• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

gnostic

The Lost One
Let's get it straight--again--you admitted the author(s) of Acts got 84 important first century facts right, then a priori assume they are VERY sophisticated truth-telling liars because the supernatural CANNOT exist.
No, you continue to misunderstand that have a bit knowledge of geography, doesn’t make it history.

Homer described cities that exist in history time and and those that predated him in the Iliad and Odyssey, but that doesn’t make the stories true or historical.

Likewise, none of the events, such as the stories of miracles performed by apostles and disciples can be confirmed by independent texts or records.

You brought up the city of Lystra in your list, 3 points, but you didn’t include mention of Paul healing a man who was born crippled.

Other than Acts 14:8-18, there are no (independent) texts in Lystra itself that testified to event of Paul’s visit or the crippled who was healed.

Your list is just pathetic example, of someone who doesn’t understand what is history or isn’t history, because you are too blind to see that no one else wrote about what happened in Lystra during Paul’s supposed visit.

History required some forms of verification, whether the sources be archaeological evidences, public records, annals, or independent historical accounts.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
And Science, not science is the belief that you can apply science to all human behavior and only need to do science as human behavior. That won't work, because it is not possible. That is a belief no different that the ones you listed
Look at this as a line. One end - hard science. They are here on this forum too. The other end - hard religion.
Some of us try to be in the middle.
I "attack" both ends, when they "overstep". But my specialty is knowledge western style and hence I fight Science more that I fight Religion.

I don’t know if you know it or not, but the study of human behaviors or human cultures don’t fall under the category of “hard science”.

When actual scientists and mathematicians talk about “hard science”, they usually mean Natural Science, where the Scientific Method is used to formulate a hypothesis, set the methodology of testings the hypothesis, and the actual data that come from testing (testing through observation or experiment).

Natural Science is divided into very broad classifications:
  1. Physical Science
  2. Life Science
Human behaviors and human cultures don’t fall into either Physical Science or Life Science. They belong into a separate classification called Social Science.

Physical Science includes different branches, like physics, chemistry, Earth science and astronomy.

Life Science, of course all biology fields.

Social Science would include the following:
  • Psychology and behavioral science
  • Sociology
  • Anthropology or cultural studies
  • History and archaeology
  • Politics and political science
  • Law, legislation, ethics
  • Economics
In essence, Social Science related to anything relating to human behaviors, human cultures and human activities (eg politics).

Social Science isn’t hard science, because it doesn’t have to follow the requirements of Scientific Method, which are utmost of importance in Natural Science.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don’t know if you know it or not, but the study of human behaviors or human cultures don’t fall under the category of “hard science”.

...

I know that, but we have at least one poster, who claim science and don't know it, that there is more to science than hard science. She/he can't separate philosophy from the philosophy of science and denies that life science is a science. It is a variant of a common mistake. You can use science to claim metaphysics and ontology. Only strong objective reality is real as reality, because reality is independent of human thought and feelings.
As I recall there is at least one more. Science proves metaphysical physicalism. They are rare, but they do exist.

BTW Only strong objective reality is real as reality, because reality is independent of human thought and feelings - is as the sentence stands only possible as an idea/thought in a human brain and thus self-refuting.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, you continue to misunderstand that have a bit knowledge of geography, doesn’t make it history.

Homer described cities that exist in history time and and those that predated him in the Iliad and Odyssey, but that doesn’t make the stories true or historical.

Likewise, none of the events, such as the stories of miracles performed by apostles and disciples can be confirmed by independent texts or records.

You brought up the city of Lystra in your list, 3 points, but you didn’t include mention of Paul healing a man who was born crippled.

Other than Acts 14:8-18, there are no (independent) texts in Lystra itself that testified to event of Paul’s visit or the crippled who was healed.

Your list is just pathetic example, of someone who doesn’t understand what is history or isn’t history, because you are too blind to see that no one else wrote about what happened in Lystra during Paul’s supposed visit.

History required some forms of verification, whether the sources be archaeological evidences, public records, annals, or independent historical accounts.

It is not a good comparison to make, "the historicity of Acts is comparable to the historicity of Homer". And do you know why Luke is called a doctor? Because we have more medical knowledge extant in Luke/Acts than from Hippocrates!

Help me understand, the NT lists hundreds of happenings, witnessed by up to thousands of people, in dozens of cities and countries. There are 12 NT writers plus apocryphal writers. There are ancient Jewish, Christian and secular historians who affirm, "There was a Christian sect which taught openly X, Y, Z, despite persecution." Even the Talmud, which says Christianity is awful, affirms key facts about the Savior. We have PLENTY of confirmation. So go ahead and list all the contemporaneous counter-documents, you know, all the independent COUNTER-confirmations to the Lystra event or ANY NT event, because WE DO have confirming documents written by other authors that Paul... was legit!

Your thesis, "We have no confirmation of Paul's miracles" is proven untrue because other writers say Paul is a Christian authority with the powers thereunto.

My thesis, "You have zero documents disproving these claimants who said HUNDREDS of miracles were done where THOUSANDS saw them" is true.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Help me understand, the NT lists hundreds of happenings, witnessed by up to thousands of people, in dozens of cities and countries.
NT claimed to have witnesses by thousands, but there are none that were contemporary to Jesus’ ministry, and only one that was at least one generation late (Gospel of Mark), but the others were two (Luke’s and Matthew’s) or more (John’s).

Except for some of Paul’s letters that scholars were able to ascertained to be authentically written by him, the other letters were most definitely fake, and only pseudepigraphic attributed to him, eg Titus, Timothy, Ephesians, Hebrews).

But the gospels or the Acts claiming hundreds or thousands of witnesses are only claimed in those books, but none of them can be verified.

What’s the point of repeatedly bringing up thousands of witnesses when you don’t have thousands of written accounts?

There are 12 NT writers plus apocryphal writers.

Seriously???!

The NT Apocrypha were mostly 2nd century compositions, if not later.

You really have to be desperate fanatic to mention apocryphal authors.

Unless you think they were written by zombie disciples, including the NT Apocrypha is a mark of desperation.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
I know that, but we have at least one poster, who claim science and don't know it, that there is more to science than hard science. She/he can't separate philosophy from the philosophy of science and denies that life science is a science. It is a variant of a common mistake. You can use science to claim metaphysics and ontology. Only strong objective reality is real as reality, because reality is independent of human thought and feelings.
As I recall there is at least one more. Science proves metaphysical physicalism. They are rare, but they do exist.

BTW Only strong objective reality is real as reality, because reality is independent of human thought and feelings - is as the sentence stands only possible as an idea/thought in a human brain and thus self-refuting.

The only “philosophy of science” that is of value to science are Methodological Naturalism, Empiricism, and Logical Positivism, as they all strongly support verification through empirical evidences, eg Scientific Method. But each one are still talk...talk of how science should work, not actually doing science.

While there may be some values to Metaphysical Naturalism, but Metaphysics in general is largely outdated and overrated.

But I am more engineer than a scientist (my backgrounds are in civil engineering and computer science), so my formal education are applied science, meaning I mainly studied science that were related to and applicable to my lines of works.

My point is that my courses (civil and computer) don’t waste time on “philosophy”. I have only learned some philosophies during my free time and out of curiosity, so largely I think most modern philosophies to be useless and out of touch with reality, particularly those who called themselves metaphysicians or metaphysicists.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The only “philosophy of science” that is of value to science are Methodological Naturalism, Empiricism, and Logical Positivism, as they all strongly support verification through empirical evidences, eg Scientific Method. But each one are still talk...talk of how science should work, not actually doing science.

While there may be some values to Metaphysical Naturalism, but Metaphysics in general is largely outdated and overrated.

But I am more engineer than a scientist (my backgrounds are in civil engineering and computer science), so my formal education are applied science, meaning I mainly studied science that were related to and applicable to my lines of works.

My point is that my courses (civil and computer) don’t waste time on “philosophy”. I have only learned some philosophies during my free time and out of curiosity, so largely I think most modern philosophies to be useless and out of touch with reality, particularly those who called themselves metaphysicians or metaphysicists.

Very much thanks for your answer. I get your point of view, but there is a limit.
And it is philosophy and not just the philosophy of science, because empiricism and logical positivism don't work, quite as you might believe and even methodological naturalism has a limit.
Remember I am a global skeptic and I know the limits in general and those limits also apply to methodological naturalism, empiricism and logical positivism.

So now I am going to be honest. You are from STEM, I am the worst kind of scientist(one who has knowledge), you will ever encounter, because with knowledge, I know the general limits of knowledge and what is the limits of STEM in regards to All aspects of human life.
You use verification, I use falsification as in the end reductio ad absurdum. I doubt and you confirm. Both methodologies have the limits as knowledge, but because I have checked both, I know the limits of both, thus I know the limits of knowledge in general.
You are specialist. You apply a certain method to a limited field of inquiry. I am a generalist and you have no need to learn this, because you don't need it as human. Just as I don't need to learn to be an engineer as you can do that.

So peace, my follow human and I hope your world-view works for you and that you will have a long and good enough life.
With the best regards from one human to another.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If Luke is written late, what sources would he have relied upon to have over 80 early first century facts (just Acts, not Luke!)?

I don't understand the question? The general consensus in scholarship is:
"The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century."

So early dates do put it in the first century? Even in 110 that's still close enough that Luke would be very familiar with the same facts?

Although I do not use Wiki as a source it's ok for a general consensus and I wouldn't use it as a sole reference but it is backing up what I have been saying:

"The author of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source for the narrative of Christ's earthly life, and likely used a hypothetical sayings collection called the Q source for Jesus' teachings, although the existence of Q has been questioned by some scholars."


If you are asking about Acts as being written by the Luke Paul knew that is not considered probable"


"The author is not named in either volume.[11] According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters (Theissen and Merz 1998, p.32)."[12] An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).[20] Luke admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[21] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[22]

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[12] Some experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[23] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I have a Bachelor's in Religion emphasizing NT studies from a secular university. I've seen quite a few Ph.D positions contrary to scripture, and in a somewhat related field, I'm co-chairing three panels at an academic conference this fall. I understand secular NT scholarship.

You do not seem to be up on biblical historicity at all. A Bachelor's degree doesn't mean anything. In order to understand what's going on in the field you would have to read peer-reviewed accepted works by PhD authors.
Mark Goodacre is the expert on Q, Richard Pervo isi the expert on Acts:

The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story
The author of Acts unwittingly committed a near-perfect crime: He told his story so well that all rival accounts vanished with but the faintest of traces. And thus future generations were left with no documents that recount the history of the early Christian tradition; because Acts is not history. According to Richard Pervo, 'Acts is a beautiful house that readers may happily admire, but it is not a home in which the historian can responsibly live.' Luke did not even aspire to write history but rather told his story to defend the gentile communities of his day as the legitimate heirs of Israelite religion.

Thomas Thompson on Moses and the Patriarchs, Richard Carrier on Jesus historicity, Elaine Pagels on the Gnostic Gospels and so on.

You are all over the place talking about the Gita and Mormons. Can you confine yourself to the issue at hand? That proof for Jesus is there, in front of us?

That makes no sense? You cited the gospels naming historical places/events as proof that it was all true.
So I'm demonstrating that other religious mythology that we both know is not literally true also uses real history.
Joseph Smith has all kinds of historical information from the day. But the supernatural stories are STILL NOT TRUE.

So pointing out historical aspects of ANY scripture does not have any relation to the truth of the supernatural stories.


So this is 100% exactly on the issue at hand. Trying to side-step this obvious fact is actually an example of you going all over the place and trying to be very slippery.

There is zero proof of any Jesus in front of anyone. Talk about all over the place, one minute you are talking about faith then the next it's that proof is all over the place?? Those are not compatible views? Do you understand there is no evidence and decide to have faith or is there proof in which case one would not need faith?

At any rate the gospels are not at all proof of any supernatural events any more than the Hindu, Greek, Islamic or any other scripture. Many of the obvious reasons have already been pointed out with examples from the historicity field.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I said tithing Christians. Kindly respond factually to what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.
Yet you can't seem to be bothered to respond almost all of my points but have no problem making demands? Weird?
The point about anecdotal evidence and heresay is still just as valid.

One minute it's "I have a college degree" and then it's "I get magic money from God", are you serious with this?
To stoop to this ridiculous low, I look around at tithing experiments and I see incredible confirmation bias I couldn't have ever imagined even existed?
If things work out then it's god magic confirmed!
If they don't work out then we get some confirmation bias gems like this:

Tithe and get money back........or opportunities. Or relationships. Same thing.

"we believe that we can never out give God, but we also believe that God is under no obligation to respond to our giving. We give because God first gave to us and calls us to love others and to be generous, not because we expect anything in return simply for being obedient. We found that often God gave back in ways that didn’t match our giving, i.e. not monetary or even in “goods” but with opportunities and relationships that have been exactly what we’ve needed."


We didn't get our money back but we changed out thinking and that's what God wanted all along!



"We learnt that God didn’t want our “tithe” – the mandated 10% that we were required to set aside, what He wanted from us was to change our thinking to one of constant generosity towards whoever may need it at the time."

Oh oops, we didn't get money but rules schmules, God didn't really want 10% he wants an attitude adjustment.

"Through these adjustments God was making it clear that it was more important for us to maintain an attitude of generosity rather than attempt to stick rigidly to the “rules” we had set for ourselves."

Yeah WHATEVER....
can you use your college degree to understand that this is total bulls#&T!?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I would say, "Zero practicing Christians who have tithed, and their children, have died of starvation," that is one point.

Another is I worked for a CFP for years and had state licensing. I understand stocks, bonds, funds, tax shelters, retirement, investing, saving, etc. -- I was the CFP's data analyst. You are claiming hearsay since I'm telling you anecdotally I've had/seen many money miracles--s

Weather anyone has died or not as a result of giving away 10% of income is exactly ZERO proof of any supernatural claim? Did they teach common sense at that college?

You just said the word - anecdotally - which means IT'S PROOF OF NOTHING?
Having positive things happen with money as a result of giving money away is also not any type of supernatural proof? Giving away money creates resources that just might return money or favors back to you. Who cares?
It doesn't mean demi-gods are real? That is your best proof?

There is no way to trace monies around to find out if a "miracle" happened or simply something unlikely which actually does happen. A miracle, which would defy the laws of physics would result in MORE MONEY going into the system than exists in gold and end up causing extremely negative results. It's also anecdotal and completely stupid to use as evidence.




o I suggest you prove me wrong--go tithe somewhere. God promises "TEST ME IN THIS". You are talking a blue streak about falsifiability--put your money where God's mouth is!!

Or you can just read the CBS news story and the anti-tithing website by thelogian Russ Kelley who documents all sorts of terrible things resulting from tithing.


"From his home near Marietta, Georgia, Russell Kelly wages war against preachers who use the Bible to justify tithing. His Web site, shouldthechurchteachtithing, argues against the supporters of tithing."

"I had a $5 an hour job, a small child to raise, and my husband kept getting, sicker and sicker," Janice Kelly told Teichner. "It came to the point whether I buy insulin for him or whether I pay my tithes, so I went to the preacher."


Now do you even have a shred of a clue why people generally don't die from tithing? Maybe you should read the reports. In case it isn't obvious when Janice Kelley had to decide to either buy insulin or continue sending money to the church SHE BOUGHT INSULIN. So people generally survive because it knocks the stupid right out of them at that point.
But there are so many horror stories that that website is there to raise awareness about tithing.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Cults and liars don't take a lot of trouble with fact verification.


Well that's just false. They do that ALL THE TIME? Why does Joseph Smith have so many accurate facts? Why does the Hindu scripture contain accurate facts about northern India? Why does Scientology contain so much accurate information about psychology?

Why would you assume a scripture is either:
1) completely true
or
2) a cult and a liar

Luke was writing a fiction that he wanted to be used as a religion (same as all religions) of course he would put 100% effort into it? You don't believe Islam is a real religion right? Yet whomever wrote that extensive scripture (even though they were lying) packed it full of philosophy, science of the times, historical information and everything else that would make people revere it for hopefully 1000s of years.

So why can't that same thing be applied to Christian scripture?
Your argument makes no sense? It's pure confirmation bias.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
It is not a good comparison to make, "the historicity of Acts is comparable to the historicity of Homer". And do you know why Luke is called a doctor? Because we have more medical knowledge extant in Luke/Acts than from Hippocrates!

Help me understand, the NT lists hundreds of happenings, witnessed by up to thousands of people, in dozens of cities and countries. There are 12 NT writers plus apocryphal writers. There are ancient Jewish, Christian and secular historians who affirm, "There was a Christian sect which taught openly X, Y, Z, despite persecution." Even the Talmud, which says Christianity is awful, affirms key facts about the Savior. We have PLENTY of confirmation. So go ahead and list all the contemporaneous counter-documents, you know, all the independent COUNTER-confirmations to the Lystra event or ANY NT event, because WE DO have confirming documents written by other authors that Paul... was legit!

Your thesis, "We have no confirmation of Paul's miracles" is proven untrue because other writers say Paul is a Christian authority with the powers thereunto.

My thesis, "You have zero documents disproving these claimants who said HUNDREDS of miracles were done where THOUSANDS saw them" is true.


Nope, the Talmud does not confirm Jesus. These things you are saying are completely false, mainstream scholarship doesn't support one single shred of what you are saying except that there was a group of people who were practicing Christians in the 1st century.

This panel of experts including a Christian pastor comb over ALL biblical and non-biblical mentions of Jesus and Christians.
They are 100% in agreement that is it unproven and miracles are not historical.



The "thousands of people" is something only mentioned in the gospels which are obvious fiction.


Saying "it's not a good comparison Acts and Homer" isn't saying anything. Read the work and explain why you disagree:

Error - Cookies Turned Off


https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Acts-Unraveling-Its-Story/dp/159815012X
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
NT claimed to have witnesses by thousands, but there are none that were contemporary to Jesus’ ministry, and only one that was at least one generation late (Gospel of Mark), but the others were two (Luke’s and Matthew’s) or more (John’s).

Except for some of Paul’s letters that scholars were able to ascertained to be authentically written by him, the other letters were most definitely fake, and only pseudepigraphic attributed to him, eg Titus, Timothy, Ephesians, Hebrews).

But the gospels or the Acts claiming hundreds or thousands of witnesses are only claimed in those books, but none of them can be verified.

What’s the point of repeatedly bringing up thousands of witnesses when you don’t have thousands of written accounts?



Seriously???!

The NT Apocrypha were mostly 2nd century compositions, if not later.

You really have to be desperate fanatic to mention apocryphal authors.

Unless you think they were written by zombie disciples, including the NT Apocrypha is a mark of desperation.

Perhaps you can provide evidence for your assertions?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
You do not seem to be up on biblical historicity at all. A Bachelor's degree doesn't mean anything. In order to understand what's going on in the field you would have to read peer-reviewed accepted works by PhD authors.
Mark Goodacre is the expert on Q, Richard Pervo isi the expert on Acts:

The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story
The author of Acts unwittingly committed a near-perfect crime: He told his story so well that all rival accounts vanished with but the faintest of traces. And thus future generations were left with no documents that recount the history of the early Christian tradition; because Acts is not history. According to Richard Pervo, 'Acts is a beautiful house that readers may happily admire, but it is not a home in which the historian can responsibly live.' Luke did not even aspire to write history but rather told his story to defend the gentile communities of his day as the legitimate heirs of Israelite religion.

Thomas Thompson on Moses and the Patriarchs, Richard Carrier on Jesus historicity, Elaine Pagels on the Gnostic Gospels and so on.



That makes no sense? You cited the gospels naming historical places/events as proof that it was all true.
So I'm demonstrating that other religious mythology that we both know is not literally true also uses real history.
Joseph Smith has all kinds of historical information from the day. But the supernatural stories are STILL NOT TRUE.

So pointing out historical aspects of ANY scripture does not have any relation to the truth of the supernatural stories.


So this is 100% exactly on the issue at hand. Trying to side-step this obvious fact is actually an example of you going all over the place and trying to be very slippery.

There is zero proof of any Jesus in front of anyone. Talk about all over the place, one minute you are talking about faith then the next it's that proof is all over the place?? Those are not compatible views? Do you understand there is no evidence and decide to have faith or is there proof in which case one would not need faith?

At any rate the gospels are not at all proof of any supernatural events any more than the Hindu, Greek, Islamic or any other scripture. Many of the obvious reasons have already been pointed out with examples from the historicity field.

Can you give me examples of religious works outside the Bible that are known for their historical veracity (regarding non-supernatural details)?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yet you can't seem to be bothered to respond almost all of my points but have no problem making demands? Weird?
The point about anecdotal evidence and heresay is still just as valid.

One minute it's "I have a college degree" and then it's "I get magic money from God", are you serious with this?
To stoop to this ridiculous low, I look around at tithing experiments and I see incredible confirmation bias I couldn't have ever imagined even existed?
If things work out then it's god magic confirmed!
If they don't work out then we get some confirmation bias gems like this:

Tithe and get money back........or opportunities. Or relationships. Same thing.

"we believe that we can never out give God, but we also believe that God is under no obligation to respond to our giving. We give because God first gave to us and calls us to love others and to be generous, not because we expect anything in return simply for being obedient. We found that often God gave back in ways that didn’t match our giving, i.e. not monetary or even in “goods” but with opportunities and relationships that have been exactly what we’ve needed."


We didn't get our money back but we changed out thinking and that's what God wanted all along!



"We learnt that God didn’t want our “tithe” – the mandated 10% that we were required to set aside, what He wanted from us was to change our thinking to one of constant generosity towards whoever may need it at the time."

Oh oops, we didn't get money but rules schmules, God didn't really want 10% he wants an attitude adjustment.

"Through these adjustments God was making it clear that it was more important for us to maintain an attitude of generosity rather than attempt to stick rigidly to the “rules” we had set for ourselves."

Yeah WHATEVER....
can you use your college degree to understand that this is total bulls#&T!?

To cut to the chase, I will continue to give to Christian works, and continue to receive financial blessings, even without a university degree, I'd still like to have money. :)
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Perhaps you can provide evidence for your assertions?
Of which?

That Paul didn’t write some of the epistles that were supposedly written by him?

That the gospels and Acts were written until decades later, most likely not by eyewitnesses?

Or that the texts from Apocrypha were written individually, by authors of the 2nd century CE or later?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
How about you, @BilliardsBall ?

You brought up Lystra in your list, but you never answered my questions.

You brought up the existence of the city, Lystra, and they spoke a different language or dialect. But you didn’t bring up why Acts 14:8-18 narrated the event - Paul’s healing of man who was crippled since birth, couldn’t walk.

Supposedly there hundreds of witnesses, including the alleged crippled man. Where are the hundreds of different written accounts to this episode in Lystra?

Surely you understand of historical verification, haven’t you?

Unless there are written accounts in Lystra, that can verify Acts 14:8-18, then all we have is a single source, not multiple independent sources.

To me, the story of Paul healing a man in Lystra, is based on unsubstantiated hearsay, or purely the author’s invention.

There are even no verification from Paul himself in his epistles where he healed a man in Lystra. In one letter (Timothy), he does mention Lystra, but not him healing any crippled man.

You have no independent accounts (literary evidences) that Lystra episode is true, other than the sole Acts 14:8-18.

Likewise, if there were hundred eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion, then why is that there are no contemporary accounts by these eyewitnesses until almost 40 (Mark’s) to 60 years later (Matthew’s, Luke’s & John’s), that recorded this event?

And why are there some contradictions to what happen after Jesus' burial? The most common denominator is that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus, but there are little agreement in who accompany her or she was there alone.

In Matthew's, she had another Mary with her, but we don't know which one (28:1).

In Mark's, we have her with Mary mother of James and Salome (16:1), but in a different passage (16:9-11), she was alone. So in Mark, we have 2 different versions.

In Luke's, we don't know who Mary's companions were until 24:9: Joanna and Mary mother of James.

And in John 20:1, she was alone at the tomb.

And that's not the only contradictions between these gospels in those chapters. In Matthew and Luke, the women spoke to all 11 disciples. But in John, they only spoke to Peter and another disciple (the one whom Jesus loved the most); and Peter would later inform the rest of his fellow disciples, though Thomas was absent at that time.

But in again, in the gospel of Mark, we have two versions. In 16:10-11, she alone spoke to all surviving (11) disciples. But in 16:8, they spoke to no one out of fear:

Mark 16:8 said:
So they out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

They cannot agree with each other. And we have no other contemporary sources, independent of these gospels.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Well that's just false. They do that ALL THE TIME? Why does Joseph Smith have so many accurate facts? Why does the Hindu scripture contain accurate facts about northern India? Why does Scientology contain so much accurate information about psychology?

Why would you assume a scripture is either:
1) completely true
or
2) a cult and a liar

Luke was writing a fiction that he wanted to be used as a religion (same as all religions) of course he would put 100% effort into it? You don't believe Islam is a real religion right? Yet whomever wrote that extensive scripture (even though they were lying) packed it full of philosophy, science of the times, historical information and everything else that would make people revere it for hopefully 1000s of years.

So why can't that same thing be applied to Christian scripture?
Your argument makes no sense? It's pure confirmation bias.

There is some truth in other religions. There are also extraordinary and obvious falsities in Mormonism, Hinduism, etc.

The differences in Christianity are clear to me. First, you'd have to explain why this conspiracy of religion included 40 writers or teams of writers producing the Bible over 1,500 years. Next, you'd have to explain why one dozen NT or teams of NT writers all risked martyrdom from their own people and their Romans to promote this conspiracy further. After, you can explain how contemporaneous NT writers were accepted by many Jews and Romans--when all those readers/witnesses could deny the obvious NT lies, like "Jesus healed thousands of people in multiple cities and towns, and thousands of people witnessed these healings."

Just those three facets are both unique to the Bible and inexplicable when I ask skeptics. Can you answer those three facts of this religion effectively?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Of which?

That Paul didn’t write some of the epistles that were supposedly written by him?

That the gospels and Acts were written until decades later, most likely not by eyewitnesses?

Or that the texts from Apocrypha were written individually, by authors of the 2nd century CE or later?

All three would be great, the more since when I posted 84 historical accuracies of Acts, you attacked the supernatural elements within without refuting ONE of those 84 FACTS.
 
Top