A tale of two statements

[shnarkle]

"It is true therefore I must believe it"

"I believe it, therefore it must be true"

My contention is that theistic believers see little distinction between these statements.

I've noticed this to be the case as well. However, it's more of a generalization. What I've noticed is a little bit more concrete. For example, the bible presents people who see something, THEN believe. They see some unexplained phenomenon, THEN they are referred to as "witnesses". They "witness" someone raised from the dead, THEN they become believers. This is the exact opposite of what we refer to as "believers" today. They are taught something which they then believe, but ultimately it doesn't appear that the vast majority actually believe what they're taught. We know this because they don't act like they actually believe what they're taught.

Those who witness something then believe will then "confess" what they've witnessed. Whereas those who have been taught what to believe will then "profess" what they've been taught. The former is the real deal while the latter tend to be counterfeit spine donors.

 

[El Cid]

Yes, but the nevertheless the majority view is that it did have a beginning. Even you admit that it had an origin, all effects have origins as well.

You're conflating origin with a beginning. That which begins, must necessarily end. This is not the case with origin.

Something that has a beginning does not necessarily have an end, but in the case of the universe, yes. But If something has an origin it also has a beginning.

In that case it didnt fit.

It's a false assumption. Gloves shrink. They don't even necessarily have anything to do with the murder.

If it has the victims blood on it it does.

The universe has purposes and we know that only personal beings can create purposes.

Fallacy of Begging the Question. You need to back up these claims with proof, evidence, arguments, etc.

There are eyes and ears in the universe, the first for seeing and the second for hearing and many other examples.

That fits the Christian God.

It fits your claims, but again this is still just Begging the Question.

See above.

Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity

Ibid.

There is one universe, the unity, but millions of galaxies, the diversity. And this pattern goes all the way down to the atomic level.

just like the Triune Christian God. We know from art experts that creators always leave a unique fingerprint to identify them as the creator.

Art experts will also readily admit that these same means of identification can be used by counterfeit artists. See the problem yet?

True but advanced experts can also usually detect the counterfeits.

So only the Christian God has a triune nature, no other known creator god has that characteristic.

False. https://slife.org/the-trinity-in-world-religions/

The article mentions pagans and hindus. Pagans are polytheists. They believe in multiple different gods, ie diversity, but no unity. Hindus are pantheists. Multiple manifestations of the one same god, ie ultimately a pure unity. Diversity is an illusion. Neither has a true unity AND a true diversity, like the Christian God and the universe.

How is it begging the question? I dont assume God exists, I am only assuming the universe exists and then reason to its cause. How is it a non-sequitur? It logically follows using the law of sufficient cause.

You're then assuming that it must be the Christian god. Nowhere have you proven anything.

In addition to the above characteristics there are others that point in that direction. He is also transcendent which is required by logic. A cause cannot be part of the effect. Being transcendent means that He is not part of the universe.

In what way? The ancient creed was composed within five years of the event. Many historical events dont have that kind of evidence.

What ancient creed? Was it composed five years before or after the event? Please document the creed and prove when it was composed. Consensus doesn't cut it. Making the claim without any evidence to support it doesn't cut it.

I Corinthians 15:3-8. Within five years after the event. While it cant be proven the linguistic evidence points in that direction. It is older greek terms than Pauls letter.

Ok what is your point?

You're butchering the English language. You're conflating a particular figure with figurative language. You're taking one particular figure and claiming that it encompasses all figurative speech.

What figure am I conflating?

Augustus Caesar, Herod the Great, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Caiaphas are all historical people and I could name more.

Please document how you came to the conclusion that John the Baptist was a historical person. There are no historical traces of John the Baptist anywhere that I know of.

The great jewish historian Josephus refers to him, combined with Biblical references has caused most historians to believe he was a real person.

I am not saying it precludes it

Fair enough. Thanks for conceding the point.

but it is unlikely

It's quite likely.

Not when a document is made up of mostly figures of speech.

if the entire books are esoteric knowledge transmitters as docphin5 and you appear to be claiming.

I'm not making the claims of others on this forum. Strawman argument.

Well what is your claim?

I didnt say that myths never have historical events, I said generally.

You're waffling.

No, just stating a fact.

And there are other textual characteristics that are unlike myths such as character development. The character development in the NT is far greater than most myths.

False. If anything they're just the opposite. There is little to no character development whatsoever in the gospel narratives. They are all thumbnail sketches. Regardless, this doesn't make them mythological or historical. It just makes them thumbnail sketches.

I think most literary scholars would disagree with you. A very good portrait of Jesus' character is created. Compare the gospel of Thomas with the canonical gospels.

Herodotus probably said that because he didnt want to admit that the hebrew god is God.

Regardless, it doesn't negate my point, or prove yours.

I never claimed I can prove it.

I never said you could either. The fact is that I'm proving that you can't.

Nevertheless there is a great deal of evidence for it as just a few pieces of it are shown above.

You cant prove with certainty anything except your own existence.

You've obviously never read any of my posts on that particular subject. My contention is that nobody can actually prove their own existence. I've posted a number of posts on the topic.

I think therefore I am.

I am just claiming there is strong evidence.

No one has forgotten your claims. No one is disputing that you're making this claim. What I've done is to point out that the claim is weak at best, and probably false.

See above.

 

[Lucian]

I Corinthians 15:3-8. Within five years after the event. While it cant be proven the linguistic evidence points in that direction. It is older greek terms than Pauls letter.

What Greek terms are these? And what does 'older greek terms than Pauls letter' mean?

 

[El Cid]

What Greek terms are these? And what does 'older greek terms than Pauls letter' mean?

It uses Peters original name before Jesus changed it, also, it doesnt mention the women finding the empty tomb, there is an absence of the three day motif and there are other things in the text but I am not a greek scholar so I am not sure of all of them. Read the Case for the Resurrection by Gary Habermas for more details.

 

[Lucian]

It uses Peters original name before Jesus changed it,

No, it doesn’t.

also, it doesnt mention the women finding the empty tomb, there is an absence of the three day motif and there are other things in the text but I am not a greek scholar so I am not sure of all of them. Read the Case for the Resurrection by Gary Habermas for more details.

These aren’t linguistic matters. You shouldn’t rely on arguments you don’t understand.

 

[shnarkle]

Something that has a beginning does not necessarily have an end

Do you have any evidence, examples or an argument to support this claim?

If something has an origin it also has a beginning.

Fallacy of Begging the Question. Again, please present your evidence, examples, etc.
When dealing with transcendence, there needn't be any beginning or end. A beginning or end denotes limitations which are antithetical to transcendence.

If it has the victims blood on it it does.

Beside the point you tried to make.

There are eyes and ears in the universe, the first for seeing and the second for hearing and many other examples.

Those with eyes and ears did not create the eyes and ears they use. Again, you're still Begging the Question.

See above.

See above.

There is one universe, the unity, but millions of galaxies, the diversity. And this pattern goes all the way down to the atomic level.

It doesn't then follow that a god is Christian rather than anything else.

True but advanced experts can also usually detect the counterfeits.

Those who are closest to the truth are the best liars. The Christian scriptures openly declare that "the whole world is deceived".

The article mentions pagans and hindus. Pagans are polytheists. They believe in multiple different gods,

Technically, that's not true. The bible is an excellent example which spotlights how the polytheist worships Yahweh. They have numerous different names for the same god. Moreover, Yahweh openly admits there are plenty of other gods as well. His only command is that one place him in a position of pre-eminence "before" them.

ie diversity, but no unity.

Again, blatantly false. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufyism, etc. all point to a unification of everything. All is one.

Hindus are pantheists. Multiple manifestations of the one same god, ie ultimately a pure unity.

Again, you just contradicted your previous point, thus we're now in agreement. You've conceded my point.

Diversity is an illusion.

Yep. Again, you've conceded my point.

Neither has a true unity AND a true diversity, like the Christian God and the universe.

Now you're introducing "The No True Scotsman Fallacy". Again, your claims don't make it so.

In addition to the above characteristics there are others that point in that direction. He is also transcendent which is required by logic.

Transcendence must transcend everything that exists, but if transcendence doesn't transcend the one common denominator of everything that exists, then it isn't transcendent. Your claim is incoherent in that logic isn't transcendent and transcendence cannot be constrained or limited by logic either. Limited transcendence is a contradiction in terms. It's an oxymoron.

A cause cannot be part of the effect.

If you effectively exist, then the cause you refer to as God cannot be any part of you. As Jesus would say, "I never knew you."

Being transcendent means that He is not part of the universe.

Agreed, and as you've already claimed, there can be no effect without a cause. Therefore, the universe cannot be caused by your transcendent god.

I Corinthians 15:3-8.

I'm not asking you for the scripture making the claim. I'm asking you for the scripture he's referring to. Which scripture is being fulfilled?

. While it cant be proven

Bingo! You just conceded my point.

the linguistic evidence points in that direction.

Please show your work. Claims made without evidence can be ignored without evidence.

It is older greek terms than Pauls letter.

Again, what are you referring to? Please supply the scriptures themselves.

What figure am I conflating?

You're taking the figure Metaphor and using it to refer to figurative speech in general. You're using the term as synonymous with "figurative".

The great jewish historian Josephus refers to him,

Josephus is notorious for fabricating historical events. His greatness is in his notoriety.

combined with Biblical references has caused most historians to believe he was a real person.

We're only concerned with historians that rely upon dependable accounts of history. People like Josephus, Herodotus, etc. are not known for trustworthy accounts of history.

Not when a document is made up of mostly figures of speech.

Why? Figures of speech are used in numerous documents that are held in high esteem by everyone from historians, scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc.

Well what is your claim?

I've made quite a few of them, and none of them are in line with your assumptions.

No, just stating a fact.

A factoid lacks proof. Your statement isn't proven, therefore it isn't proven to be a fact.

I think most literary scholars would disagree with you.

What you think is of no consequence to this discussion. Prove it. Present some evidence to support your thoughts. One or two is not equivalent to "most".

A very good portrait of Jesus' character is created.

A very good portrait? This doesn't tell us anything.

Compare the gospel of Thomas with the canonical gospels.

Done. I'm not seeing anything that changes my position. Perhaps you might supply some evidence to support this theory of yours.

I never claimed I can prove it.

I never claimed you did. Now that we have that simple fact not only proven and agreed upon, perhaps you might supply the discussion with something other than baseless claims.

Nevertheless there is a great deal of evidence for it as just a few pieces of it are shown above.

You've shown absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. I'm still waiting for the aforementioned scriptures you keep claiming exist, but never present.

I think therefore I am.

Descartes assumes thoughts belong to him. He assumes that they are his own personal thoughts. No one asks him to prove his claim. He's Begging the Question. Moreover, thoughts do not prove identity. As closely related as identification is to identity, identification is not identity and can't prove identity. If you think it is possible, you're more than welcome to do your best to prove me wrong.

 

[El Cid]

It uses Peters original name before Jesus changed it,

No, it doesn’t.

Actually you are right what I meant to say it uses his Aramaic name, Cephas. Thereby indicating an Aramaic original. Paul uses the terms received and delivered indicating that Paul is giving the tradition he received. This shows it is a creed. The text is stylized containing parallelisms and non Pauline terms.

also, it doesnt mention the women finding the empty tomb, there is an absence of the three day motif and there are other things in the text but I am not a greek scholar so I am not sure of all of them. Read the Case for the Resurrection by Gary Habermas for more details.

These aren’t linguistic matters. You shouldn’t rely on arguments you don’t understand.

Ok they are textual matters. Those characteristics in addition to the ones mentioned above point to it being a pre-Pauline creed which is my point. I think I understand the basics.

 

[Lucian]

Actually you are right what I meant to say it uses his Aramaic name, Cephas. Thereby indicating an Aramaic original.

Does the Corinthians' use of 'Cephas' in 1 Corinthians 1 suggest they were speaking Aramaic? Does Paul's use of the name in Galatians 2 suggest that this letter was originally written in Aramaic? If I say 'Francois' rather than 'Francis' in a letter, does that suggest my letter was originally written in French?

Paul uses the terms received and delivered indicating that Paul is giving the tradition he received. This shows it is a creed.

Aside from the fact that he doesn't refer to a tradition, how does this show it's a creed?

The text is stylized containing parallelisms and non Pauline terms.

Ok they are textual matters. Those characteristics in addition to the ones mentioned above point to it being a pre-Pauline creed which is my point. I think I understand the basics.

Which non-Pauline terms does Paul use?

 

[El Cid]

Do you have any evidence, examples or an argument to support this claim?

The human spirit.

Fallacy of Begging the Question. Again, please present your evidence, examples, etc.

Provide an example of something that has an origin that does not have a beginning.

When dealing with transcendence, there needn't be any beginning or end. A beginning or end denotes limitations which are antithetical to transcendence.

Yes, The transcendent Christian God has neither.

Beside the point you tried to make.

No, if it fits and has the victims blood on it then you must convict. So it is with God, there is more than one piece of evidence for His existence.

Those with eyes and ears did not create the eyes and ears they use. Again, you're still Begging the Question.

Exactly, the cause of the universe does not have eyes and ears. He is not a physical being because He is "outside" the realm of the physical universe.

See above.

See what above?

el cid: There is one universe, the unity, but millions of galaxies, the diversity. And this pattern goes all the way down to the atomic level.

Shnarkle:

It doesn't then follow that a god is Christian rather than anything else.

No, the cause of the universe is most likely also a diversity within a unity. The only known God with that characteristic is the Christian God.

Those who are closest to the truth are the best liars. The Christian scriptures openly declare that "the whole world is deceived".

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

el cid: The article mentions pagans and hindus. Pagans are polytheists. They believe in multiple different gods,
schnarkle: Technically, that's not true. The bible is an excellent example which spotlights how the polytheist worships Yahweh. They have numerous different names for the same god.

Having multiple names for your one God doesnt make you polytheist.

Moreover, Yahweh openly admits there are plenty of other gods as well. His only command is that one place him in a position of pre-eminence "before" them.

No, He is just saying dont go after false gods. We know from other texts like Isaiah 40:12-31, that God does not acknowledge the existence of other gods.

ie diversity, but no unity.
Again, blatantly false. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufyism, etc. all point to a unification of everything. All is one.

No, I was saying that polytheists, ie pagans, dont believe there is a unity among the gods, they are all different. But yes those four religions have the other problem, they believe all is unified and there is no real diversity. But the Christian God has both characteristics like the universe He created.

Hindus are pantheists. Multiple manifestations of the one same god, ie ultimately a pure unity.
Again, you just contradicted your previous point, thus we're now in agreement. You've conceded my point.

No contradiction, you just misunderstood, see above.

el cid: Diversity is an illusion.
Yep. Again, you've conceded my point.

See above. Diversity is not an illusion that is why those religions that teach that all is one are wrong and their god cannot be the creator.

shn: Now you're introducing "The No True Scotsman Fallacy". Again, your claims don't make it so.

No, I just proved it above.

Transcendence must transcend everything that exists, but if transcendence doesn't transcend the one common denominator of everything that exists, then it isn't transcendent.

God does transcend everything that physically exists.

Your claim is incoherent in that logic isn't transcendent and transcendence cannot be constrained or limited by logic either. Limited transcendence is a contradiction in terms. It's an oxymoron.

That is not what I claimed. I didnt say logic is transcendent, I said God is. But as a rational being, God is constrained by logic.

shn: If you effectively exist, then the cause you refer to as God cannot be any part of you. As Jesus would say, "I never knew you."

God is not part of me. We are not God. Jesus never said we are God. His spirit indwells us as a guide but He is still a separate being from us.

shn: Agreed, and as you've already claimed, there can be no effect without a cause. Therefore, the universe cannot be caused by your transcendent god.

No, see above.

I Corinthians 15:3-8.

I'm not asking you for the scripture making the claim. I'm asking you for the scripture he's referring to. Which scripture is being fulfilled?

This passage is not a prophecy. It is an ancient Pre-Pauline creed bearing witness to an event.
End of part one

 

[El Cid]

While it cant be proven

Bingo! You just conceded my point.

No, see my post above.

the linguistic evidence points in that direction.

Please show your work. Claims made without evidence can be ignored without evidence.

It is older greek terms than Pauls letter.

Again, what are you referring to? Please supply the scriptures themselves.

Actually it uses Aramaic terms that point to an Aramaic original thereby showing it is pre-Pauline. Sorry I didnt mean to say greek.

What figure am I conflating?

You're taking the figure Metaphor and using it to refer to figurative speech in general. You're using the term as synonymous with "figurative".

Ok

The great jewish historian Josephus refers to him,

Josephus is notorious for fabricating historical events. His greatness is in his notoriety.

Well the historians of Encyclopedia Britannica considers him accurate enough to consider him enough of part of the evidence for the existence of John the Baptist. I think I will accept their opinion rather than a hyperskeptical atheist on a Christian Forum website.

combined with Biblical references has caused most historians to believe he was a real person.

We're only concerned with historians that rely upon dependable accounts of history. People like Josephus, Herodotus, etc. are not known for trustworthy accounts of history.

See above.

Not when a document is made up of mostly figures of speech.

Why? Figures of speech are used in numerous documents that are held in high esteem by everyone from historians, scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc.

Well what is your claim?

I've made quite a few of them, and none of them are in line with your assumptions.

Ok name the point you are trying to make here.

No, just stating a fact.

A factoid lacks proof. Your statement isn't proven, therefore it isn't proven to be a fact.

In what way is it not a fact?

I think most literary scholars would disagree with you.

What you think is of no consequence to this discussion. Prove it. Present some evidence to support your thoughts. One or two is not equivalent to "most".

Myths use overblown and fantastical descriptions, the gospels are nothing like that.

el cid: A very good portrait of Jesus' character is created.

A very good portrait? This doesn't tell us anything.

It provides a character that shows love and kindness combined with toughness and courage that has influenced and inspired millions to change the world.

Compare the gospel of Thomas with the canonical gospels.

Done. I'm not seeing anything that changes my position. Perhaps you might supply some evidence to support this theory of yours.

The GOT has a 100 foot tall cross come out of the tomb with Jesus, this is a perfect example of an overblown and fantastical description that is how most myths are but unlike the NT.

I never claimed I can prove it.

I never claimed you did. Now that we have that simple fact not only proven and agreed upon, perhaps you might supply the discussion with something other than baseless claims.

See above.

Nevertheless there is a great deal of evidence for it as just a few pieces of it are shown above.

You've shown absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. I'm still waiting for the aforementioned scriptures you keep claiming exist, but never present.

The passage in I Corinthians is the only scripture I was referring to.

I think therefore I am.

Descartes assumes thoughts belong to him. He assumes that they are his own personal thoughts. No one asks him to prove his claim. He's Begging the Question. Moreover, thoughts do not prove identity. As closely related as identification is to identity, identification is not identity and can't prove identity. If you think it is possible, you're more than welcome to do your best to prove me wrong.

Why would he assume anyone else? If at first in the reasoning steps you are the only one there. And since thinking can only occur in someone that exists, it is rational assumption.

 

[El Cid]

Actually you are right what I meant to say it uses his Aramaic name, Cephas. Thereby indicating an Aramaic original.

Does the Corinthians' use of 'Cephas' in 1 Corinthians 1 suggest they were speaking Aramaic?

Maybe but it primarily points to the original creed being in Aramaic.

Does Paul's use of the name in Galatians 2 suggest that this letter was originally written in Aramaic? If I say 'Francois' rather than 'Francis' in a letter, does that suggest my letter was originally written in French?

No, not necessarily. Some scholars say that Paul would use Peter's Aramaic name when he got a little angry or disappointed in him.

Paul uses the terms received and delivered indicating that Paul is giving the tradition he received. This shows it is a creed.

Aside from the fact that he doesn't refer to a tradition, how does this show it's a creed?

Because it was received or delivered to him not composed by him. And the fourfold use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds. Plus the parallelisms are a sign of a creed.

The text is stylized containing parallelisms and non Pauline terms.

Ok they are textual matters. Those characteristics in addition to the ones mentioned above point to it being a pre-Pauline creed which is my point. I think I understand the basics.

Which non-Pauline terms does Paul use?

I am not sure, for more info read Habermas' Historical Jesus.

 

[Lucian]

Maybe but it primarily points to the original creed being in Aramaic.

‘Maybe’? It’s Corinth!

I know you think the original creed was in Aramaic. Perhaps it was. But the occurrence of the name ‘Cephas’ is no indication of this.

No, not necessarily. Some scholars say that Paul would use Peter's Aramaic name when he got a little angry or disappointed in him.

Exactly.

Because it was received or delivered to him not composed by him.

Sure, but one will need more than that to infer that the text was a creed.

And the fourfold use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds.

Which creeds?

Plus the parallelisms are a sign of a creed.

What’s a ‘parallelism’ in this context? How are they a sign of a creed?

I am not sure, for more info read Habermas' Historical Jesus.

If you’re not sure, why did you make the claim? Again, you shouldn’t make arguments you don’t understand.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"It is true therefore I must believe it"

"I believe it, therefore it must be true"

My contention is that theistic believers see little distinction between these statements.

Which proves that you KNOW NOTHING about Born-Again Christianity.

 

[El Cid]

Maybe but it primarily points to the original creed being in Aramaic.

‘Maybe’? It’s Corinth!

I know you think the original creed was in Aramaic. Perhaps it was. But the occurrence of the name ‘Cephas’ is no indication of this.

According to most biblical scholars it is.

No, not necessarily. Some scholars say that Paul would use Peter's Aramaic name when he got a little angry or disappointed in him.

Exactly.

Because it was received or delivered to him not composed by him.

Sure, but one will need more than that to infer that the text was a creed.

See below.

And the fourfold use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds.

Which creeds?

Early Christian creeds.

Plus the parallelisms are a sign of a creed.

What’s a ‘parallelism’ in this context? How are they a sign of a creed?

It uses the phrase "in accordance with the scriptures" twice, this was common in ancient Christian creeds.

I am not sure, for more info read Habermas' Historical Jesus.

If you’re not sure, why did you make the claim? Again, you shouldn’t make arguments you don’t understand.

I understand the basics of the argument. Just like I and many others use the BB theory as an argument for the existence of God. Just because I dont understand the BB theory fully, does not mean it is not evidence for God. So it is with this evidence. And I can provide references from experts in the field that agree with my arguments if my opponent wants more detailed information on the evidence.

 

[Lucian]

According to most biblical scholars it is.

Like who? Please provide full, referenced quotes where they make the argument that the occurrence of the term 'Cephas' in this (alleged) creed is evidence of its being originally in Aramaic.

Early Christian creeds.

Such as? Again, please provide full, referenced quotes, so I can consult the text.

It uses the phrase "in accordance with the scriptures" twice, this was common in ancient Christian creeds.

As above.

I understand the basics of the argument. Just like I and many others use the BB theory as an argument for the existence of God. Just because I dont understand the BB theory fully, does not mean it is not evidence for God. So it is with this evidence. And I can provide references from experts in the field that agree with my arguments if my opponent wants more detailed information on the evidence.

You said that the text contains 'non-Pauline terms', but cannot tell me what any of these terms are. This hardly constitutes 'understand[ing] the basics of the argument'.

You also missed these questions in my last post: What’s a ‘parallelism’ in this context? How are they a sign of a creed?

 

[El Cid]

According to most biblical scholars it is.

Like who? Please provide full, referenced quotes where they make the argument that the occurrence of the term 'Cephas' in this (alleged) creed is evidence of its being originally in Aramaic.

Gary Habermas and Michael Licona from their book I referenced earlier. John Kloppenborg in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40(1978):351-367. Wiilam Lane Craig in Assessing the NT evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Ulrich Wilckens in his book Resurrection. Plus many others. I dont have the quotes because I dont own those articles or books except the first one. The first one references the others.

Early Christian creeds.

Such as? Again, please provide full, referenced quotes, so I can consult the text.

See above.

It uses the phrase "in accordance with the scriptures" twice, this was common in ancient Christian creeds.

As above.

Repetition is common in ancient creeds.

I understand the basics of the argument. Just like I and many others use the BB theory as an argument for the existence of God. Just because I dont understand the BB theory fully, does not mean it is not evidence for God. So it is with this evidence. And I can provide references from experts in the field that agree with my arguments if my opponent wants more detailed information on the evidence.

You said that the text contains 'non-Pauline terms', but cannot tell me what any of these terms are. This hardly constitutes 'understand[ing] the basics of the argument'.

Why? I am not a NT scholar. Many things we have to accept on authority. We only know what the surface of the moon is like from the astronauts that walked on it. To find out more, read the references above. Sorry I dont have the time or inclination to repeat everything that is in those books and articles.

You also missed these questions in my last post: What’s a ‘parallelism’ in this context? How are they a sign of a creed?

The fourfold use of the Greek term for "that" (hoti) is common in Aramaic narration. The first and third lines have the same construction and contain the phrase "according to the scriptures", this is the parallelism that is a sign of being a creed like the Apostles Creed.

 

[Lucian]

Gary Habermas and Michael Licona from their book I referenced earlier. John Kloppenborg in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40(1978):351-367. Wiilam Lane Craig in Assessing the NT evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Ulrich Wilckens in his book Resurrection. Plus many others. I dont have the quotes because I dont own those articles or books except the first one. The first one references the others.

This isn't what I asked for, and so I remain sceptical that these sources are making an argument as naive as you suggest they're making.

See above.

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing: you've said that "use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds", namely Christian ones. So, I've asked you to tell me which creeds you're talking about. If you don't know, and are just repeating a claim you've heard others make, you should say so.

Repetition is common in ancient creeds.

Of course, but your claim was that "the phrase 'in accordance with the scriptures'... was common in ancient Christian creeds". I've asked you which creeds you're talking about.

Why?

Because you said that the text contains 'non-Pauline terms', but can't tell me what any of these terms are. You may think that that's defensible, but, regardless of whether it is, you can't say that in these circumstances you 'understand the basics of the argument': you don't understand the argument at all. Rather, you're repeating a claim you've heard elsewhere, made by those you trust.

The fourfold use of the Greek term for "that" (hoti) is common in Aramaic narration.

This doesn't make sense: how can a Greek word be common in Aramaic narration?

The first and third lines have the same construction and contain the phrase "according to the scriptures", this is the parallelism that is a sign of being a creed like the Apostles Creed.

Then I refer you to my earlier comments.

 

[shnarkle]

The human spirit.

This is not evidence or an argument.

Provide an example of something that has an origin that does not have a beginning.

The Son. The father is the origin of the son, but the Son can have no beginning unless the Father begin to be a father. The Eternal Father cannot become a father to the Son.

Existence is eternal. Existence or being can have its origin in God, but cannot have a beginning or end without one wandering into contradictions. To claim existence doesn't exist is to violate the law or principle of non-contradiction. Existence cannot be equivalent to non-existence.

Yes, The transcendent Christian God has neither.

Which precludes Absolutes as well as existence.

No, if it fits and has the victims blood on it then you must convict.

A jury does not have to convict. It's called jury nullification.

So it is with God, there is more than one piece of evidence for His existence.

False. The burden of proof is upon you to provide this evidence. We're still waiting.

Exactly,

Thanks for conceding the point.

the cause of the universe does not have eyes and ears. He is not a physical being because He is "outside" the realm of the physical universe.

Air quotes don't prove your point. There is no such thing as an "outside" or "inside" of the universe. Again, the burden of proof is upon you to provide your evidence.

See what above?

The point made. Repeating yourself doesn't advance the argument.

No, the cause of the universe is most likely also a diversity within a unity.

Why? Why is this most likely?

The only known God with that characteristic is the Christian God.

False. Paul refutes your claim when he explicitly refers to him as "the unknown god". He also corrects himself when he says, "we know God or rather are known by God...etc. " Galatians 4:9

By definition, any god that can be known cannot be omniscient. Omniscience precludes the possibility of being known. There is the Knower, the faculty of knowing, and whatever can be known. Omniscience refers exclusively to the faculty itself.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Having multiple names for your one God doesnt make you polytheist.

It's how scholars, historians, archeologists etc. refer to them.

No, He is just saying dont go after false gods.

Correction. the term used is "before"

We know from other texts like Isaiah 40:12-31, that God does not acknowledge the existence of other gods.

And yet he refers to them anyways. Moreover, what it actually says is that there is nothing beside God. We also know that all of creation is sustained by God, and could all be obliterated in a moment as if it never existed.

No, I was saying that polytheists, ie pagans, dont believe there is a unity among the gods, they are all different.

I haven't forgotten what you posted. I addressed what you posted. Are you going to address my response or not?

But yes those four religions have the other problem, they believe all is unified and there is no real diversity.

False. They simply point out that when the parts are distinguished, they're going to need names.

But the Christian God has both characteristics like the universe He created.

False. The biblical God does not bear the characteristics of creation. The biblical god is the origin of creation that is the primary characteristic.

No contradiction,

A blatant contradiction.

you just misunderstood,

I comprehended it perfectly.

see above.

Ditto.

See above.

Ditto.

Diversity is not an illusion that is why those religions that teach that all is one are wrong and their god cannot be the creator.

Double standards are your forte. Paul makes the exact same claim when he points out that when Christ has placed all his enemies below him, and reconciled the world to God the father, the result will be 'all in all' 1 Corinthians 15:28

No, I just proved it above.

No, you didn't.

God does transcend everything that physically exists.

By definition, transcendence is not confined to physical existence.

That is not what I claimed. I didnt say logic is transcendent, I said God is. But as a rational being, God is constrained by logic.

Correction: Your god is constrained.

God is not part of me.

This is why I pointed to Christ's words when he will say, "I never knew you".

We are not God. Jesus never said we are God.

False. He quotes explicitly quotes scripture which says, "Ye are gods." Moreover, after healing others and performing numerous miracles, he then says, "Greater things than these you will also do."

His spirit indwells us as a guide but He is still a separate being from us.

False. He openly points out that "apart from me, you can do nothing." and "whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me"

No

Yes.

see above.

Ditto.

This passage

What passage???????????????

 

[shnarkle]

No

Yes.

, see my post above.

Ditto.

Actually it uses Aramaic terms that point to an Aramaic original

Fallacy of Begging the Question. All it points to is the fact that they spoke Aramaic.

Ok name the point you are trying to make here.

Which one? The fact that you're conflating a particular figure of speech with figurative language in general, or something else?

In what way is it not a fact?

I just explained why. A claim is not proof or evidence.

Myths use overblown and fantastical descriptions, the gospels are nothing like that.

So walking on water, filling containers full of water and then giving them to guests who marvel at the best tasting wine being saved for last, raising people from the dead, etc. etc. etc. are not fantastical descriptions according to....your opinion?

el cid: A very good portrait of Jesus' character is created.

It provides a character that shows love and kindness combined with toughness and courage

Tarot card readers provide characterizations which are no less vague and ambiguous.

that has influenced and inspired millions to change the world.

Look around at the state of the world today. Your own bible points out this would happen, and it doesn't present it as an improvement.

The GOT has a 100 foot tall cross come out of the tomb with Jesus, this is a perfect example of an overblown and fantastical description that is how most myths are but unlike the NT.

Myths don't allow for people to rise from the dead? Again, you're presenting a ridiculous double standard.

See above.

Ditto.

The passage in I Corinthians is the only scripture I was referring to.

Then you're not presenting much of an argument. It's just simply Begging the Question.

Why would he assume anyone else?

You're missing the point. I'm referring to his use of the Genitive of Possession.

If at first in the reasoning steps you are the only one there.

False. He never makes this assumption. He's simply assuming that the thoughts he is aware of are his own.

And since thinking can only occur in someone that exists, it is rational assumption.

Again, your own bible points out that one's life is not their own. All things are created in, with, through and FOR Christ. The whole world belongs to Christ. He paid for it, therefore it belongs to him and no one else.

The point with Descartes is that he never defines or details what he means by referring to himself. There is the person or the physical body which exists, but he would admit that the body belongs to him. It is his body, but he would not say that he is the body itself. To do so is to conflate the Verb To Be with the Genitive of Possession. This is grammatical blasphemy.

It also spotlights the fact that most people who do this have lost touch with reality.

No one is born with an identity or a sense of self. All identities are fabricated during infancy. They are nothing more than abstract constructions of the mind. Descartes never identified who he was referring to, and no one ever asked him. You seem to feel that you have this all figured out, but you've yet to identify who or what you're referring to either. Please be so kind as to point out what you're talking about.

In other words, if you identify with a physical body, then who are you? You can't be the physical body you identify with due to the fact that identification is NOT identity. Moreover, if the body belongs to you, then it is yours and cannot be who you are.

 

[El Cid]

Gary Habermas and Michael Licona from their book I referenced earlier. John Kloppenborg in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40(1978):351-367. Wiilam Lane Craig in Assessing the NT evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Ulrich Wilckens in his book Resurrection. Plus many others. I dont have the quotes because I dont own those articles or books except the first one. The first one references the others.

This isn't what I asked for, and so I remain sceptical that these sources are making an argument as naive as you suggest they're making.

How is their argument naive?

See above.

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing: you've said that "use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds", namely Christian ones. So, I've asked you to tell me which creeds you're talking about. If you don't know, and are just repeating a claim you've heard others make, you should say so.

The Apostles Creed.

Repetition is common in ancient creeds.

Of course, but your claim was that "the phrase 'in accordance with the scriptures'... was common in ancient Christian creeds". I've asked you which creeds you're talking about.

No, I am not saying that that particular phrase was common in creeds, I and the scholars I reference are saying that the repetition of certain phrases was common in ancient Christian creeds. Creeds like the Apostles Creed.

Why?

Because you said that the text contains 'non-Pauline terms', but can't tell me what any of these terms are. You may think that that's defensible, but, regardless of whether it is, you can't say that in these circumstances you 'understand the basics of the argument': you don't understand the argument at all. Rather, you're repeating a claim you've heard elsewhere, made by those you trust.

The basics is that the text contains non-Pauline terms and therefore is unlikely to have been written by Paul. That is the basic argument and the main point, IMO.

The fourfold use of the Greek term for "that" (hoti) is common in Aramaic narration.

This doesn't make sense: how can a Greek word be common in Aramaic narration?

The fourfold use of the term "that" is common Aramaic narration.

The first and third lines have the same construction and contain the phrase "according to the scriptures", this is the parallelism that is a sign of being a creed like the Apostles Creed.

Then I refer you to my earlier comments.

Which ones?