What question is answered by religion?

[DylanV]

Originally Posted by Xeno

Eusebius Makeshituppicus wrote in the fourth century CE finding a rationale for an obvious contradiction. His entire explanation is simply not in the bible, but read into it by him to account for the obvious problem created by two different writers making up their own stories at two different times.

Did you know that Star Wars is inerrant? At least, any apparent discrepancy in it can be explained away by making shit up, just like Eusebius has done here for the bible.

Meanwhile, in what respect is this a question better answered by religion? What is the question you wish to offer me, DylanV? So far, all you are doing is preaching.

Well I think those Jewish commandments as outlined in Deuteronomy 25 explain those differences perfectly. If you can explain how it doesn't fit, go right ahead I'm all ears.

[DylanV]

Originally Posted by Loki

Again with the unsupported assertions?



and again?

You might find it hard to believe, but I'm not interested in the strength of your convictions or what you personally do or don't accept. I'm interested in actual support for your assertions. If there is valid reason to consider the contents of the bible as greater epistemic value than Enid Blyton or JK Rowling then I'm happy to do so. I've never seen it and so far you have provided nothing but vague hand-waving.

If you would like to discuss;

A. Evidence for the resurrection
B. Apparent contradictions in the gospels

Please feel free to start a new thread for each ones of those topics, I'll be happy to join in.

[Loki]

Originally Posted by DylanV

If you would like to discuss;

A. Evidence for the resurrection
B. Apparent contradictions in the gospels

Please feel free to start a new thread for each ones of those topics, I'll be happy to join in.

So you have no support to offer for your assertions?

Somehow I'm not surprised. Why would we need extra threads when this one is open and available? Support for the resurrection in 3...2...1 and a half....1 and a quarter......

[loubert]

Originally Posted by DylanV

*snip*
A. Evidence for the resurrection
B. Apparent contradictions in the gospels
.

I would love to hear your evidence for these two issues. thanks.

[Loki]

Claim B. gets down to the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. As such I can't see any discussion getting very far. Claim A. is a different matter entirely.

[Darwinsbulldog]

@ DylanV:-

You seem to be miffed that no one is accepting your presuppositions. There is actually no problem accepting pressupositions for the sake of argument, even if they are not true.

In biology geneticists regularly accept the Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium. Guess what, it is deliberately made up horseshit.

Here are some of the assumptions :-

1. Infinite populations [utter bollocks]
2. No natural selection [also probably bollocks, because truely stable and unchanging environments are rare]
3. No drift. [also bollocks, but may be overwhelmed by strong selection]

But there is a POINT to all these mathematical bollocks. It acts as a baseline or null condition against which real life gene frequencies in populations can be compared.

For example, there are no [known] infinite populations, but bacteria inculture can run into the trillions of individuals, and although not infinite in size, that big popn will tend to behave more like a H-W population than a bunch of 7 rabbits marooned on a desert Island. In other words, seven bunnies are not going to be as genetically diverse, or experience as many mutations, as gazzillions of bugs in a broth.

Now I, for one, do not have a problem with positing a god as a model. But in the end, you have to use evidence [as good evidence as you can muster] if you want to say that you have a working model. Unless you are using god[s] as a sort of null model, like in my H-W example of an idealisation of gene frequencies in a population?

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by DylanV

Well I think those Jewish commandments as outlined in Deuteronomy 25 explain those differences perfectly. If you can explain how it doesn't fit, go right ahead I'm all ears.

Looks like we have here one of those people who will not or can not address the issue.

I did not say that any word of the bible was not in the bible. I said that there is absolutely zero in the bible accounts to address the absurd discrepancy. Eudubious found something which he thought could excuse it so he made up a back story to preserve his belief, and you adopt it to preserve yours. Logically and eisegetically it would have been equally valid for Eudubious to refer to Deuteronomy 25:4 and say that a servant of Matthew muzzled an ox treading corn so was beaten on the ground in accord with Deuteronomy 25:1-3 and bandaged his wound with an explanatory page from the gospel, which was thus lost. You feel less likely to believe that version but it is undertaking exactly the same process of creating a story out of different written parts of the text to make it up that a contradiction is not to be read as it is.

DylanV, when are you going to address the OP? What is the question you wish to offer me, DylanV? So far, all you are doing is preaching.

[MikeJay]

Originally Posted by DylanV

Hi 4lan,

Obviously this is a theological position, so I would explain it by what scripture says about it.

But before I could do that we all have to accept that;

1. There are good reasons to believe there is a God.
2. Jesus Christ was who he said he was, and the resurrection actually happened.
3. What we have now as the New Testament is historically reliable, and we can know what the original documents said.
4. What the authors wrote is actually true.

So I can explain to you what I believe about the inspiration of scripture, but of course I'd have to assume all the points above first.

1. There are good reasons to believe in the tooth fairy, belief in something still doesn't make it true no matter how many people believe it.
2. You do realise the much earlier and hence most accurate books of the bible (the non english ones in ancient languages) do not mention Jesus as a real person, nor do they talk about his birth or death. The birth and death thing being a later addition to combat/encompass pagan religious figures and ceremonies of the day.
3. See my notes on point 2.
4. see my notes on point 2.

[MikeJay]

Originally Posted by DylanV

A. Evidence for the resurrection

Are you trying to make a distinction between;

"Evidence for the resurection" and "Evidence of Jesus's resurection"?

Language is a fickle thing, if you make a word mean anything and everything at the same time, then it really means nothing at all.

[Inedifix]

Originally Posted by 4lan

@DvlanV . . .
Would you please explain by what method the word of the bible were inspired by god?

Originally Posted by DylanV

Hi 4lan,

Obviously this is a theological position, so I would explain it by what scripture says about it.

Hang on . . . how can scripture tell us anything about how scripture was inspired by god? Don't tell me you were thinking of something like this:

P1. Scripture states that the Bible is the (inspired) word of god.
P2. Whatever the Bible says must be true, because it's the word of god.
Therefore:
C3: The Bible is the word of God.

That's called begging the question, or circular reasoning. Not a good thing.

Originally Posted by DylanV

But before I could do that we all have to accept that;

1. There are good reasons to believe there is a God.
2. Jesus Christ was who he said he was, and the resurrection actually happened.
3. What we have now as the New Testament is historically reliable, and we can know what the original documents said.
4. What the authors wrote is actually true.

So I can explain to you what I believe about the inspiration of scripture, but of course I'd have to assume all the points above first.

You seem to be saying we'd have to accept or even believe in Christianity before you can explain why it's true to us. If we "accepted" the above, we wouldn't need convincing about the word of god.

Similarly, if you accept that "there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural" we wouldn't need to explain to you why the concept of the "word of god" being contained in the Bible is pure nonsense.