As all men are touched by God’s love, so all are also touched by the desire for His intimacy. No one escapes this longing; we are all kings in exile, miserable without the Infinite. Those who reject the grace of God have a desire to avoid God, as those who accept it have a desire for God. The modern atheist does not disbelieve because of his intellect, but because of his will; it is not knowledge that makes him an atheist…The denial of God springs from a man’s desire not to have a God – from his wish that there were no Justice behind the universe, so that his injustices would fear no retribution; from his desire that there be no Law, so that he may not be judged by it; from his wish that there were no Absolute Goodness, that he might go on sinning with impunity. That is why the modern atheist is always angered when he hears anything said about God and religion – he would be incapable of such a resentment if God were only a myth. His feeling toward God is the same as that which a wicked man has for one whom he has wronged: he wishes he were dead so that he could do nothing to avenge the wrong. The betrayer of friendship knows his friend exists, but he wished he did not; the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not. __ Fulton J. Sheen
I wonder if the following link would be considered “evidence” for the truth that Christ is the Son of God (also from Fulton J. Sheen)?
All Along the Watchtower 
The writer tips his hand in the first sentence: As all men are touched by God’s love,
What god would this be I wonder, and how does the writer know anything about it?
And the linked article suffers from a similar degree of ignorance and presuppositional hubris.
Perhaps, if you were prepared take a step back for s few moments and truly try to understand what evidence really is you will be able to understand why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Try these then:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/dubay_design_oct05.asp
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/JAKI.htm
LikeLike
Both links are of a similar presuppositional bent.
Once more …. if there is a god which one are you talking about?
LikeLike
No way you could have read either one of them in such a short period of time. Both were well respected in the scientific community but you won’t dare investigate because as Sheen said you do not want there to be a God. It is a choice that no amount of evidence will be enough. You’ve made your bed and now you sleep in it.
I can almost guarantee that this is true regarding you or you would not spend so much time trying to debunk God, religion or Christian morality.
If it is that you want to expose hoax’s there are a million of them. Why did you choose God to fight with?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t .I read the titles and skip scanned and noticed ”theist”
Again … which god are you referring to.
Start with the name ….
LikeLike
Read the articles and find out.
Here, why don’t you try this one. It is shorter.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-proof-of-the-existence-of-god
LikeLike
If don’t know the name of your god, or are not even prepared/ashamed to say its name, then don’t expect me to read anything you link.
LikeLike
I AM is the name of my God. He is a triune God with one nature and 3 persons. The persons are known as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
LikeLike
No, that is a title.
Name please.
LikeLike
Since Jesus Christ is God, would His name do for you or would you rather call him Bob?
LikeLike
Ah … right! Now we are getting somewhere.
Let’s begin, and excuse me if this comes across as pedantic.
1.What is your primary source for information about the character Jesus Christ?
LikeLike
The Catholic Church, the Bible and the fact that He changed the entire order of the World. If fictional, then why didn’t the invention of Superman or Batman do the same?
LikeLike
I asked for your primary source.
I am going to presume you agree that this would be the four gospels and the epistles?
2.What evidence do you have to judge the veracity of the text?
Please cite specific examples.
LikeLike
I will be happy to give you both the exterior movements within my life as well as the interior ones . . . and the books which changed my life.
In exchange, I would like to ask a series of questions of you.
First, are you male or female?
LikeLike
You posted the piece.
Let’s keep it as narrowly focused as we can to start with. We can branch off with ancillary questions once we have sorted out the important aspects.
Besides, you can visit my blog if you qwith to know anything else.
To reiterate.
2.What evidence do you have to judge the veracity of the text?
Please cite specific examples.
LikeLike
I went to your site and it answers nothing unless you are the maker of cakes. If you allow me, my questions will lead somewhere that is relevant. If not, I will simply being speaking to one who is dead set against even examining articles which provide evidence and will not accept anything of what they argue.
LikeLike
Male.
LikeLike
Second question: Are you homosexual?
If so, are you sexually active? If not, are you promiscuous?
LikeLike
Lol.
No. No.
LikeLike
Was that no for both?
If so the third question is this:
Do you believe that homosexuality is not in the natural order objectively immoral and that abortions are the same? If only one of them, then tell me which.
If neither, then
LikeLike
Okay, I think questions about sexuality are irrelevant to the evidence for the veracity of the biblical texts, and to be honest suggest a rather perverse predilection on your part.
I am straight and married. Period.
So,
2.What evidence do you have to judge the veracity of the text?
Please cite specific examples.
LikeLike
Why do want to diverge into the texts at this point? Before it was simply evidence, evidence, evidence for the existence of God, period. You did this continuously without stop for about 3 days or more. When presented with what most people would call evidence you refuse to read it. Nicholas has a book in mind that can address your textual concerns and he will be glad to get you the information on that book if you would read it. However, from what I have seen you will never read it for you are only wanting to present a one sided argument . . . and you cannot dispute the evidence already provided you as it is refused out of hand. So are truly interested in arguments for the existence of God or not? I am doubtful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You claim that your god is the character Jesus Christ.
Your primary source for this character are the gospels and the epistles.
I am asking how you judge the veracity of the texts.
This will obviously tell us how strong the evidence is or if in fact it is evidence at all.
It is a fair question and deserves an honest straightforward answer.
LikeLike
No the survival of a Church for 2000 years teaching the same teachings as are taught in the Gospels gives full veracity to the Biblical account. Fabrications do not last, in tact, for 2 thousand years.
I already told you that if you want scholarly evidence then Nicholas will suggest a book . . . but will you buy it and read it?
LikeLike
No. This does not demonstrate veracity at all. Furthermore, I asked specifically, how you judge the veracity of the texts.
It is a simply straightforward question so please don’t now embark on some theological detour.
Have the integrity to state the reasons.
LikeLike
Well our linguist is Nicholas . . . perhaps you can argue that notion with him since you have no intention of reading what I have sent to you from a number of fields.
As to being straightforward . . . your only question had to do with verify. I have supplied it and you don’t even read it.
LikeLike
It has little id anything to do with linguistics, unless you are doubting the English content of the KJV for example.
Verify:
As in verified evidence.
Again another resounding fail on you part.
Why on earth are you continually equivocating?
If you have evidence then simply produce it, for goodness sake!
How hard can that be for you?
LikeLike
I have already told you that the Church is more important as my foundation. If it were not for the Church I would not believe the Scriptures as it is the Church that Canonized the various books into what we now call the Bible. The Church came first, then the Bible was Canonized and therefore becomes Scripture to be believed. There were many other books that didn’t make the grade. You seem to think that Christians think that God handed the Bible off to some people or that some group of people, having nothing better to do, sat around writing a Harry Potter novel. It is non-sensical. You may have the time to sit in your underwear in your parents basement and write such things but I doubt that anybody doing that thousands of years ago would have been quickly forgotten. It is the Church that took the Scriptures around the world and if you want signposts then look to the saints, the martyrs and the miracles all which you will never believe as they are not explainable (due to the fact that they are miraculous). I do wonder, how such complete skeptics find trust in anyone or anything in this life. It must be very tedious to live such a life.
LikeLike
Fair enough.
But we also know that the church has always been corrupt and as such is it wise to trust a corrupt organisation?
In fact, as we know the bible is likewise corrupt my question still stands. More so in fact. On what grounds do you judge the veracity of the text?
LikeLike
Every body of men has sinners and corruption within it. So what does that prove? That we are humans perhaps? Its that the dogmas have not changed.
I’ll trust the living memory of Christianity far before I’d embrace your dogma of skepticism and something coming from nothing.
LikeLike
So now you are dismissing the fact that the church was corrupt then ( as it is now) and the bible is corrupt also.
This is your answer to the continued requests for evidence and determining the veracity of the texts?
This speaks volumes about your level of integrity, and credulity and simply reinforces the assertion that you are indoctrinated.
Remember, I did suggest you admit that your belief is based solely on faith and not evidence, of which you have nothing.
Look how long it has taken for you to admit to this.
Good grief!
LikeLike
The corporate church, the people within, as in all groups of men is always going to have some corruption. Men are fallen beings or haven’t you heart that from Christians. We are all sinners. What matters is the Truth that we are to hold and the moral ideals that we are obliged to follow; whether we fail to live up to the teachings or not. Because people fail to live up to the standards that are intrinsic to the Church is not an indication that the teachings are wrong but that people are.
And you sir, have nothing. You have nothing but faith your dogma of nothingness. That something comes from nothing. That order comes from chaos. That randomness somehow becomes consciousness and sees thinks of itself. It seems astonishing that as a bunch of atoms bunched together that you would believe that you came from ultimately from nothingness or that you have preexisted time and space. Rather than awe for the universe, you see yourself as God. I believe Nick has a point when he says that you appear to be an extreme solipsist.
Faith is evidence, you egghead. As is science which leads you to the same place if you would but actually read it. You refute evidence even before you read it. So why should we send you more evidence?
LikeLike
Right, so ignoring the first paragraph which is nothing but polemic.
And so is the second paragraph ….
No, it isn’t. And your fall into ad homs demonstrates that you are now grasping at straws.
YOU tell me what evidence convinced you of the veracity of the biblical text.
State specific examples support them with evidence.
LikeLike
I gave both already you are plowing a plowed field. Simply go back and read my answers. Talk about grasping at straws!
LikeLike
Nothing you have offered s evidence for the veracity of the biblical texts not a thing.
So let’s narrow the field of focus, shall we?
Offer concrete evidence for the following.
The Global Flood
The Exodus
The resurrection of Lazarus and the Jesus of Nazareth.
LikeLike
Look, logic is all you really have and need.
Logic says that by our senses we know that there is nothing that IS that has not a contingent cause.
To argue that there is ONE reality (existence itself) that defies this fact is rather a large jump of faith or wishful thinking. And that is the point where your proof of NOTHINGNESS makes more sense than a CREATOR becomes pure nonsense.
LikeLike
Logic says that someone cannot walk on water or come back from the dead.
THAT is what logic tells us.
So by your standard you are dismissing logic.
We are not at this point arguing a creator.
We are discussing the veracity of the biblical text.
And I am asking for you to produce evidence to support such an assertion.
To date you have failed to produce a single scrap.
So if you wish to establish any sort of credibility I strongly recommend you produce evidence – or admit that your belief is founded solely on faith.
That I am more than willing to accept.
LikeLike
Look up miracle in the dictionary.
If there is a creator then you won’t be an atheist and the Bible won’t be a problem anymore.
You have not produced a single scrap of evidence that God does not exist or that Christ did not live and walk among men or that the Teachings of Christianity are wrong. Its a two way street. You adhere to your atheistic dogma and I cling to my Faith in the Creator. I don’t think that we were created as some random act of atoms that came from nothing. I think God cares about us and wants us to be happy with Him for all eternity.
In fact, until you can give me evidence that you exist and that you are not a computer randomly writing comments, why should I believe that you exist? In fact as far as I know I am the only consciousness that is real and everyone else is only a manifestation of a game that I am playing to entertain myself.
Such skepticism will always lead to total nihilism if you take it to its logical ends.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are making the claims and now you are defending them, not with evidence but by attacking me .
That you simply refuse point blank to offer evidence for the veracity of the biblical texts is testimony to your ignorance, disengenuity equivocation.
Well done!
LikeLike
You’ve attacked me as well and every Christian who holds to their principles: i.e. their dogma. As I say, you seem to only use this technique of demanding evidence of us because you have special mission to do so. Your dogma is black and leads to a belief in annihilation at death. So am I to wring my hands. I do feel sorry for your lack of trust and humility to imagine a being far more superior to yourself that Created the Universe and even Loved you before you were even made incarnate on this earth.
But if I cannot converse largely because you will accept no evidence unless it is written by a skeptical dogmatic atheist such as yourself then there is no point in continue your presence here.
I for one am tired of the same old same old and circular arguments that never end. You are, in short, boring.
So I apologize for mistaking you for a man of good will who would actually look at evidence and weigh it on its own merits rather than prejudice your thoughts by only atheists who will mimic your negative worldview.
So from this point on I am afraid it is the old Bosco treatment which is to say I will rarely respond to anything that you write. Seems to me that NIcholas took the better path early on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I have attacked the claims.
All you have done is hand wave every query and demand for evidence and then at the last thrown in ad homs.
As I stated sometime at the outset.
Acknowledge that your belief is based solely on faith and that is okay with me.
Based on your responses, anything else you propose is simply being disingenuous.
LikeLike
How can you attack claims you haven’t even listened or read the arguments. You are a judge who judges without hearing the evidence.
I can’t say that I enjoyed your intrusion into this site. But I do wish you well and pray that God somehow saves your soul.
LikeLike
Such claims are made by apologists all the time. I have been listening to them for years.
And once again, such claims are completely unsubstantiated and do not count as evidence.
It is worth you considering that not once throughout our entire dialogue have you been courteous enough to offer a single piece of evidence to substantiate anything you have put forward.
That is not the sign of one who by truth but rather one who adheres to dogma come what may.
This is dishonest.
LikeLike
And your courage . . . my dishonest foe? When have you presented your dogma in its fullest and show its evidence or proof?
LikeLike
You are the one making all the claims.
Yet, to date, you haven’t presented any evidence for them.
Doesn’t your lack of integrity bother you in the least?
LikeLike
OK Bosco, if you say so.
LikeLike
Behave like a Nob. It’s okay. It is the eventual hallmark of all apologists.
LikeLike
And your hallmark? Perhaps to evade questions and only think that your own questions are of importance? The think that your lack of evidence creates evidence of its own though you hypocritically will not examine evidence if created by a believer rather than a believer of your dogmatic atheistic rule of life? You are worse than what you claim the Christian to be and are far more closed minded. And I will simply say adios amigo.
LikeLike
I am not close minded at all.
I have asked for you to present evidence and I am more than willing to consider each and every example.
Yet, to date you haven’t presented any.
So let’s re focus.
Present evidence for:
Noah and the Flood.
The Exodus
The Virgin Birth
The Resurrection of Lazarus.
Pick one ….
LikeLike
No now you want a blow by blow exposition of everything. Start with the macro then you can go to the micro one by one. But on the macro scale you were presented evidence, refused to read it and respond to them and you do not respond to many of my own questions. You are completely disingenuous in your ‘analysis’ of the situation. You will not even admit that you have no answers for your something out of nothing worldview.
Please go argue with the UFO folks for awhile and let us get back to real conversations here.
LikeLike
I have given you carte blanche to present evidence on what ever biblical text/topic you like.
You’ve been equivocated from the onset.
Now I narrow it down for you and you hand wave away with yet more excuses.
Truly your attitude is ridiculous I’m afraid and deserving of nothing but contempt.
If you can’t even make a defense with evidence of these foundational tenets then you are not worth the title Christian but are merely a disingenuous fraud.
LikeLike
Don’t be utterly stupid. If you cannot believe in God as the starting point of Faith the other stuff is merely ink on paper.
LikeLike
Then, if for argument’s sake, we allow for the existence of your god, please demonstrate, with evidence, the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is Yahweh?
LikeLike
He was pre-announced and did all the things that prophecy attributed to Him. He established a Church (the fulfillment of the Jewish faith) and it is still with us 2000 years later. The teachings of the Didache, mere decades after His death, are in complete accord with Christianity as it exists today. Enough said.
LikeLike
So, no evidence.
LikeLike
I’m sorry that you can neither bring yourself to read and study any nor provide me with any for your dogma of atheism.
LikeLike
Atheism has not content.
The Didache is anonymous
What evidence do you have that the character Jesus formed the church
What evidence do you have that these so called prophecies were fulfilled.
Name your source!
LikeLike
The fact that it did form and they had their first Council in Jerusalem though it wasn’t called that at the time. But it was a Council and Christianity has flourished since then.
Why would the Didache have a specific author. It was perhaps the first how-to book for the apostles and their first priests that came from them. Multiple copies have been found and attest to what the Church teaches. It is as evidentiary as it gets . . . along with the writings of the Early Church Fathers we have a wealth of information.
The sources are Biblical, traditional and extra-Biblical.
LikeLike
There is no evidence for the first Council in Jerusalem.
There is no evidence for the apostles.
Multiple copies? Seriously?
Biblical sources are completely unsubstantiated and thus are merely vacuous claims.
Try again, this time with evidence.
LikeLike
I can’t help your ignorance. you’ll have to actually do that yourself. And if you are fair you will read criticism from both sides. If not you are merely operating in an echo chamber.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again you simply continue to make claims.
The Council of Jerusalem Is ONLY recorded in Acts.
Acts is primarily historical fiction.
YOu have no evidence for any other claims you continue to regurgitate therefore you need to do some serious historical research that is not tainted by your blinkered Christian bias.
LikeLike
Here you go: thank Nick for the info.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/#SH2b
LikeLike
This is not evidence. Please, no more philosophers of religion and their opinions, thanks.
LikeLike
One was a respected scientist (Jaki). The other has had his articles printed in many scientific magazines and journals (Dubay). So quit your belly aching.
LikeLike
Christians. Thus Fail.
Next.
You are circling the wagons and refusing to acknowledge the truth of the matter.
Stop being a coward and step up to the plate.
I think the phrase it ”Put up or push off”.
LikeLike
So the scientist, to be believed must be an atheist like yourself. Is that the criteria? Who is being the coward. You like most liberals scream epithets that more rightly apply to themselves.
LikeLike
An atheist scientist is a good start – Jerry Coyne for example – as they will have less of a jaundiced view. Not always, but usually.
Now you have your back against the wall you are beginning to sink into borderline ad homs.
I will gladly listen to Francium Collins when he talks genetics and sticks to science. The moment he introduces any form of ”goddidit” his credibility is reduced to zero,
Stick to evidence and we will remain cordial-
Now, once again …. please supply the evidence to support your claims.
Start with the resurrection if you prefer as this is THE cornerstone of your faith is it not?
LikeLike
So as soon as science leads us toward an ultimate source of all being then you close the book and your mind and do no longer think. How very smart and smug you must feel . . . and how very dumb are these scientists because even science seems to point them towards a Creator.
LikeLike
Really? And what evidence do you have to support this statement?
LikeLike
Your own words.
You admit that you will not accept anything that does not agree with the dogma of atheism as its final conclusion. And you think that Christians are closed minded . . . perhaps you might look in the mirror once in a while.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrong.
I admitted no such thing. And, in fact, flatly refute such an insinuation.
You have yet to produce a scrap of evidence for your claims. The moment you do we have the basis for an adult conversation.
Until then … all you are doing is tantamount to whining.
LikeLike
Yes I did and you would not read them. Who’s whining, you wimp. I couldn’t care less about your idiotic claims and your snowflake refusal to read anything that might get out of your comfort zone. I am guessing you are in your twenties, if that.
LikeLike
Claims are not evidence.
Learn the difference.
Read the dictionary.
LikeLike
I read the dictionary before you born.
LikeLike
Did you really? How fascinating.
LikeLike
I’m sorry but the point I am trying to drive home is that if we give you something to read that is evidentiary you won’t even read it. So why are you asking us for evidence? It seems rather that you have made up your mind and have closed it to hearing anything other than what might agree with you.
The other important part of this is to psychologically or morally understand your repulsion of God. For there must be a reason and then perhaps there is relief to be had or a way to unburden oneself from guilt.
In teaching former atheists when they came to join the Catholic faith the one thing I noticed repeatedly was that there was usually something that they wanted that the Church forbid. Therefore, in their mind, they created a universe where God does not exist and bingo, they cover over their guilt (though it is only temporary). If you desire true happiness and peace then you must be honest with yourself and explain why you have a vendetta against Christians. Why not people like UFO sites or flat earth sites or other such things? No, it is God Whom you are dead set against and you feel hurt because you cannot let yourself be you and still remain guilt free.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because every article is presuppositional and /or based on philosophy nor evidence.
And if you are not prepared to even divulge the name of your god then you are in no position to claim a damn thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unless rational or logical thought in philosophy is no longer evidence then how do you even know you exist?
I gave you the name of God. In fact GOD is all one can call the ONE GOD for He is the I AM or BEING itself.
You rejected previously the fingerprints of God, the testimony of saints, the existence of the Church (unchanged for 2000 years), the pre-announcement of Christ etc. etc. etc.
And now you reject both scientists and philosophers as well. What authority will you accept?
LikeLike
It’s a good point. If philosophy isn’t to be trusted, one would be hardpressed to prove their own existence. In fact, Ark has no evidence that you actually based on his criteria. For all practical purposes, he could be arguing with a robot AI, any particular person, or it could all be musing and misfires in his brain.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed. Did you see this today on Drudge?
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/are-we-living-simulated-universe-here-s-what-scientists-say-ncna1026916
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thiessen’s research in Historical Jesus would you accept that as evidence?
LikeLike
Based on the reviews of his book on Amazon, probably not.
Let’s be honest, there is absolutely no info regarding the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth outside the bible. Hence, if you are looking for an historical Jesus – ie a definitive biography of the bloke, then you have absolutely no chance in Hades.
LikeLike
I just read his page on Wiki. He is a Protestant theologian.
Can’t you find someone who is not a Christian for goodness sake?
LikeLike
Why don’t you take a look at his actual conclusions? I’m certain by your already stated conclusions you will find more in common with him then I would. So, here lies the problem, instead of looking at a particular argument, you dismiss claims based on any sort of evidence where it comes from—this is a fallacy. Thus, you’ve defeated yourself.
Most of mythicisms positions are built from the Protestant theologian Bultmann’s exegesis, so your own critique of evidence contradicts your conclusions based on its foundations.
In fact, you don’t even agree with Ehrman entirely, if you read his blog for example, he holds that history can be extrapolated from the Acts of Apostles. I would venture that if I did find some support from a Atheist you’d say something of the nature like that of Ehrman being compromised because of his former belief.
Your position isn’t serious, it’s anti-intellectual. You’ve done all you can to manipulate what is considered to be evidence in an attempt to be perceived to hold an intellectual position that is void of human reason to declare victory. It’s laughable.
What a waste of time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Phillip, you may also find some of these posts on another WordPress site relevant to the problems at hand:
https://goodgoodfatherapologetics.com/2019/04/28/are-christians-atheists-too/
https://goodgoodfatherapologetics.com/2018/03/11/contradiction-or-undesigned-coincidence/
https://goodgoodfatherapologetics.com/2016/06/13/proof-evidence-and-a-good-good-father/
https://goodgoodfatherapologetics.com/2016/05/30/atheists-dont-exist/
https://goodgoodfatherapologetics.com/2016/05/08/inconsistent-atheism/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again… you do not present any evidence merely sound off.
I read half a dozen reviews on Amazon, and as I suspected, he offers nothing new ( that might be relevant) and merely trots out the same old nonsense about the crucifiction and the empty tomb.
Why on earth would I spend money to read this?
Once more… the character, Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the gospels is a narrative construct.
LikeLike
It’s obvious I didn’t present any evidence in the comment, as I was attempting to figure out your definition for evidence, which is tautological in nature. I’m not going to summarize anything that you’re unwilling to consider, why would I take the time to do that?
The irony is that your assertion “Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospel is a narrative construct” is Theissen’s overall thesis that you’re unwilling to examine! You’re simply unwilling to entertain other ideas, again you’ve built up walls.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Definition?
Look in the dictionary.
There is no irony in my my statenment.
While there may very well have been an eschatological rabbi that was crucified for sedition the character as depicted in the bible is a narrative construct for who there is no evidence for whatsoever.
I give you my word I will consider your summation if it contains evidence.
LikeLike
“The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
So, can we agree on a body of information? Again, that has been the entire point of the conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What body of information?
LikeLike
Exactly. What body of information will accept that we can agree on is evidence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you specifically mean with regard the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth?
LikeLike
You’re the one being pedantic here, just answer the question, and we can move the discussion further from there, whether we can agree or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In other words, what would it take for A to accept the possibility that:
A) There was a historical Jesus of Nazareth;
B) Acts, the Gospels, and Epistles of the New Testament give an accurate account of His life (including the resurrection and ascension) – as opposed to books excluded by the Church (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas);
C) The main inferences drawn by Christians from this data are true (e.g. that Jesus is Yahweh; that He is the Saviour; that His moral teachings are correct and greater than the teachings of Moses and the Pharisees; etc).
Here we come back to “vulnerability”, “openmindedness”, “having skin in the game”, “playing the game (by the rules)” – whatever you want to call it. See the cognitive versus non-cognitive debate (bliks, irrationality, etc) and the debate over logical positivism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is no body of information to confirm the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.
I do, however, accept there may have been an eschatological rabbi who was crucified for sedition.
LikeLike
Simple question for you A: Why would people risk their lives and live a life where it was almost a death sentence to believe in Jesus Christ? Or do you deny the persecution of Christians that occurred and their continued growth despite the fact that they were putting themselves and their families in mortal danger for their belief.
Personally, I don’t know many snake oil salesmen willing to risk their lives and the lives of their families for a fraud. It is at least a simple example of objective, though circumstantial evidence was it not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The same reason people are prepared to blow themselves up for their god.
LikeLike
What a foolish philosophy you hold on to and a belief of the stupidity of people to give their lives for that which is meaningless nonsense without any fact or trust in its authenticity. Even an animal is smarter than that. You have no appreciation for man or the dignity of man and are not willing to trust; i.e. have faith in anything. You are bereft of anything which could be called meaningful in life.
LikeLike
Exactly! You have described Christianity yo a T
LikeLike
So, you being a human being, admit that you are stupid enough to give up life and limb for a myth as well?
LikeLike
Me? Of course not! Don’t be a bloody fool!
But Muslims do and so did/ do Christians
LikeLike
So you are able to judge these men of old as you are far superior to their intellect and abilities to reason. And the pacifistic deaths of men, women and children of early Christianity are a far cry for the waring tripes of Mohammed. In fact, one might say that Islam is much more an ideology than a religion and bent on military conquest and suppressions of the world.
LikeLike
Dying for a myth? Yes indeed.
Not really. And certainly not when you consider the number of internecine conflicts between various sects of Christians.
Consider the Cathars for example.
Idiots one and all.
LikeLike
“There is no body of information to confirm the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.”
I’m not in agreement, since I would surmise, that many historians would hold that we can know things about Jesus from the Gospels, even the most skeptical such as Bultmann would agree that we can understand the form of Jesus ‘form’ them. The last I head there are 21 agreed upon by a consensus of authentic sayings from Jesus that are found in the new testament. Therefore, if we can not agree upon sources, our conversation must come to a close.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am NOT talking about an itinerant eschatological rabbi crucified for sedition.
I read that 5% or less of the sayings can be attributed to the character Yeshua. ( I can dig up the source if you need me to)
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the itinerant miracle working god-man who is raised from the dead who features in the gospels. Not a thing.
So what sources do you have that will offer evidence of the divine character you worship?
LikeLike
Okay, so by your comment, I can move the conversation away from miracles. And ask another question.
If the answer is no, this will be my last comment.
Would you consider the historical scholarship that claims that all preaching, teachings, and parables of Jesus are never done within any miracles of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition? Therefore, the claim that miracles have been added through cultural memory that have nothing to do with Jesus’ teachings.
So, the evidence, indicates that in the synoptic tradition, which differs from the ‘mythical’ tradition of Paul’s letters, can hold to the validity of teachings made by Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels?
LikeLike
The preaching , parables etc attributed to the character Jesus of Nazareth , of which there is no consensus as to authenticity, have nothing to do with the foundational tenets of Christianity.
So what is it exactly, with regard veracity of the gospel texts you are trying to
establish?
LikeLike
Sounds like you are an adherent to the Jesus Seminar folks of some 40 years ago and which has since dwindled away and regarded with as a pompous group of ‘scriptural scholars’ who are now totally irrelevant.
LikeLike
Why don’t you summarize his conclusions? If you really think they are worth a look, it’ll save me shedding out my hard earned shekels.
LikeLike
You are at the least dishonest with us here. You will not read the works of others that aren’t atheists, and then expect evidence for a God from atheists. This is sheer lunacy and I don’t know why any of us should carry on a conversation with a complete lunatic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have read Christian apologists for years.
I have yet to read an original argument and never been presented with any evidence.
For example: The empty tomb by Habermas is a crock.
The virgin birth is a later addition to the doctrine and is nonsense.
The bible/gospels are riddled with such errors / nonsense.
Stop being an apologist for a few minutes, step outside you christian bible and simply present evidence, and we can have an adult conversation.
LikeLike
I also found it odd when he wanted me to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is God, a God that exists outside of space and time, with spatiotemporal evidence. Of course, this is after I explained that philosophy and reasoning needed to be used to claim there was such a being. If that cannot be considered, it would waste everyone’s time to attempt to show that Jesus is also the eternal God of creation. Why keep asking for something when you’ve sought to eliminate the means to examine the claim?
LikeLiked by 3 people
In short the man is dishonest and lacking in any integrity. It is a waste of time to take him seriously.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Please good brother scoop, dont hit good sister ark with the catholic church as evidence for god. when one examines the CC, one beholds blackness and murder and torture and theft and unending perversion and now child abuse.
Your prayers for her and mine should be enough.
LikeLike
God (El) says in Exodus that His Name (Shem) is I AM (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh) that is how He refers to Himself. We refer to Him as Yahweh, because that is the appropriate third person verb form. This name is attested of God in Egyptian inscriptions (God of Israel, God of Midian). Elohim means any spirit or spirits, including humans. To know when it is referring to God, one must read the context. Elohim is not a name, but a noun. El when used in combination with other words is an identifier of God before the days of Moses, then Yahweh was used in combinations, eg Yahweh Rophecha.
LikeLike
I see you want to beat about the bush. Christ is the only Material Manifestation of God in our Material World. You can deny it all you want but beyond that God is pure ACTUALIZED BEING. Read the articles.
LikeLike
My point is that Ark, unless s/he has studied Hebrew, is not competent to judge the Pentateuch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course that is true, Nick. I am quite interested in nailing down something that I once nailed down with our old author Malcolm that started a firestorm. Sin is usually the barnacles that cover the eyes as it did Paul.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I doubt that our evidence for either the salvation narrative will convince Ark. In my experience, even when we have seen the Lord, it is dismissed as hallucinations or the subconscious in dreams.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That may well be true though in RCIA I had former atheists who shed those barnacles and came to know our Lord.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One can hold on to hope. While there is life, there is hope. I know of an Australian who repented. But there is also the strong delusion that will be sent (2 Thess 2). We are the stench of death yo the perishing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know. Few make the jump across the great divide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see little in the way of vulnerability here which is the mark of actual dialogue: nothing is being risked, which means that this is straying into bliks or non-cognitive territory. I take it you suspect something like homosexuality, fornication, or adultery. If it’s any of these, I’d be surprised at a public Confession on this forum.
LikeLike
Could be. But it is interesting that the flesh is usually the culprit that estranges a person from a Christian background into a rejection of the faith. It has always been so in those I have talked to and I have read the same from many others who have seen this almost visceral dislike of anything Christian. They will spend their time writing against the faith, demonstrating and it seems to consume their every waking moment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed – childhood trauma can also be a culprit “why doesn’t God protect the innocent?” Etc
In this case, the questions and answers imply to me that A thinks that if God is real, He is hiding. He seems to expect God to leave clear spectacular evidence in abundance. I would recommend John Hick’s work, but I doubt that A would take the time to read it. Just in case, I’ll see if I can find an accessible version.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If he won’t even read shorter posts I doubt that he is really looking for any evidence as he is convinced that any arguments, proofs or evidence is wrong even before evaluating them. So if this turns out to be a dead end . . . then perhaps the Bosco treatment is all that is left. I was at least hoping that we might discover what is the driving force behind his obstinate belief . . . so much so that he is like a child with fingers in ears say lalalala to drown out that which he doesn’t want to hear.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Like you, I do not think it is really an evidential issue. It is reasonable to infer the existence of God and from the data to infer that God is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. God revealing Himself on the clouds only adds certainty CX it doesn’t affect our morals or love. The earth dwellers curse God, while acknowledging His existence during the Seals and Bowls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed so.
LikeLike
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/#SH2b
LikeLike
I’ll send it to him, thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The thoughts presented by A look like they were influenced by Bart Ehrman.
LikeLike
Could be, but he never really explains how he reached the conclusions that he holds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you read the quotes by GK Chesterton on atheism? Some of them are rather humorous.
“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Chesterton said is not really true though. Atheism simply asserts other means. If there was a god we would understand it. It would be common knowledge, not a guess. Religion has had to make god so unimaginable that it’s untouched by argument. Then the final straw is faith. “I believe” doesn’t make it so.
LikeLike
No more so that you know what dark matter or dark energy is. But the fingerprints are there.
LikeLike
The discovery of these things are coming. Even this week some progress was announced. No one is claiming however an urgency to believe it through threat of punishment, that dark matter or energy is going to save us from our sins and come destroy the non believer. Dark matter, when discovered will actually bring humanity closer together. That’s what truth does. Truth does not divide, only beliefs can do that. Another disparity between the Bible and reality. Truth unites—belief divides. That why we see Buddhist fight Muslim (2 falsehood beliefs) and Christian fight Christian (common denominator’s belief) We don’t see science protests and exterminating wars belittling unbelievers, gays, races, or anything else when t comes to science. Only belief does that. That is truth. That is why belief is actually the curse inflicting humanity.
LikeLike
Who claimed that it would save you. I am only saying that it is a ‘belief’ that is not proven and their entire cosmology depends on it being true . . . unless if not true then they will have hypothesize another mathematical paradox.
There is subjective and objective truth. Subjective truth is worthless. Objective truth does not change. It is there whether you want it to be or not. Random chaos forming itself into an ordered cosmos is not even commonsensical. For things to be ordered then there must be a force of ordering. Mathematics is considered a pure science as it has defined rules (which we imposed on it). Logic is much the same way . . . until someone wants to try to find a way to change the laws of logic as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
”Subjective truth is worthless. Objective truth does not change” Your entire religion and experience is based on subjective experience. Everyone has their own interpretation (hence the 30,000 sects) and belief is the epitome of subjectivism. Funny it’s not even your own belief but that of another desperate narrator. You want your cake and eat it too! Would you like an objective truth? Fervent belief without evidence (thought conviction without substance) is damaging and divisive no mater the belief system.
Certainly science and math adjust and change, bad theory loses traction and improvements are made. Not so with faith. The Bible is the first to be the last word, the ultimate claim and has brought with it the tribal superstition of the Old Testament fables of sin and punishment, brought to life by Christian belief that believes any of it were true. God has gotten significantly smaller in my lifetime. You realize that until 300 years ago people were afraid to go in the mountains because of devils and gods, even Christians? Now those places are fields of study. Same as morality. Now we are in a position to write an even better, more fair and all inclusive morality to unite, but the dead weight of religious belief has dug in its heels. That alone is proof of the errancy of the Bible. Men can do better than a god. Weird
LikeLike
“Your entire religion and experience is based on subjective experience.”
Not true . . . it is a combination of logic, science, trust, continued existence and continuity and there is subjective experience which merely is an echo of the others.
There is nothing wrong with subjective experiences but they must relate to or become subject to objective truth. That is the point isn’t it? To order our subjective experiences into what is objectively true? And should they go their separate ways one must either reject the experience or alter the objective truth. God is the Truth – by logic and science. Christ is the manifestation of God to men in the material world. Christianity is the manifestation of Christ’s Grace brought into this world and still operative in the Church.
If you really think that you have a better moral that is more rational than Christianity then please expound it. I find it hard to believe that creatures could be more moral than Ultimate Good Itself.
LikeLike
Herein lies the difference. Nothing in religion is true without “feelings”. Feeling that are subjective and blatantly false do the trick to. Hormonal responses are the golden ticket. Without it your faith would have the flat-affect of a gerbil experiment. It is well documented Scoop that self serving bias, extreme experience (high or low) are cemented in place by hormonal response (norepinephrine) That is the true testimony of god, for without it, we wouldn’t be taking right now. And these experiences are powerful, even over lies. Even allows pows to side with their captors and die with their cult leaders. Eliciting an emotional response is even professionally calculated in the service today, as well as military, sports, on and on.
Jonathan Edwards nailed this to a science a couple hundred years ago, although the Catholics still can bore one into believing by tradition.
LikeLike
False. I hold little stock in feelings. Touchy-feely-ism Christianity is out there all right but the masters of prayer such St. John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila warn against it because Satan can imitate those feelings within and have left many lost going down the wrong road. Simply look at where the author of A Course in Miracles ended up. It was New Age nonsense and the believers have ended up far from the teachings of Christianity.
So that whole last comment is not applicable to my religion. It is based on the LOGOS and lived out in obedience to the Faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If your religion were true Scoop, it would be true to everyone. Religious truth is the most subjective experience on the planet. Truth would unite us, not divide. Like the pale blue dot itself
LikeLike
I contend that it is. I contend that Christ founded One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith. It does not mean that other do not hold much of what I believe but I still maintain that there cannot be a bunch of True Churches that might hold different beliefs on Doctrine . . . though we are still brothers and sisters in the essentials: Christ and the Nicene Creed for instance.
LikeLike
The supposed line of authority was broken years ago when it was sold off and murdered for. That takes a serious amount of head in the sand to wave that off.
LikeLike
The priests still were ordained by two to three bishops and there is little doubt that the apostolic blessing has been handed down without break from time of the Apostles.
LikeLike
So if the head is rotten…hang on, I hear some hairsplitting…
LikeLike
The head of the corporate church as manifested on earth by sinful men or the Head of the Church which has always been Christ Himself? There is a huge discrepancy between the two my friend. It is not hairsplitting it part of our teaching from the beginning.
LikeLike
It’s pretty obvious the entire thing is rotten from the top down. Self perpetuating entity that protects itself. Do you read the papers? Not only the USA, but widespread. More excuses forthcoming…
LikeLike
I am sure that the depth of my reading on that subject is far weightier than the time you have probably spent studying it. I became aware of things that are just now being released some 20 or more years ago and some of those are not even reaching the press . . . or if they are they are being redacted by a complicit press.
So Satan has allies and has willing accomplices. What is so strange or different. One of Christ’s 12 betrayed him, 10 or the 11 ran and hid and only 1 had the nerve to stand firm at the Holy Cross. That is simply the story of mankind and of our sins, our cowardice and lack of fortitude. But there always are a few that remain and hold fast. During the fight of Arianism, how few stood with St. Athanasius and yet who won in the long term? God will out in the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is wonderful to hear your heartfelt hopes. Nicely stated. I considered being Catholic many years ago but couldn’t make the leap. Part of the problem is the needed depth of your reading. When I realized I had to have just the rightly worded argument and volumes of text, there was no simplicity of the gospel. Just miles of heartfelt excuses. Really it is required in the Information Age to delve deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole. It accomplishes two things. There’s no time for anything else, and it’s all you know so it must be true.
Not that I could ever know, but if you are a true believer I would assume you live your life like god is in the room with you.
LikeLike
He is as He is in the room with you as well. But it does not require so much digging as you call it. Most of it turns into common sense and the principles are simple and all the dogmas reflect them: Love God with all you heart and your strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Live according to the Law that has been placed in your heart (or soul) as it was in every man. Love the sinner and hate the sin.
There are others, but truly it is simple enough for a child and meaty enough for the most intellectual amongst us. We simply try to live up to the principles and the dogmas, concerning more thorny questions, were only developed as answers to those who came to question the faith. It is the Church’s answer to 2000 years of nay sayers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This does go to show that by firm belief one can justify what he chooses. No unbeliever would agree or make sense of your claims. That makes the claims untrue. If belief is required to make a truth, be wary, my friend.
LikeLike
That unbelievers agree or not it only goes back to the ways of men. We are still like Rudyard Kiplings fools in his great poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings:
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If your religion were true Scoop, it would be true to everyone. Religious truth is the most subjective experience on the planet. Truth would unite us, not divide. Like the pale blue dot itself”
That would be a similar claim to: “If it were true that eating healthy was good for you, it would be true for everyone. Eating a well-balanced diet would unite us.”
Which, it is true, but the premise being true doesn’t mean everyone understands it or cares to follow it and eat healthy even if they know it is true. So, your conclusion doesn’t follow your premise.
“Herein lies the difference. Nothing in religion is true without “feelings”
I think John Henry Newman’s assent to knowledge and Kirkegaard’s leap of faith would disagree with this assessment. To be honest, if one has compiled a philosophical (contingency argument) and a historical literary examination of Pauline letters and Synoptic Gospels (as Bultmann even agrees that gives us the form of Jesus) it wouldn’t lead to an indisputable conclusion but one can make the assent to faith not by “feelings,” but rather what rather an assent to best explanation.
LikeLike
Well, that’s a reach. Although some people might be a little more ardent about diet, you’re conflating a physical activity with a thought process. Eating healthy merely promotes health. Believing in health and stridently promoting it with the fear of Hell would be a fairer comparison. We are discussing the divisiveness of belief. And from my example here be see that belief is the problem—not really what you believe. Hence Muslim truth warring against Buddhist truth, Christian sects warring with each other isn’t over truth, but beliefs.
Truth itself would be self evident. Like If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. Truth numbers in very few principles. The rest is beliefs. Merely thought convictions defended with presupposed reason which mixes very poorly with belief.
LikeLike
Talking about whether people will accept what is true “a reach”? I’m not conflating anything. I mean, come on, there is fear of not eating healthy and shorter life span–doesn’t seem to bother a lot of people.
And which case, the truth of eating healthy appears to be a self-evident as any other truth. So, honestly, it would be hardpressed to convince me of any conflation because we’re simply moving the ramifications of truth into the spatiotemporal world with eating healthy as opposed to the spiritual world, which you don’t believe in, so it should be totally permissible for me to make such a move with claims of truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
”one can make the assent to faith not by “feelings,” but rather what rather an assent to best explanation”. And this is certainly not an exercise in faith.
LikeLike
It’s still a leap into the unknown. It’s still trusting without a verified conclusion. So, if it’s not ‘faith’ which I’ve always defined as a catechist as ‘trust’ in the Newman way, what would be the terminology you would use? Perhaps, you need to define what you mean by faith? And see if you agree with our definition of it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
”Subjective truth is worthless. Objective truth does not change” Your entire religion and experience is based on subjective experience. Everyone has their own interpretation (hence the 30,000 sects) and belief is the epitome of subjectivism. Funny it’s not even your own belief but that of another desperate narrator. You want your cake and eat it too! Would you like an objective truth? Fervent belief without evidence (thought conviction without substance) is damaging and divisive no mater the belief system.
Certainly science and math adjust and change, bad theory loses traction and improvements are made. Not so with faith. The Bible is the first to be the last word, the ultimate claim and has brought with it the tribal superstition of the Old Testament fables of sin and punishment, brought to life by Christian belief that believes any of it were true. God has gotten significantly smaller in my lifetime. You realize that until 300 years ago people were afraid to go in the mountains because of devils and gods, even Christians? Now those places are fields of study. Same as morality. Now we are in a position to write an even better, more fair and all inclusive morality to unite, but the dead weight of religious belief has dug in its heels. That alone is proof of the errancy of the Bible. Men can do better than god. Weird
LikeLike
Which shows it has a spiritual component too, whereby trauma gives satan access rights to afflict us further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes indeed. Satan uses every opportunity given to him to snatch souls from the hands of Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Plus there is anonymity here since he is using a fictitious name.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly so, and in these end times it comes from God upon those who refuse to believe in His saving work. Thus they perish…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas, Scoop – the Name fo God, as given to Moses, actually relates directly to Jesus’ because its Hebrew characters, especially in their early pictographic form, describe the Crucifixion to a ‘Tee’ (!!) – and thus prophetically describes and seals the relationship of Father and Son in the Old Covenant, (LOL thus reaffirming it’s all about a blood covenant! Never seen it that way before!! Thank you guys).
For details of this see https://richards-watch.org/2019/04/19/jesus-crucifixion-described-within-the-holy-name-of-god/
LikeLiked by 2 people
This inference is controversial among Christian scholars; nevertheless, it would be a great “coincidence” for God’s name as written to be capable of this interpretation, which is interestng.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nothing evidential as A would like but then again it is interesting in the same way that the symbol of Tau was in Ezekiel and the symbolic interpretations that can be made using the Mogan David (the symbol for Israel). It does make one wonder about how small things in the OT point toward our later theological understandings which unraveled after Christianity began looking into the ways God fulfilled all that was taught in the OT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good sister Ark is a dame.
Hey good sister ark, good brother scoop means well. the articles he showed you to read are catholic articles. Slim to no chance you will find the risen lord in them. good brother scoop is rite….gods name is “I Am”
Im confident that one day soon you will meet him.
LikeLike
hey good br0other Nicholas, you mentioned the Watchers. Ive always passed them up and never gave them any thought. i didnt even remember seeing them. I thought them unimportant.
Giving them the full force of my knowledge of scriptures, i cant find anything of real importance to them. What i mean by that is, no importance to me today. They had some honorable mention in the old test. Im very sure they are still watching.
My question to you is, what have you or your church org come up with about them, that can be confirmed with scripture. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Bosco, is there a particular bit of information you are after? There is a wide variety of non-biblical material that helps us understand what the writer of Genesis 6 had in mind during composition (Moses, if you like) and what Jews before and around the time of Jesus thought Genesis 6 meant, which has a bearing on some NT verses (e.g. in 2 Peter and Jude). If you want to find out more on these topics, I recommend reading Michael Heiser’s “Reversing Hermon”, which also relates this topic to the mission of Jesus in the Gospels (and incidentally furnishes an argument against the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16). The term “watcher” also appears in the Book of Daniel.
If you are interested in what the “Watchers” are doing now or will do in the future, that is essentially a speculative matter, but two points are worth noting.
A) “Watcher” is a term that denotes function (like angel=messenger, throne=ruler), not the ontological status of the being in question.
B) It is not assumed that all of the Watchers fell in the Genesis 6 event and any similar events that may have happened thereafter. It is conceivable that there are “good watchers” that are at work today, e.g. working in combination with guardian angels (see the references to guardian angels in the Gospels and Acts).
C) In the Book of Revelation, the beings released from the Abyss, often referred to simply as “demonic locusts”, may in fact be the Watchers who were imprisoned before Noah’s Flood, let loose temporarily to torture humanity. The Watchers were said to be imprisoned in the Abyss/Tartarus/Sheol in the non-biblical texts and in Peter’s epistles and in Jude.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for saying what you do know about them. Gen 6 are the sons of god who mated with human women. Are you suggesting sons of god are also watchers. I wouldnt put anything past those busy body pesky sons of god. They are still out there. They havent gone away. God must have them on a leash ow, because if they could still come down and mess with us, there would be big trouble in little china. We have tanks and nukes now.
Next t9ime i do some reading again, i will keep my eyes open for any hint of these watchers and who they might be. There are lots of angelic creatures we dont know about. The destroyer is only mentioned twice in the bible, to my knowledge, but he is on our backs everyday. Thanks for your input.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Dont tell me good brother Jim is back here with his hormonal view of god. At least he is inventive. Dry and lacking emotion, but inventive.
Chemical reactions. Yeah, hes gonna get a chemical reaction alrite if he dont get with god. Its called burning brimstone.
LikeLike
Bosco, have you read any metaphysics of mind? I think you would enjoy that branch of philosophy given its engagement with biology, quantum physics, and theology. Empiricism has problems dealing with the metaphysical, which is why I take a rationalist approach.
LikeLike
Ive never read any metaphysics. With my study of advanced math and organic chem and chess and a little jazz piano i will have trouble sneaking anything else in, but ill go online and see what it says about it. if it wants me to sit in a certain pose and meditate then im outta there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you would find it interesting. Given your intellectual talents and propensity for teaching yourself, I recommend you read just a few introductions and definitions and then pursue your own reasoning from there. Here are a few links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
https://www.iep.utm.edu/theomind/
LikeLike