|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2016 : 16:21:48 [Permalink]
|
| To Dave, I apologize I did misread read your statements let me re read them again and try and answer them. |
 |
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2016 : 16:52:11 [Permalink]
|
| Okay Dave W. I re read your first post and am confused. Who's views are you stating? Yours? Well it certainly isn't the view of the NT or any of the early church fathers. The historicity of Jesus is irrelevant Paul makes it clear that not only did it matter that Jesus was a real flesh and bone man but that that same man died and rose from the dead and was seen alive. So the evidence is necessary and needful for salvaltion in the NT sense. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2016 : 18:55:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos2
Okay Dave W. I re read your first post and am confused. Who's views are you stating? Yours? Well it certainly isn't the view of the NT or any of the early church fathers. |
It's the view of many Protestants today, is it not? The faith I need to have to be saved is that Jesus paid for my sins. Seems to me that whether he existed is irrelevant to that idea, because sinning (and paying for it) isn't something that can be quantitatively determined. There cannot be evidence for sin. Only God can judge, after all. So for all I know God intended the story to be metaphorical, Jesus never existed, but my "confidence" that my sins are paid for is enough for salvation.| Paul makes it clear that not only did it matter that Jesus was a real flesh and bone man but that that same man died and rose from the dead and was seen alive. So the evidence is necessary and needful for salvaltion in the NT sense. |
Why should I consider Paul reliable? Assuming he was, where is the evidence that Jesus existed? The Bible is unreliable (and so Paul is unreliable), and we've been over Jophesus and Tacitus ad nauseum. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2016 : 22:49:23 [Permalink]
|
| To Dave, so these gnostic views are yours? And we just flush Joe, Tact, and any others who support the NT view down the drain cause of "WHY"??? |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2016 : 22:57:45 [Permalink]
|
Paul not reliable really? And your source on this NEW KNOWLEDGE IS ??? Latest news on NT news Scholar ?????? told our SFN Dave W. Paul is not reliable. Well that settles it all churches will be closed on Sunday all books on Paul and NT will be burned because Dave W says so.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2016 : 08:59:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos2
To Dave, so these gnostic views are yours? And we just flush Joe, Tact, and any others who support the NT view down the drain cause of "WHY"??? |
We've been over this. At best, they were reporting things they'd learned from earlier Christian sources, which were hardly unbiased.| Paul not reliable really? And your source on this NEW KNOWLEDGE IS ??? |
The fact that six of the 13 letters in Paul's name weren't written by Paul, which is a small part of the mountain of evidence that the Bible as a whole is unreliable. It's hardly "new knowledge" that the Bible contains many errors, internal contradictions and fantasies that mar its utility as a history.| Well that settles it all churches will be closed on Sunday all books on Paul and NT will be burned because Dave W says so. |
Such hyperbole makes it seem like you're arguing from a calm and enlightened place, DA. [/sarcasm] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2016 : 09:55:58 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, the belief's of "many Protestants today" , which according to you seem to include that Jesus didn't need to exist to save us are irrelevant. As I said before what is relevant is what Jesus said and did. We have this knowledge based on the 27 books of the NT. Now you're once again bringing up the "Christ was a myth".Created by who Dave and for what reason? You claim that Luke/Acts wasn't written by someone who wasn't a very accurate historian as in his opening statements of his gospel imply and to which reliable historical scholarship attest to. Namely, but not only Sir William Ramsay, who was taught that the book of Acts was the product of a second century religious hack with an agenda but as he actually began his research he came to a very different conclusion that the writer was very knowledgeable of early and mid first century and could only have produced it if he were there [ http://www.str.org/articles/the-new-testament-is-archaeologically-verifiable#.V0B1FJErLIU ] Now if all we have are these two books we have the REASON there is a Christian church today. Again you dismiss all other non christian sources as just reciting what they " were reporting things they'd learned from earlier Christian sources, which were hardly unbiased." Even if that were true if we discount what Josephus says about Jesus he still mentions John the Baptist and James, Tacticus dovetails into what Luke says in Acts about the Jews being exiled from Rome (Acts18:2). Pliny outlines a Christian Sunday service where they "sung unto Christ as a God" that was written in 114AD. Even the Jews didn't deny Jesus lived or performed miracles but he did it by sorcery. What I'm trying to say is we "have many confirming lines of convergence from outsider testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability. Even the most critical historians can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the perfect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death." (THE REAL JESUS, LUKE TIMOTHY JOHNSON. pp's 122-123). And the BIG QUESTION IS WHY?! If as his followers said "We were hoping that it was He who WAS GOING TO REDEEM ISRAEL" (Lk. 24:21)[emph. mine] What motivated them 50 days latter to proclaim Him risen? Again I point out these were strict monotheistic Jews who are now using terms like He is the Word and the Word is God,'that God would raise Christ to sit on His throne'Acts 2:21) and that He (Jesus) is now "Both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36) because they saw Him resurrected this along with the many prophices that were fulfilled and the conversion of Paul give me assurance that what I believe is true. You on the otherhand, must deny historical evidence or at least reinterpret it and at the end of the day can't answer my question why do we have a NT and the Church? |
| Edited by - darwinalogos2 on 05/21/2016 10:00:16 |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2016 : 18:10:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos2
Dave, the belief's of "many Protestants today" , which according to you seem to include that Jesus didn't need to exist to save us are irrelevant. |
All I can go on is what Christians tell me they believe, because they can all point to the same Bible verses and tell me they mean different things.| As I said before what is relevant is what Jesus said and did. We have this knowledge based on the 27 books of the NT. |
Which aren't reliable.| Now you're once again bringing up the "Christ was a myth". |
You are the one who started this thread, remember?| Created by who Dave and for what reason? |
Are you kidding? Why does anyone start a religion?| You claim that Luke/Acts wasn't written by someone who wasn't a very accurate historian as in his opening statements of his gospel imply... |
No, you claimed that Luke was a "top notch historian" and then refused to provide any evidence to support your claim. Instead, you offered two standards by which I am also a "top notch historian," and so I reject those standards as meaningful.| ...and to which reliable historical scholarship attest to. Namely, but not only Sir William Ramsay, who was taught that the book of Acts was the product of a second century religious hack with an agenda but as he actually began his research he came to a very different conclusion that the writer was very knowledgeable of early and mid first century and could only have produced it if he were there [ http://www.str.org/articles/the-new-testament-is-archaeologically-verifiable#.V0B1FJErLIU ] |
Guess what? There is no archeological record of any miracles.
Again: no matter how many names and places Luke got right, that doesn't mean everything else he wrote must be correct. If it did, then The Hunt for Red October must be a documentary.| Now if all we have are these two books we have the REASON there is a Christian church today. |
Why?| Again you dismiss all other non christian sources as just reciting what they " were reporting things they'd learned from earlier Christian sources, which were hardly unbiased." Even if that were true if we discount what Josephus says about Jesus he still mentions John the Baptist and James... |
So what? Faith in the existence of John or James will not get me salvation.
Besides, doesn't Jesus having a sibling require a twisted translation for "brother?"| ...Tacticus dovetails into what Luke says in Acts about the Jews being exiled from Rome (Acts18:2). |
Faith that the Jews were exiled from Rome will not get me salvation.| Pliny outlines a Christian Sunday service where they "sung unto Christ as a God" that was written in 114AD. |
I have no doubts that Christians existed in the first century and worshipped Jesus as a God. That doesn't mean that Jesus was actually God.| Even the Jews didn't deny Jesus lived or performed miracles but he did it by sorcery. |
Which is as ridiculous an idea as that he was a god.| What I'm trying to say is we "have many confirming lines of convergence from outsider testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability. Even the most critical historians can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the perfect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death." (THE REAL JESUS, LUKE TIMOTHY JOHNSON. pp's 122-123). |
Which is all irrelevant to my salvation.| And the BIG QUESTION IS WHY?! If as his followers said "We were hoping that it was He who WAS GOING TO REDEEM ISRAEL" (Lk. 24:21)[emph. mine] |
Hope doesn't grant me salvation, either.| What motivated them 50 days latter to proclaim Him risen? |
I don't know. What has prompted to news media today to claim that someone was throwing chairs at the Nevada state Democratic Convention?| Again I point out these were strict monotheistic Jews who are now using terms like He is the Word and the Word is God,'that God would raise Christ to sit on His throne'Acts 2:21) and that He (Jesus) is now "Both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36) because they saw Him resurrected this along with the many prophices that were fulfilled and the conversion of Paul give me assurance that what I believe is true. |
Your standard of evidence must be much lower than mine. [Shrug]| You on the otherhand, must deny historical evidence or at least reinterpret it and at the end of the day can't answer my question why do we have a NT and the Church? |
By that standard, any religion that exists today must be true. So Vishnu exists. And Allah is the one God and Mohammed is his prophet. And by following the teaching of Buddha, I can gain enlightenment.
Again, by the standard you just set, any religion I can't explain must be true. Any religion. You can't cherry-pick Christianity by itself for this standard, you have to apply the exact same logic to any religion that has, does or might exist. And that forces you to believe almost all of them. When will you join the Jains, DA?
The only one I can explain is Scientology, and we both know it's false. But I know why. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2016 : 22:30:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos2
Dave, you don't have clue what historians do to determine what is real or not so i'm just going to educate you... |
You offered two criteria as to what makes a "top notch historian":A - Get a lot of people/places correct
B - Includes a lot of trivia Again, by that standard, I am also a top-notch historian. I say your preferred top-notch historian is wrong. How can you choose between us?Tease.| ...cause you locked up in your Hume'in anti-supernaturlism |
Misspelled buzzwords. How can I ever compete?! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
The myth that Jesus is a myth.
