Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are missing the point of the thread here. This thread is not about Christianity as a whole but the "Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?"  Therefore, it seems reasonable to talk about the fine details of the gospel and whether they are made up without people whining about essences and salvation.

All I'm saying is that focussing on miracles is not answering the thread title.

[Shaker]

I'm afraid naturalism has always had a burden of proof Shaker.I don't need to shift anything.

Except that that was exactly what you did.

[Gordon]

All I'm saying is that focussing on miracles is not answering the thread title.

And here was me thinking it was the alleged miracles (like not staying dead) that for Christians was a critical factor in Jesus being not just another human: where the 'detail' (such a small number of loaves and fishes was all Jesus required to feed a large crowd) of these alleged miracles was a intrinsic aspect of them being, er, miraculous.

So let's ignore the miracle claims then, which leaves you with anecdotal tales of uncertain provenance concerning a no doubt charismatic preacher who managed to annoy the local authorities to the extent they got rid of him.   

[Stranger]

I'm afraid naturalism has always had a burden of proof...

Only for those who claim that it's true - which nobody did. Questioning the existence of your god (which was the context) is not the same as claiming the truth of naturalism.

...I don't need to shift anything.

Except the entire subject of the conversation.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm afraid naturalism has had a burden of proof since before any of us were born.

Got your teflon suit on today I see.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Questioning the existence of your god (which was the context) is not the same as claiming the truth of naturalism.

I'm afraid it is since without God the claim goes there would be no nature and since there is nature then if God does not exist then the assumption is that nature is here on it's own.

[Stranger]

Questioning the existence of your god (which was the context) is not the same as claiming the truth of naturalism.

I'm afraid it is since without God the claim goes there would be no nature and since there is nature then if God does not exist then the assumption is that nature is here on it's own.

I really can't believe you posted that! Have you thought about it at all?

There could be a different god to yours, there could be multiple gods, there could be other supernatural beings, nature could exist alongside magic but without any gods, and so on, and so on, and so on...

Try thinking before posting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There could be a different god to yours, there could be multiple gods, there could be other supernatural beings, nature could exist alongside magic but without any gods,

Or it could be naturalism.....so stop jerking around with ''speshul'' pleading. All have a burden of proof.

[Stranger]

Or it could be naturalism.....so stop jerking around with ''speshul'' pleading.

Stop posting without thinking. Yes, it could be naturalism but, as I said to begin with, questioning the existence of your god is not the same thing as asserting naturalism.

All have a burden of proof.

If you assert the truth of your god, it's up to you to give reasons to believe it. If someone asserts the truth of naturalism then it's up to them to give reasons for that. One is not the negation of the other.

Oh, and I'll add special pleading to the (very long) list of things you don't understand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop posting without thinking. Yes, it could be naturalism but, as I said to begin with, questioning the existence of your god is not the same thing as asserting naturalism.

If you assert the truth of your god, it's up to you to give reasons to believe it. If someone asserts the truth of naturalism then it's up to them to give reasons for that. One is not the negation of the other.

Oh, and I'll add special pleading to the (very long) list of things you don't understand.

Reasons have been given and have been rejected on the grounds that they do not constitute naturalistic evidence. End of.

[Shaker]

Reasons have been given and have been rejected on the grounds that they do not constitute naturalistic evidence. End of.

Point of pedantry: the word naturalistic in your post is redundant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Point of pedantry: the word naturalistic in your post is redundant.

That is a fine example of the shite naturalistic argument.

Point of pedantry: The word ''naturalistic'' in my reply to your post is redundant, Shaker.

[Stranger]

Reasons have been given and have been rejected on the grounds that they do not constitute naturalistic evidence.

Such as...?

[Shaker]

That is a fine example of the shite naturalistic argument.

No, it's a decent example of correct English usage as well as some philosophical savvy.

Point of pedantry: The word ''naturalistic'' in my reply to your post is redundant, Shaker.

Along with the rest of them, I agree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And here was me thinking it was the alleged miracles (like not staying dead) that for Christians was a critical factor in Jesus being not just another human: where the 'detail' (such a small number of loaves and fishes was all Jesus required to feed a large crowd) of these alleged miracles was a intrinsic aspect of them being, er, miraculous.

So let's ignore the miracle claims then, which leaves you with anecdotal tales of uncertain provenance concerning a no doubt charismatic preacher who managed to annoy the local authorities to the extent they got rid of him.

I'm afraid your Brexit negotiater method doesn't cover it. Without the miracles we still have the two claims. That all need saving and that Jesus is that saviour. Why have you omitted those?

[ippy]

Vlad there's so much in nature that can be explained and anything that hasn't been explained nature's out there we can go and study it, it's real it can be seen or heard with the appropriate equipment.

Now this delusional, superstitious, god Jesus stuff of yours Vlad? 

Try to contest people that don't take your delusions seriously, without your usual, crude word salad of language, ordinary decent English words are plenty good enough, sides that, your crude use and misuse of language makes it far less likely for you to be taken seriously, I do wonder why you can't see this?

Best regards ippy

[Gordon]

I'm afraid your Brexit negotiater method doesn't cover it. Without the miracles we still have the two claims. That all need saving and that Jesus is that saviour. Why have you omitted those?

I was responding to your mention of miracles.

However, since you mention this alleged need for us all to be 'saved' and that Jesus was the very chap to do the saving' - why should I take these two claims seriously, and especially so if you are kicking the Jesus did miracles claims into touch?

[Owlswing]

Vlad there's so much in nature that can be explained and anything that hasn't been explained nature's out there we can go and study it, it's real it can be seen or heard with the appropriate equipment.

Now this delusional, superstitious, god Jesus stuff of yours Vlad? 

Try to contest people that don't take your delusions seriously, without your usual, crude word salad of language, ordinary decent English words are plenty good enough, sides that, your crude use and misuse of language makes it far less likely for you to be taken seriously, I do wonder why you can't see this?

Best regards ippy

Ippy

Are you by any chance suggesting that Vlad and his posts are a joke?

[jeremyp]

I'm afraid your Brexit negotiater method doesn't cover it. Without the miracles we still have the two claims. That all need saving and that Jesus is that saviour. Why have you omitted those?

OK let's look at those two claims. What is your evidence that all need saving and what is your evidence that Jesus is the saviour?

[Spud]

Paul claims to have received his gospel through revelation and not the testimony of others. He explicitly denies that his gospel comes from eye witnesses.

Could you explain where Paul talks about angels and healing of sick people and turning water into wine and everything in the gospels except the bare bones of the death and resurrection?

Don't forget that you are supposed to be trying to show that eye witnesses were involved in the production of the gospels. Paul's letters are closer to Jesus in time and in human connections but they are frustratingly sparse on the subject of the life of Jesus as well as explicitly denying that he had human sources.

Doesn't he say somewhere that he went to visit the other apostles to check he was preaching the same message as they were?

[jeremyp]

Doesn't he say somewhere that he went to visit the other apostles to check he was preaching the same message as they were?

He describes a meeting with Cephas (Peter) and James in Jerusalem. But he never attributes any of the things he preaches to either of them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK let's look at those two claims. What is your evidence that all need saving and what is your evidence that Jesus is the saviour?

The evidence is alienation inclusive of any non acted out nastiness in one's mind.
That things are not going as well as they could be although as far agnostic and atheists that is usually down to other people (Don't forget that all people are included in somebody's other people).
If you look at other religions they are commandment following, scales of justice or technique based.

What evidence do you have that there is no alienation, that it is down to people and that law-following or techniques can actually save or whether only God can take it upon himself.

[Maeght]

The evidence is alienation inclusive of any non acted out nastiness in one's mind.
That things are not going as well as they could be although as far agnostic and atheists that is usually down to other people (Don't forget that all people are included in somebody's other people).
If you look at other religions they are commandment following, scales of justice or technique based.

What evidence do you have that there is no alienation, that it is down to people and that law-following or techniques can actually save or whether only God can take it upon himself.

?

[Shaker]

That's not writing, that's typing.

[Gordon]

The evidence is alienation inclusive of any non acted out nastiness in one's mind.
That things are not going as well as they could be although as far agnostic and atheists that is usually down to other people (Don't forget that all people are included in somebody's other people).
If you look at other religions they are commandment following, scales of justice or technique based.

What evidence do you have that there is no alienation, that it is down to people and that law-following or techniques can actually save or whether only God can take it upon himself.

Theobabble must be infectious: Alan is already fluent and now you too, Vlad.

This effort of yours is utterly incomprehensible.