Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[3rdAngel]

This doesn’t address my point. I maintained that there were no eyewitnesses to Jesus. Josephus isn’t an eyewitness. Neither are the other “outside” sources. I’m not denying Jesus’ existence; just your fanciful assertion of the “fact” that there are biblical ”eyewitnesses” of Jesus.

Sure it does you simply do not believe it. The historical records are from eyewitness accounts this is what virtually every scholar agrees to. If you do not deny JESUS existance then tell me why you do not?

 

[3rdAngel]

Technically "eyewitness testimony" is a legal term. But we can use the same standards for what we see in the Bible: "Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation." Eyewitness testimony - Wikipedia None of the examples that you gave fit that definition.......... snip (repitition) You failed in your claim.

Nonsense! If there are historical records then there are eyewitnesses. The fact that both the biblical records and sources outside of the biblical record testify to this fact is evidence of eye witness accounts. The information provided in posts # 342 linked and post # 348 linked proves you are in error here. You do know right that if there was no eyewitnesses to historical events there would be no historical records right?

You have been provided non christian JEWISH record of multiple eyewitness accounts of JESUS; the biblical records from the Pauline and gospel records, and from other Historians outside of Christianity from the Roman Historical records (Tacticus) with all three bearing testimony of the eyewitness accounts of JESUS and verification of the truth of the biblical records.

Now notice what we have here. We have...

1. Historical records from the JEWS who were a hostile source to Christianity of eyewitness accounts of JESUS
2. Historical records from a Roman historians who were also a hostile source outside of Christianity of eyewitness accounts of JESUS.
3. The biblical records from the Pauline and Gospel scriptures from eyewitnesses accounts of JESUS

All three; according to the biblical record are supported by; 1. The NON BELIEVING JEWS; the 2. THE NON BELIEVING ROMANS and the 3. CHRISTIANS who were present during the life of JESUS and all three Historical sources both from within Christianity and outside of Christianity say that there were eyewitness accounts of JESUS and that JESUS existed.

Either this is a massive conspiracy and everyone is lying here or everyone is telling the truth.

As shown according to Wiki already most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][24][25] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[26][27] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[28][29]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]

.........................

Hmm then we have you with your hand waiving that cannot prove JESUS did not exist... My friend the evidence is there for all to see. Your denial is amazing.

Your welcome

 

[3rdAngel]

I answered your question. You probably missed the answer. I am the only one left that has not put you on ignore. Do you want to put just be an old man shouting at others to "Get off my lawn!" and have everyone just ignore the nonsense you post? You should be using this as a learning experience.

No you didn't. You stated earlier in a previous question that you believe that JESUS did exist. Then I asked you why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed? Did you wish you answer the question asked of you now?

 

[sojourner]

Sure it does you simply to not believe it. The historical records are from eyewitness accounts this is what virtually every scholar agrees to. If you do not deny JESUS existance then tell me why you do not?

No. Untrue.

 

[3rdAngel]

No. Untrue.

Ok I guess you have your opinion and do not believe the Historical evidence which is verified by virtually every scholar and historian outside and inside the biblical record. You are free to believe as you wish. I am only showing why I believe that you are not correct in your view. You are free to believe as you wish

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense! If there are historical records then there are eyewitnesses. The fact that both the biblical records and sources outside of the biblical record testify to this fact is evidence of eye witness accounts. The information provided in posts # 342 linked and post # 348 linked proves you are in error here. You do know right that if there was no eyewitnesses to historical events there would be no historical records right?

You have been provided non christian JEWISH record of multiple eyewitness accounts of JESUS; the biblical records from the Pauline and gospel records, and from other Historians outside of Christianity from the Roman Historical records (Tacticus) with all three bearing testimony of the eyewitness accounts of JESUS and verification of the truth of the biblical records.

Now notice what we have here. We have...

1. Historical records from the JEWS who were a hostile source to Christianity of eyewitness accounts of JESUS
2. Historical records from a Roman historians who were also a hostile source outside of Christianity of eyewitness accounts of JESUS.
3. The biblical records from the Pauline and Gospel scriptures from eyewitnesses accounts of JESUS

All three; according to the biblical record are supported by; 1. The NON BELIEVING JEWS; the 2. THE NON BELIEVING ROMANS and the 3. CHRISTIANS who were present during the life of JESUS and all three Historical sources both from within Christianity and outside of Christianity say that there were eyewitness accounts of JESUS and that JESUS existed.

Either this is a massive conspiracy and everyone is lying here or everyone is telling the truth.

As shown according to Wiki already most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][24][25] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[26][27] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[28][29]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]

.........................

Hmm then we have you with your hand waiving that cannot prove JESUS did not exist... My friend the evidence is there for all to see. Your denial is amazing.

Your welcome

Now you are just repeating your errors. None of those accounts are claimed to be eyewitness accounts. Most of them are based upon oral traditions. Please learn the difference.

In an eyewitness account you will have a specific person come forward and say "I am so and so and this is what I saw". All you have is wishful thinking on your side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure it does you simply do not believe it. The historical records are from eyewitness accounts this is what virtually every scholar agrees to. If you do not deny JESUS existance then tell me why you do not?

See, other people understand the concept of eyewitness too. I wrote a post where I used various sources to show your error. Did you miss that? Just a second I will provide a link

Oh, I see that you saw the post. You even gave it a "optimistic" rating meaning that I was being optimistic in my hopes that you could understand it. Now they are dashed

Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm pretty sure the skeptics here know what this scripture means, "He will take vengeance in flaming fire on all those who disbelieve the saving gospel of Jesus"

It means you worship a god of torture. Does the Golden Rule apply to that god? Would it be unfair to lock such a god up in its own torture pit were that possible?

Religion and science are two very different entities that both concern the nature of reality while using different methods.

One method has led to thousands of gods, religions, and denominations. The other gave us our only periodic table of the elements. Only one these methods generates what I would call truth, which is the quailty facts posses, facts being linguistic strings that accurately map a portion of reality. This can only be determined empirically,

Incidentally, what I mean by science here is any activity that involves observing physical reality and arriving at conclusions that predict outcomes and can be used as a means of facilitating desired outcomes and avoiding undesirable outcomes, which can involve an activity such as looking both ways before crossing to judge when is the best time to cross without being hit by a vehicle.

By faith, one just closes his eyes and crosses, obviously a poor choice when considering moving vehicles, but apparently not too dangerous when considering angels, unless, of course, you let such beliefs bleed into reality and drive recklessly, for example, based on faith in angels protecting you.

Since God is the one who inspired scripture, don’t you think that he would have exposed Paul as a fraud and rejected his writings if he was not genuine?

Not if this god doesn't exist.

This is why one has to have faith. You either accept God at his word, trusting that he is powerful enough to record and preserve his instructions for us......or not. It’s our choice.

Yes, and I choose to eschew faith-based thought for reasons already given. That attitude protects me from believing things that other people make up. What other defense is there to that than requiring compelling evidence first before believing. And how vulnerable we become when we allow ourselves to believe things without evidence.

those who think independence from the Creator is beneficial, and want to do things their way, not his, usually find out the hard way that independent thinking is not all it’s cracked up to be.

I found the opposite to be true.

Someone has to be in control. Why not the Creator

I don't need a controller. I'm an autonomous citizen. Autonomous means self-ruling.

our definition of right and wrong? Can you depend on humans to get that right?

I have depended on myself. What others think is right and wrong is out of my control.

We are children....infants in comparison to an eternal God.

I'm an atheist. That's a meaningless comment to me.

as a good parent, he allows us to learn from experience.

Experience has taught me that I made a good choice switching from Christianity, which was not satisfying (that's why I left it) to secular humanism, which has been a more authentic existence for me (why I didn't leave it).

he will not prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our own decisions

You say that like people can't make their own decisions without dire consequences. I'm here to tell you that that just hasn't been the case.

If we are only accountable to ourselves, what does that mean for the irresponsible ones.....and those who must deal with their irresponsible behavior?

We deal with people as we find them. Discerning judges accumulate decent people in their life, and dismissing the rest as they encounter them and find them to be dishonest, violent, or whatever. It's not a problem. My orbit is all decent people now. That's the world I have made for myself.

what of those who care little about your life and are only intent on promoting their own......to your detriment? Who do they answer to?

Nobody is diminishing my life. You and I live in completely different worlds.

What of those who don’t have your responsible attitude or respect for anyone else? If there is no answering to any authority, should there be vigilantes?

Again, these are not problems for me. They are problems for them.

Hierarchies have existed ever since human civilisation began. We are all accountable to someone.....in life, in business, in law, there has to be order, so how do you achieve this by rejecting hierarchies?

I'm accountable to nobody but myself, by choice, my wife, and when I make commitments to them, to others. But none of these people have authority over me.

but all of that only works if you are surrounded by like minded people.

If you mean people of integrity, I am surrounded by such people.

If you live in a bubble that the rest of the world does not share, then your attitude seems to be “as long as my life is good, the rest of the world doesn’t matter”

No. My attitude is that as long as my life is good, I have no reason to change how I live it.

I don’t know how the life you promote is achievable?

I do. I have achieved the life I desired.

whoever loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law.

Laws cannot be fulfilled. Promises, dreams, obligations and destinies can be fulfilled, but not laws.

Laws can only be written, obeyed, disobeyed, amended, adjudicated, etc., but not fulfilled. Try fulfilling a no parking law.

The Bible never disagrees with true and provable science

Sure it does, and science disagrees with the Bible. They tell different stories of the history of the cosmos and man.

There is no positive way to change the world unless you can change the attitudes of all the people

Disagree. Jonas Salk changed the world for the better, and he needed change no minds.

Its hard to comment when the ignorance is so deep....sorry. Whoever formulated your list is completely ignorant of what the scriptures teach overall.

You are not the judge of that except for yourself. I see ignorance coming from those who refuse to see or admit to a plain contradiction. They are trying to sanitize their flawed Bibles for themselves.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Word of God is freely proclaimed to all; but receivable by only a heart that is right.

You mean by a mind that is willing to believe on insufficient evidence. I never want to be that person.

It is possible to prove that faith is worthless, at finding the truth about *anything*. Because faith is, by definition, belief in things for which you have no evidence. If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith...

Agreed. Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth. It's not a path at all, in the sense of a road that constrains one's direction of travel in order to reach a desired destination. Reason can be a path to truth, such as when adding a column of numbers and arriving at a correct sum. One is constrained by facts like 1 + 3 = 4, and one must decide 4 whenever adding 1 and 3, or go off the path to one's destination, the correct answer.

Faith is more like sailing the open ocean to reach a desired destination without a compass. One is free to go in any direction and end up at any destination, most being somewhere you didn't want to be at.

How can a method that equally well allows one to believe either of two mutually exclusive ideas be a path to truth when we know that at least one is wrong?

Many have tried that path, to prove Faith is worthless.

I think I just demonstrated that faith is not a path to truth, since by faith, anything can be believed, however wrong.

But that does not make it worthless to everybody.

Faith built upon One God will build a unity that will be strong, long lasting and prosperous for all humanity.

It hasn't worked yet. I'm ready for another approach. How about a compassion and reason-based approach? If we could get everybody on board there, I think we'd go further than religions have allowed.

Atheism fits into this category then. Some who follow it have faith that there is no God yet they have no evidence that God does not exist. Therefore atheism is the religion of many who do not believe in God.

You do not understand what an atheist thinks. I reject faith as a means of thinking.

Also, your reasoning is flawed. What only some atheists think or do is not a part of atheism. Atheism is the set of qualities that applies to all atheists, which is merely a refusal to follow the path of the theist. Only the rejection of faith-based god beliefs is necessary for atheism.

Why is atheism so difficult for so many theists to understand? It's a simple idea. You believe in gods, we don't. Some of us also say that there are no gods, some don't. Some say they life strawberry ice cream, some don't. Some are female, some aren't. Some are under 40 years of age, some are older. None of that is part of atheism. They are just accidental characteristics.

The definition of athiesm is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Either way you still need faith if you have no evidence for what you believe.

That's not my definition, but it includes mine. Using that definition as a model, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. Disbelief is not necessary, and "God," whoever that refers to, is just one of the thousands of gods not believed in.

Do you have evidence that there is no God?

I have evidence that there is no interventionalist god - one that answers prayer, performs miracles, or otherwise affects reality, but I'm not here to convince faith-based thinkers, who don't use evidence to decide what is true about the world. You can consider that an unsupported claim, unless you'd like to read the second half of this post.

And I have proof that there is no god with mutually exclusive qualities i the same sense and at the same time such as is the case with the god I know most about, the Judeo-Christian god

But more relevant is that I do not have evidence that there is a god. I don't need disproof to be an atheist, just that there be insufficient evidence for gods to believe in them.

I didn't know Christianity had anything to say about forms of government.

The Bible commands its followers to submit to the ruling authority, whatever it is, and it's model is authoritarian and commands submission by man to God, subject to ruler, slave to master, and wife to husband.

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

• 1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

These would have been a problem for the founders advocating rebellion against a king allegedly place on his throne by a god, but they just changed the rules and stated that god now gave them the right to rebel and be free. This is the direction man was heading, and the Bible would have been an impediment to progress had its commandments not been nullified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you didn't. You stated earlier in a previous question that you believe that JESUS did exist. Then I asked you why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed? Did you wish you answer the question asked of you now?

I answered that as well. You missed it.

By the way, I would not say that we "know" that Jesus existed, but believing in a historical Jesus is not unreasonable.

 

[3rdAngel]

I answered that as well. You missed it.
By the way, I would not say that we "know" that Jesus existed, but believing in a historical Jesus is not unreasonable.

I did not miss anything and your not being honest again as you did not answer my second question to you. I can understand why you do not want to answer this question. If you do not want to asnwer it just say so. No need to pretend you have answered something that you have not. You stated earlier in a previous question that you believe that JESUS did exist. Then I asked you why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed? Did you wish you answer this question asked of you now? These are only simple questions that if you answer them honestly, prove that what I am sharing with you is true. It is up to you though you can close your eyes and cover your ears if you want to, it is up to you. The JEWS did the same thing in the days of JESUS. I am only enjoying our discussion.

 

[3rdAngel]

See, other people understand the concept of eyewitness too. I wrote a post where I used various sources to show your error. Did you miss that? Just a second I will provide a link

Nonsense! All that means is someone else does not believe the historical records of eyewitness accounts that virtually every scholar agrees to. Yet is is the historical records alone that bare witness to eye witness accounts. What is it that you would accept as an eyewitness account if it is not the historical records provided both indide and outside of the bible as evidence that virtually every scholar and historial agrees to already? Seems hand waiving does not make History and the bible disappear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense! All that means is someone else does not believe the historical records of eyewitness accounts that virtually every scholar agrees to. Yet is is the historical records alone that bare witness to eye witness accounts. What is it that you would accept as an eyewitness account if it is not the historical records provided both indide and outside of the bible as evidence that virtually every scholar and historial agrees to already? Seems hand waiving does not make History and the bible disappear.

I don't think that you know the meaning of half of the words that you use. You clearly do not understand what an eyewitness account is. That someone may have seen something does not mean that the person that when it got written down after being passed back and forth between countless people that does not make it an eyewitness account.

Can you tell us how old you are and how much education that you have had? If you graduated from high school you should have learned this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not miss anything and your not being honest again as you did not answer my second question to you. I can understand why you do not want to answer this question. If you do not want to asnwer it just say so. No need to pretend you have answered something that you have not. You stated earlier in a previous question that you believe that JESUS did exist. Then I asked you why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed? Did you wish you answer this question asked of you now? These are only simple questions that if you answer them honestly, prove that what I am sharing with you is true. It is up to you though you can close your eyes and cover your ears if you want to, it is up to you. The JEWS did the same thing in the days of JESUS. I am only enjoying our discussion.

I did answer it. You may have not liked the answer or you may have ignored it. Right now you have put yourself into a position where you cannot demand answers to questions any longer. People may respond, but that is at their discretion.

 

[3rdAngel]

I did answer it. You may have not liked the answer or you may have ignored it. Right now you have put yourself into a position where you cannot demand answers to questions any longer. People may respond, but that is at their discretion.

Ok let me take your words for it. Please post the link that answers my question to you that says why do you believe JESUS existed or how do you know JESUS existed??

 

[3rdAngel]

I don't think that you know the meaning of half of the words that you use. You clearly do not understand what an eyewitness account is. That someone may have seen something does not mean that the person that when it got written down after being passed back and forth between countless people that does not make it an eyewitness account. Can you tell us how old you are and how much education that you have had? If you graduated from high school you should have learned this.

Your ad hom comments are noted as is your unwillingness to discuss the content of the posts I have provided to you that disagree with you when provided historical records of eyewitness accounts of JESUS both inside and outside of the bible and your unwillingness to answer my questions asked of you that show why you are in error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok let me take your words for it. Please post the link?

Not right now. I am not very pleased with your activity here so why should I help you?

 

[3rdAngel]

Not right now. I am not very pleased with your activity here so why should I help you?

I see, I knew I would get this type of reponse from you because you never answered it to begin with. Your simply not being honest as you know by answering this question you have agreed to what I have been sharing with you througout this thread. Up to you though. Something for you to think about I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your ad hom comments are noted as is your unwillingness to discuss the content of the posts I have provided to you that disagree with you when provided historical records of eyewitness accounts of JESUS both inside and outside of the bible and your unwillingness to answer my questions asked of you that show why you are in error.

What ad homs? I don't think that you understand that term either. Observations are not ad homs. Unlike you where you quoted sources that you did not understand (your inability to understand the concept of "eyewitness" is truly amazing) I have supported my claims. Now you may disagree with them, but due to an your inability to understand simple concepts, such as "eyewitness" you cannot refute them.

Perhaps if you understood what "hearsay" is. Its meaning comes directly from its etymology. A person heard someone say something. Hearsay is not eyewitness evidence. It is not allowed in court. If you check out your sources carefully you will see that you can only claim that they are hearsay at best. Here is what you do not seem to understand, If the person writing the account is not talking to someone that saw the account he does not have eyewitness evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see, I knew I would get this type of reponse from you because you never answered it to begin with. Your simply not being honest as you know by answering this question you have agreed to what I have been sharing with you througout this thread. Up to you though. Something for you to think about I guess.

No, when a person is rude and acts like a jerk others will simply not help him. Look at how many people put you on ignore. It is not because they could not refute your claims. Think about it. Change your attitude and people will help you. I have given you far more than you merit.

And you bore false witness against your neighbor again. If someone that I respected asked me I would gladly have dug it up. You want others to do your homework for you and you do not acknowledge it. That will not earn you any friends at a forum.