Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 103
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Thanks for acknowledging and correcting this.
    It is my goal to always admit when I am wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    I understand and acknowledge this, but on a side note, it is mainly the contemporary scholars that reject the traditional view held by the early church fathers. In any case whoever the writers were the historical accounts given in the Gospels of Christ's death, burial and resurrection have yet to be refuted with hard evidence to the contrary, and I leave it at that.
    The early church fathers did not have the benefit of modern science, textual criticism, recently discovered manuscripts, etc. I see no reason to favor their opinions over others.

    The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but the one who makes the claim that there was a death, burial, and resurrection, and all the other facts attending Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    The apostles didn't go around with a sign proclaiming "this way to the empty tomb," and Paul and the others didn't have to. From Pentecost on, that 1st century audience, especially Christ's enemies, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, knew EXACTLY what Paul (and others) meant when he mentioned “Christ having been resurrected from death (the grave/tomb)” in his epistles that agree with the testimony given in the Gospels concerning that very event.
    Again, you are assuming that the religious tracts known as the "Gospels" and the "Letters of Paul" are fully accurate in all their details. They weren't written for at least 20 years after the events they supposedly record, and there are many problems with internal consistency that make it clear they cannot be accepted at face value.

    And you are missing the point about the empty tomb. That argument is based on a false assumption that Christians could not go around making false claims. We know that people have started religions by making easily refutable false claims, so that argument fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Even if the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark and John, the testimony is what we look to, and they agree with the 7 epistles of Paul as well as the other epistles of the NT. The Gospels corroborate the epistles and the epistles corroborate the Gospels as evidence of their truth. So this is not just assertion, but conclusive evidence based on logic and facts.
    The fact that the books "corroborate" each other does not prove that any of them are true. The Hadith corroborates the Quran. Does that mean they are both true, and Muhammad is a prophet of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    That is a logical fallacy. You cannot begin by assuming the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true. What if some scribe added that verse? How would you know? You have no foundation for your assumption that every verse of the Bible is true. And indeed, it is an absurd assumption since there are some verses that have textual variations so we don't even know what they actually say or if they are supposed to be in the Bible.

    Your assertion that "The evidence is also seen in history by that “missing evidence” that would refute the testimony of scripture" is absurd because we have no letters of any kind from that time period. If their absence proves anything, it is that Christ did not exist at all. I've explained this at least three times now. It would be good if you responded directly to this point.
    I did not assume that the Bible is true, I first gave the evidence of Paul's 7 epistles that corroborate the Gospel testimony, and that the Gospel testimony corroborates Paul's epistles. Thus I could then give the corroborating evidence of Mt. 28:11-15. Why I said, “The evidence is given in the scriptures, though you reject that evidence,---.” Since the epistles and Gospels corroborate each other, then it stands to reason that Mt. 28:11-15 can be taken as being a reliable historical account of what occurred at the time.

    I don't quite understand what point you want me to respond to. Do you mean the point that “the absence of evidence (lack of) proves that Christ did not exist?” If this is what you mean, my answer is but we do have secular writings mentioning Christ's existence as a real human figure living in the 1st century. Josephus for one states that “John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ).
    You most certainly did assume that the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. You assumed that the record of the events at Pentecost really happened at that time, and that the Apostles went about preaching immediately after the resurrection. How do you know if any of that is true, or if it was just made up? You don't. You have merely ASSUMED the Biblical record is true, and then based your reasoning on that assumption. That is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

    As for the "secular evidence" like Josephus - it is very slight and there is evidence of it being tampered with by later Christians. Just think what the history of Mormonism would look like if the Mormons had near total control over historical documents like the Christian church after the fourth century. You point was about how there should be thousands of letters from Jerusalem debunking the Christian claims if their claims were not true. That is an illogical assertion because there are almost no documents from that time, so you can't say what that those documents would exist if they contained arguments against the empty tomb. Your argument simply does not follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Okay, I'll use your phrase, I was a “rational skeptic” when I first approached the scriptures 25 years ago. I had no presuppositions to hold me back as I told you in a prior post, so I did and could approach the scriptures with a non-bias. I have studied and continue to study the scriptures, Hebrew-Greek sources, commentaries, etc. in depth and have found the scriptures to be reliable. Yes there are scriptures that are difficult, but I have strong faith now, not skepticism that further study will give me the answers as to their meaning.
    What do you mean when you say that you have found the Scriptures reliable? Reliable in what way? What did you confirm and how did you confirm it?

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This thread is not intended as a place for me to give the best evidence against Christianity, my friend! Read again my opening post. I don't think you understand the problem I am trying to solve. The internet is filled with ideologues who make a career lying about things like evolution. They have a big audience of very ignorant people who repeat their lies because they think that they are "proof" against something that they don't even understand. It is pathetic in the extreme. But it is very easy to resolve if people can be encouraged to be true Truth Seekers. True Truth Seekers know that they must understand something before asserting it is false. So this is a test to see if anyone who opposes evolution is a true truth seeker. Unfortunately, no anti-evolutionist has yet shown that they know anything about evolution at all, yet some of them are willing to make fools of themselves by ignorantly declaring "evolution is bullshit."

    The problem with internet debates is that there are very few truth seekers. Folks frequently misrepresent their opponents views and so opposing sides just talk past each other. Neither side is willing to admit truth, so it becomes a waste of time. The test of a truth seeker is very simple. Anyone who thinks that some view is false must be able to articulate what that view is and the best evidence supporting it. If they refuse or can't do this they reveal themselves to be ignorant closed-minded dogmatists who reject things they know nothing of because the want to adhere to their dogmas.

    I am rather disheartened that folks are not even understanding the meaning of what a true Truth Seeker really is.

    <sigh>

    All the best my friend,

    Richard
    And to think that I tee'd up the ball for you, and instead of coming to bat, you retreated to the dugout. Why am I not surprised.

    Sigh.

    Your friend

    John

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    This thread is not intended as a place for me to give the best evidence against Christianity, my friend! Read again my opening post. I don't think you understand the problem I am trying to solve. The internet is filled with ideologues who make a career lying about things like evolution. They have a big audience of very ignorant people who repeat their lies because they think that they are "proof" against something that they don't even understand. It is pathetic in the extreme. But it is very easy to resolve if people can be encouraged to be true Truth Seekers. True Truth Seekers know that they must understand something before asserting it is false. So this is a test to see if anyone who opposes evolution is a true truth seeker. Unfortunately, no anti-evolutionist has yet shown that they know anything about evolution at all, yet some of them are willing to make fools of themselves by ignorantly declaring "evolution is bullshit."

    The problem with internet debates is that there are very few truth seekers. Folks frequently misrepresent their opponents views and so opposing sides just talk past each other. Neither side is willing to admit truth, so it becomes a waste of time. The test of a truth seeker is very simple. Anyone who thinks that some view is false must be able to articulate what that view is and the best evidence supporting it. If they refuse or can't do this they reveal themselves to be ignorant closed-minded dogmatists who reject things they know nothing of because the want to adhere to their dogmas.

    I am rather disheartened that folks are not even understanding the meaning of what a true Truth Seeker really is.

    <sigh>

    All the best my friend,

    Richard
    And to think that I tee'd up the ball for you, and instead of coming to bat, you retreated to the dugout. Why am I not surprised.

    Sigh.

    Your friend

    John
    Don't worry John, I'll start a thread called "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." But you know, that's not the kind of thread we really need because it will be just another thread where folks present arguments against a point of view that they may not even understand. That's why I started this thread to challenge people to elevate the conversation to a level of authentic discourse where we present the best arguments the other side has to offer before we go about trying to debunk them. And now that I think about it, you should be the one to start the thread, since you are a believer. That's the "high standard" I am striving for. I presented "The Best Evidence for Christianity" because I am an unbeliever. A truth seeking believer should demonstrate his authentic intellect by producing a thread for "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." That would prove that you understand the opposing view and have good reasons to be a believer anyway.

    I hope you are starting to see my logic. It is perhaps the most dangerous challenge for anyone not truly committed to the truth.

    BWT - could you please take a moment to answer post 71 in this thread? I truly believe I have demonstrated that your argument, which also is the core argument for the resurrection, is false. Thanks!

    All the very best to you and yours,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Don't worry John, I'll start a thread called "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." But you know, that's not the kind of thread we really need because it will be just another thread where folks present arguments against a point of view that they may not even understand. That's why I started this thread to challenge people to elevate the conversation to a level of authentic discourse where we present the best arguments the other side has to offer before we go about trying to debunk them. And now that I think about it, you should be the one to start the thread, since you are a believer. That's the "high standard" I am striving for. I presented "The Best Evidence for Christianity" because I am an unbeliever. A truth seeking believer should demonstrate his authentic intellect by producing a thread for "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." That would prove that you understand the opposing view and have good reasons to be a believer anyway.

    I hope you are starting to see my logic. It is perhaps the most dangerous challenge for anyone not truly committed to the truth.

    BWT - could you please take a moment to answer post 71 in this thread? I truly believe I have demonstrated that your argument, which also is the core argument for the resurrection, is false. Thanks!

    All the very best to you and yours,

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    I understand what you are trying to do but we should be true to the title of the thread as much as possible; so often we digress. This is why I said in another post; your title, "The best evidence for Evolution" is not going to get answered by Creationists; so that is my answer to your question; "why are Christians so quiet on this subject?". You have to phrase the title of the thread in harmony with how you want the conversations in the thread to proceed.

    Now you want jce to answer the statement you make around the statement jce made. I expect jce is thinking about a good answer, and no doubt his answer will be better than mine. I did not have a ready-made answer, but I will jump in and speak for myself; I am not answering for jce and he would not want me to. I am answering the statement as you would want all Christians and Bible scholars to give you a reply. This will give you confirmation of that which you have already concluded, so whether I answer the statement in the way you want or not, you will prove yourself correct in either case.

    This is the statement you want answering from post #71
    You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.
    Whether what you showed is true, I shall leave to one side and just give my statement on the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) as I see them. This is my statement:

    The NT is a continuation of the OT. The NT does not replace the OT. The NT has its roots in the OT. The NT is the transition from the Old Law of Moses and animal sacrifices to the one-time sacrifice of one man, who has made atonement for all sins. Hence the commonality between the OT and the NT is that it is all the testimony of God. God’s testimony has come in the form of inspiration given to authors who wrote the separate books and letters. All of God’s testimony in the Bible is from the original texts which God inspired. The message of the NT and OT is consistent and coherent, which has the watermark of a common author and co-author behind them.

    Additional to the statement.
    The Bible is a miraculous book for its compilation and survival, though miracles cannot be proved, they are witnessed. There has to be at least two reliable witnesses for evidence to be accepted or as in the case of prophecy, proof of a prophecy is in its fulfillment.

    The plan that God has for the earth and man upon it, is the same from Genesis to Revelation. God is fulfilling His plan and purpose as we speak and this is the consistent and coherent framework of the Bible. The history of God's chosen people serve as lessons and the Bible can be regarded as an operating manual on how to live, in order to be happy and at peace.


    Richard. My statements above I know will not satisfy you because you can say “prove it” to any of my remarks and I do not have the proof you seek. Therefore, you can claim victory for making a statement that is not answered as you want it to be. It means you are no nearer to getting to the truth, as no-one gives you an answer you can agree with. The proof for the Bible is the Bible. There is archaeological evidence to support (some, if not all) facts and places mentioned in the Bible as well as secular writings to prove the existence of a man that is identified as Jesus in the Bible. In keeping with the fact that the Bible gives its own answers, and why it is we have sketchy secular evidence is down to the fact that God is in control (behind the scenes) and that it requires some diligence to seek out the truth which God has given us. (Proverbs 25:2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (Deuteronomy 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us.


    Regarding the Book of Mormon, I ask the following questions by which to judge its divine authority;

    1. Does the Book of Mormon have the same credentials as the Bible?
    2. Does the Book of Mormon have the stamp of the same common authorship as the Bible?
    3. Does the Book of Mormon have the same consistent and coherent message as the Bible?
    4. Is part of the Book of Mormon a subset of the Bible?
    5. Is part of the Book of Mormon which is not a subset of the Bible, complimentary to the Bible?
    6. Are there no irreconcilable differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

    If the answer is “yes” to all of these questions, that would make the Book of Mormon acceptable (to me). A “No” answer to any of these questions makes and Book of Mormon unacceptable (to me).

    I have given my answer and as I am dealing with the topics covered in my statement in other threads, I will bow out from further discussion on the statement made. Richard might want to comment, but I am done for now.


    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 06-29-2012 at 04:44 AM.

  5. #95
    Richard wrote,

    The early church fathers did not have the benefit of modern science, textual criticism, recently discovered manuscripts, etc. I see no reason to favor their opinions over others.
    I said I wish to leave it at that, but to simply respond here, if anything the early church fathers of the late 1st and 2nd century had a great advantage over the scholars of today. They had access not only to the written manuscripts but were disciples of those close to some of the apostles and witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection of that time and era. It's not “favoring their opinions” over others, it's just a reasonable and logical evaluation and conclusion of the historical evidence pro and con.

    The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but the one who makes the claim that there was a death, burial, and resurrection, and all the other facts attending Christianity.
    True, but as in any court case, the skeptics most also be able to back up their allegations brought against Christianity with more than just empty allegations devoid of any evidence that would prove their case; otherwise the case would be thrown out of court and Christianity exonerated.

    Again, you are assuming that the religious tracts known as the "Gospels" and the "Letters of Paul" are fully accurate in all their details. They weren't written for at least 20 years after the events they supposedly record, and there are many problems with internal consistency that make it clear they cannot be accepted at face value.

    And you are missing the point about the empty tomb. That argument is based on a false assumption that Christians could not go around making false claims. We know that people have started religions by making easily refutable false claims, so that argument fails.
    A mere twenty years is hardly a long time in passing to gather accurate details and provide confirmation from all sources and the many witnesses to the truth of those events and put them in writing. Paul even testifies to that fact that many were still alive that could confirm the truth or lie of what he wrote in his epistle.

    They could hardly go around in Jerusalem claiming a resurrection of a person called Christ if there wasn't an empty tomb and a missing body. First, the Jewish authorities knew where Jesus Christ had been buried. How could they not know? If you can believe the historical account it is said they even had a guard over it to prevent it from being stolen by Christ's disciples. Secondly, how could the disciples convince anyone, let alone thousands converted at Pentecost (or after) with a blatant lie like Christ's resurrection if the historical events given in scripture were not true? This logical fact simply just does not compute for one to believe otherwise. The conversion of thousands of Jews from Pentecost on is a great evidence of the truth of the historical testimony given in the gospels and epistles.

    The fact that the books "corroborate" each other does not prove that any of them are true. The Hadith corroborates the Quran. Does that mean they are both true, and Muhammad is a prophet of God?
    The overall accumulated evidence from all sources when taken into consideration all agree with the findings and truth of the scriptures.

    You most certainly did assume that the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. You assumed that the record of the events at Pentecost really happened at that time, and that the Apostles went about preaching immediately after the resurrection. How do you know if any of that is true, or if it was just made up? You don't. You have merely ASSUMED the Biblical record is true, and then based your reasoning on that assumption. That is the fallacy of Begging the Question.
    It is not an “assumption” but it is a “conclusion” brought about by the overall compiled evidence. In the same way you believe in Evolution. Is it just your “assumption” or is it your “conclusion” brought about by compiled evidence?

    As for the "secular evidence" like Josephus - it is very slight and there is evidence of it being tampered with by later Christians. Just think what the history of Mormonism would look like if the Mormons had near total control over historical documents like the Christian church after the fourth century. You point was about how there should be thousands of letters from Jerusalem debunking the Christian claims if their claims were not true. That is an illogical assertion because there are almost no documents from that time, so you can't say what that those documents would exist if they contained arguments against the empty tomb. Your argument simply does not follow.
    Okay, it sounds like you deny the secular evidence from Josephus that Christ even existed because of “evidence of tampering,” do you also deny the secular historical evidence of Tacitus that mentions Christ in his writings? If so why so?

    TACITUS: (55-117) A.D.)
    Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.

    “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands on of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”

    What do you mean when you say that you have found the Scriptures reliable? Reliable in what way? What did you confirm and how did you confirm it?
    I thought I made myself clear. I found the scriptures reliable through and by 25 years of in-depth study of all sources (Hebrew-Greek sources, commentaries, archeology, etc.) pro and con relating to all areas of scripture.

    God bless---Twospirits
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    I said I wish to leave it at that, but to simply respond here, if anything the early church fathers of the late 1st and 2nd century had a great advantage over the scholars of today. They had access not only to the written manuscripts but were disciples of those close to some of the apostles and witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection of that time and era. It's not “favoring their opinions” over others, it's just a reasonable and logical evaluation and conclusion of the historical evidence pro and con.
    I agree that it offers some evidence in support of your position, but it is very weak because it is based on speculation and hearsay that can't be confirmed and we have examples of modern religions being invented that show the early Christians could have just made up stuff. There is no way to discern which parts of the Bible might be true and which false. People make up stuff all the time. I would be a fool to believe something just because it's written in a book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but the one who makes the claim that there was a death, burial, and resurrection, and all the other facts attending Christianity.
    True, but as in any court case, the skeptics most also be able to back up their allegations brought against Christianity with more than just empty allegations devoid of any evidence that would prove their case; otherwise the case would be thrown out of court and Christianity exonerated.
    What "empty allegations" are speaking of?

    When you say "devoid of any evidence" you make me think of your case based on the non-existent first century letters challenging the empty tomb. That argument is based on a "lack of evidence." Indeed, it equates lack of evidence with evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    A mere twenty years is hardly a long time in passing to gather accurate details and provide confirmation from all sources and the many witnesses to the truth of those events and put them in writing. Paul even testifies to that fact that many were still alive that could confirm the truth or lie of what he wrote in his epistle.
    Joseph Smith made up his religion out of whole cloth. There was no "twenty year" delay. Now there are millions of Mormons who fervently believe the stories made up by Joseph Smith just like you believe the Gospels.

    And again, Paul's assertion that there were many witnesses still living is no more convincing that Smith's assertion that he had 11 witness who testified about the Golden Plates. And in fact, Smith's evidence is better because he actually got some of those guys to sign documents "confirming" their testimony! We don't have any evidence like this for the Christian claims:
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Smith eventually obtained testimonies from eleven men, known as the Book of Mormon witnesses, who said they had seen the plates.[4] After the translation was complete, Smith said he returned the plates to their angelic guardian. Therefore, if the plates existed, they cannot now be examined. Latter Day Saints believe the account of the golden plates as a matter of faith, while critics often assert that either Smith manufactured the plates himself[5] or that the Book of Mormon witnesses based their testimony on visions rather than physical experience.
    There it is - the root of all religion. The truth about the "Golden Plates" is just a "matter of faith."

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Again, you are assuming that the religious tracts known as the "Gospels" and the "Letters of Paul" are fully accurate in all their details. They weren't written for at least 20 years after the events they supposedly record, and there are many problems with internal consistency that make it clear they cannot be accepted at face value.

    And you are missing the point about the empty tomb. That argument is based on a false assumption that Christians could not go around making false claims. We know that people have started religions by making easily refutable false claims, so that argument fails.
    They could hardly go around in Jerusalem claiming a resurrection of a person called Christ if there wasn't an empty tomb and a missing body. First, the Jewish authorities knew where Jesus Christ had been buried. How could they not know? If you can believe the historical account it is said they even had a guard over it to prevent it from being stolen by Christ's disciples. Secondly, how could the disciples convince anyone, let alone thousands converted at Pentecost (or after) with a blatant lie like Christ's resurrection if the historical events given in scripture were not true? This logical fact simply just does not compute for one to believe otherwise. The conversion of thousands of Jews from Pentecost on is a great evidence of the truth of the historical testimony given in the gospels and epistles.
    Of course they could! The could say anything they wanted. Hasn't history taught you anything? Joe Smith made up a mountain of crap and told it to anyone who would listen. It doesn't matter how many people proved him wrong. All he cared about was recruiting followers. There is no reason to think anything was any different in first century Jerusalem. On the contrary, they didn't have newspapers and telegraphs like in Smith's day, which means it would have been much easier to get away with making up stuff.

    And you still are repeating the same error over and over again. You are assuming the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. Your argument that "They could hardly go around in Jerusalem claiming a resurrection of a person called Christ if there wasn't an empty tomb and a missing body" is based upon the ASSUMPTION that they really did go around Jerusalem in the weeks following the resurrection. But the story wasn't written till decades later. Most scholars say Mark was written in the late 60s, or about 30 years after the facts. There is absolutely nothing that would have stopped them from making up stories about what the first Christians were doing in the streets of Jerusalem 30 years prior.

    All of your assertions are based on the assumption that the Bible is true. How do you know if anyone was converted at Pentecost in 30 AD? You don't have any knowledge about that except what the Book of Mormon, I mean Bible, tells you. It is a circular argument. If the story in the book is not true, then all your arguments fall. So the only question of any importance is if there is reason for us to believe the story is true. That's easy to check! We'll just read the Jerusalem Times from April AD30 which most certainly would have mentioned the most amazing event of 3000 converts to the new religion after everyone saw the empty tomb and knew that the miracle worker Christ had indeed been raised from the dead. There's no doubt whatsoever that such a story would have made HEADLINE NEWS! So get me a copy of the Jerusalem Times and we can settle this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    The fact that the books "corroborate" each other does not prove that any of them are true. The Hadith corroborates the Quran. Does that mean they are both true, and Muhammad is a prophet of God?
    The overall accumulated evidence from all sources when taken into consideration all agree with the findings and truth of the scriptures.
    I understand how it can seem that way to a believer who is not using his skeptical eyes, but when you open your eyes and really look at the evidence your assertion is not so obvious at all. There are many problems trying to harmonize the accounts. Indeed, they are highly contradictory. For example, John says Christ's ministry lasted three years (three passovers) whereas the synoptics mention only one. If that's not a contradiction, what is? How long did Christ minister on earth? You can't say because the Biblical testimony is contradictory. And you can't even say what really happened during Christ's final week because the Gospel accounts are contradictory. And John doesn't mention key players found in the other Gospels such as James. And Paul seems to be entirely ignorant of the life of Christ. He never mentions the empty tomb or the virgin birth and many other things that indicate he knew nothing of the Gospel stories. That's one reason scholars think the Gospels were written late, since we know Paul began writing around 53 AD.

    I trust you can see that your bold assertion was just that - a bold assertion which contradicts a lot of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    You most certainly did assume that the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. You assumed that the record of the events at Pentecost really happened at that time, and that the Apostles went about preaching immediately after the resurrection. How do you know if any of that is true, or if it was just made up? You don't. You have merely ASSUMED the Biblical record is true, and then based your reasoning on that assumption. That is the fallacy of Begging the Question.
    It is not an “assumption” but it is a “conclusion” brought about by the overall compiled evidence. In the same way you believe in Evolution. Is it just your “assumption” or is it your “conclusion” brought about by compiled evidence?
    But could you come to that conclusion without making that assumption? No, you could not. That's why it is a logical fallacy to assume the truth of what you are trying to prove.

    I don't see how it has anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. The theory of evolution is a set of scientific principles used to explain the fact of evolution. There is no circularity in the logic at all as far as I can see. But if I'm wrong, I would be in your debt if you could show me why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    As for the "secular evidence" like Josephus - it is very slight and there is evidence of it being tampered with by later Christians. Just think what the history of Mormonism would look like if the Mormons had near total control over historical documents like the Christian church after the fourth century. You point was about how there should be thousands of letters from Jerusalem debunking the Christian claims if their claims were not true. That is an illogical assertion because there are almost no documents from that time, so you can't say what that those documents would exist if they contained arguments against the empty tomb. Your argument simply does not follow.
    Okay, it sounds like you deny the secular evidence from Josephus that Christ even existed because of “evidence of tampering,” do you also deny the secular historical evidence of Tacitus that mentions Christ in his writings? If so why so?

    TACITUS: (55-117) A.D.)
    Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.

    “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands on of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”
    I don't deny the secular evidence of Josephus. I was only pointing out that we must be skeptical of it like any other evidence that could be tampered with since we know Christians "ruled the historical roost" for over a thousand years. And you know many of them were men with little scruples who could not be trusted.

    And we are not talking about whether or not Christ even existed. I have not denied that as probable.

    As for Tacitus, that's fine evidence for the existence of Christian sects by the late first and early second century. This has not been disputed, so your evidence doesn't impact our conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    What do you mean when you say that you have found the Scriptures reliable? Reliable in what way? What did you confirm and how did you confirm it?
    I thought I made myself clear. I found the scriptures reliable through and by 25 years of in-depth study of all sources (Hebrew-Greek sources, commentaries, archeology, etc.) pro and con relating to all areas of scripture.

    God bless---Twospirits
    I applaud your diligent study. But I can't help but wonder if it was truly objective. If it were, I would expect you to show a lot more awareness of the evidence that contradicts your conclusions. And more importantly, I would expect you to have personally wrestled with that evidence so that now you could share your insights with other people like me who are wrestling with the same issues.

    Your claim that you have studied the arguments "pro and con relating to all areas of Scripture" reminds me of why I don't believe Lee Strobel. He claims that he was an "atheist" and that he converted to Christianity because of the evidence. But when you read his book, he doesn't deal with any of the hard questions that are the sin qua non of skeptics. He just preaches to the choir. No true skeptic could ever believe he actually wrestled with the problems and found a solution. On the contrary, he looks like a typical Christian apologist who only looks for ways to convince others while skillfully evading the problematic issues. Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't think you are dishonest or anything like that. I'm just trying to help you understand how things look to me.

    All the very best to you my friend. I think this conversation is developing very well.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #97
    Richard wrote,

    I agree that it offers some evidence in support of your position, but it is very weak because it is based on speculation and hearsay that can't be confirmed and we have examples of modern religions being invented that show the early Christians could have just made up stuff. There is no way to discern which parts of the Bible might be true and which false. People make up stuff all the time. I would be a fool to believe something just because it's written in a book.
    There are some things (if not many) that can never be confirmed “absolutely,” so we can only weigh the evidence logically and decide what evidence is the strongest to accept as fact. In the case of the Biblical historical narrative being trustworthy it is an individual decision. In all my studies I have found them to be trustworthy.

    What "empty allegations" are speaking of?

    When you say "devoid of any evidence" you make me think of your case based on the non-existent first century letters challenging the empty tomb. That argument is based on a "lack of evidence." Indeed, it equates lack of evidence with evidence.
    I am speaking of the skeptic's rebuttals used in their rejection of the historical accounts such as, the apostles and witnesses all hallucinated, the stories are all myth, swoon theory, conspiracy, etc., allegations devoid of any evidence. None of these theories have stood up to scrutiny.

    Joseph Smith made up his religion out of whole cloth. There was no "twenty year" delay. Now there are millions of Mormons who fervently believe the stories made up by Joseph Smith just like you believe the Gospels.

    And again, Paul's assertion that there were many witnesses still living is no more convincing that Smith's assertion that he had 11 witness who testified about the Golden Plates. And in fact, Smith's evidence is better because he actually got some of those guys to sign documents "confirming" their testimony! We don't have any evidence like this for the Christian claims:
    Sources on Joseph Smith also go on to say that most (if not all) of his "witnesses" were family related in one way or another to Smith and that several or more of them left the church and his organization, Smith then called them all “liars.” Ironic isn't it? He hung himself with his own words by calling his own “witnesses”- "liars."

    All of your assertions are based on the assumption that the Bible is true. How do you know if anyone was converted at Pentecost in 30 AD? You don't have any knowledge about that except what the Book of Mormon, I mean Bible, tells you. It is a circular argument. If the story in the book is not true, then all your arguments fall. So the only question of any importance is if there is reason for us to believe the story is true. That's easy to check! We'll just read the Jerusalem Times from April AD30 which most certainly would have mentioned the most amazing event of 3000 converts to the new religion after everyone saw the empty tomb and knew that the miracle worker Christ had indeed been raised from the dead. There's no doubt whatsoever that such a story would have made HEADLINE NEWS! So get me a copy of the Jerusalem Times and we can settle this issue.

    I understand how it can seem that way to a believer who is not using his skeptical eyes, but when you open your eyes and really look at the evidence your assertion is not so obvious at all. There are many problems trying to harmonize the accounts. Indeed, they are highly contradictory. For example, John says Christ's ministry lasted three years (three passovers) whereas the synoptics mention only one. If that's not a contradiction, what is? How long did Christ minister on earth? You can't say because the Biblical testimony is contradictory. And you can't even say what really happened during Christ's final week because the Gospel accounts are contradictory. And John doesn't mention key players found in the other Gospels such as James. And Paul seems to be entirely ignorant of the life of Christ. He never mentions the empty tomb or the virgin birth and many other things that indicate he knew nothing of the Gospel stories. That's one reason scholars think the Gospels were written late, since we know Paul began writing around 53 AD.

    I trust you can see that your bold assertion was just that - a bold assertion which contradicts a lot of evidence.

    I'll note again we can only weigh the overall evidence logically and decide whether to accept that evidence or not. In the case of the Biblical historical narrative being trustworthy it is an individual decision to accept or deny the reliability in part or all of the scriptures.

    But could you come to that conclusion without making that assumption? No, you could not. That's why it is a logical fallacy to assume the truth of what you are trying to prove.

    I don't see how it has anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. The theory of evolution is a set of scientific principles used to explain the fact of evolution. There is no circularity in the logic at all as far as I can see. But if I'm wrong, I would be in your debt if you could show me why.
    The trustworthiness of scriptures comes from evidences of archeology, written secular and biblical history and etc. not an assumption on my part, so I don't see how it can be a logical fallacy as you claim.

    Theory of Evolution begins with an “assumption” then it looks to evidence to confirm that theory which then becomes a fact by the compiled evidence. So it is with the study of the scriptures.

    I applaud your diligent study. But I can't help but wonder if it was truly objective. If it were, I would expect you to show a lot more awareness of the evidence that contradicts your conclusions. And more importantly, I would expect you to have personally wrestled with that evidence so that now you could share your insights with other people like me who are wrestling with the same issues.
    I am trying to share otherwise I wouldn't be posting.

    Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't think you are dishonest or anything like that. I'm just trying to help you understand how things look to me.

    All the very best to you my friend. I think this conversation is developing very well.
    Not at all, I understand we must never be to quick to believe everything a person may say, this is a good thing built in a human being to prevent him from being easily deceived by others.

    Same to you Richard, stay well,

    God bless---Twospirits

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,617

    4 more...


    5. POETRY. Psalm 23 is perhaps the most famous poetry in Christianity with its picturesque language. The 22 letter Hebrew alphabet, the Book of Lamentations, and the Alpha & Omega, all speak to the rhythm and symmetry of Our Creator and His myriad Creations. If 'Evolution' were true, why aren't more monkeys or snakes evolving into men? (Or do we just not recognize them; being dressed in suits?)

    6. ALLEGORY. The story that Nathan told David, about the rich taking the poor man's lamb for his own dinner, was really speaking of what David had done with Bathsheba; leading to the death of Urriah. Similarly, it was the story of Hagar and Sarah which leads to our understanding of how Ishmael and Isaac represent the Old and New Covenants, Gal 4:24, and how the Old Testament was a teacher to lead us to Christ. Gal 3:24.

    7. MYSTERIES: The word 'mystery' not found in the OT, and of the Gospel writer's, only Mark uses it. Mk4:11 [Jesus] said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: v.12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
    So, for the believers, the Bible is the "table set before us in the presence of all the unbelievers!
    Rom11:25 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in".

    8. NAMES: From the 1st Adam ('blood-aleph') in Genesis, to the '2nd Adam' of 1Cor15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. v.46: Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
    We find many Names in scripture that are used of more than a single individual, and many have meanings assigned which give us clues to the understanding of their stories. The Name above every name, Phil 2:9, is our 'password' and our 'Door' to heaven for those who use it honestly. And God KNOWS who is using it honestly and who is hiding treachery in their heart.
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Don't worry John, I'll start a thread called "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." But you know, that's not the kind of thread we really need because it will be just another thread where folks present arguments against a point of view that they may not even understand. That's why I started this thread to challenge people to elevate the conversation to a level of authentic discourse where we present the best arguments the other side has to offer before we go about trying to debunk them. And now that I think about it, you should be the one to start the thread, since you are a believer. That's the "high standard" I am striving for. I presented "The Best Evidence for Christianity" because I am an unbeliever. A truth seeking believer should demonstrate his authentic intellect by producing a thread for "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." That would prove that you understand the opposing view and have good reasons to be a believer anyway.

    I hope you are starting to see my logic. It is perhaps the most dangerous challenge for anyone not truly committed to the truth.

    BWT - could you please take a moment to answer post 71 in this thread? I truly believe I have demonstrated that your argument, which also is the core argument for the resurrection, is false. Thanks!

    All the very best to you and yours,

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    I understand what you are trying to do but we should be true to the title of the thread as much as possible; so often we digress. This is why I said in another post; your title, "The best evidence for Evolution" is not going to get answered by Creationists; so that is my answer to your question; "why are Christians so quiet on this subject?". You have to phrase the title of the thread in harmony with how you want the conversations in the thread to proceed.
    Hey there David,

    Your answer is no answer at all. You merely said that my question "is not going to get answered by Creationists." You didn't give a reason!

    I think the reasons are pretty obvious. There are two reasons creationists can't or won't state the best evidence for evolution:

    1) They are ignorant of the science and so don't even know what it is that they are rejecting.

    2) They know that they cannot refute the evidence so they won't admit to knowing it.

    That's the only two reasons I can think of.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Now you want jce to answer the statement you make around the statement jce made. I expect jce is thinking about a good answer, and no doubt his answer will be better than mine. I did not have a ready-made answer, but I will jump in and speak for myself; I am not answering for jce and he would not want me to. I am answering the statement as you would want all Christians and Bible scholars to give you a reply. This will give you confirmation of that which you have already concluded, so whether I answer the statement in the way you want or not, you will prove yourself correct in either case.
    Your assertion that I will "prove myself correct in either case" is absurd. It is the evidence that decides the case. Since you have not been able to refute my logic and facts, you resort to making absurd assertions that I am some sort of freak who will "prove himself correct" regardless of the evidence. I know that's what Christians do on a daily basis, so it is particularly ironic that you accuse me of such.

    But I'm glad you have tried to give an answer. And it's good that you don't have a "ready-made answer." I would much rather know what you think than what you can copy and paste from the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    This is the statement you want answering from post #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.
    Whether what you showed is true, I shall leave to one side and just give my statement on the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) as I see them. This is my statement:

    The NT is a continuation of the OT. The NT does not replace the OT. The NT has its roots in the OT. The NT is the transition from the Old Law of Moses and animal sacrifices to the one-time sacrifice of one man, who has made atonement for all sins. Hence the commonality between the OT and the NT is that it is all the testimony of God. God’s testimony has come in the form of inspiration given to authors who wrote the separate books and letters. All of God’s testimony in the Bible is from the original texts which God inspired. The message of the NT and OT is consistent and coherent, which has the watermark of a common author and co-author behind them.
    How can you doubt if my statement is true? It is obviously true. I don't see a word that could be challenged. I guess that's why you chose to "leave it to one side."

    Now as for your statement. Everything except the fourth sentence (which contains details specific to the NT) applies equally to the Book of Mormon:

    The BOOK OF MORMON is a continuation of the Bible. The BOOK OF MORMON does not replace the Bible. The BOOK OF MORMON has its roots in the BIBLE. The NT is the transition from the Old Law of Moses and animal sacrifices to the one-time sacrifice of one man, who has made atonement for all sins. Hence the commonality between the BIBLE and the BOOK OF MORMON is that it is all the testimony of God. God’s testimony has come in the form of inspiration given to authors who wrote the separate books and letters. All of God’s testimony in the BOOK OF MORMON is from the original texts which God inspired. The message of the BOOK OF MORMON and BIBLE is consistent and coherent, which has the watermark of a common author and co-author behind them.

    You first statement does not refute anything I have written about why John's argument fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Additional to the statement.
    The Bible is a miraculous book for its compilation and survival, though miracles cannot be proved, they are witnessed. There has to be at least two reliable witnesses for evidence to be accepted or as in the case of prophecy, proof of a prophecy is in its fulfillment.
    First, you have never provided any evidence for your assertion that any prophecy has been proven.

    Second, a Mormon could say the same things about their book: "The BOOK OF MORMON is a miraculous book for its compilation and survival, though miracles cannot be proved, they are witnessed."

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The plan that God has for the earth and man upon it, is the same from Genesis to Revelation. God is fulfilling His plan and purpose as we speak and this is the consistent and coherent framework of the Bible. The history of God's chosen people serve as lessons and the Bible can be regarded as an operating manual on how to live, in order to be happy and at peace.
    Pure assertion. No evidence. No proof. No different than any other religion on the planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Richard. My statements above I know will not satisfy you because you can say “prove it” to any of my remarks and I do not have the proof you seek. Therefore, you can claim victory for making a statement that is not answered as you want it to be. It means you are no nearer to getting to the truth, as no-one gives you an answer you can agree with. The proof for the Bible is the Bible. There is archaeological evidence to support (some, if not all) facts and places mentioned in the Bible as well as secular writings to prove the existence of a man that is identified as Jesus in the Bible. In keeping with the fact that the Bible gives its own answers, and why it is we have sketchy secular evidence is down to the fact that God is in control (behind the scenes) and that it requires some diligence to seek out the truth which God has given us. (Proverbs 25:2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (Deuteronomy 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us.
    You made one good point. The fact that there is "archaeological evidence to support (some, if not all) facts and places mentioned in the Bible" shows how the Bible is much more believable than the Book of Mormon which was just a fantasy of a weak mind. Smith invented all sorts of places that never existed in history. So the Bible is clearly superior in this regard. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with my refutation of the similarity between the two books. It does not affect a word I wrote, so my argument stands. Why don't you try to address the actual words I wrote? That would be an interesting innovation.

    Now I must tell you that it is not particularly nice for you to insinuate that I want to "claim victory for making a statement that is not answered as I want it to be." The issue has nothing to do with anything I "want" other than verifiable evidence for your claims. The problem is that you know you have been falsely claiming to have proof so now you want to pretend that I just won't accept the proof because it "is not answered as I want it to be." That is exceedingly wrong, my friend. The reason you have not given me any evidence that satisfies my request is because you have not given an evidence at all.

    First you tell me that you can't give evidence because you "do not have the proof I seek" but then you try to give evidence anyway. And worse, you imply that there is something wrong with me for demanding evidence! That's just plain nuts. You are the one making claims without evidence. You have no right to suggest that the problem has anything to do with me. Your assertion that I am "no nearer to getting to the truth, as no-one gives you an answer you can agree with" is also nuts. I am a lot closer to the truth because now I have another example of how sincere Christians can go about claiming things are true even when they have no evidence. And worse, they will often claim things are true even when the evidence proves them wrong.

    Thus you have provided me with another counter-example to the false argument that says Christians could not have gone around talking about the empty tomb if it weren't really true. Think of the irony! Your very attempt to defend Christianity is itself a counter-example that disproves your argument. Christians constantly make false claims, and they continue to make the same false claims even after they have been shown to be wrong. Case in point: Twospirits quoted a creationist site that had a quote deceptively taken out of context with the intent to deceive. That quote has been debunked for years, but Christians continue to publish the lie. They are willfully deceptive, and so we know that people lie for their religion. There is no reason to think this wasn't just as true in the first century as it is today.

    Now in answer to your questions:

    1. Does the Book of Mormon have the same credentials as the Bible?
    What credentials does the Bible have?

    2. Does the Book of Mormon have the stamp of the same common authorship as the Bible?
    The Bible does not have any such stamp. It contains many contradictions.

    3. Does the Book of Mormon have the same consistent and coherent message as the Bible?
    I grant that there is a generally consistent message running through Scripture, but it is far from a consistent book. And it would be easy for the Book of Mormon to have a "consistent message" since it was written by one man. So this question is not a good test.

    4. Is part of the Book of Mormon a subset of the Bible?
    Yes, just as part of the NT is a subset of the OT. (e.g. the extended quote in Hebrews 8, and many quotes throughout). And besides, the Mormon could just say that's evidence for its authenticity. Remember, you are free to make up whatever excuses you want when your dogmas contradict reality.

    5. Is part of the Book of Mormon which is not a subset of the Bible, complimentary to the Bible?
    The only answers are totally subjective.

    6. Are there no irreconcilable differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible?
    There are irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible! This has been proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    If the answer is “yes” to all of these questions, that would make the Book of Mormon acceptable (to me). A “No” answer to any of these questions makes and Book of Mormon unacceptable (to me).
    Your "standards" are designed to guarantee your conclusion. Such "reasoning" is designed to protect a delusion from being realized for what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have given my answer and as I am dealing with the topics covered in my statement in other threads, I will bow out from further discussion on the statement made. Richard might want to comment, but I am done for now.
    You didn't touch my argument with a ten foot pole. Therefore, it stands. I will soon be writing an article to enlighten everyone why the argument from the empty tomb can be proven with rigorous logic to be fallacious.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,297
    Hello Richard
    I am not going to refute everything that I disagree with you on here, I was making a general statement and providing questions for others to answer in order to make up theri minds. The fact that yoiu have answered and given us your opinion is appreciated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    Your answer is no answer at all. You merely said that my question "is not going to get answered by Creationists." You didn't give a reason!

    I think the reasons are pretty obvious. There are two reasons creationists can't or won't state the best evidence for evolution:

    1) They are ignorant of the science and so don't even know what it is that they are rejecting.

    2) They know that they cannot refute the evidence so they won't admit to knowing it.

    That's the only two reasons I can think of.
    It is not like you do not know that I have answered this question now and you congratulated me on my answer, but as I then replied, what I gave you was the type of evidence, I did not give you actual examples as evidence and those are best coming from Evolutionists. You cannot expect Creationist to know the best evidence for when you know Creationists are against Evolution. Your reasoning about that makes no sense to me, but I am happy to leave it at that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion that I will "prove myself correct in either case" is absurd. It is the evidence that decides the case. Since you have not been able to refute my logic and facts, you resort to making absurd assertions that I am some sort of freak who will "prove himself correct" regardless of the evidence. I know that's what Christians do on a daily basis, so it is particularly ironic that you accuse me of such.
    Conclude whatever you like, for expediency, I am not going to get involved discussing or justifying every word I use/write. We are discussing the evidence for many things and discussing many topics and I simply refuse to keep going over the same ground to justify my statements. You show us your reasoning which is not always good, but when you have stated what you believe or prefer to promote, I am happy to leave it at that and do not challenge because you are repeating what I have read in hundreds of your posts. There may be a new reader to the forum that has not had time to read your posts of the past, but when they do, they will soon see as I do that yo keep repeating and asserting the things you do that I and others do not agree and others have already given you their evidence that I agree with and do not have to repeat the evidence. If we keep going over every every point in every post, we will soon all lose interest and whilst I want to reason things out from the Bible perspective, I am fast getting bored by continual challenges and assertions that have been discussed in earlier posts in different threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    But I'm glad you have tried to give an answer. And it's good that you don't have a "ready-made answer." I would much rather know what you think than what you can copy and paste from the internet.
    Good, there is hope we can continue. Just do not expect evidence for statements made in every post when we are discussing these things in other threads. I would hope you take on board the evidence and reasons othes have been giving you, which it is pointless me repeating. I would hope you take a little on board and present some new ideas for a change especially when you claim not to believe the Bible or the Quran. To repeat myself from another thread, it is difficult not to accept you believe something when you assert that somthing is true and you never present the alternatives to understanding passages in the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    How can you doubt if my statement is true? It is obviously true. I don't see a word that could be challenged. I guess that's why you chose to "leave it to one side."
    I leave it aside for expediency, whether it is true or not. Why not just accept that and move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I will soon be writing an article to enlighten everyone why the argument from the empty tomb can be proven with rigorous logic to be fallacious.
    I look forward to that and I expect Twospirits will too. Perhaps we can get back on track to reasoning and not having to justify evey written comment. Please give us so much evidence that we have nothing to challeng you on, we can all give up everything we have come to believe from years of contemplating the things God has revealed and this forum becomes redundant in discussing the Bible any further. We can all agree with you and take a rest.

    Alll the best,

    David.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •