BCR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 178
- Location
- Heart of Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. -Matthew 9:9
They certainly weren't eye witness given at minimum the earliest may have been written in 60 AD. In fact there is no scholarly consensus on the dates and 60 AD is probably early. In essence the range in between 60 AD and the second half of the second century AD (so around 150 AD). At least three are post-70 AD because of the fall of Jerusalem references and come quite possibly decades afterwards. There really is no way to tell. Certainly they were not written by the apostles, one can even doubt whether some of these men could even write. Indeed, the Gospel of Mark (thought to be the earliest) even contains errors about Galilean geography and customs suggesting that the writer wasn't even from Galilee. At best these are certainly second hand accounts and possibly even third or fourth hand accounts.
Some think that the actual apostles did indeed write these, despite the fact that they mention the fall of Jerusalem, 72 A.D. though they date it earlier make it appear as if it is prothetic.
Anyways after looking around it appears the earliest of the gospels was written around 60 A.D. So the apostles would have had to been what 80, 90? It seems nobody has a damn clue who wrote the gospels.
Some think that the actual apostles did indeed write these, despite the fact that they mention the fall of Jerusalem, 72 A.D. though they date it earlier make it appear as if it is prothetic.
Anyways after looking around it appears the earliest of the gospels was written around 60 A.D. So the apostles would have had to been what 80, 90? It seems nobody has a damn clue who wrote the gospels.
It is a mixture of things, including valid testimony and witnessing. "Valid" here refers to the validity defined by God and may find its application in the court of heaven.
That's meaningless, it's like saying "validity defined by unicorns and magical pixies". Since there's no reason whatsoever to think that God is real, any validity based on it is fanciful at best.
beg the question much?
It's not begging the question, it's reality. There is no way you can start with nothing and end up with a belief in a god, examining only the evidence and following solely where it leads. It takes a whole lot of wishful thinking to get anywhere near god(s), you cannot get there rationally.
beg the question much?
who says i have to start with nothing? no examination is started with nothing.
You're demanding that the opposition start with nothing. If you get to invent a magical exception for God, then you cannot deny all exceptions for everyone else.
i fail to see what is 'magic' about pointing out that the claim that "there is no logical reason to believe in God" is begging the question. at best it's circular logic.
hm. first problem; you have no evidence that they are discussing the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. that's simply an anti-theistic bias masquerading as fact; the notion that because a prediction has 'come true' it must have been added in by a redactor.
second problem: Jesus prediction about the Temple isn't, technically, completely accurate. there are, after all, stones left standing on each other - the infamous wailing wall. so i would like to see your reasoning for why the authors of the New Testament would be willing to lie about Jesus words, but unwilling to make Him appear accurate?
actually we know quite a bit about the early Gospels. Mark was the recorded teachings of Peter, John appears to have been dictated by the apostle to his disciples, and Matthew appears to have been written by the apostle himself. Luke begins his text by stating that he is not an eyewitness, but records the multiple eyewitness and written accounts that he used as source material.
i fail to see what is 'magic' about pointing out that the claim that "there is no logical reason to believe in God" is begging the question. at best it's circular logic.
But at the same time I see no evidence *against* God existing. . . it's just as solid as evidence *for* God existing. . . when we're talking about science (not debatable issues of historical/religious accuracy such as: were the walls of Jericho really toppled? Did the Red Sea part?)
There's no evidence against unicorns existing either, but we don't consider belief in them to be valid or rational. You don't get to pick something out of a hat to demand is real, just because it makes you feel better. For the same reason I reject belief in unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, alien abductions, etc., I reject belief in God. I may change my mind on any of them once actual, objective evidence to support their factual existence is presented, but until then... forget it.
No, it's a clear and concise statement. There is no logical reason to believe in God. If you think I'm wrong, present a logical reason to do so. Shouldn't be too difficult, should it?
I'm not a faith-having person. Never was. I always questioned the Bible - every bit of it - I just never believed it.
But at the same time I see no evidence *against* God existing. . . it's just as solid as evidence *for* God existing. . . when we're talking about science (not debatable issues of historical/religious accuracy such as: were the walls of Jericho really toppled? Did the Red Sea part?)
So I think trying to debate whether God might exist or not is interesting - but moot.
if you think he exists then there you go.
If you don't then there you go.
well. you tell me. have you ever been to the island of malta?
There's actually more evidence supporting Big foot and Loch Ness than Jesus-son-of-God or even God for that matter.
so, for example, if i were to say that there is no credible evidence to suggest that man landed on the moon, and then reply that any evidence you demonstrated didn't count because it "wasn't credible" because (again) no credible evidence existed that man landed on the moon, then what i am engaging in is called a circular argument.
well. you tell me. have you ever been to the island of malta?
I've had unbelievably intense orgasms, too - but I still don't realy *believe* in the religous-God (any religious God, there are many versions).
I've also been near-death several times, no God there, either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?