20 Jan 15
Originally posted by josephwOK, so it seems we are in agreement. Although I don't really understand the context in which you posted the exact opposite of what you really meant to say.
Not going to argue with that except to say you're out of context. The comment you are replying to is relevant to the context in which I said it.
Even so, you have inadvertently supported my contention. Truth is objective and not reliant on an opinion to be true. The truth is truth independent of anyone's opinion.
20 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMFWhat is true, and what is false? That seems to be what you're saying. So-and-so says this is true, and somebody else says something else entirely is true.
What is "true" to my neighbour is that God revealed Himself to Muhammed at the top of a mountain (or in a cave, I forget which) about 1,400 years ago. So is this "truth" a "truth" that is "independent of anyone's opinion" including yours?
One is right, or both are wrong, but both can't be right. What makes the truth "the truth" isn't a matter of opinion. What is truth is wholly dependent on who is saying it. You and I have opinions, but God is truth. What God has spoken is true.
I can't state it any simpler FMF! Either you get it or not. I think you get it, but you can't bring yourself to admit it. 😉
20 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's funny twitehead. But the exact inverse is true. I said what I meant to say, and you replied to the opposite thing from what I said!
OK, so it seems we are in agreement. Although I don't really understand the context in which you posted the exact opposite of what you really meant to say.
Please, let's move on. Or we can go back to the start and say it all again. Like we always do! 😉
20 Jan 15
Originally posted by josephwI must have totally misunderstood you somewhere, but I don't know where because I still don't know what you really want to say.
That's funny twitehead. But the exact inverse is true. I said what I meant to say, and you replied to the opposite thing from what I said!
Please, let's move on. Or we can go back to the start and say it all again. Like we always do! 😉
Is this whole conversation nothing more than cover up for the fact that you couldn't give an honest answer to DeepThought's question?
20 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, not only can you not read and comprehend my previous posts, but now you're going to accuse me of not giving an honest answer.
I must have totally misunderstood you somewhere, but I don't know where because I still don't know what you really want to say.
Is this whole conversation nothing more than cover up for the fact that you couldn't give an honest answer to DeepThought's question?
Well, we'll see how much time I have left for arguing about it with you!
Can you be any more disingenuous? Show me exactly where I didn't give an honest answer. Otherwise I'll only have to assume you're covering up for not being able to follow the thread.
Or is it you really don't like the answer?
20 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhitehead"That is your opinion, but it is not the truth."
That is your opinion, but it is not the truth.
What exactly are you saying my opinion is about what?
And what are you saying isn't the truth?
You need to post more clearly what it is you're trying to say. Be honest. Say it.
20 Jan 15
Originally posted by josephwSo you insist you are absolutely right? That's what you've got?
What is true, and what is false? That seems to be what you're saying. So-and-so says this is true, and somebody else says something else entirely is true.
One is right, or both are wrong, but both can't be right. What makes the truth "the truth" isn't a matter of opinion. What is truth is wholly dependent on who is saying it. You and I have opinions, but ...[text shortened]... FMF! Either you get it or not. I think you get it, but you can't bring yourself to admit it. 😉
20 Jan 15
Originally posted by josephwThis is sophistry, it looks as if I have to provide you with the evidence you are unable to provide me. But first, something I feel which gets to the crux of the matter:
I know I'm right, and you just proved it.
You see DT, in the end whatever any one of us may say it only boils down to our own opinion.
But if God has spoken...
If God exists, then arguments about him are arguments about the cosmos and of cosmic importance, but if he does not, they are not about anything.[1]Williams was talking about ethics and the problem with God as a cosmic policeman, but there is an interesting question about whether we are talking about anything in this forum. If there is no God then the Bible is false, but, with the exception of the resurrection and various miraculous events, it may nevertheless have some historical authenticity. If there is a God, then the Bible is still not automatically true. Even if Christianity has got it broadly correct then the Bible is not necessarily historically accurate. For example, why is Joseph, who is not a Roman Citizen, required to register in a Roman census? [2]
So let's examine the first part of your earlier response:
Really? You do live in the 21st century don't you? This is the Information Age isn't it? What rational reason can you possibly have that would cause you to believe the account of the life of Jesus, his death and subsequent resurrection is false? Give yourself a break and start believing in the only truly credible historical record known to man.The problem with the first highlighted part is that I can pick holes in the text without really trying. There is no Egyptian record of the events described in Exodus. They would not have lost the first born of every household in the way described and never have referred to it again. This is a major problem if you are going to claim historical accuracy for the Bible.
After all, look at the alternative. Since when can you trust any historical account? We've all seen how history is written and rewritten, by man, to suit his own agenda and control the masses.
Besides, there's an even better and more reliable way of knowing the truth than just guessing at it. Every word of scripture is God breathed. God cannot lie. Take God at His word and you'll see. Who else are you going to trust?
As far as I know there are three references to Christ from non-Christian writers of the time. This is what Tacitus had to say
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[3]Tacitus had not checked his facts, Pilate (whose historicity is certain) was a prefect and not a procurator. The exact source of the Christian beliefs wasn't of interest to him. It's also worth noting that earlier in Annals he refers to a Pheonix being seen in Egypt [4].
The other source is Josephus, whose first reference was clearly tampered with.
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.[5]Josephus was Jewish and would not have written this. Josephus' original text has been tampered with.
The third reference is also from Josephus and refers to the stoning of James the Just:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:...[6]Note here that he is "Jesus, who was called Christ" rather than the definite "He was Christ" in the earlier passage.
So did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Probably, but except for the Bible the only information we have is that he was crucified. The Bible is not a reliable historical source if you expect it to be literally true. The second and third highlighted parts reinforce the point, you cannot give a good reason why the Bible should be exempt from political editing. It is not a matter of trusting God in this, but the Bible writers, and they were biased. If you base your faith on the literal truth of the Bible I think that you are deceiving yourself, if, on the other hand, you do not then you cannot know that other religions are false.
[1] Bernard Williams - Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy p.38
[2] Luke 2, 1-6
[3] Tacitus, The Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44
[4] Tacitus, The Annals, Book 6, Chapter 28
[5] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 3
[6] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9
21 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHowever, somehow the Holy Spirit has provided me with the knowledge that the other religions, including atheistic evolution, are false.
You cannot claim knowledge by reason and logic alone. All you can know from logic are tautologies, which incidentally depend on the set of rules chosen so for example, the law of the divided middle is a tautology in Classical logic, but not automatically true in intuitionist logic. Since a statement like "The Gospels are not historical" is not self-con ...[text shortened]... s of the Gospels or withdraw your claim that you can know that other religions are false.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!