It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

page: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Non sequitur.

Nope! The BIBLE is based on arbitrary conjecture.




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Non sequitur.

Nope! The BIBLE is based on arbitrary conjecture.


We weren't talking about the Bible in that instance, we were discussing the evidence thereof for alien existence on other celestial bodies in the universe. So it's a non sequitur. And even if we were talking about the Bible in that instance, the authors claimed to have heard directly from God Himself, or who were eyewitnesses to Jesus. So that's not "arbitrary". No one objects to eyewitness testimony in court and claim it's "unsupported", the eyewitness is the source.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Oh - you mean 'hearsay'. Right. Got it.
You've never seemed to understand that all of it is HEARSAY.
And 'memory' is NOT considered to be 'the truth'. Just look at all the different 'testimonies' given of what happened in Ferguson, MO.
Memory can not be trusted.

This phenomenon recently was proven for the first time in an experiment conducted by Donna Bridge, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. In her experiment, Bridge put participants through a two-hour session where they learned a series of 180 unique object-location associations on a computer screen. The next day, they were asked to recall the information by moving some of the images from the middle of the screen to the correct location. This was repeated on day three, though some of the objects were different between the two recall sessions.

As you might expect, people did better with images on day three that they were tested on during day two. However, people never recalled the exact location correctly. And on day three, they tended to place the object closer to the incorrect location they recalled on day two rather than the actual correct location they learned on day one.bigkingken.wordpress.com...



For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B (the "declarant") told me that the defendant killed the victim." The definition of hearsay is not too difficult to understand. - See more at: criminal.findlaw.com...


www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...
There's a whole bunch of answers to your 'claims' in ^ that link


thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com...

Thus, the first recorded words of Jesus were written by an “unknown figure” at least 40 years after Jesus allegedly spoke them. How did this unknown figure come to learn what Jesus said at least 40 years earlier? Someone told someone who told someone who told someone ad infinitum for 40 years. That process is called Hearsay, not Oral Tradition. .

The author of Mark wasn’t even present when those alleged words were allegedly spoken. Not even Christians claim that “Mark” was with Jesus. They acknowledge that Mark the Evangelist was the companion of Peter on whose memories, it is supposedly based.


As for there being life elsewhere - to be so arrogant as to think that we are the 'only' "intelligent life" in the universes (yes, universes - dimensions, including our own) is absurd.

Anyway, we've been round and round before. You CHOOSE to believe in a myth.

That's what it is. Just admit it to yourself - in the beginning it will hurt, but in the end, you'll realize how stunted you were to have fallen for it.

Or don't. Continue with your blinders and your sources - 'apologetics' - ridiculous.

edit on 2/1/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

How did you go from arbitrariness to hearsay?

Arbitrary means unsupported.

Hearsay means information gathers from someone else and not part of that person's direct knowledge.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Hearsay means information gathers from someone else and not part of that person's direct knowledge.

Exactly. ALL of the Synoptic gospels are based on HEARSAY. NONE of them are eyewitness accounts. NOT ANY OF THEM.

Whatever. I'm done arguing semantics with you.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

John
Peter (Mark)
Matthew

Disciples ^^


Are you thinking of the pseudographical Gnostic texts from the 3rd and 4th century? I think you are getting the two confused.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

No one "knows" who wrote the gospels. They're all written anonymously and don't claim to be written by eye witnesses or by the person whose name it bears. The titles of the gospels, for example the Gospel According Matthew, was added about 100 years later by editors, probably by Irenaeus.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

No one "knows" who wrote the gospels. They're all written anonymously and don't claim to be written by eye witnesses or by the person whose name it bears. The titles of the gospels, for example the Gospel According Matthew, was added about 100 years later by editors, probably by Irenaeus.



I know all that.

Unlike the pseudographical Gnostic texts which all have titles. There really isn't much debate amongst the majority of scholars as to who the writers of the gospels were. The early church fathers all pretty much said who wrote them. And even with the NT epistles, the only real question is to who wrote the book of Hebrews. It's about 80% certain though it was Pauline, and a third in his trilogy on Habakkuk 2:4.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


There really isn't much debate amongst the majority of scholars as to who the writers of the gospels were.

Right, because they've established that the writers are NOT the people to whom are attributed those 'gospels.'
We don't know - not you 'Christians' "we", nor the rest of us "we."



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Are you thinking of the pseudographical Gnostic texts from the 3rd and 4th century? I think you are getting the two confused.

Nope!

Not confused. Aware.

The 'gospels' included in the Bible have been proven to be 'anonymous' writings with authors' names 'stuck on them.' NONE of them were 'eyewitnesses.' None of them.
Did you look at the links I gave you?

How can you really be unaware of this? How?

edit on 2/1/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical




There really isn't much debate amongst the majority of scholars as to who the writers of the gospels were.


WRONG!

Please, allow me to repeat myself:

No one "knows" who wrote the gospels. They're all written anonymously and don't claim to be written by eye witnesses or by the person whose name it bears. The titles of the gospels, for example the Gospel According Matthew, was added about 100 years later by editors, probably by Irenaeus.




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Arbitrary means unsupported.

Hearsay means information gathers from someone else and not part of that person's direct knowledge.

And those are different, in terms of the Bible-----how?
The Bible is both UNSUPPORTED AND HEARSAY.
Get a grip.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


John
Peter (Mark)
Matthew

Disciples ^^

Supposedly, in your cult. And even if they were - they were NOT the people who wrote the gospels.

They were NOT the authors. Sorry.

Just, not. They were not.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


I know all that.

If you 'know all that', why are you trying to convince everyone that they WERE written by those people?! They weren't. Everyone who has done any serious study into this stuff knows that - but.....

not you?
Do I smell decompensation? Delusion? Desperation?

C'mon, NuT - you are smarter than this.

edit on 2/1/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: spelling



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Everyone who has done any serious study into this stuff knows that - but.....


That's a complete lie. Look into the work of Dr. Bruce M. Metzger considered the greatest NT scholar and textual critic of the 20th century. Everyone else in the field of textual and form criticism are footnotes to the late Dr. Metzger.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Bart Ehrman has made his money and fame criticizing historical scholarship. That's how he sells books. Why not refer to his mentor instead? (See above)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical


I know all that.

If you 'know all that', why are you trying to convince everyone that they WERE written by those people?! They weren't. Everyone who has done any serious study into this stuff knows that - but.....




I was referring to this:




The titles of the gospels, for example the Gospel According Matthew, was added about 100 years later by editors, probably by Irenaeus.


That was obvious by the next sentence I wrote.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Erm, no.

considered the greatest NT scholar and textual critic of the 20th century.

By whom? Strobel? William Lane Craig? Ken Ham?

Dawkins? Hawking? The late Hitchens? Karen Armstrong? Robert Wright? etc etc
lol

Try some library.
I'm sorry for your suffering.
edit on 2/1/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

Bart Ehrman has made his money and fame criticizing historical scholarship. That's how he sells books. Why not refer to his mentor instead? (See above)



COMMON FALLACIES IN REASONING


DAMNING THE SOURCE: (ad hominem, sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself.

example: There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!

example: The American Trial Lawyers Association favors of this piece of legislation, so you know it has to be bad for ordinary citizens.


Yes, you have been clear that you don't like Bart Ehrman, but that does nothing to discredit his research. His arguments are solid yours is not.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


That was obvious by the next sentence I wrote.

Fascinating. So - you DO agree that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses?




top topics



 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join