Christians Cannot Defend What They Claim (soul, disciples, suicide, Islam)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

I sincerely doubt that there is such a thing as evidence that you'd be willing to accept.

Impossible. The atheists on this site have dug in and are not willing to budge. I don't expect to argue you into God's kingdom...because the Bible tells us it won't happen unless God changes your heart. But I will defend against the silly accusations for the benefit of lurkers.

I know you think you do. You simply don't believe. I recognize that. If you refuse to believe, nothing I say will change that.



I think unreasonable expectations are placed on the Gospels. I don't think it has anything to do with the Gospels--but unreasonably expectations would be placed on ANY NUMBER of texts we came up with. If there were 12 Gospels....someone would complain that there weren't 14.

I recognize that many are simply nominal adherents. I get that.

To be fair, the atmosphere around this forum is pretty hostile to ANY Christian who dares to actually say what the Bible says--whether they take time to establish familiarity with everyone or not.

OK, well we'll just keep skimming the surface then I guess. Because it's "impossible" to do otherwise. Because someone (of course it's only 100% of atheists and 0% of anyone else) has "dug in".

This is an article of faith for you, and until it changes, don't expect to get anywhere.

The whole concept of "refuse to believe" is itself another canard. Belief is an organic result of what one knows and understands, things disbelieved cannot be believed again unless the data changes. I came to atheism leaving behind skid marks from all my kicking and screaming. I didn't want to not believe, trust me.

But you can't give me credit for that, can you. Because to do so would be to admit I might have some plausible, honorable reason for my disbelief that you might have some potential to address. But all you can do is hector me about your demand that I believe what you believe because of nothing more than your claim that you're objectively right.

So who's being stubborn here?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

From 2000 years ago...at a time when it was very expensive to produce such written documentation.

Here is a list of Christian gospels, acts, epistles and the like that DIDN"T make it into the NT. Yet someone went to all of the trouble and expense of writing them.

1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus Gospels
Egerton Gospel
Fayyum Fragment
Dialogue of the Saviour
The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2–7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome.
The Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Secret Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Descent of Mary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

It was recorded in the Gospels and in Acts. And an entire church was established. But hey..you say NO ONE reported it....

No one found the actual events interesting enough to report on at the time they were supposed to have occurred. Decades later people had begun to find the STORIES that were in circulation interesting enough to report on.

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

I'm fully convinced that it wouldn't how many sources we had, or what they were. You'd find a reason to doubt.

The story of a corpse coming back to life spread about by the followers of the corpse doesn't require much effort to illicit doubt. The story of a wandering teacher who ran afoul of the authorities and was crucified as a result, well that is at least plausible. It could even be true.

[BaptistFundie]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Here is a list of Christian gospels, acts, epistles and the like that DIDN"T make it into the NT. Yet someone went to all of the trouble and expense of writing them.

1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus Gospels
Egerton Gospel
Fayyum Fragment
Dialogue of the Saviour
The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2–7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome.
The Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Secret Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Descent of Mary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

They didn't "make it" because they're forgeries. Many of them weren't written until 200-300 AD.

No one found the actual events interesting enough to report on at the time they were supposed to have occurred. Decades later people had begun to find the STORIES that were in circulation interesting enough to report on.

Acts was written pretty early on. The Gospels were recorded later on.

Again....writing stuff down wasn't cheap or easy.

The story of a corpse coming back to life spread about by the followers of the corpse doesn't require much effort to illicit doubt. The story of a wandering teacher who ran afoul of the authorities and was crucified as a result, well that is at least plausible. It could even be true.

Weird how so many people willingly gave their lives because they saw Jesus after he had risen from the dead and believed him to be God.

[The Last Amalekite 1Sam15]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

What evidence would you find convincing?

The same evidence lucifer/satan has will work for me

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

Again...what would suffice?

What would suffice to convince you that the world was flat? There is an explanation to this analogy but I'll hold it until you answer this one.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

How about you define what "impeachable evidence" is exactly? Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that my ancestor was a primate? No you can't but that seems to be the level of evidence that atheists demand to even consider if Christianity is true. Futhermore, can you can prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt? Evidence for anything can easily be torn apart. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time.

I have over 100 evidences that give me strong faith that I serve the one true God. It's the sum of evidences that is convincing, not one single smoking gun evidence.

That's pretty much It Jeff. But what you are overlooking is that more and more evidence for primate evolution is being found and looking sound, while more and more of the supposed evidence for the claims of Christianity from The Exodus to I/D are being shown very shaky if not totally devoid of credibility. That is the way it is going, and that's the state of play as it is, not as you seem to imagine it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Well did it occur to you that maybe most people couldn't read or write in that time period? How silly is it to assume that our modern day society functioned exactly the same way back then.

What's the point? You are telling me that the people who wrote the Bible couldn't write?

Why is it ridiculous? Because you never seen someone rise from the dead? How do you know that is impossible? Science certainly hasn't solved all the mysteries to life. If you told me that ancient cultures were far more intelligent than us, I would probably find that ridiculous and unbelievable. Yet we have artifacts like the Voynich manuscript which has stumped the greatest minds in our generation.

Good point - or at least I think so. Bible skeptics do tend to play the 'Miracles don't happen' card. I don't, because like the 'No god could possibly exist' claim, it is actually logically shaky.

The Bible is a collection of books from numerous authors spanning centuries yet it has a remarkable consistency with telling and foretelling the coming of Christ all the way back in Genesis 3:15. That alone is a perfectly acceptable piece of evidence.

It does - if you fiddle it. The Touchstone case here is the prophecies of the death of Judas, both in Acts and matthew. They had to scramble and mistranslate the OT to get a prophecy out of it. There are several other examples of misuse of OT text in aadapting it to suit the needs of the Gospels -writers. The 'Alma/Bethula' and misreading of 'Rachel's children' in Matthew, not to mention the two donkeys, is well -known. There is even a quote in the temple which would have Jesus quoting from the septuagint Greek mistranslation, not the Hebrew scriptures. Luke (in Acts) and John do the same, and pretty much all the 'foretelling' of Jesus that you speak of is fiddling of this nature.

You and other Christians have been Bamboozled old son.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

From 2000 years ago...at a time when it was very expensive to produce such written documentation.

Nice.

It was recorded in the Gospels and in Acts. And an entire church was established. But hey..you say NO ONE reported it....



I'm fully convinced that it wouldn't how many sources we had, or what they were. You'd find a reason to doubt.

Don't be absurd. The constant harping on 'Extra Biblical records of Jesus' (which apart from Tacitus, as nothing of the kind) ARE actually extra -Biblical records of the early establishment of a Christian Church. I don't doubt that on matters of Christian doctrine and Theology, you could run rings around most of us, you don't seem to be able to get a grip on the problems with the validity of the religious claims.

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Maybe Jesus would have left less confusion behind him if he actually said what he meant. Writing something in his own hand and leaving that to posterity would have been very useful in making his message less obscure as well. Apparently he never thought of that. Which represents a serious lack of forethought for a major deity.

Actually Hannibal is pulling the "They denied powered flight' fallacy here. It works like this: you take something that was doubted at the time but turned out to be true. Then by implying 'You don't want to be as denialist as those fools, do you?' try to shame us into swallowing all sorts of dubious or invalid claims.

You will see the fallacy right away, even if Half Flava doesn't.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

I sincerely doubt that there is such a thing as evidence that you'd be willing to accept.

Impossible. The atheists on this site have dug in and are not willing to budge. I don't expect to argue you into God's kingdom...because the Bible tells us it won't happen unless God changes your heart. But I will defend against the silly accusations for the benefit of lurkers.

I know you think you do. You simply don't believe. I recognize that. If you refuse to believe, nothing I say will change that.



I think unreasonable expectations are placed on the Gospels. I don't think it has anything to do with the Gospels--but unreasonably expectations would be placed on ANY NUMBER of texts we came up with. If there were 12 Gospels....someone would complain that there weren't 14.

I recognize that many are simply nominal adherents. I get that.

To be fair, the atmosphere around this forum is pretty hostile to ANY Christian who dares to actually say what the Bible says--whether they take time to establish familiarity with everyone or not.

How you people love to play the injured martyr. And how VERY popular the 'No evidence would convince you - so I don't need to, but can still claim I'm right' ploy.

In fact in discussion with our pal Cardinals here it came out that atheists would, after some initial doubts, eventually come to accept on compelling evidences (note the plural), that the God that finally showed up was indeed Shiva. Devout Christians or Muslims, however would NEVER accept that.

We accept evidence; they reject it if it doesn't fit their faith. They are NOT excused from the burden of providing evidence to back up their religious claims, and they know bloody well the evidence isn't good enough or they'd be providing it in heaps (as they used to before it was all shown up to be trash) and instead they are trying to find a miserable excuse for why they haven't a shred of decent evidence, and damn' their eyes, trying to blame our 'stubbornness' as an excuse to avoid having to back up their position - which they know would be shown up to be so much rubbish.

Christian apologists (and by Random factors, haven't they something to apologize for?) may be woefully short on decent evidence, sound logic or intellectual integrity, but they more than make up for it in craftiness, evasion and general slipperiness.

The evasion and craftiness in " If there were 12 Gospels....someone would complain that there weren't 14." should be stuffed and put on display in the Theist apologist Hall of Shame.

If all the Theist apologetic strawmen were provided with a rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition, they could have defeated ISIS in a week. In fact we have five Gospels, including the gospel of Peter (for debunking purposes, that is quite useful). It is very useful that we have the Canonical four to compare, and our job would be far harder without all the contradictions (evidence that the apologists simply shrug off in the way they accuse us of doing) and the four will do very nicely thanks. Our argument has NEVER been that there 'aren't enough gospels' and that is a gobsmackingly blatant strawman that ought to make it utterly clear how morally bankruptt evangelical apologetics is, at any rate.

Nice going, Fundie.You are doing wonders for the cause of atheism.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

They didn't "make it" because they're forgeries. Many of them weren't written until 200-300 AD.

Acts was written pretty early on. The Gospels were recorded later on.

Again....writing stuff down wasn't cheap or easy.


Weird how so many people willingly gave their lives because they saw Jesus after he had risen from the dead and believed him to be God.

In fact apart from the letters of Paul (the earlier ones, at any rate) I reckon ALL the NT is 'forgery'. And all but Mark may be later than you seem to think. That you play the 'difficulty of writing records' gambit as an excuse for why the results are dubious is fair enough, but it still leaves the NT...dubious.

'Millions wouldn't die for a lie', eh? Tell that to the Muslims. Those millions died for what they Believed on faith, not what they knew os actual eyewitness experience.

Moderator cut: delete Do you think up these apologetics excuses yourselves, or do you have an easy -reference handbook? I am pretty certain for instance that the early Creationists we had to hammer and pound in the early days used to post with Josh McDowell propped up against the computer -screen.