John A. Broussard

Since all miracles are so easy for your god to accomplish, could you explain why your god doesn't grow new limbs to replace missing ones?

Or, perhaps you've heard of such a miracle. Maybe even seen one. I'd like to hear about the growth of a new arm. Or leg. Or even a finger. I'd settle for the growth of just a pinky.

Isn't it curious that your god doesn't engage in that kind of miracle, though your god heals lepers, cures incurable cancer, restores sight, etc.?

An explanation for this would be nice.

Thank you.

pharoah

I agree with you that if Christians can firmly establish the historicity of the resurrection, then the rest of the story is true. The problem is that it's impossible to establish it. The entire account of Jesus's last days, starting with the entry into Jerusalem and ending with the resurrection, is rife with contradictions, absurdities and implausible events. No amount of apologetics can explain away all of the problems in these stories without resorting to special pleading. The very fact that there are so many problems with these accounts should give anyone serious pause. Would you be prepared to give any other set of tales the same leeway that you give to the gospels?

Jack the Bodiless

No, the Bible was originally disproved by CREATIONISTS. The study of science and history has revealed that the Earth is several billion years old, there was no worldwide flood in recent history, there are numerous failed prophecies, and the Bible contradicts itself and contradicts external sources.

And I note that you have STILL not posted in the thread The Flood, again

But your reasoning is still faulty. IF the historicity of the resurrection could be established, it would be reasonable to infer the existence of God, but the Bible could STILL be entirely the work of men: or, maybe, SOME of the books within it are "inspired".

I'm starting a new thread, Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired"

jakejonesiv

Hi aChristian,

You are fond of writing, "once you prove the resurrection" then all manner of other things can be deduced. So this is the lynch pin of your case. If this one alleged fact isn't true, then none of your other assertions can stand; other alleged miracles, divine inspiration, etc.

OK, you are asserting that the physical resurrection of Jesus can be demonstrated without any assumption of inspiration or divine authorship of the Bible, or the existence of any other miracles. Is that correct? If not, you are commiting the logical fallacy Circulus in demonstrando and we can end the conversation right here. (You lose).

In order to make your case, you have to prove that the resurrection of Jesus occured using historical evidnce only, no supernaturaism, no assumption of other miracles, no inspiration.

Go for it.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

The evidence that II Peter is a pseudepigraph is so cogently presented here http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html that I see no need to repeat it. You have no addressed a single point.


This is a statement of faith and has no evidentiary value.

Circulus in demonstrando.

This is getting silly and made me think about your moniker.
The "a-" prefix is the negative prefix in Greek, and it means simply "non-," "not." Thus aChristian means not a Christian.

:wave:

Jake Jones IV

Godless Wonder

I don't think that's the only problem. Supposing you grant that if the resurrection is established then the rest of the Bible is true. Unless I'm mistaken, by modus tollens, this means that if any other part of the bible is false, then the resurrection is false. If R is the truth of the resurrection, and B is the truth of the rest of the Bible.

R -> B
~B
(~B & (R -> B)) -> ~R

So I would not agree that failure of any part of the bible disproves the resurrection, because that's just silly -- if we say the flood is false or the talking ass story is false, so, that fact somehow means the resurrection is also false? I don't see the connection. Which means that the resurrection doesn't prove the rest of the bible.

Equinox

Wow, aChristian is still here, and this thread is still going. I’ve been busy, but I have a little time to post:

AChristian posted:
Hold on – who do you think wrote the NT? When we point out all the contradictions, differences, and illogical contrasts, you say that it’s because different people decided to write different things, yet when you want to claim the whole thing is inerrant, you say:


It’s not that they didn’t write what I wanted (I don’t really care what they write any more than what is in the next romance novel), it’s that they write different stories of the same events, which is the opposite of what one would expect if these books all ultimately had the same author, a perfect god, as you claim.

This is so obviously wrong that it hurts to read. You claim to have read the church fathers, and they spend entire volumes talking about how so many people accepted the “wrong� gospels and books and didn’t accept the gospels the fathers preferred. Again, you are contradicting yourself, regardless of whether or not any of the claims of Christianity are true. You claim to go by the church fathers and then contradict their own testimony, where they describe how many people accepted the non-canonical gospels and books, and view some of the current books of the Bible as the National Enquirer.

Papias also says that Judas was killed in a vehicle accident. Do you believe that? Or do you try to string all the different stories together, so Judas hangs himself, then falls to the ground and explodes, then rolls down a hill to a street where a vehicle runs him over?

As was described before, these same church fathers reject many of the books in the Bible today, and accept others that you say are like the national enquirer. Why do you only accept the church fathers when they agree with your predecided position, and reject them when they disagree? Is it because you really don’t care what the church fathers wrote, and only use them when it is convenient?

I’ll give you a hint – learn about the church fathers. You can even learn by listening on tape. Here is a good course on them, by an actually reputable scholar with real credentials and worldwide recognition. http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/co....asp?pc=Search

You’ve got to be kidding me. Geologists rejected the flood as a reason for sedimentary rock 150 years ago. Unless you’ve been reading only geology from the 1820s or by non-geologists trying to fool people, you’d know that. Here is a story about a Christian minister and a professional geologist who realized this back in 1831:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html

I’ve actually had a Christian try to convince me that this is why the reformation happened – that god planned to do things that way to bring about correct doctrine. I said that I was shocked he would claim that god would specifically plan to do it in a way that plunged a whole continent into a very bloody, century long war that would leave millions and millions of Christians dead, and also leave the matter unresolved (there are more Catholics today than Protestants), and still consider this a good way to plan it. If god is that incompetent, would you even want him to fix your car, much less determine your afterlife?

Even today – correct conclusions? There are literally thousands of different Christian churches that disagree on the most basic things, like even what baptism means. Again, if that’s god’s past performance, would you want him to be in charge of anything?



That’s like saying that the National Enquirer is accurate and reliable. Many at the ICR are well known to have fake credentials. Here is a discussion of them. AChristian, do you really want to depend on people who are not only not qualified, but are also dishonestly portraying themselves as qualified?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

So now aChristian is demoting his God, the author of his Bible, to being pretty good, but not perfect? Doesn’t God preserve the text he was the source of? Again with all the different Bibles out there (including the Catholic vs Protestant ones which have different books), then does this past performance make god look very competent to do anything?

Neither would I – that’s why I left Christianity. In fact, it’s clear that Christians, when they start to investigate these problems, often leave Christianity to become atheists. In the other direction, it appears to be quite rare for an atheist to became Christian. There are hundreds of cases discussed here – check them out yourself:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sl...asymmetry.html

Have a Happy thanksgiving-

P. S. Oh hey, that reminds me – I collected a bunch of thanksgiving prayers from both an inclusive standpoint and from specific religions. The list prints out nice double sided then folds into a book. It works well for family gatherings that have a mix of Christians (of various types), atheists, Pagans, etc. Here is a link to it:
http://www.paganforums.org/showthread.php?t=114829

P. P. S. yeah - "achristian", must mean "not a Christian", like "atheist" means "not a theist". That makes Christians look more sane, based on achristian's posts. It reminds me of a local megachurch called "the Evangelical Free Church". Hey, if that church is free of evangelicals, I'm there!

John A. Broussard

Is this the same god who ordered the Israelites to engage in genocide, to kill all the men, women and children (except for virgin girls saved for later raping)?

If so, please explain to me how that god showed the joy of fellowship by so doing.

I'm looking forward to your answer.

Antlerman

You are so positive there is only one way to read things from an ancient piece of literature 2000 years removed from our culture and language? I would never expect to hear such inflexible opinion from any professional historian. What is your experience in dealing with ancient literature, if I may ask, or are you just reading the translation you have in your library? "This is a fact" is a pretty cavalier approach to any historical work, IMO.

Many scholars disagree with you that it is "patently obvious." I will say yours is one possible way, but then they have points too. You seem unwilling to be open to possibilities. That attitude makes what you are offering with your gospel message, very unappealing to people like me. If you were to state that it seems to make the best argument, then I can respect that. But to be dogmatic is to show your views are not based on rationality, but rather emotion. This is not then "proof" of anything.

Are you judging me? How do you know what I "know is true"? Again, if this is what you are doing, then be honest with yourself, why should I find that approach with me appealing? You assume all these things you believe are true. You will not offer reasoned arguments, rather you make comments that the way you read things are "patently obvious", then proceed to say that those who refuse to put on biblical blinders are "refusing to admit what you know is true."

1) I do not "know" anything with absolutely certainty - and neither can you without first having knowledge of all things.
2) What I "believe" to be true, I am true to. I am not refusing to admit something I "believe". I assume you mean that somehow down inside I "know" your beliefs about God and your Bible interpretations are true, and I'm refusing to admit it.

Respectfully, I "believe" you would like to think that. And the reason I say that is because you don't want to accept that someone may rationally find a different understanding than what you have chosen to embrace as "irrefutable" My rejection of your beliefs is not a refusal of any kind to acknowledge "the truth". I simply disagree through rationality that what you say is valid. I am quite true to my beliefs. I am intellectually honest. I would hope you feel you could say that too, but the fact you can't accept other peoples points of view, frankly casts doubt about that.

I will refrain from quoting bible verses at you, as I assume you - as well as myself - are fairly versed with them.

Boro Nut

Excellent work Pervy. There's hope for you yet.

Boro Nut