• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?[W: 143]

Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RabidAlpaca said:
It's not unlikely that god exists. It's unlikely that he would contact me, and me alone. It's unlikely that he would impart a really important message to me and to me alone. Everyone would just have to take my word for it, just like nearly everything in the bible has to be taken for the writer's word.

There are many, many, many things in the bible where zero evidence is presented. Only the word of one, or a few people. How is this any different?
Click to expand...

There are many things everywhere where zero evidence is presented, infact in most historical or theological documents little evidence is presented, its just the nature of those documents.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Blackdog said:
No. you don't have two thousand years of literature from many sources to lend any credence to your statement. Christianity has this. The Bible is not one book, it is many from many different writers. Unlike your statement.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, the bible is not one book, it is a collection of many. You can not simply take the bible as a whole to be true without analyzing the factuality of each book individually. Any one of the writers could have been lying or just wrong. Many just assume that because in 400 AD a group of people decided to canonize these books, that they automatically are god's will. I see many inconsistencies in the bible, but it's not exactly hard when a group of people sit down to decide what goes in the bible, and what doesn't, to try to make sure that there are as few consistencies as possible.


Blackdog said:
No. I would dismiss it as non-biblical. I don't need evidence to know science fiction from something that does have historical precedent even of no solid proof.
Click to expand...
Writing off something as untrue because it's non-biblical is a rather ridiculous notion. You've already made your mind up about what you want to believe, and no amount of modern evidence or proof could ever convince you otherwise. The real question is, if god's will is so important, why would he only reveal himself to a few select people? Why must we then simply take their claims as fact without evidence? It's not to be overlooked that most of them were paid and respected quite well for revealing "god's word".
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RGacky3 said:
There are many things everywhere where zero evidence is presented, infact in most historical or theological documents little evidence is presented, its just the nature of those documents.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the difference is, I don't base my entire life off things where zero evidence is presented.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RabidAlpaca said:
Because when the probability of something decreases, the required evidence increases. I could show you a burger wrapper, and that might suffice enough to convince you that I ate a cheese burger for lunch. If I made a claim that alpacas could solve complex mathematical calculations, you would probably want to see more than a piece of paper with some equations on it. You'd probably want to see the alpaca do it himself. It's an extraordinary claim that requires evidence.
Click to expand...

How do you systematically predetermine the probability that something could have occurred? Are you just making a subjective guess?
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Peter Grimm said:
How do you systematically predetermine the probability that something could have occurred? Are you just making a subjective guess?
Click to expand...
You have to analyze it, which is more likely based on our observations of human nature:
- That god picked out a few people, revealed his unbelievably important word to JUST these people, then relied on these people to write about it.
or
- They created a work of fiction in order to make money and or get attention.

I can't tell you with certainty if either scenario happened, because I simply wasn't there. Honestly either could've happened, though I consider the second to be more likely. However, you are making the claim that the first ABSOLUTELY DID 100% POSITIVELY FACTUALLY happened.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RabidAlpaca said:
You have to analyze it, which is more likely based on our observations of human nature:
- That god picked out a few people, revealed his unbelievably important word to JUST these people, then relied on these people to write about it.
or
- They created a work of fiction in order to make money and or get attention.

I can't tell you with certainty if either scenario happened, because I simply wasn't there. Honestly either could've happened, though I consider the second to be more likely. However, you are making the claim that the first ABSOLUTELY DID 100% POSITIVELY FACTUALLY happened.
Click to expand...

Hang on. You said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find that, in itself, to be an extraordinary claim, and you ought to be able to prove it with more than subjective allegory.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RabidAlpaca said:
You're absolutely right, the bible is not one book, it is a collection of many. You can not simply take the bible as a whole to be true without analyzing the factuality of each book individually. Any one of the writers could have been lying or just wrong. Many just assume that because in 400 AD a group of people decided to canonize these books, that they automatically are god's will. I see many inconsistencies in the bible, but it's not exactly hard when a group of people sit down to decide what goes in the bible, and what doesn't, to try to make sure that there are as few consistencies as possible.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. The Bible has been combed through since it was combined by many scholars and teachers far beyond you or I in intelligence and wisdom. I will take their word over yours. No offence.

RabidAlpaca said:
Writing off something as untrue because it's non-biblical is a rather ridiculous notion. You've already made your mind up about what you want to believe, and no amount of modern evidence or proof could ever convince you otherwise. The real question is, if god's will is so important, why would he only reveal himself to a few select people? Why must we then simply take their claims as fact without evidence? It's not to be overlooked that most of them were paid and respected quite well for revealing "god's word".
Click to expand...

You are no biblical scholar with no evidence other than your word. I am not some fool who believes anything he is told.

I cannot speak for God, and he does what he does. Anything that can create the universe is far beyond our comprehension. I can only go by what is accepted as his written word. As I said, I will take the Bible's historical president over your dismissal and subsequent story.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Peter Grimm said:
Hang on. You said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find that to be an extraordinary claim, and you ought to be able to prove it with more than subjective allegory.
Click to expand...
No, you're trying to tumble down the rabbit hole. I've already shown that you required more evidence for extraordinary claims. If someone told you they had a cheeseburger for lunch, that is very likely. If someone knocked on your door and told you the zombie apocalypse is happening, and that you should leave your home immediately, you would probably want to see a zombie or a news report first. You do this in everything, well, at least I hope you do. Otherwise you're the most gullible person on the planet.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Blackdog said:
That is irrelevant. The Bible has been combed through since it was combined by many scholars and teachers far beyond you or I in intelligence and wisdom. I will take their word over yours. No offence.
Click to expand...
So you make an appeal to authority instead of explaining your reasoning? Or is your reasoning only because biblical scholars told you so?

Blackdog said:
You are no biblical scholar with no evidence other than your word. I am not some fool who believes anything he is told.
Click to expand...
Then you continue in the very next sentence to say that you aren't a fool who believes anything he is told? You claimed it's true because biblical scholars said it was. I guess that makes you a fool, by your own definition.

Blackdog said:
I cannot speak for God, and he does what he does. Anything that can create the universe is far beyond our comprehension. I can only go by what is accepted as his written word. As I said, I will take the Bible's historical president over your dismissal and subsequent story.
Click to expand...
Accepted by some people as the written word of god. Even more people accept islam, hinduism, or buddhism as the word of god. What objective evidence can you provide that these are false and yours is true. "Because a lot of other people believe it" simply isn't a good enough argument.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Blackdog said:
That is when he walked among the people, of course he could not say it directly. The Romans would have arrested him and put him to death ahead of scheduled so to speak. We are talking about before the council, not his death and resurrection.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, they were trying to arrest him THE WHOLE TIME; also the Romans didn't care if he said he was God, the cared if he threatened the Roman empire, the Jewish leadership cared if he called himself god, but for them him calling himself the massiah, the son of man, and the son of god was blasphomy enough, from the begining.

He said everything contraversial directly.

No it does not...

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Click to expand...


There he is talking about the Father and him being one in will and purpose.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Click to expand...

In purpose and will ...

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
Click to expand...

saying "is in" in greek doesn't imply literalness, as other people say all the time "the christ is in me." Or they act with the backing of the christ.

John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Click to expand...

Same as about, saying "the father is in me" doesn't imply literalness.

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"
Click to expand...

Yeah ... the son of God ....

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, read it, so that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE, its obvious that it isn't literal there.

ohn 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Click to expand...

And read Jesus' Response to them,

Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law,* “I said, you are gods”? 35If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me.

Which is exactly the case, in the Hebrew scriptures it refers to others as a "god" meaning powerful and devinely inspired but not the only true God.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Click to expand...

Arian theology, and others like it, use colossians 1:15 to show that Jesus was created, as an angel, but not God.

John 17:10 [Speaking to the Father] All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.
Click to expand...
I could go on, but you get the point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and non of these point to Jesus being God.

Colossians 1:15 - Jesus is created,
John 14:28, Matthew 6:9 and countless others - The father is greater than I
Luke 22:42 - Gods will actually distinct.
Mark 13:32 - Knowlege that God has that Jesus does not.
Revelation 1:1 - Jesus recieves the revelation from God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 - After Jesus death and assention to heaven, he is still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 - In heaven, Jesus still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 8:5,6 - Many called a god, but only one God and one Lord (distinct).

I could go on and on, Jesus was very clear that Yahweh was greater than him, and the only true God, and that even after his death he was subject to God.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, but the difference is, I don't base my entire life off things where zero evidence is presented.
Click to expand...

Neither do I, you said only certain claims in the bible have zero evidence, obviously not the whole bible.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RabidAlpaca said:
No, you're trying to tumble down the rabbit hole. I've already shown that you required more evidence for extraordinary claims. If someone told you they had a cheeseburger for lunch, that is very likely. If someone knocked on your door and told you the zombie apocalypse is happening, and that you should leave your home immediately, you would probably want to see a zombie or a news report first. You do this in everything, well, at least I hope you do. Otherwise you're the most gullible person on the planet.
Click to expand...


Why is it more likely? Don't appeal to common sense, come up with a way to quantify it.

Otherwise, you admit that your claim is subjective, it's logic depending entirely on that subjective concept called "common sense"
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RabidAlpaca said:
So you make an appeal to authority instead of explaining your reasoning? Or is your reasoning only because biblical scholars told you so?
Click to expand...

What reasoning would you accept? It would be pointless as you have already made up your mind as have I. So I am submitting there are those who know better then you or I.

RabidAlpaca said:
Then you continue in the very next sentence to say that you aren't a fool who believes anything he is told? You claimed it's true because biblical scholars said it was. I guess that makes you a fool, by your own definition.
Click to expand...

I meant to say "everything" not "anything." It is late and I am at work.

RabidAlpaca said:
Accepted by some people as the written word of god. Even more people accept islam, hinduism, or buddhism as the word of god.
Click to expand...

That is not true at all...

Christians makes up 29% of the worlds population...

List of religious populations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RabidAlpaca said:
What objective evidence can you provide that these are false and yours is true. "Because a lot of other people believe it" simply isn't a good enough argument.
Click to expand...

I never claimed anything of that nature. I said a lack of evidence does not mean it does not exist.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RGacky3 said:
Nonsense, they were trying to arrest him THE WHOLE TIME; also the Romans didn't care if he said he was God, the cared if he threatened the Roman empire, the Jewish leadership cared if he called himself god, but for them him calling himself the massiah, the son of man, and the son of god was blasphomy enough, from the begining.

He said everything contraversial directly.



There he is talking about the Father and him being one in will and purpose.



In purpose and will ...



saying "is in" in greek doesn't imply literalness, as other people say all the time "the christ is in me." Or they act with the backing of the christ.



Same as about, saying "the father is in me" doesn't imply literalness.



Yeah ... the son of God ....



Yeah, read it, so that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE, its obvious that it isn't literal there.



And read Jesus' Response to them,

Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law,* “I said, you are gods”? 35If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me.

Which is exactly the case, in the Hebrew scriptures it refers to others as a "god" meaning powerful and devinely inspired but not the only true God.



Arian theology, and others like it, use colossians 1:15 to show that Jesus was created, as an angel, but not God.



Yeah, and non of these point to Jesus being God.

Colossians 1:15 - Jesus is created,
John 14:28, Matthew 6:9 and countless others - The father is greater than I
Luke 22:42 - Gods will actually distinct.
Mark 13:32 - Knowlege that God has that Jesus does not.
Revelation 1:1 - Jesus recieves the revelation from God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 - After Jesus death and assention to heaven, he is still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 - In heaven, Jesus still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 8:5,6 - Many called a god, but only one God and one Lord (distinct).

I could go on and on, Jesus was very clear that Yahweh was greater than him, and the only true God, and that even after his death he was subject to God.
Click to expand...

I figured JW.

I am not going to debate the Un-Biblical doctrine of JW and the watch tower. They are not even considered Christian to begin with. If you really want to go into it, just start a thread as I have pages and pages to disprove the false teaches and failed prophets of the JW.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

All I'm talking about is the divinity of jesus ...
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RGacky3 said:
All I'm talking about is the divinity of jesus ...
Click to expand...
I understand and please forgive me for sounding dismissive. I don't want to derail the thread and would be intrested in a debate on just the divinity of Christ.I am at work and will not be home for another hour or so. So if you are interested make the thread and send me the link. I will go as soon as I get home.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Blackdog said:
I understand and please forgive me for sounding dismissive. I don't want to derail the thread and would be intrested in a debate on just the divinity of Christ.I am at work and will not be home for another hour or so. So if you are interested make the thread and send me the link. I will go as soon as I get home.
Click to expand...

fair enough. I appreciate it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...-blackdog-divinity-christ.html#post1061330994
 
Last edited:
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

NoC_T said:
No one with an intelligence level that surpasses that of pond life, will rise to this.
Click to expand...

Why not? It seems valid. After all everyone seems ok with wearing mixed fabrics and not stoning women (well with rocks at least), but then point to the OT where it says we're supposed to condemn gay people. I'd like to know which parts are literally true and which parts can be ignored.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

spanky said:
And what parts are allegory, parable or simply a teaching moment?
Click to expand...

How could we possibly know, given the uncertainties of texual development and so on? As with the notion 'God', we are stuck with competing likelihoods. I think people would have remembered most of Jesus's words, since he seems carefully to have put them into stories, sayings and other memorable forms. I think the Church couldn't have grown so fast without huge confidence that he rose from the dead (in our terms, hadn't died). I reckon Acts is probably a true-ish record (what would be the point of making it up?), and that the epistles were almost all written much as we have them. All the stuff to do with prophecies and the OT is for the kiddiewinkies though.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RGacky3 said:
Because you trust the source of the claim.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the claim is true. Trust doesn't guarantee correctness.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Cephus said:
Which has nothing to do with whether or not the claim is true. Trust doesn't guarantee correctness.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't but it justifies belief.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

RGacky3 said:
No it doesn't but it justifies belief.
Click to expand...

No, it just makes the believer feel better about believing an absurd thing. There's no possible belief so ridiculous that it cannot be made to sound reasonable to a person who wants to believe it badly enough. We keep making that point and it keeps getting ignored by believers. It's not whether or not you can contort your thinking enough to make a proposition seem possible if you look at it cross-eyed, it's whether or not the proposition is likely factually true or not. If the existence of God was actually supported by evidence or could be justified by logic, you wouldn't need faith. Faith is the excuse you give yourself for believing something you have no good reason for thinking is true.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Being a "christian agnostic" i believe most of Jesus's self described teachings (most of his words in red) are true. Other than that i question.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Cephus said:
No, it just makes the believer feel better about believing an absurd thing. There's no possible belief so ridiculous that it cannot be made to sound reasonable to a person who wants to believe it badly enough. We keep making that point and it keeps getting ignored by believers. It's not whether or not you can contort your thinking enough to make a proposition seem possible if you look at it cross-eyed, it's whether or not the proposition is likely factually true or not. If the existence of God was actually supported by evidence or could be justified by logic, you wouldn't need faith. Faith is the excuse you give yourself for believing something you have no good reason for thinking is true.
Click to expand...

Ok, nothing to do with what we were talking about.

You seamed to have switched it to "belief in God," which is a different thing to talk about, but you're assuming that belief in God isn't justified and has no evidence, and also the definition of "faith" comes from a word meaning trust, and generally you trust something becuase you've been given a good reason to trust something, like for example that the laws of nature are constant.
 
Re: A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true?

Peter Grimm said:
If you told me you ate a cheeseburger for lunch, I would not ask for proof. I would believe you unless I had some reason not to. So what is the difference?

Also, if I were to ask for proof, it is likely you would be unable to provide it, even if you did, in fact, eat a cheeseburger for lunch.
Click to expand...


See post 52
Did you give Rabid permission to quote you in his messages attacking your faith? If not, he can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom