RunRyder RC
WATCH
 140 pages [ <<    <     102     ( 103 )     104     NEXT    >> ] 73952 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics News & Politics › Is The Bible True?
04-08-2014 07:11 PM  5 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
We can certainly agree on that!
Then we therefore certainly agree on the level of credibility and evidence required for the two types of reports, then, don't we? Hint: of course we do.

A historical account of a presidency describes a very mundane, typical set of events that happen on planet earth in the US all the time. Therefore, it is highly likely to be a trustworthy account whose truth value we can have some reasonably high level of confidence in.

A historical account of some street preacher rising from the dead and wandering about town, however, describes an utterly extraordinary event, one that is utterly unattested out here in the real world. Therefore, such an account is exceedingly unlikely to be trustworthy. Its resemblance to other mythological accounts instead reduces it's credibility as a truthful account to nearly zero.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 07:14 PM  5 years ago
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
uj, I'll give a more complete reply later.

But you said "nearly zero". we'll see how near.
Never, ever, ever, ever give up.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 07:18 PM  5 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
uj, I'll give a more complete reply later.
But you said "nearly zero". we'll see how near.
But remember: given the extraordinary nature of the resurrection claim, any ordinary set of evidence you try to pass off will not pass muster.

Like the claim, the evidence will have to be extraordinary as well.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 07:22 PM  5 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
There is not one aspect of the resurrection considered to have the slightest bit of historicity.

Reality states it did not happen.

Only mythology states it did.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 07:31 PM  5 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
There is not one aspect of the resurrection considered to have the slightest bit of historicity.

Reality states it did not happen.

Only mythology states it did.
Exactly. In fact, its situation is even worse than that:
- no other historical account of anything like a supernaturally based resurrection has ever been corroborated either.
- no modern account of any resurrection has ever been corroborated.
- no modern resurrection has ever been reproduced or observed.

The latter, by the way, an actual recorded account of a modern resurrection would be required at a minimum to take seriously any historical account of one. You need at least one existing example to establish its grounds as a real event before you can take seriously any account of a similar occurrence in the past.

So the resurrection has a long, long way to go right out of the gate.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 07:57 PM  5 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The whole thing is the NT makes two different cases for the resurrection.

One a physical resurrection, and the other a spiritual one, You know imagination.

It very well could have started with a spiritual resurrection that evolved into a physical one.

And that is the currect state of where we are at, historically speaking.

Mythology.

Take a look at Paul, and then ask yourself if a man was really viewed as physically rising to a heaven, Paul would have wrote more about it.

Paul is almost silent on a earthly jesus physically rising to heaven.

YOUR BEST SOURCE is almost completely silent on the physical resurrection.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 08:00 PM  5 years ago
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Hmm..uj states
The latter, by the way, an actual recorded account of a modern resurrection would be required at a minimum to take seriously any historical account of one.
why do state that? I'm interested in this very high bar being set- how is it that history must be somehow repeatable to be true?

And if you were given sufficient evidence of someone being raised from the dead within your lifetime, supernaturally, would you consider changing your mind about Jesus' resurrection? In other words, if given sufficient evidence, could you believe in the risen Jesus as Christ?
Never, ever, ever, ever give up.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 08:08 PM  5 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
why do state that? I'm interested in this very high bar being set- how is it that history must be somehow repeatable to be true?
Because of the very high bar being set by the claim. I already explained this to you. The claim is extraordinary so the evidence for that claim has to be extraordinary also.
And if you were given sufficient evidence of someone being raised from the dead within your lifetime, supernaturally, would you consider changing your mind about Jesus' resurrection? In other words, if given sufficient evidence, could you believe in the risen Jesus as Christ?
Of course. But just "because it's in the bible" or "500 people swore up and down that Johnny resurrected from the graveyard", etc., is not sufficient evidence. Or to be more exact, that "evidence" isn't sufficiently extraordinary - it doesn't match the nature of the claim. I just explained this to you also.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 08:36 PM  5 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
or "500 people
I can write 500 people very easily and state it as fact using rhetoric as a means to pursuade people. Aristotles teachings are obvious in Pauls wirting.

500 people witnessed me doing a double back from 50' about 30 years ago.

And now you cannot prove that did not happen. WOW! its a miracle!!!! that many people it must be true!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 08:45 PM  5 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
500 people witnessed me doing a double back from 50' about 30 years ago.
And now you cannot prove that did not happen. WOW! its a miracle!!!! that many people it must be true!
Exactly. And similarly for claims like "the 12 apostles (or whoever) defied Rome and risked their lives to speak about the resurrection of JC". That's the same quality of historical report or "evidence" - it's very ordinary, merely a form of hyperbolic hearsay and nothing more.

That does NOT pass muster as evidence for an event as incredulous as a resurrection.

This is not arbitrary either, but just good common sense. The more extraordinary the claim, the greater your skepticism should be towards it and the more extraordinary the evidence should be before you accept the claim.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 09:47 PM  5 years ago
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
outhouse, you can do acrobatics, and very fine of you- commendable. Hardly a claim on the same level importance! What does anyone really risk to support such a claim. However, I'd like to see you try to get 500 people to attest or "witness" to your feat of prowess.

Well, let's set this in context:
1. "Johnny" in this case did extrodary works that most would say qualified as miracles (opening the eyse of blind men, lame walking, man raised from the dead at Jesus' word, feeding a multitude with little, etc)
2. The claimant said He would rise from the dead
3. The people close to Him came to believe that He did rise from the dead, and reported seeing Him and even eating with Him. Hundreds of people, on different occasions, within a set time frame.
4. No body.
5. Fullfillment of many prophesies recorded hundreds of years before the events unfolded.
5. Continuing growth of His followers, then and throughout history. Remember, the church EXPLODED in numbers at the very time when this was all recent events, within a lifetime.

Now, if all of that is "heresy" or "hyperbole" by necessity, because of the nature of the claim, the there is no possible path forward.

In other words, I hear you saying that claim of miraculous must necessarily be untrue in history. However, if the supernatural is not proven IMPOSSIBLE, then claims of supernatural events in history should only have to meet the same standards as any other historical event. How we interpret the events is a separate subject.

You've claimed that it didn't happen, but offered no evidence that it did not, nor compelling reason why we should discount the Gospels, Acts, or other NT writings, or early church history, or accounts from non-church sources.

Answer this- are miracles- supernatural events- possible?
Never, ever, ever, ever give up.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 10:11 PM  5 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
1. "Johnny" in this case did extrodary works that most would say qualified as miracles (opening the eyse of blind men, lame walking, man raised from the dead at Jesus' word, feeding a multitude with little, etc)
No. You only have a report (of a report of a ...) that this happened 2000+ years ago. So you're already off in the weeds saying it actually happened - this is not acceptable evidence for making that claim. And so on for 2-4.
5. Fullfillment of many prophesies recorded hundreds of years before the events unfolded.
No. Biblical prophesy isn't really prophesy; I wrote about this in one of my responses to one of TLE's parrots.
5. Continuing growth of His followers, then and throughout history. Remember, the church EXPLODED in numbers at the very time when this was all recent events, within a lifetime.
Sorry, this runs afoul of the argument from popularity. The notion that if something is popular, it is therefore true. This is fallacious reasoning; the popularity of Christianity does not establish the truth value of the beliefs, including the alleged resurrection.
Now, if all of that is "heresy" or "hyperbole" by necessity, because of the nature of the claim, the there is no possible path forward.
For you, yes, exactly right.
In other words, I hear you saying that claim of miraculous must necessarily be untrue in history.
Wrong. Quite the opposite. Miracles are, by definition, miraculous. So their behavior must be miraculous also. At a bare minimum, they must be true in the present (demonstrable) before we can consider the truth value of past claims of them. That's part of how we evaluate any historical account of any claimed phenomenon or event.

Miracles should be reproducible by the claimant at the very very bare minimum. Same with the supernatural - if it's that powerful, it ought to be totally obvious both now and in the past. Raise someone from the dead yourself. Or get your preacher to do it. Or anyone supposedly sufficiently spiritually advanced to do it. Then you got a start on a good case for the miracle claim being real.
However, if the supernatural is not proven IMPOSSIBLE, then claims of supernatural events in history should only have to meet the same standards as any other historical event. How we interpret the events is a separate subject.
No. This is an old, tired apologist scam. It's called defining the claimed phenomenon or event into existence. Here you're simply trying to change the definition of supernatural and miraculous into something else to relieve yourself of the burden of proof (which I think you're aware you can't meet with the definitions as-is). The problem there is, once the supernatural and miraculous have been watered down, redefined, watered down some more and redefined again until they become mundane (that is, something you can plausibly provide evidence for) they're not supernatural or miraculous anymore.
Answer this- are miracles- supernatural events- possible?
It's not our job to answer that question. That's your job, because you're the one claiming the supernatural and miracles are real, not us.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 10:16 PM  5 years ago
Life_Nerd

rrVeteran

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
You've claimed that it didn't happen, but offered no evidence that it did not
FAIL!!!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2014 11:24 PM  5 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Answer this- are miracles- supernatural events- possible?
No they are not.

To date every claim is only percieved as such.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-09-2014 02:50 AM  5 years ago
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
outhouse, you've plainly (perhaps rashly) stated:
are miracles- supernatural events- possible?

No they are not.
So, that is an extraordinary claim. You must produce extraordinary proof. Please prove that miracles are not possible.
Never, ever, ever, ever give up.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-09-2014 02:53 AM  5 years ago
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
uj,
the question I pose is not "have miraculous events occurred", but

ARE THEY POSSIBLE?

That is for you to answer.
Never, ever, ever, ever give up.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-09-2014 02:57 AM  5 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
the question I pose is not "have miraculous events occurred", but
ARE THEY POSSIBLE?
That is for you to answer.
No no, that's your job. I'm not the one making claims. I have no reason yet to believe either way whether "miraculous events occurred" or "miraculous events are possible" or not. No persuasive evidence has been presented by you or any Christian in either direction and I don't just take claimants at their word. Or immediately trust a dusty book of tall tales written thousands of years ago.

You are the one claiming "miraculous events occurred" or "miraculous events are possible" so you bear the burden of proving they happened or are possible.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-09-2014 07:09 AM  5 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
So, that is an extraordinary claim.
Actually, my claim follows reality.

Not YOUR made up ancient mythology.

It is on the person making the claim to back it up. If you say miracles are real, then prove it.

I say you cannot nor will you ever be able to prove anything related to divinity or miracles or your imaginative gods.
You must produce extraordinary proof. Please prove that miracles are not possible
You don't have logic

Not any!

Your logic amounts to me saying yellow ducky created the earth, not your scum bag murdering piece of dog crap god and his boy. If you cannot prove me wrong, it must be true.

If you cannot prove the yellow ducky miracles are not true, they must be true..... DDUUHH!!!!!!

Here what number am I thinking about? WRONG
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-09-2014 11:43 AM  5 years ago
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Your logic amounts to me saying yellow ducky created the earth, not your scum bag murdering piece of dog crap god and his boy
Clearly out you have some issues here with anything you can't control. Between you and hoggys reaction to apologetics ( but by the way hoggy why do you show anger towards it as if it's a human? It's just a different way of looking at things factually from a different perspective. ) you guys are showing a lot of buried anger and really need to seek some professional help.

As far a miracles go they happen around you every day Reguardless of if you don't realize where they come from. Ask people around you if they gave ever seen one. Again you will be in the minority of those who has not.
You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-09-2014 01:09 PM  5 years ago
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
outhouse, I think you have deep seated problems with GOD and you are so clinging on to your sin, that you cannot fathom ever being free.

Give it over to God. Repent, my young friend; you are on a path of destruction.

You made a claim (in absolute terms) that the miraculous is not possible. I'm asking what brought you to that remarkable conclusion, and what logical construct or emprical evidence you might offer to uphold such a view.

We're going no further on the "evidence for the Bible" thing, because your issue is GOD. And He will not let up on you, out of His great Love for you, outhouse, and because He wishes for you to "come in".

I submit that miracles are possible; it is consistent with the existence of God, and His nature. Whether they occurred or not is a separate, though important, question.
Never, ever, ever, ever give up.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 140 pages [ <<    <     102     ( 103 )     104     NEXT    >> ] 73952 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics News & Politics › Is The Bible True?
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 14  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, October 20 - 4:01 pm - Copyright © 2000-2019 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online