|
Post by laughter on Apr 4, 2015 5:17:55 GMT -5
To the faithfully devoted who love God these require no proof. To anyone looking to prove something, they offer only hearsay. you are talking something irrelevant Laughter, You asked me the proof, I have shown you the writing of those people who lived in the first century and also the contemporary and I asked you how do you know they are wrong? Or what does the proof you have to disprove about all those writers? You're resorting to logical fallacy again. I asked you if you could prove to me that the literal resurrection is fact. You offer scripture as evidence, but to me that's just hearsay -- and inconsistent hearsay at that -- so I'm unconvinced of your proof. I have no burden to prove you wrong in this issue as I'm not asserting a fact, you are. Whether you're convinced of this fact or not, and why, is unimportant to me.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 4, 2015 5:22:43 GMT -5
Your question embodies the logical fallacy of demanding proof of the negative. Can you prove that the resurrection literally happened? What about the writing the Gospel? what about the writing paul? What about the writing of historian like Josephus and Tacitus? What about the writings of Stan Lee, Edgar Rice Burroughs, J. R. R. Tolkien, Buddha, Lao Tzu...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 5:28:11 GMT -5
you are talking something irrelevant Laughter, You asked me the proof, I have shown you the writing of those people who lived in the first century and also the contemporary and I asked you how do you know they are wrong? Or what does the proof you have to disprove about all those writers? You're resorting to logical fallacy again. I asked you if you could prove to me that the literal resurrection is fact. You offer scripture as evidence, but to me that's just hearsay -- and inconsistent hearsay at that -- so I'm unconvinced of your proof. I have no burden to prove you wrong in this issue as I'm not asserting a fact, you are. Whether you're convinced of this fact or not, and why, is unimportant to me. Why that's the hearsay? How do you know? Contemporary writers are writing about what has happened. When you do not know something you should not erroneously open a thread like this to talk, when you do not know something you should not form your own story. Do you know historical scholars who writes about Jesus Christ? Have you heard anyone? they usually would not write something without any evidence, How do you know the story of great Alexander if Tacitus who is the second century writer did not write about him? Those historians can't be underestimated. You are not investigating anything carefully, but ready to talk about this more, I don't understand why. This is Religious, when you come to philosophical topic, I asked you how do you know others are real or not, you said to me that I know through my beloved people, Do you know how big mistake or how silly is this reply? You do not know. But you always there to criticize other people like me,andrew,pilgrims,tzu. But unfortunately you do not know how silly your own investigation is!!!.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 5:32:56 GMT -5
What about the writing the Gospel? what about the writing paul? What about the writing of historian like Josephus and Tacitus? What about the writings of Stan Lee, Edgar Rice Burroughs, J. R. R. Tolkien, Buddha, Lao Tzu... I am talking about the rated Scholars not a normal street walker and also they should be a first century historian.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 4, 2015 5:43:13 GMT -5
You're resorting to logical fallacy again. I asked you if you could prove to me that the literal resurrection is fact. You offer scripture as evidence, but to me that's just hearsay -- and inconsistent hearsay at that -- so I'm unconvinced of your proof. I have no burden to prove you wrong in this issue as I'm not asserting a fact, you are. Whether you're convinced of this fact or not, and why, is unimportant to me. Why that's the hearsay? How do you know? Contemporary writers are writing about what has happened. When you do not know something you should not erroneously open a thread like this to talk, when you do not know something you should not form your own story. Do you know historical scholars who writes about Jesus Christ? Have you heard anyone? they usually would not write something without any evidence, How do you know the story of great Alexander if Tacitus who is the second century writer did not write about him? Those historians can't be underestimated. You are not investigating anything carefully, but ready to talk about this more, I don't understand why. This is Religious, when you come to philosophical topic, I asked you how do you know others are real or not, you said to me that I know through my beloved people, Do you know how big mistake or how silly is this reply? You do not know. But you always there to criticize other people like me,andrew,pilgrims,tzu. But unfortunately you do not know how silly your own investigation is!!!. I know enough about the process of how the Bible was written and assembled and the institutions that made use of it down through the ages to have a healthy skepticism about taking any of it literally. I know, for instance, that the earliest any fragment of writings that was incorporated has been substantiated to decades after the crucifixion and that for most of it the trail leaves off past the turn of the 1st century. I also know that many of the stories in both the old and new testaments are carbon copies of other stories that were circulating around the fertile crescent, Persia and Asia minor for millennia prior -- the virgin birth being a stellar example. But you see, that's simply beside the point. I didn't say that I could prove that the resurrection didn't happen. You keep on resorting to various forms of logical fallacy as a way to discredit me, but it's all a distraction. I simply asked you if you could prove if the resurrection was fact, and I don't find your evidence convincing. Do you have any specifics of an intellectual debate with those other's that I've lost? I don't think so. And you completely misunderstand my reference to devotion. True faith doesn't require proof, that's why it's devotional. It's just love and surrender to God, no debate necessary.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 4, 2015 5:48:35 GMT -5
What about the writings of Stan Lee, Edgar Rice Burroughs, J. R. R. Tolkien, Buddha, Lao Tzu... I am talking about the rated Scholars not a and also they should be a first century historian. Those stories are embellished and contradictory accounts of a charismatic guru, written no less than 60 years after his passing.. and, like your description of "normal street walker" and the rest of your beliefs, the words you read are products of the mind..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 5:58:18 GMT -5
I am talking about the rated Scholars not a and also they should be a first century historian. Those stories are embellished and contradictory accounts of a charismatic guru, written no less than 60 years after his passing.. and, like your description of "normal street walker" and the rest of your beliefs, the words you read are products of the mind.. What? what are you talking here? All paul epistles were written around 50 AD(started at 48 AD). Paul has never seen Jesus, but Paul has met peter immediately after his baptism and first hand information has been transferred to Paul from Peter who was with Jesus. And Mark was written at 70 AD immediately after Jewish war, Mark,Matthew,Acts were written in 80 AD using the reference of Mark. Conclusion is pretty clear. Paul's writing is the first hand information from Peter. Not only that, Paul has written that Jesus has appeared him and he was blinded for three days and subsequently Paul conversion to Christianity happens. Please investigate the truth very carefully, I know the problem of writing which has been written 2000 years ago, but still authenticated writings of Paul is found.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 6:04:59 GMT -5
Why that's the hearsay? How do you know? Contemporary writers are writing about what has happened. When you do not know something you should not erroneously open a thread like this to talk, when you do not know something you should not form your own story. Do you know historical scholars who writes about Jesus Christ? Have you heard anyone? they usually would not write something without any evidence, How do you know the story of great Alexander if Tacitus who is the second century writer did not write about him? Those historians can't be underestimated. You are not investigating anything carefully, but ready to talk about this more, I don't understand why. This is Religious, when you come to philosophical topic, I asked you how do you know others are real or not, you said to me that I know through my beloved people, Do you know how big mistake or how silly is this reply? You do not know. But you always there to criticize other people like me,andrew,pilgrims,tzu. But unfortunately you do not know how silly your own investigation is!!!. I know enough about the process of how the Bible was written and assembled and the institutions that made use of it down through the ages to have a healthy skepticism about taking any of it literally. I know, for instance, that the earliest any fragment of writings that was incorporated has been substantiated to decades after the crucifixion and that for most of it the trail leaves off past the turn of the 1st century. I also know that many of the stories in both the old and new testaments are carbon copies of other stories that were circulating around the fertile crescent, Persia and Asia minor for millennia prior -- the virgin birth being a stellar example. But you see, that's simply beside the point. I didn't say that I could prove that the resurrection didn't happen. You keep on resorting to various forms of logical fallacy as a way to discredit me, but it's all a distraction. I simply asked you if you could prove if the resurrection was fact, and I don't find your evidence convincing. Do you have any specifics of an intellectual debate with those other's that I've lost? I don't think so. And you completely misunderstand my reference to devotion. True faith doesn't require proof, that's why it's devotional. It's just love and surrender to God, no debate necessary. If you couldn't prove resurrection did not happen, then why the hell are you talking something like 'Nothing is resurrected. It's a metaphor.' ? Or Do you even open this thread to talk about that? You do not know the certainty,right?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 4, 2015 6:13:55 GMT -5
Those stories are embellished and contradictory accounts of a charismatic guru, written no less than 60 years after his passing.. and, like your description of "normal street walker" and the rest of your beliefs, the words you read are products of the mind.. What? what are you talking here? All paul epistles were written around 50 AD(started at 48 AD). Paul has never seen Jesus, but Paul has met peter immediately after his baptism and first hand information has been transferred to Paul from Peter who was with Jesus. And Mark was written at 70 AD immediately after Jewish war, Mark,Matthew,Acts were written in 80 AD using the reference of Mark. Conclusion is pretty clear. Paul's writing is the first hand information from Peter. Not only that, Paul has written that Jesus has appeared him and he was blinded for three days and subsequently Paul conversion to Christianity happens. Please investigate the truth very carefully, I know the problem of writing which has been written 2000 years ago, but still authenticated writings of Paul is found. Paul's writings are second-hand beliefs.. investigate what is actually happening, 'now'. your mind is racing to build more fantasies, cobbling together a bunch of conflicting guru stories into your beliefs about the whole mess 'appearing in consciousness'.. your mindscape is really a messy fantasy..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 6:24:03 GMT -5
What? what are you talking here? All paul epistles were written around 50 AD(started at 48 AD). Paul has never seen Jesus, but Paul has met peter immediately after his baptism and first hand information has been transferred to Paul from Peter who was with Jesus. And Mark was written at 70 AD immediately after Jewish war, Mark,Matthew,Acts were written in 80 AD using the reference of Mark. Conclusion is pretty clear. Paul's writing is the first hand information from Peter. Not only that, Paul has written that Jesus has appeared him and he was blinded for three days and subsequently Paul conversion to Christianity happens. Please investigate the truth very carefully, I know the problem of writing which has been written 2000 years ago, but still authenticated writings of Paul is found. Paul's writings are second-hand beliefs.. investigate what is actually happening, 'now'. your mind is racing to build more fantasies, cobbling together a bunch of conflicting guru stories into your beliefs about the whole mess 'appearing in consciousness'.. your mindscape is really a messy fantasy.. I said it clearly that Paul received the info from Peter, what do you call this one? First hand Information or Second hand information? peter was with Jesus. What other concrete evidence do you want?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 4, 2015 6:24:15 GMT -5
I know enough about the process of how the Bible was written and assembled and the institutions that made use of it down through the ages to have a healthy skepticism about taking any of it literally. I know, for instance, that the earliest any fragment of writings that was incorporated has been substantiated to decades after the crucifixion and that for most of it the trail leaves off past the turn of the 1st century. I also know that many of the stories in both the old and new testaments are carbon copies of other stories that were circulating around the fertile crescent, Persia and Asia minor for millennia prior -- the virgin birth being a stellar example. But you see, that's simply beside the point. I didn't say that I could prove that the resurrection didn't happen. You keep on resorting to various forms of logical fallacy as a way to discredit me, but it's all a distraction. I simply asked you if you could prove if the resurrection was fact, and I don't find your evidence convincing. Do you have any specifics of an intellectual debate with those other's that I've lost? I don't think so. And you completely misunderstand my reference to devotion. True faith doesn't require proof, that's why it's devotional. It's just love and surrender to God, no debate necessary. If you couldn't prove resurrection did not happen, then why the hell are you talking something like 'Nothing is resurrected. It's a metaphor.' ? Or Do you even open this thread to talk about that? You do not know the certainty,right? You keep on repeating the logical fallacy that I have to prove that it didn't happen -- there's no way anyone can ever do that. Do you understand that a negative can't be proven?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 6:26:06 GMT -5
If you couldn't prove resurrection did not happen, then why the hell are you talking something like 'Nothing is resurrected. It's a metaphor.' ? Or Do you even open this thread to talk about that? You do not know the certainty,right? You keep on repeating the logical fallacy that I have to prove that it didn't happen -- there's no way anyone can ever do that. Do you understand that a negative can't be proven? Do you understand what I am asking? I agree you could not prove or something like that. But If you can't prove then why the hell are you talking something like 'Nothing is resurrected. It's a metaphor.'
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 4, 2015 6:30:11 GMT -5
You keep on repeating the logical fallacy that I have to prove that it didn't happen -- there's no way anyone can ever do that. Do you understand that a negative can't be proven? Do you understand what I am asking? I agree you could not prove or something like that. But If you can't prove then why the hell are you talking something like 'Nothing is resurrected. It's a metaphor.' Oh, well here you want to know about my personal orientation toward Christianity. I'm willing to share that with you if you like. It's essentially an explanation of my rejection of the scriptures as proof of anything, which is, of course, ultimately my subjective opinion, but one that I'm quite comfortable with. If you'd like me to explain why I'm comfortable with it I will.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 4, 2015 6:32:08 GMT -5
Paul's writings are second-hand beliefs.. investigate what is actually happening, 'now'. your mind is racing to build more fantasies, cobbling together a bunch of conflicting guru stories into your beliefs about the whole mess 'appearing in consciousness'.. your mindscape is really a messy fantasy.. I said it clearly that Paul received the info from Peter, what do you call this one? First hand Information or Second hand information? peter was with Jesus. What other concrete evidence do you want? That is not 'evidence', it is hearsay beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 6:35:07 GMT -5
I said it clearly that Paul received the info from Peter, what do you call this one? First hand Information or Second hand information? peter was with Jesus. What other concrete evidence do you want? That is not 'evidence', it is hearsay beliefs. In the entire history none of the people were written by contemporary writers like Tacitus has written about Alexander after 400 years, but here Peter has been with Jesus for many years and has seen the miracles of him and have seen the resurrected Jesus, Paul receives the matter from Peter, not only that Paul himself has seen the resurrected Jesus.
|
|