Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

[leroy]

Sorry, we are done with this. You lost and are grasping at straws. You have not and cannot support your beliefs. Until you do this is the response that you will get.

once again you are trapped and your only option is to run away.

any evidence for the census of Quirneus, in the year 6 is based on biased sources written by non witnesses 100+ years after the event.

which is a petty because you already claimed that those type of sources are not reliable

 

[leroy]

I need to remind you that from your posts here logic is a skill that you appear to lack. You are forgetting the standards of history and why we trust past accounts. Christian beliefs lack those standards.

and what standards are those? up to this point your only standard seems to be:.....
"if an event contradicts your view it didn't happen, if it supports your view then it happened"

 

[leroy]

Evasion evasion evasion. Fine, ignore the experts. Isolate in that bubble of yours. Here's the CV of the guy who wrote that. Find someone comparable with a similar CV who supports your position. I'd like to see you try.

Nicholas F. Gier
University of Idaho | UID · Department of Philosophy

• 
  Experience
  • 
    Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
    University of Idaho
    Aug 1972 - May 200330 years 10 months
    
    Retired from University of Idaho in 2003
    
    
  • 
    President
    Coordinator of Religious Studies
    Jan 1980 - Jan 2003 23 years 1 month
    
    
  • 
    Senior Fellow
    Martin Institute of Peace Studies
    Jan 1990 - Jan 2000 10 years 1 month
  Education
  • The University of Queensland
    
    
    The University of Queensland
    Religious Studies; Philosophy
    
    
    
  • 
    Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi
    -
    
    
    
  • 
    Doshisha University
    -
    
    
    Visiting Scholar
    
    
  • 
    Dharmaram College
    -
    
    
    
  • Claremont Graduate University
    
    
    Claremont Graduate University
    M.A., Ph.D.Philosophy, Religion
    1968 - 1971
    
    Activities and Societies: Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Idaho Senior Fellow, Martin Institute of Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, 1990-2000 Coordinator of Religious Studies, 1980-2003 [email protected] EDUCATION B. A. with honors, Oregon State University, 1966. M.A., 1969; Ph.D., Claremont Graduate University, 1973.
    
    BOOKS AUTHORED
    
    The Virtue of Non-Violence: from Gautama to Gandhi
    Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.
    
    Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives.
    Albany, New York: State University of New Press, 2000., xxvi + 302 pgs..
    
    God, Reason and the Evangelicals: The Case Against Evangelical Rationalism. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987, xxx + 371 pgs.
    
    Wittgenstein and Phenomenology: A Comparative Study of the Later…
• 
  
  
• 
  Claremont Graduate School
  M.A; M.A
  
  
  thesis: "Process Theology and the Death of
  God."
  
  
• Oregon State University
  
  
  Oregon State University
  B. A
  
  
  
• University of Idaho
  
  
  University of Idaho
  of Philosophy
  
  
  
• 
  Claremont Graduate School
  Ph.DReligion
  
  
  Doctoral Dissertation: "Heidegger and the
  Ontological Differenz."
  Graduate Studies; Utah Associated Press Journalism Awards,
  2011
  Read columns here
  EMPLOYMENT AND VISITING POSTS
  
  
• Senior Fellow, Martin Peace Institute, University of Idaho
  -
  
  
  
• 
  University of
  -
  
  
  
• 
  University of Copenhagen
  -
  
  
  
• 
  University of Copenhagen
  -
  
  University of Odense
  Visiting LecturerPhilosophy; ComparativeLiterature

you don't seem to grasp my point:


1 If you use realistic standards and trust scholars then
A) Luke probably made a mistake in the dates related to the birth of jesus

B) Jesus was probably buried

2 If you adopt a position of extreme and unrealistic skepticism then you can always find creative excuses to reject A and B

my point is that you cant (or shouldn't) be extremely skeptical about claims that you dislike and then change your standards with claims that support your view..... both theists and atheists from this forum do that all the time.

any disagreement from your part?

 

[Subduction Zone]

once again you are trapped and your only option is to run away.

any evidence for the census of Quirneus, in the year 6 is based on biased sources written by non witnesses 100+ years after the event.

which is a petty because you already claimed that those type of sources are not reliable

No, no, no. After you have been corrected 50 times and have no answer I am not the one running away.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and what standards are those? up to this point your only standard seems to be:.....
"if an event contradicts your view it didn't happen, if it supports your view then it happened"

The same standards that historians use. Here is a clue, when stories talk about magic they do not take them seriously.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

you don't seem to grasp my point:


1 If you use realistic standards and trust scholars then
A) Luke probably made a mistake in the dates related to the birth of jesus

B) Jesus was probably buried

2 If you adopt a position of extreme and unrealistic skepticism then you can always find creative excuses to reject A and B

my point is that you cant (or shouldn't) be extremely skeptical about claims that you dislike and then change your standards with claims that support your view..... both theists and atheists from this forum do that all the time.

any disagreement from your part?

But the reverse is true. If you adopt a position of extreme belief you will find unrealistic excuses to believe just anything anybody throws at you--and the early church fathers were throwing out a lot of extreme unrealistic stuff for their followers to believe.

 

[leroy]

The same standards that historians use. Here is a clue, when stories talk about magic they do not take them seriously.

The same standards that historians use. Here is a clue, when stories talk about magic they do not take them seriously.

false most ancient historians talk about "magic" and modern historians dont drop these sources.,


your standards are arbitrary, you reject by default the history that contradicts your view (miracles for example)....... and accept any crazy and unduported claim that supports your view (Christians burned books for example)

 

[leroy]

But the reverse is true. If you adopt a position of extreme belief you will find unrealistic excuses to believe just anything anybody throws at you--.

granted, but the same is true with fanatic atheists.

the best thing you can do is be honest and apply the same standards with stuff that contradict your view snd with stuff that supports your view.

for example if you are going to reject the gospels because they where written 40+ years after the events they describe. you should be consistent abd reject all other ancient sources that where written 40+" years after the event....... any disagreement from your part?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

granted, but the same is true with fanatic atheists.

the best thing you can do is be honest and apply the same standards with stuff that contradict your view snd with stuff that supports your view.

for example if you are going to reject the gospels because they where written 40+ years after the events they describe. you should be consistent abd reject all other ancient sources that where written 40+" years after the event....... any disagreement from your part?

A proper analysis should look at all the accompanying factors that go along with the document in question. For example, if a document identifies the author eg. "I, Homer wrote this document; if we have details of the writer's life from other people's writings i.e. letters, official documents, plays, etc. if other writers of the immediate period mention the document; if portions of the original find their way into other writers' material--these are indications that a 40-year lapse is immaterial to the validity of the document.

The gospels have none of these attributes. They don't bear the names of the writers i.e. they are anonymous; the names "according to..." were added by Irenaeus in late 2nd century. We don't have any details of the anonymous writers' lives in any other documents. we have no writers outside the church in the first 100 years mentioning the gospels. none of the gospels found their way into other writers' writings to corroborate their authenticity.

You're an intelligent person, leroy i can tell. How is it none of these facts bother you?

 

[leroy]

A proper analysis should look at all the accompanying factors that go along with the document in question. For example, if a document identifies the author eg. "I, Homer wrote this document; if we have details of the writer's life from other people's writings i.e. letters, official documents, plays, etc. if other writers of the immediate period mention the document; if portions of the original find their way into other writers' material--these are indications that a 40-year lapse is immaterial to the validity of the document.

The gospels have none of these attributes. They don't bear the names of the writers i.e. they are anonymous; the names "according to..." were added by Irenaeus in late 2nd century. We don't have any details of the anonymous writers' lives in any other documents. we have no writers outside the church in the first 100 years mentioning the gospels. none of the gospels found their way into other writers' writings to corroborate their authenticity.

You're an intelligent person, leroy i can tell. How is it none of these facts bother you?

Well most ancient texts are written by anonymous writters and nobody seems to be making a big of a deal.

Honestly who cares if the Gospel of Luke was written by a man named luke or by a man named “Joe” what difference does It makes?......... The relevant questions are

1 Is the author of Luke well informed? I he in a position to know what happened in the mid 1st century?

2 Was he trying to report what actually happened? Did the author honestly and sincerely tried to report what he thought was real history?

The answer to both questions seems to be “probably yes” this would still be true regardless if this name was Luke, Joe, or Tommy.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Well most ancient texts are written by anonymous writters and nobody seems to be making a big of a deal.

Honestly who cares if the Gospel of Luke was written by a man named luke or by a man named “Joe” what difference does It makes?......... The relevant questions are

1 Is the author of Luke well informed? I he in a position to know what happened in the mid 1st century?

2 Was he trying to report what actually happened? Did the author honestly and sincerely tried to report what he thought was real history?

The answer to both questions seems to be “probably yes” this would still be true regardless if this name was Luke, Joe, or Tommy.

In practicality, you are right. In Christianity, however people are staking their "live by faith only" lives on someone who they don't know of, no knowledge of their credentials, and what part of the world they were in when they wrote the gospel. How is somebody in Greece going to know intimate details of Jesus' ministry if they were living 60 years later and a thousand miles away from Jerusalem?

Here's a question for you: how did the author of Luke's gospel know that an angel appeared to Jesus in Gethsemane to comfort him? The apostles were some place else asleep.

 

[Kooky]

(Christians burned books for example)

Well, they did burn books - or, more accurately, libraries - but as far as I can tell most of the recorded instances were by accident.

They did however initiate persecutions against pagans almost as soon as they came into power in the Roman Empire, occasionally even against the will of their (Christian) Roman Emperors (who understandably objected to their subjects wantonly killing one another, as they considered such their imperial prerogative).

 

[leroy]

I. How is somebody in Greece going to know intimate details of Jesus' ministry if they were living 60 years later and a thousand miles away from Jerusalem?

Someone well informed with access to good sources would known those details……………….. how do you know that Germany Invaded Poland in 1939? (this is something that happened 70 years ago and in another country)

Here's a question for you: how did the author of Luke's gospel know that an angel appeared to Jesus in Gethsemane to comfort him? The apostles were some place else asleep.

I don’t know

Maybe

1 Jesus told someone before he died

2 Maybe he told someone after he died (while being resurrected)

3 Maybe though divine revelation

4 Maybe Luke lied

5 Maybe Luke made an honest mistake

The thing is that Christianity could still be true regardless of which alternative you pick.

The truth of the resurrection is grounded on 5 Facts that most scholars accept

1 The existence of God is at least possible

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

All of these 5 facts are accepted by most scholars, so your alternatives are

1 ether deny some of these facts and go against the consensus of scholars

2 find a better explanation for these facts

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Someone well informed with access to good sources would known those details……………….. how do you know that Germany Invaded Poland in 1939? (this is something that happened 70 years ago and in another country)

How do I even begin to address such a silly statement, leroy? How do you even begin compare a well-documented event like Hitler invading Poland to something obscure that might or might not have happened 2000 years ago?????

You worded the first sentence wrong anyway. It should be "Someone well informed with access to good sources might know those details."

I don’t know

Maybe

1 Jesus told someone before he died

2 Maybe he told someone after he died (while being resurrected)

3 Maybe though divine revelation

4 Maybe Luke lied

5 Maybe Luke made an honest mistake

The thing is that Christianity could still be true regardless of which alternative you pick.

The truth of the resurrection is grounded on 5 Facts that most scholars accept

1 The existence of God is at least possible

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

All of these 5 facts are accepted by most scholars, so your alternatives are

1 ether deny some of these facts and go against the consensus of scholars

2 find a better explanation for these facts

Maybe, maybe, maybe! I've got one for you:

Lots of people have seen UFO's so we know they exist. MAYBE 2000 years ago a UFO zapped Jesus up to their spaceship and imbued him with supernatural powers plus programmed his brain to believe he was the Messiah. Then they zapped him back down to earth. When he ascended it was just the aliens zapping back up to their spaceship because his job here was finished. I mean MAYBE it happened. Can you say it definitely say it did NOT happen that way? Where's your evidence to prove it didn't?

 

[leroy]

How do I even begin to address such a silly statement, leroy? How do you even begin compare a well-documented event like Hitler invading Poland to something obscure that might or might not have happened 2000 years ago?????

You worded the first sentence wrong anyway. It should be "Someone well informed with access to good sources might know those details."

All I am saying is that someone with access to reliable sources could know stuff about Jesus even if he wasn’t a witness, what’s controversial about that?

Maybe, maybe, maybe! I've got one for you:

Lots of people have seen UFO's so we know they exist. MAYBE 2000 years ago a UFO zapped Jesus up to their spaceship and imbued him with supernatural powers plus programmed his brain to believe he was the Messiah. Then they zapped him back down to earth. When he ascended it was just the aliens zapping back up to their spaceship because his job here was finished. I mean MAYBE it happened. Can you say it definitely say it did NOT happen that way? Where's your evidence to prove it didn't?

Sure I am granting that my answer is “I don’t know” I don’t know how Luke knew about the angel that talked to Jesus……………what else do you expect from me?

My point is that nor the truth of Christianity nor the truth of the resurrection are grounded on that historicity of that angel.

The truth of the resurrection is grounded on the 5 claims that I mentioned earlier (see quote at the end of this post),

As a skeptic you have 2 alternatives:

1 deny some of these facts (and provide a justification)

2 accept those facts and provide an alternative explanation (and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis)

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Be creative and do something deshonest, like changing the topic, make a straw man or ignore the challenge

Which one do you pick?

The truth of the resurrection is grounded on 5 Facts that most scholars accept

1 The existence of God is at least possible

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

All I am saying is that someone with access to reliable sources could know stuff about Jesus even if he wasn’t a witness, what’s controversial about that?







Sure I am granting that my answer is “I don’t know” I don’t know how Luke knew about the angel that talked to Jesus……………what else do you expect from me?

My point is that nor the truth of Christianity nor the truth of the resurrection are grounded on that historicity of that angel.

The truth of the resurrection is grounded on the 5 claims that I mentioned earlier (see quote at the end of this post),

As a skeptic you have 2 alternatives:

1 deny some of these facts (and provide a justification)

2 accept those facts and provide an alternative explanation (and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis)

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Be creative and do something deshonest, like changing the topic, make a straw man or ignore the challenge

Which one do you pick?

It's a sensible response and I credit you for that. As i said, maybe somebody did have access to reliable info. All I"m saying is the odds of that are extremely slim when you consider it's 60 years later, most everyone is dead and the writers are thousands of miles away from where it all happened. I don't gamble on odds that narrow but some like yourself do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

false most ancient historians talk about "magic" and modern historians dont drop these sources.,


your standards are arbitrary, you reject by default the history that contradicts your view (miracles for example)....... and accept any crazy and unduported claim that supports your view (Christians burned books for example)

I did not say that they drop them. They do not take the magical parts seriously. They apply rational reasoning to claims. If one drops the magical claims about Jesus, which pretty much means all of the works outside of the Gospels and quite a bit of those one has the teachings of someone that was more advanced than the average person of that time. That is reasonable. The rest of Christianity is not.