The Creationist

[Guest ninhao]

 

I agree with you on the first part, but not the second. While I see there's a possibility he's the son of God, I wouldn't call it a "strong" possibility, just due to the lack of outside evidence. Do note that the Koran states Jesus to be a prophet, and not the son of God. So if the Bible is a metric of a "strong possibility" that Jesus is the son of God, than the Koran would provide a strong possibility that he was just a prophet.

 

 

Ok. So long as you see a strong possibility Jesus is real and some possibility Jesus is the Son of God I can ask no more.

 

Thank you for your input and I will pray Jesus becomes more real to you.

[RobbyPants]

I'm sorry. With your response being at the bottom of the page, I totally missed it.

In college, I was exposed to some "hard questions", and for the most part, brushed them off.

 

I wonder what it was that you couldn’t brush off?

...

Meanwhile, I would like to help with those questions that troubled you and led you away from God...

It's a bit off topic for this thread, but I'll give some though to creating a thread that would be better suited for it. I can link to it here when I make it.

Regardless, indeed that’s what’s happening in my opinion . People growing into God leave God when they’re at college. Statistics don’t lie. And yet there are people, even on this forum, claiming that evolution is NOT against God…

From my understanding, this is accurate. Although, for me, I wouldn't say I "left God" in college; that was more like five to seven years after the fact. You could argue that the seed was planted in college, and I think you would be right, in that case. 

 

 

So, I'm sure my answer is even more puzzling than enlightening

 

No, it’s not. It’s actually pretty clear in my opinion . And I’ll even make claim that you still believe, only that you don’t realize it anymore.

No, I can assure you I don't believe it any more. I struggled with it for a couple of years, but eventually realized that I really didn't believe and I really couldn't make myself believe. Admitting that to myself was the hardest part.

[neil_]

RobbyPants, this is for you (and all the other atheists here, but especially for you):

 

 

 

 

 with the little amount of recorded early ancient history we have.  

 

I’m sorry but I would have to disagree. Let me address that in multiple ways. I will start from something else (for a good reason), but I will eventually get there.

 

In the late 1960s or early 1970s, in his book “Science Speaks”, Peter Stoner showed that for one single man to fulfill only 8 of more than 300 prophecies about Jesus in the Old testament is a chance of only 1 in 10¹⁷ (10 to the 17th power).

 

Later, the prophecies have been considered to actually more than 450, which further decreased even those tiny odds. Moreover, when later Stoner used 48 prophecies (instead of just 8) he arrived to this number, as a chance of one single man fulfilling all those 48 selected: one in 10¹⁵⁷ (ten to the 157th power). Let me remind you that the number of all the atoms in the universe is considered to be only aprox. 10⁸⁰ (ten to the 80th power)…

 

[And that’s the formal universe, in which all numbers are exaggerated; in a universe much closer to the real one, for example in a universe with both positive and negative stellar parallaxes, such as actual observations show, that number will be orders of magnitude smaller, thus furthermore stressing the even lower chance of one man fulfilling all those 48 prophecies, let alone all 456…]

 

Confronted with these odds, skeptics have claimed that the prophecies were redacted after the events (i.e. after Jesus). Only that there’s a problem: the Old Testament was already translated into Greek about 200 years prior to Jesus.

 

Confronted with that fact, skeptics have then claimed that Jesus was instead “redacted” to fit those prophecies. Well, there have been found many copies of the New Testament. Examples of the oldest: Chester Beatty Papyri (apparently written before year 300 after Christ), Diatessaron (apparently written before year 170 after Christ), the Magdalen papyrus (apparently written before the war of year 70).

 

Compared to that, earliest copy we have of Caesar’s Gallic Wars dates apparently from year 950 – that’s a full millennium from the actual events. But who doubts the veracity of “Commentarii de Bello Gallico”? Nobody…

 

How about Aristotle works? Well, the earliest manuscript we have as a copy of his writings is 1400 years from when Aristotle actually wrote his works. Now you tell me, have you ever doubted that what you read was actually written by Aristotle?

 

Buddha’s teachings didn’t appear in written form until half of millennium after his death, while Confucius’s teachings about 4 centuries after his death.

 

Also please note that both those fellows are DEAD. All the other religion-starters of the world are also dead – with one major exception (Christ). Moreover, neither Buddha nor Confucius (nor Lao Tse, Zarathustra, Muhammad, etcetera) did ever claim divine origin, let alone to be The Son of God.

 

The irony is that people like Confucius and Lao Tse had nothing to do with religion (but instead with morals, philosophy), but they were deified after their death, by their followers. The irony is even more extreme: Lao Tse didn’t even believe in a personal god, so how can he be one? But, contrary to his teachings, that’s exactly what his later followers made of him: a god…

 

The total number of copies (manuscripts) of (books from) the New Testament (Gospels and Letters) we have found until now is more than 22000. Compare that with the number of copies (manuscripts) of The Gallic Wars (10), with the number of copies (manuscripts) of Aristotle‘s works (5), or the number of copies (manuscripts) for the chronicles of Cornelius Tacitus (2).

 

There must have been a reason for the New Testament to have been that much circulated… Its importance is orders of magnitude greater than any other manuscripts we have from those times.

 

Moreover, 2 of the Gospel writers (Matthew and John) were direct witnesses of the events they wrote about. Another (Mark) was in the company of Peter (direct witness of the events), and the last one (Luke, the only non-Jewish writer from the Bible) accompanied Paul in his travels and talked personally with direct witnesses of the events he wrote about.

 

Now, nobody doubts the authenticity of Josephus Flavius’ writings, isn’t it so? Regardless that they (mostly if not fully) AREN’T reinforced by other historians – while Jesus WAS historically reinforced by early historians having nothing to do with the belief in Him (and other historical figures, even during His time on Earth). So those early reports cannot be accused of being biased - some, if not most, even came from enemies of Christianity…

 

Now, if you’ll take the time to take a look into the religions of the world, you would find out that not a single one stands - except for the Christian belief.

 

For example let’s take a look at what the Hindus believe. They believe in reincarnation. But there’s more to it: all the animals and plants in the world are actually people being punished for their bad deeds in their previous life, and thus now incarnated as a flower, or as a cow. Now, you tell me: how can a flower or a cow do any good deeds, in order to return in the next life back as a human? Moreover, the Hindus claim the cow is holy. But how can it be holy, if it’s only a (wo)man punished for his (her) bad deeds from previous life? Moreover, if man is the highest form of (material) life, why is there suffering in the world? Why is there death? No explanation. The Hindu gods seem to keep to their own “business”, and not care much about humanity.

 

I once spoke with a Buddhist. I asked him to state briefly his religion. He said that his religion is two things. The first: actions have consequences. I told him that one mustn’t be a Buddhist to know or believe that. The second: do good, meditate. I told him that people used to do that long before Buddha. Moreover, Buddhism claims that humans following (the) Buddha (way) would RETURN to the initial spiritual condition. But why to put all those spiritual beings (now people, or animals or plants) to such a terrible ordeal as in this world? Why not keep them spiritual? To my knowledge, Buddhists don’t have an answer. Moreover, since they also believe in reincarnation, Buddhists inherit the problems from the Hindus (some mentioned in the above paragraph). They also claim there were several Buddhas (or several incarnations of Buddha), and they say the more the better: thus they could do more good to the world. Well, Jesus was (is) only one – and enough for the entire mankind…

 

Now on to the Islam. They claim Jesus was a prophet. That means He spoke the Word of God. That means he couldn’t possibly lie. But Jesus said that only He is the way to salvation – there is no other. That simply means no Muhammad (therefore no Baha'i either). Therefore, no Quran (part of it was taken from the Old Testament anyway). Therefore, no Allah either.

 

I think I gave enough examples. Bottom line: there is only one religion that stands: the Christian belief. Moreover, that one is in fact the only religion in the world (re-ligare: to tie back, to bind again - Latin), since it’s the only one in which there is a severe (deadly) separation between man and God (because of sin). And since there is about REligare, it’s all about Jesus: the only way to bring man back into the presence of God.

 

 

 

 

  Do note that the Koran states Jesus to be a prophet, and not the son of God.   

 

Referred to above.

 

I hope you’ll take time to seriously think about all that.

[RobbyPants]

Confronted with that fact, skeptics have then claimed that Jesus was instead “redacted” to fit those prophecies. Well, there have been found many copies of the New Testament. Examples of the oldest: Chester Beatty Papyri (apparently written before year 300 after Christ), Diatessaron (apparently written before year 170 after Christ), the Magdalen papyrus (apparently written before the war of year 70).

 

Compared to that, earliest copy we have of Caesar’s Gallic Wars dates apparently from year 950 – that’s a full millennium from the actual events. But who doubts the veracity of “Commentarii de Bello Gallico”? Nobody…

 

...

 

The total number of copies (manuscripts) of (books from) the New Testament (Gospels and Letters) we have found until now is more than 22000. Compare that with the number of copies (manuscripts) of The Gallic Wars (10), with the number of copies (manuscripts) of Aristotle‘s works (5), or the number of copies (manuscripts) for the chronicles of Cornelius Tacitus (2).

 

There must have been a reason for the New Testament to have been that much circulated… Its importance is orders of magnitude greater than any other manuscripts we have from those times.

 

Moreover, 2 of the Gospel writers (Matthew and John) were direct witnesses of the events they wrote about. Another (Mark) was in the company of Peter (direct witness of the events), and the last one (Luke, the only non-Jewish writer from the Bible) accompanied Paul in his travels and talked personally with direct witnesses of the events he wrote about.

Actually, the oldest surviving portion of the New Testament is a fragment from John, referred to as P52. It is from the second century at the earliest, and is also such a small fragment that the only full word which can be read is "and". The next oldest surviving fragments are known as the Egerton Papyrus 2, and are from a completely unknown gospel.

As for the number of manuscripts, that count is inflated, and includes copies of the original manuscripts. You can understand why a copy of an original isn't good evidence for authenticity. Of the original manuscripts, there are 720. Many of those are not complete books and/or were not written in the original language. Of these, only 14 date prior to the year 200, and most of those are scraps. Most of them contain fewer than 20 words. If we compare that to the more than 600 extant copies of Homer's Iliad, should we conclude the Iliad is more historically reliable?

Also, not a single word of the New Testament was penned by someone who actually met Jesus. They are, at best, second hand accounts.

In the end, all of this evidence amounts to several hundred year old fragments of second or third hand accounts. Now, I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, and I'm not even saying he's not the son of God, but I am saying that there is no compelling evidence to assert that God exists.

 

Now, nobody doubts the authenticity of Josephus Flavius’ writings, isn’t it so? Regardless that they (mostly if not fully) AREN’T reinforced by other historians – while Jesus WAS historically reinforced by early historians having nothing to do with the belief in Him (and other historical figures, even during His time on Earth). So those early reports cannot be accused of being biased - some, if not most, even came from enemies of Christianity…

That is certainly not true. There are two mentions Josephus gives regarding Jesus:

• The "wise man called Jesus" part, and
• The "James brother of Jesus" part.

The first part is widely disputed and thought to be a forgery, even by the Catholic Encyclopedia (so, even many Christians reject it). There are older version of that part of the Antiquities with that passage missing. It was likely added after the fact by someone else. It does not appear until 300 years later when Eusebius was citing the evidences for Christianity.

The second part, likewise does not appear until Eusebius' work, so it too, may be a forgery. It's also not clear which James was being talked about, here (the Great, the Lesser, the Just, or the son of Alphaeus). If this is referring to James the Lesser, there are two accounts of his death: Josephus says he was stoned in 62 A.D, yet Hegesippus says he was thrown from a temple and clubbed to death.

The work of Josephus is definitely disputed.

 

Now on to the Islam. They claim Jesus was a prophet. That means He spoke the Word of God. That means he couldn’t possibly lie. But Jesus said that only He is the way to salvation – there is no other. That simply means no Muhammad (therefore no Baha'i either). Therefore, no Quran (part of it was taken from the Old Testament anyway). Therefore, no Allah either.

Are you saying the Quran states that Jesus is the way to salvation, or are you saying that just the Bible says that? If you are saying that Jesus said that in the Quran, do you have a source/citation?

[neil_]

 "Eternal" and "always" are terms that require time.  

 

No. That’s the very point: if time is limited, then you can’t have eternity.

 

 

  If time didn't exist until the moment of the big bang, then there was never a point in time in which the universe didn't exist, which means it has "always" existed.  

 

Your persistent try to claim eternity is naive. The only eternity can be outside time (because we both agree that time had a beginning). So if you want to know about eternity, stop reading Hawking’s books, and instead read the Bible…

 

 

  You dodged the question.   

 

No, I didn’t. That’s the very point, actually.

 

 

  You asserted that atheists shouldn't "use" work produced by theistic scientists.  My question is whether that reasoning applies to denominations as well.  Should Christians not use algebra since it was produced by Muslims?  Should Christians not use the work of Jews?  

 

I’m not sure how you could NOT see the point: all those people claim God. Now, what god they claim that’s a different question, and it doesn’t concern you, since you’re an atheist.

 

 

  Because it is the best explanation for the current data.  

 

The “current data” claims an accelerated expansion. So could you possibly reach the conclusion that big bang theory is true?

 

 

  Again you're dodging the question.  If the "scientific community" is not the world's professional scientists, what is it?  

 

No, I’m not. It is actually you dodging it. So, again, is Robert Gentry part of “scientific community” or not? We can’t move forward until you answer this.

[neil_]

Robby, I asked you to take your time to think about all that. And you didn’t. You didn’t even take an hour… (and make sure you understand it took me several hours to wrote all that – verify things etcetera)

 

So if you’re not even willing to consider, I think I will stop talking to you – at least on this. Now you tell me if I should do that or not.

 

 

 

    Actually, the oldest surviving portion of the New Testament is a fragment from John, referred to as P52. It is from the second century at the earliest, and is also such a small fragment that the only full word which can be read is "and". The next oldest surviving fragments are known as the Egerton Papyrus 2, and are from a completely unknown gospel.   

 

What I wrote is correct. So the oldest is a manuscript from about year 70 – meaning that some of the Apostles were still alive. John for certain, for example.

 

 

    As for the number of manuscripts, that count is inflated   

 

Of course you would say that. But the fact remains that books from New Testament were the most circulated documents in those times – by far…

 

And if we are to adjust numbers, then let’s adjust that number upward (not downward). How about that…

 

 

   and includes copies of the original manuscripts. You can understand why a copy of an original isn't good evidence for authenticity.   

 

ALL the manuscripts that we have are COPIES “of the original manuscripts”. Do you think we have any Gospel in its original (as written by John’s hand, for example)? I would be very surprised if that’s true.

 

 

   Of the original manuscripts, there are 720.    

 

What exactly do you mean by “original manuscripts”? And source, please.

 

 

   Many of those are not complete books and/or were not written in the original language.   

 

Now this is funny. Because I’m not sure how many complete fossils there are in the world, and yet you claim what you claim in regard to those…

 

 

   If we compare that to the more than 600 extant copies of Homer's Iliad, should we conclude the Iliad is more historically reliable?    

 

You have no doubt that Homer wrote it (regardless of content). That was my point…

 

 

   Also, not a single word of the New Testament was penned by someone who actually met Jesus. They are, at best, second hand accounts.    

 

How about John and Matthew?

 

I told you didn’t take the time to think about all that I wrote – not even read it entirely actually…

 

 

   and I'm not even saying he's not the son of God, but I am saying that there is no compelling evidence to assert that God exists.    

 

Are you aware you’re contradicting yourself?

 

As for evidence for God, sure, how about this: the entire universe…

 

Now you tell me: is the universe compelling or not? If it’s not, why exactly would you make a theory about it (big bang) and then believe it?

 

 

   That is certainly not true. There are two mentions Josephus gives regarding Jesus:    

 

Indeed, you didn’t take the time to think about what I wrote. Because I didn’t mention Josephus in regard to Jesus, I mentioned Josephus in regard to his accounts of worldly historical events.

 

 

 The work of Josephus is definitely disputed.  

 

You mean, you doubt his account of the war between the Jews and the Romans? Surely he would lean in favor of the Jews (being one himself), but that doesn’t mean that his work isn’t the most important historical account of that war.

 

Don’t you already know that we rarely (if at all) have unbiased reports of events throughout the history? You tell me: if we remove all Greek historian accounts from history, how much of the history of those times we’d lose? And surely you’d admit that the Greek historians, just like all the others in the world, were more or less biased, wouldn’t you?

 

 

   Are you saying the Quran states that Jesus is the way to salvation    

 

Of course not. What are you talking about? I really don’t understand.

[RobbyPants]

Robby, I asked you to take your time to think about all that. And you didn’t. You didn’t even take an hour… (and make sure you understand it took me several hours to wrote all that – verify things etcetera)

 

So if you’re not even willing to consider, I think I will stop talking to you – at least on this. Now you tell me if I should do that or not.

I did think about it; just not as long as you might have liked me to.

If you are going to cite an arbitrary amount of time that you demanded I think about a post before responding as a reason to stop talking to me... I'm not going to try to convince you to do otherwise. That's up to you.

 

 

Many of those are not complete books and/or were not written in the original language.

 

Now this is funny. Because I’m not sure how many complete fossils there are in the world, and yet you claim what you claim in regard to those…

You're changing the topic. 

 

 

If we compare that to the more than 600 extant copies of Homer's Iliad, should we conclude the Iliad is more historically reliable?

 

You have no doubt that Homer wrote it (regardless of content). That was my point…

My point is, hundreds or thousands of copies of manuscripts in various conditions, most of which are copies, are evidence that the events in the New Testament happened, then copies of the Iliad must be evidence that those stories happened. 

 

 

Also, not a single word of the New Testament was penned by someone who actually met Jesus. They are, at best, second hand accounts.

How about John and Matthew?

Those, too. Matthew was written anonymously by a Jewish Christian. He borrowed heavily from Mark, and pitched his ideas to a largely Jewish audience. Christian tradition holds that Matthew the Apostle was the author, but there is no evidence to support this. John was the last of the four written (around the year 90). Neither of these directly point to being penned by anyone who met Jesus.

 

 

Are you aware you’re contradicting yourself?

How so? I'm adhering to the notion that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". So, I can't prove that Jesus isn't the son of God, and I can't prove God doesn't exist; yet, there is no compelling evidence that God does exist. There is no contradiction there.

 

As for evidence for God, sure, how about this: the entire universe…

Now you tell me: is the universe compelling or not? If it’s not, why exactly would you make a theory about it (big bang) and then believe it?

You're changing the topic again.

Let's put it this way: let's say you prove beyond a doubt that the big bang didn't happen, and I accept your proof. How does that prove God? You're setting up a false dichotomy.

 

 

That is certainly not true. There are two mentions Josephus gives regarding Jesus:

 

Indeed, you didn’t take the time to think about what I wrote. Because I didn’t mention Josephus in regard to Jesus, I mentioned Josephus in regard to his accounts of worldly historical events.

You very specifically said:

"Now, nobody doubts the authenticity of Josephus Flavius’ writings, isn’t it so? Regardless that they (mostly if not fully) AREN’T reinforced by other historians – while Jesus WAS historically reinforced by early historians having nothing to do with the belief in Him (and other historical figures, even during His time on Earth)."

You are bringing up his writings to reinforce the historicity of Jesus. I think it makes perfect sense to point out the disputes people make about his two writings on Jesus. So, regardless of whether or not the rest of it matches up for the most part, the parts where he specifically mentions Jesus are still disputed. Proving most of his history is accurate does not logically prove Jesus, when the parts that mention Jesus are disputed.

 

The work of Josephus is definitely disputed.

 

You mean, you doubt his account of the war between the Jews and the Romans? Surely he would lean in favor of the Jews (being one himself), but that doesn’t mean that his work isn’t the most important historical account of that war.

 

Don’t you already know that we rarely (if at all) have unbiased reports of events throughout the history? You tell me: if we remove all Greek historian accounts from history, how much of the history of those times we’d lose? And surely you’d admit that the Greek historians, just like all the others in the world, were more or less biased, wouldn’t you?

I never mentioned bias once. I mentioned twice how earlier versions of his writing did not have those passages, and they did not appear until 300 years after the fact when Eusebius cited his work. Their absence for 300 years likely means that they were added by Eusebius. 

 

 

Are you saying the Quran states that Jesus is the way to salvation

 

Of course not. What are you talking about? I really don’t understand.

Your statement could be summed up as:

 

The Quran says Jesus is a prophet and cannot lie. The Bible says Jesus says he is the one way. Ergo, Islam is wrong.

So, you are saying that the Quran is wrong because the Bible says so? I'm sure Muslims would say the Bible is wrong because the Quran says so. I don't consider either of these compelling pieces of evidence.

I could, on equal authority say "The Quran says Jesus was a prophet, and not the son of God, ergo, Christianity is wrong and there is no Trinity."

[ollkiller]

Am I getting this correct. Did anyone who wrote the bible actually witness the events or is it all second hand information?

Also Neil, you don't know if time is limited so you can't tell if eternity exists.

[neil_]

   You're changing the topic. 

 

I only gave you an example. One that you obviously didn’t like…

 

 

 My point is, hundreds or thousands of copies of manuscripts in various conditions, most of which are copies 

 

ALL OF WHICH are copies – as you yourself just said…

 

 

  are evidence that the events in the New Testament happened 

 

No, that was not what I was saying. You obviously didn’t take enough time to think about all that. See below.

 

 

     then copies of the Iliad must be evidence that those stories happened.      

 

No. Just as millions copies MORE of Harry Potter than of ANY scientific book doesn’t mean that Harry Potter events were true (or more true than those in the scientific book).

 

Now, the Bible is the most circulated book EVER. But the reason for that is NOT that it speaks about things people want to hear (that’s the reason only for crime books, mystery books, science fiction books etcetera). On the contrary, the Bible is actually the ONLY book in the world talking about things that people DON’T WANT to hear.

 

People of the world want to hear how smart they are. How beautiful they are. How rich they are – and so on. The Bible actually teaches them to say how fool they are. How ugly they are. How poor they are – in other words, how humble they SHOULD be. And how they should give their entire fortune to the poor, how they should love their enemies, and many other things that nobody wants to hear about, let alone actually do them.

 

So I’m letting you to find an explanation for why the Bible is most read book ever (many orders of magnitude more than any other book in mankind history), while all the time containing things that nobody wants to hear about…

 

 

   Those, too. Matthew was written anonymously by a Jewish Christian.  

 

Let me guess: your source of information is talkorigins or wikipedia. Well, they will always tell you what you want to hear, won’t they?

 

 

      John was the last of the four written (around the year 90). Neither of these directly point to being penned by anyone who met Jesus.    

 

How exactly what you said excludes John of being the actual author?

 

 

       How so?   

 

Because this is what you previously said:

 

   and I'm not even saying he's not the son of God, but I am saying that there is no compelling evidence to assert that God exists.    

 

If you exclude God, you obviously exclude the Son of God, so there’s no reason for you to state:

“I'm not even saying he's not the son of God”.

 

 

     I'm adhering to the notion that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".    

 

Despite the fact that I said that the entire universe is actual evidence for God...

 

The irony is that even you are evidence for God (and I mean that beyond matter, although the material you is yet again evidence for God): because you’re not engaging in these discussions to convince others that you are right, instead you at all times try to actually convince yourself that you are right…

 

 

   there is no compelling evidence that God does exist.       

 

Oh, dear…

 

 

  You're changing the topic again.  

 

No, I’m not. I’m personally AT ALL TIMES talking about God. Even when proving big bang wrong. Simply because atheists embrace the big bang theory (and all other mainstream theories) purposefully to exclude God…

 

 

 let's say you prove beyond a doubt that the big bang didn't happen  

 

Already done.

 

 

  and I accept your proof 

 

Why don’t you? Let me guess: because at this point you don’t have another theory that purposefully excludes God… I mean, you wouldn’t switch to steady state after mainstream claiming for decades that steady state is a stupid teory, would you?

 

 

   How does that prove God? You're setting up a false dichotomy.     

 

Absolutely not. You seem to consistently miss the main point of everything that we’re talking about.

 

In the largest frame (viewing things at the largest scale possible), it doesn’t matter HOW the universe got here, it only matters that it’s here. You atheists don’t have a logical explanation for the universe existing by itself – that’s the point.

 

Now, me going against big bang is another story. I do that because many atheists ingurgitate the big bang story in order to exclude God. In other words, they claim a continuously naturalistic explanation of things. So me taking away their big bang universe is meant to make them aware that their entire paradigm of viewing the world and therefore understanding things can be wrong (it is wrong, but I would settle for them admitting that it can be wrong).

 

 

   You are bringing up his writings to reinforce the historicity of Jesus.       

 

Absolutely not. That was only a COMPARISON.

 

Here it is again, perhaps this time more plainly: you believe Josephus as an account of historical events (mostly the Jewish-Roman war). Despite the fact that that account IS NOT consistently reinforced by other reports. And yet you exclude the veracity of Biblical accounts of Jesus, despite the fact that they ARE reinforced by other reports (including from ADVERSARIES of Christianity…).

 

Hopefully, now you’ll understand.

[neil_]

    So, regardless of whether or not the rest of it matches up for the most part, the parts where he specifically mentions Jesus are still disputed.      

 

It was not about that – how many times to tell you so?

 

 

     I never mentioned bias once. I mentioned twice how earlier versions of his writing did not have those passages, and they did not appear until 300 years after the fact when Eusebius cited his work. Their absence for 300 years likely means that they were added by Eusebius.      

 

And I have never ever referred to those passages…

 

 

      Your statement could be summed up as:
 

The Quran says Jesus is a prophet and cannot lie. The Bible says Jesus says he is the one way. Ergo, Islam is wrong.   

 

Indeed.

 

 

    you are saying that the Quran is wrong because the Bible says so?      

 

No, my friend, that was my whole point: the Quran is wrong because the Quran says so…

 

(your next comments are thus mute)

 

I think your confusion is this: you mistake internal authority for external authority. Now, the Quran saying that Jesus was a prophet means accepting that what Jesus said was true, and thus what Jesus said becomes (willingly or not) part of the Quran (and therefore obtains the status of internal authority). So the contradiction of Quran is at all times internal.

 

On the other hand, the Bible does NOT accept ANY external authority (and it shouldn’t, as it’s the Word of God). So what Muhammad, Confucius etcetera say, and what Einstein, Hawking etcetera say, mean NOTHING for the Bible: the Bible stands by its own.

 

 

And please don’t appeal to theistic evolutionists, because they are proof not of the Bible being wrong, but of them being wrong. Moreover, you personally called their situation as satirical, so no argument here. Meanwhile, while the Bible does not NEED external authority to stand, that doesn’t mean external authority does not prove the Bible right. For example, you still have to explain how can it be possible that cosmic expansion is mentioned in a book old by several millennia…

 

 

Now, since I already showed that you ARE wrong multiple times in this post alone, would you agree that your main paradigm (an exclusively naturalistic worldview) COULD BE wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Did anyone who wrote the bible actually witness the events    

 

Yes: Moses, Matthew, John and others. Even David and Solomon, although that wouldn’t be so much about events.

 

 

  Also Neil, you don't know if time is limited so you can't tell if eternity exists.     

 

Actually, that was my whole point: the real eternity can only exist OUTSIDE time. Like it or not, that can only mean God…

 

And yes time is limited, even you claim that. Either that or you quit believing the big bang theory – take your pick.