'more likely answers' include answers that that could easily have been shown to be true at the time - yet weren't.  How do you intend to show that at least one of them was true?  After all, people have been trying to produce evidence to this effect for nigh on 2000 years.

[Hope]

Oh no, you're right, it's just a story in that Big Book of Fables.  Sorry!

Oddly enough, jj, archeology indicates that a lot of those so-called 'Fables' aren't fables.  Perhaps you regard archeology as a false science.

[jeremyp]

and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.

Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.

A story in a book is not evidence.

If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.

Or genuinely mistaken.

You can split hairs if you want.  Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.

Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).

And when you don't find any, you can say" the person was mistaken or lying" or you can say "goddidit".

[Hope]

Hope
How long is a piece of string??
And, YES, it IS that ridiculous a question.

Nick

I agree with you, Nick, but the thread title indicates that, in the thread author's mind, there is a 'correct order' - but they have failed to produce that 'order'.  Some of us have suggested possible orders for the author to agree with or not, ....

[jeremyp]

Has anyone yet come up with the answer to the question that several folk posed early on on the thread - what is the correct order?

Good question.  What is the right order?  Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?

[Hope]

A story in a book is not evidence.

Are you suggesting that the latest 'drugs in athletics' story, so far only available to us in reported written form, isn't evidence because it is only a story in a 'book'?

You can split hairs if you want.  Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.

Even though, as I've previously pointed out, the laws of nature appear to be broken, if not suspended, on plenty of occasions? 

And when you don't find any, you can say" the person was mistaken or lying" or you can say "goddidit".

But what about when one does find evidence - in written form, for instance?

[Hope]

Good question.  What is the right order?  Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?

You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.

[Sassy]

For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.

SO what you're saying is....
If NON Christians understand it they'll become Christian ?
Do you fully understand Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism? No should be your answer, eh?

what do they offer in comparison to Christianity?

I am asking because you can only ask the above question if you fully understand Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

And if you do...which don't then you cannot know if you would become any of those things...
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

The Jews learned the Torah off by heart. The NT was not around when both Jew and Gentile received the truth about Christ and believed.

The Gentiles did not know Gods word off by heart. But when they heard the truth spoken they believed.

No converts to the others by simply believing on the name of Jesus. They do not have a saviour do they or a covenant with the one true God.


3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.




Christianity is NOT about knowing the OT and the NT. It is about knowing God and Jesus Christ

That is why when we read your posts and the posts of others we know you do not understand or comprehend the truth of the NT nor can you therefore compare to the OT.
Nor can you compare to other beliefs or judge them by comparison.

[floo]

And you know the deity do you Sass?

[jeremyp]

A story in a book is not evidence.

Are you suggesting that the latest 'drugs in athletics' story, so far only available to us in reported written form, isn't evidence because it is only a story in a 'book'?

If the "book" was the Daily Mail, and it wasn't being reported anywhere else, then yes.

Even though, as I've previously pointed out, the laws of nature appear to be broken, if not suspended, on plenty of occasions? 

You made an unsupported assertion about it earlier.  As I recall, when you have been asked to tell us about these miracles, your stories turn out to be less convincing than you are pretending now.

But what about when one does find evidence - in written form, for instance?

But what is it evidence of?  a miraculous event or somebody good at spinning a yarn?

[jeremyp]

Good question.  What is the right order?  Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?

You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.

I thought, by posing the question on this thread, I was asking him.