indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The author of John, who is certainly the author of
> the books 1, 2 and 3 John in the New
> Testament--grab your Greek and check it out--is
> most likely either John or a disciple of John.-pb
>
> christians believe the author was john the
> disciple but then christians are heavily biased to
> believe that just as so many of them believe that
> matthew was the first gospel written instead of
> mark which actually was the first gospel written.
indy,
You are just wrong about this.
I don't know a single Christian who thinks that Matthew was the first Gospel penned. And, tell me, bubba, how do you KNOW which Gospel was written first?
True, it is commonly believed, and for very good reason, that Mark was written first. But, the fact that it's commonly believed in itself means that you are in error.
The fact is, you share the BELIEF that Mark was written first but it's only a belief--a commonly held opinion. Not a single person knows for sure which of these Gospels was penned first.
But, note the error that you just made. You have demonstrated the error of thinking that what you believe is fact when the fact is that you are as human as the rest of us are and you are as finite as the rest of us.
>
>
> independent experts are somewhat split about this.
> some believe as you point out that it could be a
> disciple of john but others believe that it was a
> community of believers called the johanine
> community who wrote what we now call the book of
> john over a couple of decades. one thing everyone
> agrees about is that the writer or writers of john
> were writing with an agenda and this has to be
> taken into account when evaluating the veracity of
> claims found in john.
Yeah.
President Obama makes all of his campaign speeches with an agenda. That doesn't mean that he's wrong when he states facts. You have some very curious ideas about what can and cannot be truth.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Part of his purpose in penning this account is to
> offer an explanation for the fact that the body of
> Jesus has never been produced by the opponents of
> the Christians when producing the body of Jesus
> would have destroyed the movement forever if they
> had.-pb
>
> ive never heard that anyone tried to find jesus'
> body after his execution. finding jesus body was
> never an issue since the story of his resurrection
> was never an issue.
Please try to separate what you want to be true from what you consider to be an established fact. This is a very serious problem for you. Read the Book of Acts. Read the posts of ff! The resurrection certainly was an issue.
And, the fact that you want it not to have been an issue doesn't change reality.
> it was accepted as myth by all
> except ardent believers in the jesus movement.
> resurrection was a common theme among the various
> gods of the time.
Certainly not. Check the sources I cited above. I'll gladly engage you in discussion about what is known to be true and what the two of us believe to be true, but I'm not going to allow you to remain separated from reality. As the Book of Acts makes clear, the claim of the resurrection was taken very seriously by the leaders of the Jews.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> It seems to me that you rejection of the account
> is build on the fact that you have already
> determined that you are not going to believe it no
> matter what.-pb
>
> that is true in this sense. my rejection of this
> story is built upon what ive decided to accept as
> valid evidence when it comes to any story. the
> thing is, you and i are probably very much alike
> in our standard for evidence when it comes to 99%
> of the stories we hear. about the only time we
> differ is when you decide to change your standard
> when it comes to stories related to your faith.
How have I changed my standard when it comes to stories related to my faith?
> i understand that. almost all people of faith do the
> same thing not just christians. thats why its
> called faith.
I love it when people slip into the, "I'm just morally superior to you and that's why I'm right and you are wrong" argument.
That's self-serving.
You, indy, are a very passionate believer in what you believe in. Your posts on this thread are proof of that. So, when you diminish people of faith, you are talking about yourself. Self-awareness, my friend. You and I are both believers. What we believe IN is vastly different, but we are believers nonetheless.
I'm open about it.
Perhaps some day you will be too.
"Subjectivity is truth." -- Soren Kierkegaard
>
> ------------------------------
>
> It seems to me that YOU are the one with the
> jaundiced eye in this case.-pb
>
> certainly all of us have our prejudices so it
> could be me although i dont think it is.
No kidding.
> its just about impossible to be totally impartial about
> anything. fortunatly this isnt an issue if you
> recognize your bias and make every conscious
> effort to not change your standards for evidence
> in favor of your bias.
My point exactly.
What you don't do, it acknowledge your own subjectivity.
>
> consistency is the key here.
I could not possibly agree more if you paid me $1 million.
> the standard that you
> use for valid evidence for one claim should be the
> same standard that you use when evaluating other
> claims as well. i reject the supernatural claims
> made by hinduism islam judaism the olympic gods
> the roman gods christianity etc by using the same
> standards i use to reject the improbable claims
> made by people who see witches flying saucers big
> foot the loch ness monster etc.
An important admission, my friend.
You BEGIN with faith.
Do you get that?
Do you see what you have admitted?
Faith is your standard. You, as a matter of faith, have determined by no other standard than what you believe that all supernatural claims are false. You dismiss without considering the remote possiblity of their truthfulness.
And, I believe at that point, at least, you are consistent.
However, consistent, shall I say, stubborn and consistent application of an unprovable premise is not a very wise path for someone who is actually interested in truth. And, it certainly is very closedminded.
>
> any of those claims may be true but for me to
> accept any of them as true i'd have to change my
> standard for evidence. im not willing to do that.
True, so long as you have the courage that you have chosen your standard of evidence from what you have determined
a priori to be the truth that you will accept.
Again, closedminded but, indeed, consistent.
>
> if you change your standard for evidence then you
> should be aware that you are probably doing so for
> psychological reasons. that is, you want something
> to be true so you dont hold the evidence for that
> something to the same standard that you do for
> almost every other claim that you hear.
Ah, the old claims of omniscience.
Do you really think, having never met me that you can speculate on how I came to the manner in which I think? Based on what?
Are you really sam, writing under another moniker?
I'm not sure anyone here has made this particular claim to omniscience here--except Newton Joseph, Ph. D. who's been gone for years and was much more offensive in his condescension than you are.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> And, sadly, there is even less change of
> convincing you that what you've determined is
> impossible could be possible.-pb
>
> i dont need to be convinced that a physical
> resurrection of a human body is possible. i
> already believe that it is possible. but thats a
> generality. like its possible that flying saucers
> have visited earth many times in the past. that
> too is entirely possible.
>
> but what we are talking about is specifics, about
> particular cases. and what ive determined in this
> particular case is that the evidence that suggests
> jesus was physically resurrected falls woefully
> short of that necessary to convince me that it
> actually happened.
What in THIS particular case, is the evidence that convinces you that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? You've already stated that you dismissed it out of hand without considering it possible just as you do with all supernatural claims.
As I've studied the data, I've concluded that the explanation that best fits the actual data is that, as absurd as it seems, what the early Christians claimed was true.
What data convinces you otherwise?
>
> no one knows for sure what happened about any
> event that we did not observe. all any of us can
> do is to examine the evidence account for our
> biases (not eliminate them) try to be consistent
> in applying our standard for truth and to come to
> our best determination about what actually
> happened.
Well, indy, I'm not sure I agree. When you begin with a closed mind, as you have openly admitted you do as far as the supernatural is concerned, then you are not accepting all evidence. You certainly are consistent. But, you are not open to truth.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2010 11:34PM by pb.