when you say "false evidence". The reason I pointed out the difference between your terminology about "evidence" and what is defined logically is because your definition brings confusion regarding what you mean. So, while I can guess at what you mean, I thought that it would be wise to be more precise. Now, taking a stab at what you might mean, my guess is that at one point you stated that Cofty had no evidence to prove God exists, they you said he had evidence, then you said his evidence is false. In any case, you did not demonstrate any of that here.
No, that's cool. I get it. Precise is best. I often ask for clarification too, because it is tiring to argue about two different things.
(no evidence to prove God doesn't exist, is what I think you meant above, though. Right?)
There you go again with the "evidence". When you say you use evidence "not limited to scientific evidence" you are saying you use non-scientific evidence. What is that? Supernatural evidence? Intangible evidence? It can't be anything on which we can reason because that which we can reason adheres to scientific scrutiny. And so, you end up being guilty of precisely what you accused Cofty of: not having concrete or conclusive evidence. Well, no wonder what you offer is unacceptable to most reasonable people. It only makes sense to you.
I said.. right from the start... that my evidence is not conclusive either; and only conclusive to me if confirmed by Christ. (the Spirit)
ev·i·dence n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove. 2. To support by testimony; attest. There are also various types of evidence. Circumstantial, testimonial, personal, scientific, physical... Well, it doesn't make it UNTRUE. You see how you force yourself to make a conclusion? When something is not conclusive, that's when you use other evidence to tip it to one side or another. If there is no evidence it remains inconclusive. It's becoming obvious to me why you don't mention or try to explain away the meaning of Acts 4:13. You've had plenty of opportunity already. According to your logic, you would have us think that because one disciple was a biblical writer that Acts 4:13 is clearly wrong and they were not illiterate at all. Acts must mean something else. Well, dig away into that hole if you want to, but I can't see how you can logically defend the point, unless you use your own particular supernatural logic. I did not make a conclusive statement Etude. You did. You said that Acts 4:13 shows us that the apostles were illiterate; that the bible supports this. (a - this verse in acts does not have to mean what you claim, and b - it does not have to apply to all the apostles; especially since the bible also states that one of the disciples wrote his testimony down) I showed how other things were possible. Even if acts did mean that those two were illiterate, it does not mean that all were illiterate, and obviously the bible does not support that view; just the opposite. Here's another example of how you force an answer in order for your argument not to crumble. I searched about 10 different links when I googled "the disciple Jesus loved" and found none to disagree that it was John, even though he is clearly not mentioned. Okay, but so? I googled acts to find that there are more than a few out there who think the same as what i posted, regarding the meaning of that statement (untrained, rather than illiterate). Does you think that means it is true? You choose instead to think that it was some other disciple. It's not the number of links that agree that makes the difference; it is the commonality of reasoning they use for arriving at the same conclusion. But, it's easy for you to ignore that because it may not support your argument. The only argument i have... is that the bible does not state that all the apostles are illiterate; indeed it states that at least one of them was not. And just because a lot of people reason to one thing... does not mean that a person should just accept that and give up their own reasoning. (As well, those people you are quoting also do not know. Commonly thought, or traditionally thought, or traditionally reasoned - when there are always different schools of thought... does not mean conclusive) First, only the Gospel of John mentions the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Second, John 21:2 lets us know who was fishing with Peter: "Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together..." The apostle John was a son of Zebedee ( Matthew 4:21 ). Third, there were three disciples who were especially close to Jesus: Peter, James, and John ( Matthew 17:1 ; Mark 5:37 ; 14:33 ; Luke 8:51 ). The “disciple whom Jesus loved” could not be Peter, as Peter asks Jesus a question in regards to this disciple ( John 21:20-21 ). That leaves us with James or John. Jesus made a statement about the possible "longevity" of the life of the disciple whom He loved in John 21:22 . James was the first of the apostles to die ( Acts 12:2 ). While Jesus did not promise the disciple whom He loved long life, it would be highly unusual for Jesus to say, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" if the disciple whom He loved was going to be the first disciple to die. http://www.gotquestions.org/disciple-whom-Jesus-loved.html It is done logically by a process of elimination. But I imagine you don't really need that kind of logic. Process of elimination only words if you have ALL of the information on the life of Christ and His disciples. We have some written testimonies, but not all. We certainly do not have every event recorded. If there is any missing information,and if that reasoning is off (that the process of elimination includes these three as His most loved), then the rest of the reasoning and conclusions are off as well. Again, it is not me making a conclusive statement here. I am willing to state that we do not know, at least not as per the writings on hand. So, even though the evidence derived from that time indicates the likelihood that only a small percent of the people of the population had the ability to write in the way the gospels and letters were written, you would have us believe that Acts 4:13 means that some disciples and apostles were of that top 1% instead of being just able to read and sign their names and follow simple instructions. If the scholarship of the person you quote is correct... and there are other scholars who discount this (there always are)... then once again, you are still making a statement according to acts, that is not corroborated by the bible, as you said that it was. Why is it so hard for you to admit that perhaps a disciple or two was not illiterate. What about Matthew the tax collector, for instance? Even though the NT writings are not high caliber Greek, the language and style of the writings show a significant level of education. Besides, the fact remains that if the disciples and apostles wrote the NT, it was not their native language. That would further indicate some side tracking from their humble jobs for the writers, something that would be a glaring omission from the canon if it had actually occurred. Why could some of these writings not have been re-written later by someone who was literate in Greek? Why not? Did it cease to be meaningful? If it still counts, then you should rely on it. If you don't rely on it, what is the source of information for details about what Christ's intentions were and what his words meant? If it's that Spirit that now talks to you, we're back inside your head and impossibly far away from anything anybody else can confirm. It is meaningful for what it is used for... to witness TO Christ. Not to BE Christ. (the Word, the Truth, of God) Once a person has gone to Christ... as He says to do... and has the Spirit of Christ to teach and lead them into all truth, then one no longer needs someone else's words to teach them. That one can go to the source and ask Him (since He should know,having been there) You can also know for yourself (confirm)... by going to the Christ and asking Him; if you have the desire and faith to do so. If you cannot do that, then you are left with what is written... not a perfect source, but something you can at least see. But even if you rely upon that book... then it is still Christ who is the Truth, and so Christ you should test anything against, if you want to know the Truth about God. Let's break that down: You have 1) what other people say as evidence (sources) and you have 2) what Christ and God say (not the Bible) as sources. OK. I have the testimony of many individuals who say they have been abducted by ETs and have had experiments performed on them. Not only have I heard it from their mouths, but I've encountered dozens of books in which they delineate their experiences. The problem is that just like you and the people you use as sources, none of that can be corroborated and must be accepted at face value. As far as the "testimony" you get via your spiritual antennae, it is quickly corralled into the same category of unverifiable testimony. I know that being verified by the world is not important to you, only that you know you are in the right. But that is almost certainly proof that you live in a self-contained idealized realm. I might suggest that if you, yourself, were abducted by an ET... then you would have personal verification. Even if no one else saw it and you could not prove it... that would not make it any less real. YOU would know. Even if others thought you were nuts. OK. But from the rest of your comments I think we can agree that is the case for at least some people. No, not even for some people. Christ is necessary for life (eternal life... spiritual life)... for anyone. What? That God is unexplainable? Yeah, I already know that. That's why I've decided to seek that which makes sense. If you mean that God is instead natural (meaning explainable), it would seem that would not come from you, as it presently doesn't. Your "evidence" for that cannot be natural because it only lives in you and can't be explored, tested, poked, examined or probed by any natural means. Christ shows us God. His nature (of love, mercy, forgiveness, truth) That is fairly simple. As to the the full power of God, an eternal Being who is spirit... that is harder for us to grasp. At least for now. But we can learn. My evidence however can be natural... just not natural as we understand it... yet. That's because what you know goes by different rules, rules that only make sense to you. Whereas, an examination of the universe as we know it, is evidence enough to put the idea of God into question. At least it's enough for me to say: "I don't know." If I did not see (hear) Christ... so as to see His Father also, then that might well be a question on my mind as well. The 'rules', however, make sense and apply to the spiritual. We simply do not have the means to phsyically measure something that is not physical in some way. We must go by the spiritual 'rules' to measure and test and question the spiritual. I do respect your 'I don't know', Etude, and i do respect honesty. We are just in two different places. Which is fine. I am not looking down upon or judging you for your place, and i don't get the sense that you are doing otherwise for me. Peace, tammy |