Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Can you point me to a text which offers empirical proof that any god actually exists? Otherwise it's just the biggest collection of he said/she said stories.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
Where have I tried to shut you down?see again you say "quoted" as if it actually happened, you have and furthermore no one has any idea if it really did get said
think your mask is unravelling if i'm honest
why can't you get past the fact the bible is just a collection of stories, the old testament barely has any credibility anymore as most of it is just plain daft
the new testament just because you try and shut me down with your soundbite doesn't mean i cant debate it, i know enough about it through my background and i have enough ability to re read the bits i need to, so will you just stop this high and mighty stance you take
textual criticism of the bible is the minutiae and in no way does it make any of it true if you decide something is one way or the other
the omipotent god claim is not on the shoulders of the non believer to prove it doesn't, it is squarely on those who do to present good reasons why,
if they say it does, well then show me, i'm all eyes and ears ,always have been
The word quoted doesn’t necessarily imply someone has actually said it, I mean the gospels have quoted him as saying that. What mask is that exactly? Because I don’t think the entire Bible is completely made up, which it obviously isn’t, that makes me what, some sort of Christian? The problem I have is people are making arguments that are already covered in the New Testament and passing them off with incredible confidence when they haven’t bothered to read it, which I’m not saying you have but others have.
I’m not going to argue with you if you think there’s no god, I’m not going to argue if you don’t believe the miracles or resurrection happened. But I will argue about textual criticism, as well as inconsistencies and arguments already being covered in the New Testament. I never said the textual criticism makes it true. I just think it proves the existence of a messianic preacher called Yeshua (Jesus), who had followers that included Peter and later Paul and he was crucified.
I agree it’s on the believer to prove their claims, but they aren’t going to and taking the tactic of “it’s all bollocks anyway” gets us going round in circles. The best chance of convincing someone against their faith is to show where things don’t stack up in their own scripture, as I’ve done with Paul Simpson and waiting a response. Scholarship is a hobby of mine and maybe it isn’t for you but the reason I’m coming across as high and mighty is because there’s a lot of ignorance on display.
The Quran, as an example, states that the book is absolutely perfect, God doesn’t make mistakes and this book comes from God. Yet it gets Old/New Testament figures mixed up, sometimes by thousands of years. I’m much more likely to convince a Muslim he’s wrong and make a difference by going through this with a fine tooth comb to point out the errors than I am to shout “sky fairy” at him.
Most biographical historical documents are he said/she said, that’s why we study the different sources to work out what’s historically accurate.Can you point me to a text which offers empirical proof that any god actually exists? Otherwise it's just the biggest collection of he said/she said stories.
I’m not and have never made an argument on this website for the supernatural claims.
it may not be intentional but each time you go on about not understanding the new testament because most of us are not biblical scholars so we can't have informed opinionsWhere have I tried to shut you down?
the mask is your apparent defence of Christianity, i'll just leave that there, if i'm wrong, i'm wrongThe word quoted doesn’t necessarily imply someone has actually said it, I mean the gospels have quoted him as saying that. What mask is that exactly? Because I don’t think the entire Bible is completely made up, which it obviously isn’t, that makes me what, some sort of Christian? The problem I have is people are making arguments that are already covered in the New Testament and passing them off with incredible confidence when they haven’t bothered to read it, which I’m not saying you have but others have.
the bible is not made up at all its there for all to see, it actually did get written, facetious i know
its the content
this is where we differ, i don't see where any textual arguments make it true that this man absolutely existed, not saying he didn'tI’m not going to argue with you if you think there’s no god, I’m not going to argue if you don’t believe the miracles or resurrection happened. But I will argue about textual criticism, as well as inconsistencies and arguments already being covered in the New Testament. I never said the textual criticism makes it true. I just think it proves the existence of a messianic preacher called Yeshua (Jesus), who had followers that included Peter and later Paul and he was crucified.
but generations later non eyewitness texts(which don't exist by the way) don't prove a thing
absolutely true all i ask for is evidenceI agree it’s on the believer to prove their claims, but they aren’t going to and taking the tactic of “it’s all bollocks anyway” gets us going round in circles. The best chance of convincing someone against their faith is to show where things don’t stack up in their own scripture, as I’ve done with Paul Simpson and waiting a response. Scholarship is a hobby of mine and maybe it isn’t for you but the reason I’m coming across as high and mighty is because there’s a lot of ignorance on display.
The Quran, as an example, states that the book is absolutely perfect, God doesn’t make mistakes and this book comes from God. Yet it gets Old/New Testament figures mixed up, sometimes by thousands of years. I’m much more likely to convince a Muslim he’s wrong and make a difference by going through this with a fine tooth comb to point out the errors than I am to shout “sky fairy” at him.
But I’ve been recently directing it at famous commentators like Dillahunty and Fry. I appreciate the likelihood of people who trained to be scholars on here is very slim so I’ve tried to move away from being critical of individuals on this website, unless they refuse to accept facts. If Paul Simpson comes back with something ridiculous to my question about Judas, I’ll do the same to him.it may not be intentional but each time you go on about not understanding the new testament because most of us are not biblical scholars so we can't have informed opinions
the mask is your apparent defence of Christianity, i'll just leave that there, if i'm wrong, i'm wrong
the bible is not made up at all its there for all to see, it actually did get written, facetious i know
its the content
this is where we differ, i don't see where any textual arguments make it true that this man absolutely existed, not saying he didn't
but generations later non eyewitness texts(which don't exist by the way) don't prove a thing
absolutely true all i ask for is evidence
Some of the Bible just didn’t happen, some of that intentional, some not intentional. The New Testament has far more provable historical accuracy but that does not mean the supernatural claims happened.
Textual criticism is the verification of documents and what’s in them by comparing differing copies and variants within those copies. It’s the process as to which we arrive at knowing what was in Mark, for example. If we find 50 manuscripts of Mark dated to 70ad onwards and 45 have exactly the same content, then we can be confident these 45 are more accurate to the original, especially if the other 5 are all independently different and therefore bad copies or manipulated. That’s just an example.
To go back to what I’ve said previously, not only are the gospels taken as biographical accounts by scholars, not necessarily entirely accurate accounts I must point out, but we also have Paul writing about meeting James (Jesus’s brother) and Peter (Jesus’s best pal). All of this being written independently of the gospels.
If you want to make an argument for John writing through bias to change the narrative then I won’t argue with that but the evidence for this messianic Jewish preacher called Jesus existing and being crucified is overwhelming.
mate, these are copies of copies of copies, you know that, we have no idea what an original mark would look likeBut I’ve been recently directing it at famous commentators like Dillahunty and Fry. I appreciate the likelihood of people who trained to be scholars on here is very slim so I’ve tried to move away from being critical of individuals on this website, unless they refuse to accept facts. If Paul Simpson comes back with something ridiculous to my question about Judas, I’ll do the same to him.
Some of the Bible just didn’t happen, some of that intentional, some not intentional. The New Testament has far more provable historical accuracy but that does not mean the supernatural claims happened.
Textual criticism is the verification of documents and what’s in them by comparing differing copies and variants within those copies. It’s the process as to which we arrive at knowing what was in Mark, for example. If we find 50 manuscripts of Mark dated to 70ad onwards and 45 have exactly the same content, then we can be confident these 45 are more accurate to the original, especially if the other 5 are all independently different and therefore bad copies or manipulated. That’s just an example.
its the 3rd/4th century before we have complete works , plenty of time for pious fraud, mistakes etc to take place
yes he does write about it, but its at odds with the rest of his writings about christ where its as if he is a mythologial figureTo go back to what I’ve said previously, not only are the gospels taken as biographical accounts by scholars, not necessarily entirely accurate accounts I must point out, but we also have Paul writing about meeting James (Jesus’s brother) and Peter (Jesus’s best pal). All of this being written independently of the gospels.
If you want to make an argument for John writing through bias to change the narrative then I won’t argue with that but the evidence for this messianic Jewish preacher called Jesus existing and being crucified is overwhelming.
i just don't think its as clear cut as you make out and that is my opinion
It would look very similar if not exactly the same as the huge amount of copies we have that are consistent with one another and found right across the region. Textual criticism weeds out copies that have been manipulated or have mistakes, that’s what the process is for.mate, these are copies of copies of copies, you know that, we have no idea what an original mark would look like
its the 3rd/4th century before we have complete works , plenty of time for pious fraud, mistakes etc to take place
yes he does write about it, but its at odds with the rest of his writings about christ where its as if he is a mythologial figure
i just don't think its as clear cut as you make out and that is my opinion
Again, it’s because he never met Jesus, his only encounter with him is via a so called vision so he only knows him as a divine being and not as a man. He talks about Peter and James as living men as he met them.
but up to first complete works who knows what we have, the copies of copies are afterIt would look very similar if not exactly the same as the huge amount of copies we have that are consistent with one another and found right across the region. Textual criticism weeds out copies that have been manipulated or have mistakes, that’s what the process is for.
Again, it’s because he never met Jesus, his only encounter with him is via a so called vision so he only knows him as a divine being and not as a man. He talks about Peter and James as living men as he met them.
The Quran, as an example, states that the book is absolutely perfect, God doesn’t make mistakes and this book comes from God. Yet it gets Old/New Testament figures mixed up, sometimes by thousands of years. I’m much more likely to convince a Muslim he’s wrong and make a difference by going through this with a fine tooth comb to point out the errors than I am to shout “sky fairy” at him.
Which Old/New Testament figure did the Qur'an got mixed up by thousands of years ?
Elizabeth and Aaron.Which Old/New Testament figure did the Qur'an got mixed up by thousands of years ?
It gets it mixed up with John the Baptists mother and a relative of Moses who lived over 1000 years before, confusing the two figures.