Speaking in 'tongues'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.

I doubt it because the former is more trivial.

Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.

Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.

Actually we believe dead men don't come back to life.
That should primarily be because we have not experienced it in our own lives and have faith that it won't happen. Then secondarily we accept scientific non observation and base our belief in it's impossibility on that.

On that though, even science states that although the same things happen time and time again a different result is not to be discounted.

But here in the Gospels and epistles are accounts of it happening.

To disbelieve in them requires a counter belief that there is no God and /or he could not or would not do this.

I think you will see that nowhere in this is any ''Knowing'' that these things can't, don't or haven't happened.

Ok, let's ignore the game of hide n seek your brain is doing with logic for a moment.

[/quote]
No Rhi.....you can't refute anything of mine you've included here.
You don't know what you are claiming to know instead I've demonstrated that you believe it instead..........I'd be as pissed as you if my arrogance had been exposed.

[Rhiannon]

So that's a no I won't then.

[jeremyp]

I'd be as pissed as you if my arrogance had been exposed.

Your arrogance was exposed years ago. Be pissed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So that's a no I won't then.

''no I won't'' what?

[ippy]

What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it.

We always knew that you were a closet Unicornist, ippy.  Or should that be 'Unicornian'?

I'm not proud Hope, you can call me whatever you like, but, be careful what you say about my Unicorns, I might become unstable.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd be as pissed as you if my arrogance had been exposed.

Your arrogance was exposed years ago. Be pissed.

My arrogance maybe. My incorrectness in the matter in hand is not because I am correct.

Also if we are to insist on aspects of the Gospel being highly unlikely we find that they are never mentioned in the New testament as anything other. The problems therefore lie in claiming impossibility.

[Rhiannon]

So that's a no I won't then.

''no I won't'' what?

Look at the 'facts' in context.

[jeremyp]

My incorrectness in the matter in hand is not because I am correct.

No, your incorrectness in the matter at hand is because you are wrong - frequently.

Also if we are to insist on aspects of the Gospel being highly unlikely we find that they are never mentioned in the New testament as anything other. The problems therefore lie in claiming impossibility.

Sorry, you'll have to put that in English.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My incorrectness in the matter in hand is not because I am correct.

No, your incorrectness in the matter at hand is because you are wrong - frequently.

Also if we are to insist on aspects of the Gospel being highly unlikely we find that they are never mentioned in the New testament as anything other. The problems therefore lie in claiming impossibility.

Sorry, you'll have to put that in English.

Don't you mean Dumbassese, Jeremy?
Please demonstrate where I am wrong in what Rhiannon quotes in her post.

[jeremyp]

[
Please demonstrate where I am wrong in what Rhiannon quotes in her post.

Why? You are the one who claimed you were incorrect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

[
Please demonstrate where I am wrong in what Rhiannon quotes in her post.

Why? You are the one who claimed you were incorrect.

I think you might be on the wrong thread but don't worry .....accidents will happen.

[jakswan]

Do you accept the Gospel of Peter as fact, if not why not? If no and you cite that it was later and therefore less likely to be reliable, then is the Gospel of John less reliable than the Gospel of Mark as this was later?

If not then doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

As far as I know it was doing the rounds and it's orthodoxy was debated by Eusabius and Serapion who may have been big wheels in church circles at the time. Eusabius states that much was orthodox but there was some stuff which could support Docetism so I can see why it might not have made the canon.

So you judge something to be true on the basis that it agrees with your theology. Good man nice to see you admit it!

[Hope]

I'm not proud Hope, you can call me whatever you like, but, be careful what you say about my Unicorns, I might become unstable.

ippy

'might' 'become', ippy? 

[Hope]

Isn't 'copy' a generalisation?

Not in the case of the gospels.

Four newspapers might describe the same event using similar wording, and they may at times use the same phrases, but there are differences which reflect the different reporters and sometimes different eyewitnesses. If you read the four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, you should notice these differences, which do provide independent verification.

If that described the gospels, you would have a point, but Matthew and Luke (and probably John) had the text of Mark in front of them and literally copied it, making a few changes.

You have made two assertions here, jeremy, which I believe the majoity of Biblical scholars - whether or not they are believers - would like to see the evidence for.

No we've been over the reasons why the gospels cannot be seriously considered as history but you just can't accept it.

And this is, in part, because scholars don't necessarily believe with you - including non-religious scholars.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you accept the Gospel of Peter as fact, if not why not? If no and you cite that it was later and therefore less likely to be reliable, then is the Gospel of John less reliable than the Gospel of Mark as this was later?

If not then doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

As far as I know it was doing the rounds and it's orthodoxy was debated by Eusabius and Serapion who may have been big wheels in church circles at the time. Eusabius states that much was orthodox but there was some stuff which could support Docetism so I can see why it might not have made the canon.

So you judge something to be true on the basis that it agrees with your theology. Good man nice to see you admit it!

A) a person who repents in the definition and understanding of the New Testament writers has in fact accepted a truth that went against their existent belief. So it is not Christians who are wanting in the 'can you change your mind'' stakes.

B) You are being plainly silly. If you seek to produce a book on orthodox Christianity you are no more going to have heterodox views in it than Christopher Hitchens is going to let the Dalai lama, The pope or the chief Rabbi have a chapter in ''God is not Great''

Your post is completely non sequitur to what I wrote and makes you look like a completely unreasonable bigot.

[Rhiannon]

Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.

How do you know that they are telling the truth?

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.

If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.

I doubt it because the former is more trivial.

Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.

Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.

Actually we believe dead men don't come back to life.
That should primarily be because we have not experienced it in our own lives and have faith that it won't happen. Then secondarily we accept scientific non observation and base our belief in it's impossibility on that.

On that though, even science states that although the same things happen time and time again a different result is not to be discounted.

But here in the Gospels and epistles are accounts of it happening.

To disbelieve in them requires a counter belief that there is no God and /or he could not or would not do this.

I think you will see that nowhere in this is any ''Knowing'' that these things can't, don't or haven't happened.
[/quote]

No, we know dead men don't come back to life. It isn't something we need to experience one way or another, just like we don't need to experience unicorns to know they aren't real. Unicorn it's have faith that unicorns exist. Christians hVe faith that resurrection exists.

You really should stop treating 'faith' like a dirty word you know.

Anyway, belief or not in resurrection says nothing about belief or otherwise in God. Not all Christians believe in it. Nor do all theists.

Now let's look at context (I know you want to). Here's some stuff on resurrection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

We also know that there are stories of resurrected saints (eg Winifred) and saints who resurrect. These are generally stories about real people. What these have in common is the need to prove something special about the person -divinity or divine choosing, for example.

Either Jesus isn't the only person resurrected, or his story is right and all the others are made up, or they are all myth and allegory.

there's nothing wrong with having faith, Vlad. Better to accept that than keep on with this 'evidence' and 'proof' stuff - it's a much more peaceful existence.

[jeremyp]

You have made two assertions here, jeremy, which I believe the majoity of Biblical scholars - whether or not they are believers - would like to see the evidence for.

Hope, you need to read what actual scholars say.

It is virtually certain that, two of the three synoptic authors copied the other one, by which I mean had the text and literally copied it making minor changes. This is not at all controversial, you can take it as established fact.

It is also the majority opinion that the earliest gospel is Mark and either Matthew and Luke copied Mark and some other hypothetical document (we call Q) or Matthew copied Mark and Luke copied Matthew.

There is a growing opinion that the author of John's gospel also knew at least Luke's gospel although he obviously didn't copy it out as with the synoptics. John's gospel, by the way is not the original document. It has been edited and rearranged by at least one person other than the author.

And this is, in part, because scholars don't necessarily believe with you - including non-religious scholars.

I don't think any historian would assess the gospels of having any real historicity. As soon as you get to "anonymous author and unknown source" it's game over.

[jakswan]

A) a person who repents in the definition and understanding of the New Testament writers has in fact accepted a truth that went against their existent belief. So it is not Christians who are wanting in the 'can you change your mind'' stakes.

Come on now Strawboy you said 'Eusabius states that much was orthodox but there was some stuff which could support Docetism so I can see why it might not have made the canon', you've shot your load on this one.

B) You are being plainly silly. If you seek to produce a book on orthodox Christianity you are no more going to have heterodox views in it than Christopher Hitchens is going to let the Dalai lama, The pope or the chief Rabbi have a chapter in ''God is not Great''

You are confirming what I already accused you of, I don't have any beliefs in magic, the Pope can write in any book that takes his fancy for all I care.

Your post is completely non sequitur to what I wrote and makes you look like a completely unreasonable bigot.

I suspect you don't actually know what the words mean that sentence. Explain the logic why, if proven, a non-sequitur would make me a bigot?

[Leonard James]

Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.

I have no intention of prolonging this sterile exchange. It is a complete waste of time and energy on my part, and will achieve no improvement in your potty views.

I see others are more than ready to put you right.

[Spud]

Matthew and Luke (and probably John) had the text of Mark in front of them and literally copied it, making a few changes.

OK, I accept that much of Matthew's and Mark's accounts (in this case, with the feeding of the 5000) appear to be the same. However, Mark mentions something that Matthew and Luke don't. He says the disciples comment that it would take eight months' wages to buy food for the people. John tells us it was Phillip who said this.

If you think Matthew was copying Mark and simply left this detail out, how do you account for another difference in the detail: they both say "when Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them..."
Matthew then says, "...and healed their sick"
Mark says, "...because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things".
So, whoever copied the other, they still have access to different eyewitnesses, one who remembers Jesus healing the sick, the other who remembers Jesus teaching the people. So my point still stands. The four gospels verify each other because they add details to the others, apparently supplied by different eyewitnesses.
(For another example of this, Mark records the people sitting down in groups of hundreds and fifties)

[Alien]

Alien,

As should all claims, including yours?

Of course. I try to make arguments rather than assert claims, but yes - treat then sceptically until you've tested the logic, and then respond accordingly.

Spiffing. Me too.

So what?

So everything. What unique set of forensic tools is it that you think christians possess, but those of other faiths with equally involved academic traditions do not?

None that I know of. What I would say is that I have looked in depth at Islam and found its claims wanting. As I have explained elsewhere, its veracity depends solely on one person, Mohammed, who claimed to have heard from Gabriel stuff he had to learn off by heart.

What have you found during your own in-depth study of Islam?

Nope.

Yep.

I've not claimed that my approval says that.

Then why bring lurid stories of sleeping with a 9-year-old into it?

It was part of attempting to show that the person on whom Islam depends entirely was a caravan-robbing man who killed another man and slept with the dead man's wife that same day and who also got engaged to a 6 year old, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9. Have a look at what Islam accepts that Mohammed did and tell me whether you would think him a reliable witness for passing on God's commands to mankind.

What I am claiming is that I have (long ago) looked at Islam in great depth and found it wanting.

And doubtless many muslims have looked at christianity and found it wanting too. Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong?

I did with a couple and they are now Christians (though they were not overly keen on Islam when I met them, in all fairness).

You seem to think after all that you're possessed of investigatory tools that they lack - just pass them on, and you'll convert the world of Islam overnight!

I'll do it after you have passed on your own method of reasoning to us Christians. You'll convert the world of Christianity overnight.[/quote]

Or could it just be instead that what's actually happening here is that you're more comfortable with your faith beliefs, just as they're more comfortable with their faith beliefs? [/quote]And you are more comfortable being an athiest?

As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...

Are you sure it wasn't the bus that brought them?

Yes, they had walked.

...who asked the churchwardens, "Is there anyone who can tell us more about Jesus?" One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends. Alleluiah!

Ah, the old "I'll use an anecdote as if that it some way conveyed a larger truth" schtick. You're Alan Burns and I claim my £5!

Nope. You seemed to be saying that Muslims are impervious to the sort of argument that I (and many others) try to use. The above was one happy example of where that was not the case.[/quote]

God is good.

Not for countless of his creatures that live in terror and die in pain he isn't. Or how about the baby with brain cancer? Is this god of yours "good" only when he feels like it or something?

Sounds pretty scummy to me I'm afraid.  [/quote]The problem of pain and evil is a heart-rending one for everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike. However, the existence of real evil is not a problem, philosophically-wise. It is possible to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of a good God. Physical pain hurts as much whether you are a Christian or not. However, the Christian knows that there is a point to it all.

We are seeing them down in London in October. Shall I pass on your regards?

You could do, though you'd be doing more for them if instead you tried sharing some of the tools of reason and scepticism that would show them - and you - to be barking up the wrong tree.

In your opinion, old fruit, in your opinion.

[Alien]

bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.

Get a room.

[Alien]

As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...

How do you determine that it was a god who brought them?

Long story.

One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends.

They were lovely before their conversion, right?

Why do you ask?

[Alien]

What genre would you say Mark's gospel is?

Greek mythology

Why? What other books of Greek mythology speak of stuff going on in Palestine? Which Greek gods are involved in Mark's gospel?

[jeremyp]

What genre would you say Mark's gospel is?

Greek mythology

Why?

It's written in Greek and it is mythology. I thought that much would be obvious even if you don't agree that it is myth.

What other books of Greek mythology speak of stuff going on in Palestine? Which Greek gods are involved in Mark's gospel?

You're not seriously going to try to build an argument for historicity based on my genre attribution are you? You must be desperate.