And this again....
Are you able to address someone's point without the non-stop personal attacks?
Ignorance and the Bible
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
And this again....
Are you able to address someone's point without the non-stop personal attacks?
Margot
Verified User
Paul had a direct connection on the road to Damascus through the Holy Spirit.
Still can't explain why you selectively use a hyper-strict historical reliability standard for Christian authors, but not for other authors of antiquity?
I've done the hard work of investing significant time over a period of years to learn about religion.
I am presenting historical and theological information that's causing atheists to frantically Google.
If you really invested a chunk of your life learning a subject, you shouldn't have to bounce back and forth from this page, and a web page with Google search open on it. Unless it's to check spelling or dates, or to reference a subject matter expert.
Thank you for at least confessing you google as well.
Correct , I don't remember dates or how to spell names all the time. But nothing you have posted on this thread ever made me go to a Google search engine. Your depth of knowledge is too shallow to necessitate me Googling.
Now, the other interesting fact is that I might be the only poster on this thread actually acknowledging the validity of views other than my own:
I have yet to see an atheist make a clear statement that atheism might be wrong, or openly state that it's very possible the early church bishops knew exactly who wrote the gospels
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
The "confusion" is simply your lack of understanding.
Yes. It matters because Joseph was Jesus' "legal father" and Jesus was prophesied to be a "descendent of David and Abraham". This particular genealogy traces Jesus' legal line from Joseph back to David and back to Abraham to prove to a Jewish audience that Jesus is indeed the Messiah.
Because there's two separate reasons for the two separate genealogies. The first reason I've already explained. The second genealogy, instead of the legal line, traces Jesus' biological line from Mary all the way back to Adam.
1) legal line (Matthew was writing to the Jews)
2) biological line (Luke was writing to the Gentiles)
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You won't even recognize atheism for what it is. How can a lack of belief somehow be wrong? I am an atheist. I have no theistic belief to be mistaken. Ergo, atheism cannot be wrong any more than the null statement can, and atheism cannot be "militant" ... yet you insist that others don't even know their own lack of beliefs, i.e. that you omnipotently declare they hold beliefs. You refuse to acknowledge the atheism of others.
Is that all? It is possible the early church bishops knew exactly who wrote the gospels, and it is fairly certain that someone knew exactly who wrote the gospels.
Is there anything else?
He had a “vision”, whatever that is.
Based Chad
Was it me?
Googling to confirm the spelling of names or dates, is not the same as being so uniformed about Christian history that you are constantly having to Google to confirm/verify information you learn from other posters.
Justify as you need.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Ergot in the rye bread? I doubt it was schizophrenia since he seemed normal for the times in other respects.
I've never had to consult Google over anything you wrote here.
You read my posts and frequently keep a Google search engine open to verify and augment the information you read on my posts.
Frantic Googling and knee-jerk reacting to other people's posts is a poor way to be adequately informed, and it doesn't motivate you to see the forest through the trees.
You actually have to do the hard work of reading books, taking classes, watching podcasts - and not just from other atheists. That's confirmation bias. You have to be willing to impartially listen to legitimate Christian, Jewish, Buddhist scholars, in addition to atheists.
That's the thing. There's so many ways for the human brain to be convinced of an illusion. People have experiences all the time that don't comport with reality. Hallucinogens, brain damage, etc.
When faced with a mystical vision there's always two options:
1. True mystical supernatural experience
2. Impact of a chemical or stressor on the brain
Since no one has provided convincing evidence of something "supernatural" (those claims tend to fail) it leaves #2 as the most likely option.
Look, Cy, I don't want to hear about your "Googling habits". I know you google just like everyone else here. But you also use books. Which I do too. I've got my bookshelf here loaded up with books I've read over the years. Quite a few by Ehrman, but also Sturgis, Krueger, Harris, Martin, Shermer, Freidman, etc. And I've got 2 copies of the Bible.
So let's stop playing like you are superior to anyone on here. I know it is important to you that you are better than everyone else but you simply aren't.
So drop this line of personal attack. Try for a change to debate the point and not the person
Paul and all the apostles had the same hallucination?
I've always wanted to get beyond the simplistic explanations that all those people were hallucinating, mentally ill, and/or lying. That is not a very strong explanation. Romans and Galatians do not seem like the works of an insane person.
You and I have discussed the possibility Jesus survived the crucifixion. I suppose it's remotely possible he met up with Paul three years later outside Damascus.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Frantic Googling by people who want to appear smart seems familiar. LOL
It seems that “visions” were common for that time and any others where ignorance prevailed. A simple vivid dream, which we’ve all had, could be their vision.
Yes. I find that those who make accusations are often confessing.