Jump to content


Photo

Atheists & Agnostics: Why Don't You Believe The Bible?


  • Please log in to reply
332 replies to this topic

#321 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 19 October 2013 - 11:47 AM

To clarify:  I do not believe there was a lost source, I believe that Mark was the first gospel to be written in about AD70 and the other gospel writers had access to its text.  I mention elements common to Luke and John not to negate either.  I mention them to show that Luke appears to have influenced John in a way that Mark and Matthew didn't. 

 

Some comments from post 320:

 

"Why is there even an argument that there is (i.e. WAS) influence between the Gospel writers! They LIVED TOGEATHER with Jesus for THREE YEARS!... OF COURSE there was influence!"

 

Did the four writers of the canonical gospels live together?  The texts are anonymous and only two are credited by tradition to apostles of Jesus.

 

"In fact, a great deal of the miracles were accounted for in ALL FOUR Gospels"

 

Are many miracles in all four canonical gospels?  I can only identify the resurrection and the feeding of the 5000 mentioned in all four.



#322 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 October 2013 - 01:21 PM

cheeseburger, on 19 Oct 2013 - 14:51, said:
To clarify: I do not believe there was a lost source, I believe that Mark was the first gospel to be written in about AD70 and the other gospel writers had access to its text. I mention elements common to Luke and John not to negate either. I mention them to show that Luke appears to have influenced John in a way that Mark and Matthew didn't.

 

You word 'believe' connotes ‘faith’, and you indeed have a great bit to make such statements, as you have no factual evidence for such negative faith-statements… Other than your opinion. Can we have other than your opinion then? Just curious at this point.

By the way, it was YOU who brought up the conspiracy theory of the fictitious 'lost source'... Was this just more 'elephant hurling'?

 

cheeseburger, on 19 Oct 2013 - 14:51, said:
"Why is there even an argument that there is (i.e. WAS) influence between the Gospel writers! They LIVED TOGEATHER with Jesus for THREE YEARS!... OF COURSE there was influence!"

Did the four writers of the canonical gospels live together? The texts are anonymous and only two are credited by tradition to apostles of Jesus.

Matthew, John and Peter lived a great deal of that time, together with Jesus, yes! Hence the “Firsthand Eyewitness” moniker.  
 

Once again, Luke (considered a “historian of the first order”) conducted at length and in-depth interviews (by his own admission)! It is easily logical to submit, based upon HIS testimony (see: the Gospel of Luke AND the Book of Acts), that he (Luke) interviewed as many firsthand eyewitnesses as he could find; and according to the Apostle Paul, there were well over 500! And many of these “Firsthand Eyewitnesses” would be the Apostles (who lived with Jesus for much of the three years of His ministerial life), along with the Brothers of Jesus (James and Jude) and His Mother, who, indeed lived with Jesus. Oh, and by the way, James and Jude are the same who wrote Epistles in the New Testament.

Also, there is a reason why the Gospels are traditionally accredited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But the actual question begged by your assertion is: Do YOU have contemporaneous evidence to the contrary; or, is more mere opinion all you are going to provide again?

cheeseburger, on 19 Oct 2013 - 14:51, said:
"In fact, a great deal of the miracles were accounted for in ALL FOUR Gospels"

Are many miracles in all four canonical gospels? I can only identify the resurrection and the feeding of the 5000 mentioned in all four.


I was speaking off the top of my head, and probably should have said; a great deal of the miracles were accounted for across ALL FOUR Gospels", which is actually what i meant. Regardless of that, it wouldn't matter if the commonality were along the order of seven common miracles between Matthew, Luke and John; twelve common miracles between Mark, Luke and John; three common miracles between Matthew, Mark and John (etc...), at the end of the day, the Life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension of Jesus is corroborated by ALL FOUR GOSPELS. Do YOU have contemporaneous evidence to the contrary; or, is mere opinion all you are going to provide again?



#323 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:10 PM

There are 11 miracles that are common in three of the gospels (the gospel of John doesn't list as many miracles at all - only 7).

 

Many skeptics make a big deal out of the fact that some spectacular mircles are not listed in all of the gospels, or only one of the gospels, but I think the Bible itself gives us a good clue why this might be. The gospels do not provide us an exhaustive list of all the things that Jesus did, but only a selected subset of these (John 21:25).



#324 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 October 2013 - 02:22 AM

There are 11 miracles that are common in three of the gospels (the gospel of John doesn't list as many miracles at all - only 7).

 

Many skeptics make a big deal out of the fact that some spectacular mircles are not listed in all of the gospels, or only one of the gospels, but I think the Bible itself gives us a good clue why this might be. The gospels do not provide us an exhaustive list of all the things that Jesus did, but only a selected subset of these (John 21:25).

Basically, Salsa, Bible Scoffers simply don't like miracles. As I said before, if there were NO comparative similarities, they would call the Bible bogus; if there were 100 percent similarities, they would decry collusion; but since the Gospels of the New Testament are written from four different perspectives, to four altogether different audiences, with some similarities, they are hard pressed to find anything to ridicule,  so the have to make things up.

And, as I said previously, many Bible Scoffers will say that they 'believe' Jesus was a real historical person, but just not the Christ. Which begs the question: From WHERE did they get the evidence to believe in the historicity of Jesus? And the ONLY answer possible STARTS at the Firsthand Eyewitnesses of the New Testament! And, of course, this is hypocrisy! Which is very funny (both ironic AND ha ha!).



#325 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 October 2013 - 07:54 AM

Basically, Salsa, Bible Scoffers simply don't like miracles. As I said before, if there were NO comparative similarities, they would call the Bible bogus; if there were 100 percent similarities, they would decry collusion; but since the Gospels of the New Testament are written from four different perspectives, to four altogether different audiences, with some similarities, they are hard pressed to find anything to ridicule,  so the have to make things up.

And, as I said previously, many Bible Scoffers will say that they 'believe' Jesus was a real historical person, but just not the Christ. Which begs the question: From WHERE did they get the evidence to believe in the historicity of Jesus? And the ONLY answer possible STARTS at the Firsthand Eyewitnesses of the New Testament! And, of course, this is hypocrisy! Which is very funny (both ironic AND ha ha!).

 

These are both good points :)


 



#326 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:35 PM

Re post 322: "at the end of the day, the Life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension of Jesus is corroborated by ALL FOUR GOSPELS".

Surely the Ascencion is only mentioned explicitly by the author of Luke-Acts? The reference in Mark 16:19 isn't found in the earliest texts. A straight reading of gJohn is that Jesus ascended and returned within days of his resurrection appearance but this isn't what is usually meant by the Ascension.

Re gospel similarities and differences in post 324: one would expect witness statements of the same career to differ slightly in terms of details and what was said but to maintain an overall similar structure. As previously mentioned, the Greek texts of the Synoptics are often nearly identical in discussing certain episodes (e.g. the wording of the Transfiguration accounts to which neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke would have been witnesses). There are important differences in the overall timetables of Jesus' ministry. The Synoptics cite the cleansing of the temple in the passion week as the impetus for Jesus' arrest whereas in John this event takes place two years before His death (in gJohn it is the raising of Lazarus that prompts His arrest).

Should we interpret the gospels as witness testimonies or the result of interviews? The gospel writers report private conversations such as between Jesus and Nicodemus and Jesus and Satan (at the Temptation).

Would this thread be an appropriate place to discuss the dates and authorship of the gospels?

#327 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:40 PM

Re post 322: "at the end of the day, the Life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension of Jesus is corroborated by ALL FOUR GOSPELS".

Surely the Ascencion is only mentioned explicitly by the author of Luke-Acts? .
 

Let's get this straight... Are you insinuating that NONE of the other Gospels recognize the resurrected Christ? Is this really where you want to go?
 

 The reference in Mark 16:19 isn't found in the earliest texts. A straight reading of gJohn is that Jesus ascended and returned within days of his resurrection appearance but this isn't what is usually meant by the Ascension.
 

 

Do you have Contemporaneous evidence for as "Early Text" conspiracy theory for Mark, or are you merely adhering to the claims of modern day Bible scoffers, and skeptics that are centuries removed from the actual events? Also, is the Mark 16:19 reference that you posted, the ONLY reference to the resurrected Christ?

 



#328 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 21 October 2013 - 06:33 PM

Re post 327: "Let's get this straight... Are you insinuating that NONE of the other Gospels recognize the resurrected Christ? Is this really where you want to go?"

No, of course not, where would you get that from? All four canonical gospels report an empty tomb. My second paragraph in post 326 deals exclusively with a subsequent ascension ( into heaven).

Re post 327: "Do you have Contemporaneous evidence for as "Early Text" conspiracy theory for Mark, or are you merely adhering to the claims of modern day Bible scoffers, and skeptics that are centuries removed from the actual events? Also, is the Mark 16:19 reference that you posted, the ONLY reference to the resurrected Christ?"

I've never heard of such a conspiracy; the translations I grew up with (NIV, Good News) all bracketed Mark 16:9-20 and footnoted that it wasn't in the earliest texts - would translators be wrong on such a matter?

#329 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 10:09 PM

Re post 327: "Let's get this straight... Are you insinuating that NONE of the other Gospels recognize the resurrected Christ? Is this really where you want to go?"

No, of course not, where would you get that from? All four canonical gospels report an empty tomb. My second paragraph in post 326 deals exclusively with a subsequent ascension ( into heaven).
 

No?!?! Good... We have that straightened out…. Where do I get that from you ask; because you attempt to insinuate (spuriously) that the other Gospels don’t specifically mention the ascension, when in fact ALL FOUR acknowledge it as a CORNER STONE of the ministry of Jesus through their writings, and as theirs as well (as do ALL the other books of the New Testament, because WITHOUT the ascension, the Christ would not be with the father ). So, when you say – “Surely the Ascension is only mentioned explicitly by the author of Luke-Acts?” is a bit disingenuous, in the face of the facts!

 

First – It doesn’t HAVE to be mentioned “explicitly” in every book of the New Testament (As it does in BOTH Mark and Luke) because in Acts 1:2 it “explicitly” states that ALL the apostles were there! Do you have contemporaneous evidence to counter this, or are you simply going to submit your presuppositions as some sort of evidence?

 

Second – Peter was quite explicit in Acts 2:29-36 during his dissertation to the Israelites! Do you have contemporaneous evidence to counter this, or are you simply going to submit your presuppositions as some sort of evidence?

 

Third – Paul was quite explicit in his letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 4:8-10)! Do you have contemporaneous evidence to counter this, or are you simply going to submit your presuppositions as some sort of evidence?

 

Fourth –Paul was quite explicit in his letter to the Philippians (Philippians 3:17-21)! Do you have contemporaneous evidence to counter this, or are you simply going to submit your presuppositions as some sort of evidence?

 

Fifth – Peter was quite explicit in 1st Peter 3:21-22! Do you have contemporaneous evidence to counter this, or are you simply going to submit your presuppositions as some sort of evidence?

 

Sixth – Stephen was quite explicit in his Polemic to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:55-60! Do you have contemporaneous evidence to counter this, or are you simply going to submit your presuppositions as some sort of evidence?

 

Seventh – John was quite explicit when he quoted Jesus in John 14:12! Do you have contemporaneous evidence to counter this, or are you simply going to submit your presuppositions as some sort of evidence?

 

 


Re post 327: "Do you have Contemporaneous evidence for as "Early Text" conspiracy theory for Mark, or are you merely adhering to the claims of modern day Bible scoffers, and skeptics that are centuries removed from the actual events? Also, is the Mark 16:19 reference that you posted, the ONLY reference to the resurrected Christ?"

I've never heard of such a conspiracy; the translations I grew up with (NIV, Good News) all bracketed Mark 16:9-20 and footnoted that it wasn't in the earliest texts - would translators be wrong on such a matter?

 

 

A bracketing of the book of Mark is a resultant of a form of criticism called “Higher criticism”, which has its origins in the 17th century. Which begs the question; How many centuries is this type of criticism removed from the historical actions?

Which begs the further question; are you EVER going to provide contemporaneous evidence, or are you going to continue on this vendetta of presupposed opining?

I might suggest that YOU refrain from posting a response, in THIS thread, until you answer the following question:

Do you have one shred of contemporaneous evidence to support any of your claims; YES or NO?    



#330 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 23 October 2013 - 07:24 PM

Re post 329: "Do you have one shred of contemporaneous evidence to support any of your claims; YES or NO?"

Yes, my comment in post 315 re the OP and subsequent responses to further questions drew upon the gospels and referred to early texts. i am not sure what else would count as contemporaneous.

I shall not post in this thread until further notified. If anyone is offended by what I have written re the Transfiguration or Ascension they should send me a private message and I will explain my comment.

#331 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:27 PM

As Christians, we believe that the bible is the word of God. We have no doubts of this, we believe it 100%.

My questions to the atheists and agnostics would be:

Why don't you believe the bible?

Have you read it?

Do you know its history? (i.e. written over a 1500 year time span)

What was the purpose of the men who wrote the bible?

Do you acknowledge or deny the fact that there are 100s of 1000s of prophecies in the bible, many which have come to true with great accuracy?


I suppose I could go on and on with questions, but I guess this will do for a start. Look forward to seeing your responses. smile.png

 

I think that the reason is multi-fold. I speculate that there's a truly deceptive mechansm behind their mind of thinking, that they think it only makes sense to believe something supported by evidence.

 

======

This is regarding to how a truth can be detected by humans. Almost all historical truth (a one time event in a particular point in a timeline) are not supported by empirical data. A historical truth cannot reach humans through the means of empirical data. If you insist on empirical data about an event happened in a long past, then disregarding the event due to lack of evidence, this process is a self-deception process. it is because by the very nature of any historical event is that it lacks empirical evidence. 

 

That said, the deceptive leverage used over and over again by the atheists is that fossil records support the existence of, say, homo-erectus. So the same evidence should apply to the existence of any individuals such as the gods. This is a truly deceptive approach, as the evidence can never be extended to support the existence of one in an individual level. For example, if you would like to gather the empirical evidence for the existence of a hom-erectus named John some 1 million years ago. And then refuse to believe his existence due to the lack of evidence, you are playing your own game. As in the first place that it is not possible to collect the evidence of an existence of a specific individual in that age. Then you make use of this impossibility to support your point of view the John never existed. This remains your own game.

 

Just like any history, we have to rely on human witnessing to effectively approach a truth. We rely on books/documents written by other humans (i.e. historians) to approach such a truth, not empirical evidence which simply not available in most situations. What left is the question that how valid those human witnessing are.

 

Moreover, the Christianity claim is more like a warning that "there's bomb under your house!". The one who made this claim is somehow dead (as a history). Under the assumption that he knew the truth, then how can this truth be passed to others for them to make a run ? No one has the burden to give you the proof. You run if you believe the message, you stay if you refuse to believe. The truth will come with the blast.

=====

 

By far, I failed to see any human documentations which is capable of explaining this behavior, that is, the deceptive leverage employed by humans in a massive way. Perhaps the only answer available is ,

 

 

2 Corinthians 4:4
4  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.



#332 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 22 November 2013 - 12:32 PM

 

 
2 Corinthians 4:44  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


That is my least favorite passage in the entirety of the Bible.

#333 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 November 2013 - 04:06 PM

That is my least favorite passage in the entirety of the Bible.

Tell us more. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users