IF the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, would you . . . ?

[ludin]

Why is that? If he's right, then what precisely is the problem in no longer existing? On a related note, I find the desire to exist "eternally" very odd. That doesn't sound like "heaven" to me... that sounds suspiciously like the other place.

OM

If he is wrong then he is in very much a lot of trouble.
I do not fear death i have no reason too.

Death has been conquered and I am secure in knowing where I am going.
For him all he has is what he can carve out for himself in this life.

that is it. no more no less.

There is the reason that Christianity is the hope of billions of people. It is why Christs message still rings today over 2000 years later.

 

[ludin]

There are more than 15,000 New Testament manuscripts from the 1st century with several hundreds of thousands of textual variants. Which one do you want to start with?
When did feeling good about something mean it must be true? If a kid is happy believing Santa is real, does that make Santa real?

All of which have been gone over and over again by people with way more experience than you or i. all of those manuscripts as i have shown and proven are 99% accurate.
which given the years would be very rare to find.

I never mentioned anything about feeling good.
i have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[zyzygy]

If he is wrong then he is in very much a lot of trouble.
I do not fear death i have no reason too.

Death has been conquered and I am secure in knowing where I am going.
For him all he has is what he can carve out for himself in this life.

that is it. no more no less.

There is the reason that Christianity is the hope of billions of people. It is why Christs message still rings today over 2000 years later.

Doesn't that make you feel good?

 

[Omega Man]

If he is wrong then he is in very much a lot of trouble.
I do not fear death i have no reason too.

Death has been conquered and I am secure in knowing where I am going.
For him all he has is what he can carve out for himself in this life.

that is it. no more no less.

There is the reason that Christianity is the hope of billions of people. It is why Christs message still rings today over 2000 years later.

Ah yes, Pascal's Wager; long since debunked.


OM

 

[ludin]

Ah yes, Pascal's Wager; long since debunked.


OM

then why did you use it?

 

[Omega Man]

then why did you use it?

I have never invoked Pascal's Wager.


OM

 

[ludin]

I have never invoked Pascal's Wager.


OM

and i quote you.

Why is that? If he's right, then what precisely is the problem in no longer existing?

yes you did.

you started the use of pascals wager right here.

the problem is that he cannot say that he is right or not. he can only make a belief that he is correct.
If implies that there is 2 outcomes. 1. If I am right then i am right 2. If i am not right then i am wrong.

You said If he is right. that also implies that he can be wrong.

If i get this question right then i pass.
If i get it wrong i don't.

you started the wager.

 

[Omega Man]

and i quote you.



yes you did.

you started the use of pascals wager right here.

the problem is that he cannot say that he is right or not. he can only make a belief that he is correct.
If implies that there is 2 outcomes. 1. If I am right then i am right 2. If i am not right then i am wrong.

You said If he is right. that also implies that he can be wrong.

If i get this question right then i pass.
If i get it wrong i don't.

you started the wager.

You got it entirely backwards. Pascal's Wager posits that God exists. What I asked referred to the non-existence of God; therefore I did not invoke Pascal's Wager. Sorry.


OM

 

[Omega Man]

...all things considered, I see what you're saying though.


OM

 

[ludin]

You got it entirely backwards. Pascal's Wager posits that God exists. What I asked referred to the non-existence of God. Sorry.


OM

that is still a belief. no one can 100% prove that God does not exist.
no i didn't get it backwards.

from either end of the equation you will always end up invoking pascal.
there is no getting out of it.

you can say I believe God does not exist but no one can say God absolutely 100% does not exist.
to do so would require verifiable evidence to support the argument.

that is why if he is right then he is right.

If though implies doubt. that he could not be correct and that he might not be right.
hence you end back up at up pascals wager.

i will agree pascals wager is a poor argument to prove God exists.
it is 100% good from a dichotomy situation such as this.

 

[Omega Man]

that is still a belief. no one can 100% prove that God does not exist.
no i didn't get it backwards.

from either end of the equation you will always end up invoking pascal.
there is no getting out of it.

you can say I believe God does not exist but no one can say God absolutely 100% does not exist.
to do so would require verifiable evidence to support the argument.

that is why if he is right then he is right.

If though implies doubt. that he could not be correct and that he might not be right.

I have never declared that God doesn't exist - nor have I declared that It does. But yes, I see what you are saying, and can respect that.


OM

 

[ludin]

I have never declared that God doesn't exist - nor have I declared that It does. But yes, I see what you are saying, and can respect that.


OM

see this how discussions are supposed to take place my hats off to you sir for a great conversation.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

that is still a belief. no one can 100% prove that God does not exist.
no i didn't get it backwards.

from either end of the equation you will always end up invoking pascal.
there is no getting out of it.

you can say I believe God does not exist but no one can say God absolutely 100% does not exist.
to do so would require verifiable evidence to support the argument.

that is why if he is right then he is right.

If though implies doubt. that he could not be correct and that he might not be right.
hence you end back up at up pascals wager.

i will agree pascals wager is a poor argument to prove God exists.
it is 100% good from a dichotomy situation such as this.

But suppose god exists but it exists in a form completely different then one described by the Bible? Can one be right and wrong about god’s existence?

 

[RAMOSS]

You got it entirely backwards. Pascal's Wager posits that God exists. What I asked referred to the non-existence of God; therefore I did not invoke Pascal's Wager. Sorry.


OM

In specific, it posits the Christian god in specific.

 

[devildavid]

that is still a belief. no one can 100% prove that God does not exist.
no i didn't get it backwards.

from either end of the equation you will always end up invoking pascal.
there is no getting out of it.

you can say I believe God does not exist but no one can say God absolutely 100% does not exist.
to do so would require verifiable evidence to support the argument.

that is why if he is right then he is right.

If though implies doubt. that he could not be correct and that he might not be right.
hence you end back up at up pascals wager.

i will agree pascals wager is a poor argument to prove God exists.
it is 100% good from a dichotomy situation such as this.

Can you say something that does not exist 100% does not exist?

 

[Omega Man]

Can you say something that does not exist 100% does not exist?

Non-existence?


OM

 

[Logicman]

I have never declared that God doesn't exist - nor have I declared that It does. But yes, I see what you are saying, and can respect that.

What would be your thinking and plan of action were you to find out the New Testament, the resurrection, the original gospel authors being Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that Jesus is indeed God; that Hell exists for unbelievers, that all that was real and true?

If you find out it's all real are you going to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior for the remission of your sins, or are you going to continue kicking him to the curb and choose Hell?

 

[Rich2018]

If you were a juror on a murder trial...and the prosecution introduced sworn statements stating that the accused was guilty.

BUT

These statements were written anonymously and you had not idea who wrote them and when...


...would you consider them as evidence ?

 

[Somerville]

What would be your thinking and plan of action were you to find out the New Testament, the resurrection, the original gospel authors being Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that Jesus is indeed God; that Hell exists for unbelievers, that all that was real and true?

If you find out it's all real are you going to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior for the remission of your sins, or are you going to continue kicking him to the curb and choose Hell?

How can one kick a non-existent being to the curb?

This is still off-topic for this thread.

 

[Logicman]

How can one kick a non-existent being to the curb?

This is still off-topic for this thread.

Somerville, I've seen your arguments against the traditional Gospel authors and you don't have a leg to stand on. I believe one day you will come to the realization that you were badly deceived.

 

[Somerville]

Somerville, I've seen your arguments against the traditional Gospel authors and you don't have a leg to stand on. I believe one day you will come to the realization that you were badly deceived.

still off topic but I will answer one time. You, sir, have never provided an adequate defence of your positions in regards to the authorship of the New Testament books, the time at which they were composed, or the fact that the text was changed multiple times from the date of original composition.

If you wish to provide your best defence of your position, and not by simply quoting or linking to websites, please start another thread and I will provide some information which you undoubtedly will reject but others may read.

 

[RAMOSS]

Somerville, I've seen your arguments against the traditional Gospel authors and you don't have a leg to stand on. I believe one day you will come to the realization that you were badly deceived.

I have seen the arguments you gave for 'traditional authors', and honestly, the against the traditional Gospel authors is much much stronger. Your ability to cut and paste lists out of context are not very convincing.

 

[Logicman]

I have seen the arguments you gave for 'traditional authors', and honestly, the against the traditional Gospel authors is much much stronger. Your ability to cut and paste lists out of context are not very convincing.

Not so. Somerville and you have repeatedly been shown legitimate evidences for the traditional Gospel authors and/or eyewitnesses and at every turn you make superficial, or stupid, and/or strawman arguments that don't hold water. You attack websites and authors who present legitimate evidences. You ignore or bad mouth lists of scholars - including some liberal scholars - who present mid to late 1st century dates for gospel authorship.

Basically, your claims are nonsense.

 

[RAMOSS]

Not so. Somerville and you have repeatedly been shown legitimate evidences for the traditional Gospel authors and/or eyewitnesses and at every turn you make superficial, or stupid, and/or strawman arguments that don't hold water. You attack websites and authors who present legitimate evidences. You ignore or bad mouth lists of scholars - including some liberal scholars - who present mid to late 1st century dates for gospel authorship.

Basically, your claims are nonsense.

I don't find your argument by assertion convincing. The use of out of context quotes, and lists also don't make a convincing argument.

 

[Wayne Jr]

If the Gospels that we have today were not written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses, would you change your beliefs as to the moral value of the stories told in the texts?

This is not an attack on beliefs about the authors; instead, it is meant to bring out the ways in which we view the teachings.

IF the Gospels were written 50 to 100 years after the time of the resurrection, by people who had no personal relationship with the earliest believers in Jesus, would you believe they have less value in teaching us how to live moral lives?

Please don't argue about when and by whom the books were written. This is just about the words we can read today.

None of my beliefs are based on any document. There has to be an internal logic to it.