Acts of god

[Logicman]

of course i do. I know that people cannot be raised from the dead simply by someone else saying, "get up."

thing is, the story about raising him form the dead is a claim. A claim that you cannot substantiate.

Thanks for trying. Sorry you failed. Again.

flush

 

[RAMOSS]

Wiki is often a questionable source for discerning Gospel and Biblical evidence or information.

FYI, scores of scholars date the Gospel of Luke, and the dates are nowhere near 80-100 AD. The average date for the writing of Luke was 66.3 AD A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

As for Luke authorship,

"Luke was a gentile (Col. 4:11, 14) and this makes him the only non-Jewish writer of the New Testament. We know he was a doctor and that he was a traveling companion of Paul (2 Tim. 4:11). He is mentioned a third time in Paul’s letter to Philemon (24). Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events that he records in Acts indicated by the “we” passages (cf. 16, 20, 21, 27, and 28). The testimony of the early church and oldest New Testament manuscripts are unanimous in confirming the third Gospel’s author as being Luke. The Muratorian Canon (late second-century), Irenaeus (late second-century), Tertullian (early third century), Origen (mid-third century), and Athanasius (4th century) all confirm Luke’s authorship of the Gospel. Both Jerome and the early church historian Eusebius also affirm Luke’s authorship of the Gospel." The Authorship of Luke and Why It's Important | by Douglas Kump | Glory Books

Historian Sir William Ramsey noted: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness" (Ramsay, ibid. p. 81) and Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953, p. 222). https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_804.cfm

That, actually , is sort of 'scewing the data'. While that is the average year , if you merely count the years, you have to also look at the percentage of scholars, and their background. It is only a small percentage of actual biblical scholars who date Luke before 80 CE.. So, that statement is at best misleading.

 

[zyzygy]

flush

View attachment 67220656

Somebody has to do it for you.

 

[Logicman]

That, actually , is sort of 'scewing the data'. While that is the average year , if you merely count the years, you have to also look at the percentage of scholars, and their background. It is only a small percentage of actual biblical scholars who date Luke before 80 CE.. So, that statement is at best misleading.

Well I've got SCORES of scholars who date Luke, on average, 66.3 AD. You've got your usual anti-Christianity blather.

 

[Logicman]

Somebody has to do it for you.

zzyzy, you've been little more than an anti-Christianity kibbitzer. The best of your posts should merit the bottom of a bird cage.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

flush

View attachment 67220656

It's OK that you don' tknow the bible and cannot make a rational point. I expected nothing else.

I just don't understand why some people are desperate to have others believe that they're Christian when they're actually not.

What an odd compulsion.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well I've got SCORES of scholars who date Luke, on average, 66.3 AD. You've got your usual anti-Christianity blather.

Scores, huh, out of the 10's of thousands of scholars out there. I am not impressed.

 

[tosca1]

Since there are demonstrably no gods, it is past time a class-action suite by people denied insurance coverage for "acts of god", took the matter to court. This would best be done in Canada where the courts are not stacked in favour of primitive superstitious beliefs.

Insurance companies then would be forced to prove the existence of gods or pay up.

As usual........your sight is askew.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about changing the motto, "IN GOD WE TRUST?" :lamo

After all, if you're an American, the "WE" includes you!

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by Realitywins View Post
Since there are demonstrably no gods, it is past time a class-action suite by people denied insurance coverage for "acts of god", took the matter to court. This would best be done in Canada where the courts are not stacked in favour of primitive superstitious beliefs.

Insurance companies then would be forced to prove the existence of gods or pay up.

tosca1

As usual........your sight is askew.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about changing the motto, "IN GOD WE TRUST?"

After all, if you're an American, the "WE" includes you!

After that, maybe you should work on getting rid of "God Bless America." Because if you're an American.....you're part of the package.

 

[tosca1]

flush

View attachment 67220656

Hahahahaha

 

[Logicman]

Scores, huh, out of the 10's of thousands of scholars out there. I am not impressed.

You had what - yourself? Out of 10's of thousands of scholars? Certainly not impressed.

 

[soylentgreen]

Wiki is often a questionable source for discerning Gospel and Biblical evidence or information.

FYI, scores of scholars date the Gospel of Luke, and the dates are nowhere near 80-100 AD. The average date for the writing of Luke was 66.3 AD A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

As for Luke authorship,

"Luke was a gentile (Col. 4:11, 14) and this makes him the only non-Jewish writer of the New Testament. We know he was a doctor and that he was a traveling companion of Paul (2 Tim. 4:11). He is mentioned a third time in Paul’s letter to Philemon (24). Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events that he records in Acts indicated by the “we” passages (cf. 16, 20, 21, 27, and 28). The testimony of the early church and oldest New Testament manuscripts are unanimous in confirming the third Gospel’s author as being Luke. The Muratorian Canon (late second-century), Irenaeus (late second-century), Tertullian (early third century), Origen (mid-third century), and Athanasius (4th century) all confirm Luke’s authorship of the Gospel. Both Jerome and the early church historian Eusebius also affirm Luke’s authorship of the Gospel." The Authorship of Luke and Why It's Important | by Douglas Kump | Glory Books

Historian Sir William Ramsey noted: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness" (Ramsay, ibid. p. 81) and Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953, p. 222). https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_804.cfm

Even at 66.3 ad that still is after the event. And your links are only as good as the bias shown. He us still a writer f stories he heard second hand, not witnessed.

 

[RAMOSS]

You had what - yourself? Out of 10's of thousands of scholars? Certainly not impressed.

Ah.. The 'let me repeat the same thing the other person said' syndrome. How nice. It is an acknowledgement that there is no original thinking of your own.

 

[Logicman]

Ah.. The 'let me repeat the same thing the other person said' syndrome. How nice. It is an acknowledgement that there is no original thinking of your own.

Flush.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you." - Matthew 7:6

 

[Logicman]

Even at 66.3 ad that still is after the event.

What? They're supposed to write their history accounts before the events in the Gospels?

And your links are only as good as the bias shown. He us still a writer f stories he heard second hand, not witnessed.

If you don't like the Gospels then go read something else.

 

[zyzygy]

Flush.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you." - Matthew 7:6

Oh the irony!

 

[RAMOSS]

Flush.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you." - Matthew 7:6

When there isn't any legitimate argument , quote an insulting bible quote, accusing the other person of being a swine, and run away.

 

[Logicman]

When there isn't any legitimate argument , quote an insulting bible quote, accusing the other person of being a swine, and run away.

Did you know that one day, there will be an act of God and we will no longer have Christ deniers among us (Rev. 21:8). What an awesome day that will be!

 

[zyzygy]

Did you know that one day, there will be an act of God and we will no longer have Christ deniers among us (Rev. 21:8). What an awesome day that will be!

Dream on.

 

[soylentgreen]

What? They're supposed to write their history accounts before the events in the Gospels?



If you don't like the Gospels then go read something else.

No, they can only write down the myths presented to them. You on the other hand need to stop pointing to hearsay as if it was evidence. It is not.

I do read something else.

 

[Logicman]

No, they can only write down the myths presented to them. You on the other hand need to stop pointing to hearsay as if it was evidence. It is not.

Nonsense. Most of ancient history is hearsay, including anything you dredge up from antiquity, and most of what we find in our history books. So that's not a good argument of yours to make.

 

[zyzygy]

Nonsense. Most of ancient history is hearsay, including anything you dredge up from antiquity, and most of what we find in our history books. So that's not a good argument of yours to make.

So you agree that the bible is hearsay.

 

[wellwisher]

Humans are the only animal on earth that practices the behavior we call religion. In other words, if you were to look at human as animals and watch and compare animal behavior, religious behavior is unique to humans. At the same time, not all humans practice this behavior, with many humans having more in common with the animals.

Since this unique human behavior has persisted since the beginning of civilization, and still is practiced by billions of people, one may ask what is its selective advantage? The most obvious advantage is, belief in God requires the ability to use the imagination to create and understand complex abstractions. Abstractions, in turn, are the foundation for the skill set behind all innovation and artistic expression. To invent, one has to perceive what does not yet exist to the sensory systems. Faith is the belief if what cannot be seen. If you said we will put a man on the moon, 100 years ago, only those who could abstract could see this. The pure sensory person needs to see to believe.

Animals do not invent or abstract beyond simple things. They are better at reacting to the new, after the fact, responding, in a purely sensory way. Atheists need to see to believe, since they appear to lack this inner vision aspect of the brain. This could be due to it being repressed.

Books like the bible also have a connection to another feature of humans called freewill and choice. Free will is the ability to make choices that go beyond natural instinct and which can override instinct. The animal reacts with instinct and does not have the choice to override instinctive choices.

Although free will and choice is very useful, the problem it creates is, by making choices that can exist outside of instinct, human can nullify the 3-D integration of nature, and dissociated both nature and humans. A person dissociated from instinct can think unnatural is natural. Books like the bible, document what happens when free choice and will power disrupt the integration of humans and nature, they also offer paths which help humans reintegrate themselves.

The New Testament tells us to be patient with those who lack the extra brain feature. It is like someone lacking the genes needed to digest lactose. The results is what should be easy, causes all types of gas and odors when exposed to dairy products.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nonsense. Most of ancient history is hearsay, including anything you dredge up from antiquity, and most of what we find in our history books. So that's not a good argument of yours to make.

Actually no, Much of history is well recorded and unlike your bible has more than one source of confirmation. Where as the bible of course has no one but the bible telling of magical tales that are unbelievable to start with.

 

[soylentgreen]

Humans are the only animal on earth that practices the behavior we call religion. In other words, if you were to look at human as animals and watch and compare animal behavior, religious behavior is unique to humans. At the same time, not all humans practice this behavior, with many humans having more in common with the animals.

Since this unique human behavior has persisted since the beginning of civilization, and still is practiced by billions of people, one may ask what is its selective advantage? The most obvious advantage is, belief in God requires the ability to use the imagination to create and understand complex abstractions. Abstractions, in turn, are the foundation for the skill set behind all innovation and artistic expression. To invent, one has to perceive what does not yet exist to the sensory systems. Faith is the belief if what cannot be seen. If you said we will put a man on the moon, 100 years ago, only those who could abstract could see this. The pure sensory person needs to see to believe.

Animals do not invent or abstract beyond simple things. They are better at reacting to the new, after the fact, responding, in a purely sensory way. Atheists need to see to believe, since they appear to lack this inner vision aspect of the brain. This could be due to it being repressed.

Books like the bible also have a connection to another feature of humans called freewill and choice. Free will is the ability to make choices that go beyond natural instinct and which can override instinct. The animal reacts with instinct and does not have the choice to override instinctive choices.

Although free will and choice is very useful, the problem it creates is, by making choices that can exist outside of instinct, human can nullify the 3-D integration of nature, and dissociated both nature and humans. A person dissociated from instinct can think unnatural is natural. Books like the bible, document what happens when free choice and will power disrupt the integration of humans and nature, they also offer paths which help humans reintegrate themselves.

The New Testament tells us to be patient with those who lack the extra brain feature. It is like someone lacking the genes needed to digest lactose. The results is what should be easy, causes all types of gas and odors when exposed to dairy products.

The bible is not the origin of such thoughts as freewill and choice nor has the use of imagination only begun with the discovery of religion. It is just another book on the subject with the problem that it is also a badly written book that contradicts itself.