• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there really such thing as Atheist magazine? I'm familiar with most of the skeptical literature out there, but I've never heard of Atheist magazine. I think DOC may be lying for the lord, but what else is new.
 
Is there really such thing as Atheist magazine? I'm familiar with most of the skeptical literature out there, but I've never heard of Atheist magazine. I think DOC may be lying for the lord, but what else is new.
I only buy it for the articles although that centerfold spread of Dawkins was most disturbing :covereyes
 
I am now, at the age of 26, having traveled across the world, dealt with people of many faiths, many beliefs, and discussed it with them--somewhat of an amateur theologian.

I haven't found that faith yet. I am not a Christian. I am not an Atheist....I am what I have always termed 'non religious'. I abstain from the question. God? No God? It doesn't matter. I'll do the best I can, right here, right now, and if I have to justify myself to a God someday, that is the only statement I'll need.

I did the best I could.
Without wanting to put words in your mouth, your approach to life seems - to me - devoid of theism... hence atheist...

There are no initiation rites to perform, no oaths to declare, no funny hats or handshakes, no need for cross-dressing... it really is that simple :)
 
Without wanting to put words in your mouth, your approach to life seems - to me - devoid of theism... hence atheist...

There are no initiation rites to perform, no oaths to declare, no funny hats or handshakes, no need for cross-dressing... it really is that simple :)


:blush:

True! Though as I said, I am open to -believing-, or being convinced, at this point, I am living a fairly atheistic life.

It doesn't bother me to be considered an atheist, although I'm not one to go out and argue for the non existence of god as some do. As I said, 'non religious' is my preferred way to go, since, especially in religious areas, it leaves proselytizers of -both- sides confused and unsure how to approach me, which pleases me just fine. I hate being preached at, or having someone attempt to convert me to anything (Apparently being in the Army for any length of time teaches you to be a suspicious mule -- "You're saying that in a pretty loud voice, I don't think I wanna do whatever you're talking about. Hmph!").



Rikzilla! You really have made me blush, thank you for the nomination! I keep meaning to get around to reading that book, and just haven't. I've been nose deep in CJ Cherryh's most recent novels, and mentally tied up in that universe's thought processes.


Joobz-

I have noticed that, and that's why I had to reply again. It's very common among certain types of Evangelicals (not saying DOC is one) to pressure more on the emotion of a thing than the reality of it. He seems very tied up in the emotions of his belief, and that is what he is earnestly trying to impress upon us, especially those who are not adamantly and outspokenly opposed to his ideas.

I just don't think he has any idea that for some of us, we are taught, or have learned, to cut through the emotions--usually through bad experiences with certain churches, spouses, or....ahem...government institutions--and deal with the bare facts and make our judgment on that.

I believe this is why he becomes frustrated and goes in circles. His emotional reaction to God and Christianity is so intense, that like some autistic children, he cannot understand that -we don't feel the same way-.

He says he was an atheist, but I wonder if he was just a lapsed Christian. There is a difference, in gradation, not really in kind. When you're lapsed, you're still clinging to bits of the belief, and lapsed religious folks often go in cycles of attending church and not attending church, but never leaving the mental universe of 'God'.

When you've made the circuit into atheism or non-religion, I think that it is -intensely- harder to ever become religious/faithful again, as you have stepped into a mental universe where God either does not exist or does not apply, and the emotional circuits that 'God' or 'Jesus' used to trip just don't function anymore. Sort of like how since I got cable TV, I have no idea how to use an antenna anymore, even though I have the attachment space for antenna on my television.... It's there, I used to use it! But no function for it anymore, it might as well not exist.

But if there was a darn good show only available through the antenna, I'd be working out how to use it again.
 
This is exactly what I mean about personal attacks without a well reasoned explanation. Is it possible for someone to have science related threads like my threads:

1) "Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins"

and

2) "Do most Atheists know that science..."

with 55,000 views and 18,000 views without a good knowledge of science.

DOC ... YES. Yes, it most assuredly is. In fact, my own suspicion, based on my reading of your threads (including those), is that a substantial portion of those many views have been garnered from readers returning out of simple astonishment at your utter, unconquerably obstinate ignorance of science.
 
Oh what the hell.

In answer to the OP, DOC, Geisler claims that the apostles are cast in a bad light because they were being honest. I offer another explanation;

Jesus, as described in the bible, is God made flesh, perfect, and incapable of sin. He treats all people with kindness, preaches love and inclusion, performs miracles, and forgives all people their sins. The apostles, of course, are shown as great men, people able to see the truth where others cannot. Good men who follow the teachings of Jesus. But wait for a moment, if they're that good, what is it that makes Jesus better? In order to show that they're only human then they can't be as perfect as Jesus, and if they were written as perfect then what differentiates them from Jesus? So they are written with character flaws in order to highlight Jesus' perfection. The apostles are written as great men, make no doubt, but in the end they are merely flesh and blood humans, capable of making mistakes, of having doubts, of being tempted, and this literary style serves to show that Jesus was indeed God made flesh, because he has none of these character flaws.

So, why were the apostles written as flawed humans?

Because it makes Jesus look better.
 
Oh, and by the way, in regards to your threads on science, and speaking as a published scientist, I have to say, your knowledge of science is woeful.
 
Jesus tempted in the desert.

Well someone asked me about Luke 4 where Jesus was in the desert and Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world. There could be a lot of interpretations of this.

First, I'd like to go to Mark 1:10 where it talks about Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist (who by the way was mentioned prominently by the non-Christian historian Josephus). Jesus was also mentioned by Josephus twice (One of those times is contested but one mention is considered definitely Josephus).

Anyway when Jesus was baptized he came out of the water and saw the heavens open up to him and the Holy Spirit descend like a dove. Notice it says nothing about whether John also saw this happening or whether John heard God's voice which would seem odd if John in fact did see and hear what was happening to Jesus. This implies this was all happening in the spirit (although it is certainly possible it was happening in the natural). Then it says and "immediately" the "Spirit" driveth him into the wilderness". Once again this is telling me Satan's temptation of Jesus could be happening in the spirit. When something is happening in the spirit it is real but of a different nature than what we see with our five senses.

Luke 4:2 says "Being 40 days tempted of the devil". 40 days is a long time to be tempted by the devil. This also implies that this was all done in the spirit not the natural. Once again it is absolutely real when this is done in the spirit but the 5 natural senses might not be involved. Also notice there is absolutely no physical description of Satan. No his eyes were flaming, or his skin was red, nothing. This certainly implies this was all done in the spirit. Since Jesus was being tempted in the spirit by Satan (some would say evil forces) the laws of the natural are not necessarily involved. He can be whisked around the world in moment. Notice Luke 4:5 says Jesus was shown all these kingdoms of the world
"in a moment of time". That seems odd, what's the hurry, why the moment of time. This tells me again this temptation is happening is happening in the spirit where the laws of the natural need not apply. In the spirit you can see the whole world in a second and you can be transported to the top of the Jerusalem temple in a second. Things can happen in the spirit that can not happen in the natural. Although being Jesus all this certainly could of happened in the natural. But for the reasons I've pointed out above it could certainly all be happening in the spirit. Whether Jesus was tempted in the spirit or tempted in the natural we don't know. But it doesn't really matter because the temptation was real either way. The above explains how Jesus can see all the kingdoms in a moment of time and be taken to the top of the temple.

This might not be clear to those people who aren't familiar with terms like "to see in the spirit" or "to hear in the spirit" but the terms are sometimes used in the Christian community, especially in Pentecostal churches.
 
Last edited:
Well someone asked me about Luke 4 where Jesus was in the desert and Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world. There could be a lot of interpretations of this.

First, I like to go to Mark 1:10 where it talks about Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist (who by the way was mentioned prominently by the non-Christian historian Josephus). Jesus was also mentioned by Josephus twice (One of those times is contested but one mention is considered definitely Josephus).

Anyway when Jesus was baptized he came out of the water and saw the heavens open up to him and the Holy Spirit descend like a dove. Notice it says nothing about whether John also saw this happening or whether John heard God's voice which would seem odd if John in fact did see and hear what was happening to Jesus. This implies this was all happening in the spirit (although it is certainly possible it was happening in the natural).
speculation. Please explain what "in the spirit" means.

Then it says and "immediately" the "Spirit" driveth him into the wilderness". Once again this is telling me this all could be happening in the spirit. When something is happening in the spirit it is real but of a different nature than what we see with our five senses.
speculation. Please explain what "in the spirit" means.
Luke 4:2 says "Being 40 days tempted of the devil". 40 days is a long time to be tempted by the devil. This also implies that this was all done in the spirit not the natural.
speculation. Please explain what "in the spirit" means.
Once again it is absolutely real when this is done in the spirit but the 5 natural senses are not probably involved. Also notice there is absolutely no physical description of Satan. No his eyes were flaming, or his skin was red, nothing. This certainly implies this was all done in the spirit.
Your specluations are getting worse.
Please explain what "in the spirit" means.

Things can happen in the spirit that can not happen in the natural.
Such as?
Please provide evidence of "the spirit"

Although being Jesus all this certainly could of happened in the natural. But for the reasons I've pointed out above it could certainly all be happening in the spirit. Whether Jesus was tempted in the spirit or tempted in the natural we don't know. But it doesn't really matter because the temptation was real either way. The above explains how Jesus can see all the kingdoms and be taken to the top of the temple.
So all of your speculations of "in the spirit" are not important because Jesus could do magical things anyway.

This might not be clear to those people who aren't familiar with terms like "to see in the spirit" or "to hear in the spirit" but the terms are sometimes used in the Christian community, especially in Pentecostal churches.
It's clear.
You make up a term and use that term to explain away an impossibility in the story.

I call that the Startrek ex Machina.
Make up a new term for a technology which helps explain the plot.

Why not have said that Jesus used tacheon beams or Midichlorians to commune with Satan?
 
Did DOC just use a hand waving gesture and use the "magic explains my inconsistency" argument?

Well, that's DOC evidence for ya!
 
So all of your speculations of "in the spirit" are not important because Jesus could do magical things anyway.


It's clear.
You make up a term and use that term to explain away an impossibility in the story.

I call that the Startrek ex Machina.
Make up a new term for a technology which helps explain the plot.

Maybe you should check the web before you say a term is made up. I googled "saw in the spirit" and got 14000 sites. Believe me the term is not made up.
 
Maybe you should check the web before you say a term is made up. I googled "saw in the spirit" and got 14000 sites. Believe me the term is not made up.
Hey, I just googled Midichlorian and got 20,200 hits and I also googled "tachyon beam" and got 30,000 hits.

So, I guess that means Midichlorians and tachyon beams are real too, correct?


ETA: When I say "made up" I mean not real. I didn't imply that you invented the term but rather were using a term invented in fiction.
If you provide evidence for "in the spirit" being real, then I'd be happy to change my opinion. But before you do so, I expect you to explain "in the spirit" in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Luke 4:2 says "Being 40 days tempted of the devil". 40 days is a long time to be tempted by the devil. This also implies that this was all done in the spirit not the natural.
That is silly read Luke again.

4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

It is talking about the real world, Jordan, physically eating nothing not some spirital vacumn.
Once again it is absolutely real when this is done in the spirit but the 5 natural senses might not be involved. Also notice there is absolutely no physical description of Satan. No his eyes were flaming, or his skin was red, nothing. This certainly implies this was all done in the spirit. Since Jesus was being tempted in the spirit by Satan (some would say evil forces) the laws of the natural are not necessarily involved. He can be whisked around the world in moment. Notice Luke 4:5 says Jesus was shown all these kingdoms of the world
"in a moment of time". That seems odd, what's the hurry, why the moment of time. This tells me again this temptation is happening is happening in the spirit where the laws of the natural need not apply. In the spirit you can see the whole world in a second and you can be transported to the top of the Jerusalem temple in a second. Things can happen in the spirit that can not happen in the natural. Although being Jesus all this certainly could of happened in the natural. But for the reasons I've pointed out above it could certainly all be happening in the spirit. Whether Jesus was tempted in the spirit or tempted in the natural we don't know. But it doesn't really matter because the temptation was real either way. The above explains how Jesus can see all the kingdoms in a moment of time and be taken to the top of the temple.
It does not say he was taken from the top of the mountain to the temple in a moment of time

4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

If this was a spiritual journey the mountain is totally irrelevant and the journey to it not worth commenting on, but is is reported. It is clear that the meaning was that from the top of the mountain the view was such that the whole world could be seen. In a moment of time he could see the whole world. It does not say in a moment of time he was spiritaully whisked all around the world as you suggest.

Four verses later it says the devil brought him to Jerusalem.

The idea that you could climb the highest mountain and see the whole would would 2000 years ago have been quite credible. Someone telling that story would be believed.

The difficulty here however is that you are stating Luke's gospel is accurate. Luke was not up the mountain. The only person who could have told Luke this part of the fable was Jesus.

This gives one of two options Jesus lied or Luke has got the story wrong.

This might not be clear to those people who aren't familiar with terms like "to see in the spirit" or "to hear in the spirit" but the terms are sometimes used in the Christian community, especially in Pentecostal churches.
Well if people in pentecostal churches can remote view that is an easy test which would prove your spirit theory? Real evidence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom