You HAVE to believe EVERYTHING Jesus said!

[_Philo Sofee]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... -this.html

This quotes Timothy Keller in perhaps the most idiotic thinking I have seen in a very long time. If Jesus rose from the dead you HAVE to believe everything he said! The problem here is, we have nothing about what Jesus said, only later authors who imagined he said this or that. There are no eye witnesses to anything about Jesus in the Bible, all of it being written after he was long gone, and none of it by anyone who ever saw or even heard anything he said....... And even if he rose from the dead, giving the benefit of the doubt to it, I don't see how it follows that I have to believe everything he said.

[_zerinus]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/05/it-all-hinges-on-this.html

This quotes Timothy Keller in perhaps the most idiotic thinking I have seen in a very long time. If Jesus rose from the dead you HAVE to believe everything he said! The problem here is, we have nothing about what Jesus said, only later authors who imagined he said this or that. There are no eye witnesses to anything about Jesus in the Bible, all of it being written after he was long gone, and none of it by anyone who ever saw or even heard anything he said.......

If you carried that to it's logical conclusion, you would have to disbelieve in all ancient historical accounts​, because none of them are contemporary to the characters concerned, but from many generations later. How do you know Plato and Aristotle wrote or said what is attributed ​to them, when none of the accounts are contemporary to them, or written directly by them? How do you know that the Buddha wrote or said what is attributed to him, or Mohammed, or Zoroaster, or any other ancient historical figure?

And even if he rose from the dead, giving the benefit of the doubt to it, I don't see how it follows that I have to believe everything he said.

If it is true that he rose from the dead, that would authenticate his claim to divinity; and whether you want to believe (and obey) the teachings and instructions of such a being or not, is a matter for you to decide. Jesus’ own words, however, are unmistakable and clear:

Matthew 7:

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

[_Philo Sofee]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/05/it-all-hinges-on-this.html

This quotes Timothy Keller in perhaps the most idiotic thinking I have seen in a very long time. If Jesus rose from the dead you HAVE to believe everything he said! The problem here is, we have nothing about what Jesus said, only later authors who imagined he said this or that. There are no eye witnesses to anything about Jesus in the Bible, all of it being written after he was long gone, and none of it by anyone who ever saw or even heard anything he said.......

If you carried that to it's logical conclusion, you would have to disbelieve in all ancient historical accounts​, because none of them are contemporary to the characters concerned, but from many generations later. How do you know Plato and Aristotle wrote or said what is attributed ​to them, when none of the accounts are contemporary to them, or written directly by them? How do you know that the Buddha wrote or said what is attributed to him, or Mohammed, or Zoroaster, or any other ancient historical figure?

And even if he rose from the dead, giving the benefit of the doubt to it, I don't see how it follows that I have to believe everything he said.

If it is true that he rose from the dead, that would authenticate his claim to divinity; and whether you want to believe (and obey) the teachings and instructions of such a being or not, is a matter for you to decide. Jesus’ own words, however, are unmistakable and clear:

Matthew 7:

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Lol! Yes I question and suspect all ancient writings. Your quoting Matthew does nothing to help. I realize it is beyond you to grasp why, so I will leave it there for you.

[_zerinus]

Lol! Yes I question and suspect all ancient writings. Your quoting Matthew does nothing to help. I realize it is beyond you to grasp why, so I will leave it there for you.

Mocking is the easy part. Anyone can do that. Except that, “Fools mock, but they shall mourn” (Ether 12:26). The ultimate question is, who is going to have the last laugh, and I don’t think it is going to be you.

[_Tator]

The ultimate question is, who is going to have the last laugh, and I don’t think it is going to be you.

I don't know about the last laugh but you sure get a lot of laughs on a consistent regular basis.

[_Analytics]

If you carried that to it's logical conclusion, you would have to disbelieve in all ancient historical accounts​, because none of them are contemporary to the characters concerned, but from many generations later. How do you know Plato and Aristotle wrote or said what is attributed ​to them, when none of the accounts are contemporary to them, or written directly by them? How do you know that the Buddha wrote or said what is attributed to him, or Mohammed, or Zoroaster, or any other ancient historical figure?

We have good reason to believe that Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, Mohammed, and Zoroaster are historical figures. Likewise Peter and Paul. Jesus on the other hand is different. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is basically the same as the evidence of Paul Bunyan.

If it is true that he rose from the dead, that would authenticate his claim to divinity; and whether you want to believe (and obey) the teachings and instructions of such a being or not, is a matter for you to decide. Jesus’ own words, however, are unmistakable and clear...

If Jesus rose from the dead I would respond, "Okay, you have some skills." But that wouldn't mean I would be somehow required to "accept all he said." After all, Lucifer has some power too, but that doesn't mean he isn't the father of lies.

[_zerinus]

We have good reason to believe that Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, Mohammed, and Zoroaster are historical figures. Likewise Peter and Paul. Jesus on the other hand is different. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is basically the same as the evidence of Paul Bunyan.

Says you. No respectable historian nowadays denies that Jesus as a historical figure actually existed.

If Jesus rose from the dead I would respond, "Okay, you have some skills."

LOL! It takes more than “skill” to bring yourself back to life again after you were dead.

But that wouldn't mean I would be somehow required to "accept all he said."

You have a choice, I agree.

After all, Lucifer has some power too, but that doesn't mean he isn't the father of lies.

I see. So you believe a supernatural being like the devil exists, but a supernatural being like God doesn’t exist. Interesting.

[_zerinus]

How do you know Plato and Aristotle wrote or said what is attributed ​to them, when none of the accounts are contemporary to them, or written directly by them?

I have no idea about the documentary evidence for the historical Plato versus Jesus. For sake of argument let's say the answer is: we don't know.

In the case of Plato/Aristotle, the content is what's relevant, not who it actually came from or who gets credit. If it turned out Aristotle plagiarized all his ideas/observations, or stuff is falsely attributed to him in some manner, this would not undermine modern mathematics in any way. It's possible, even probable, many of the things attributed to these men actually came from others before or around them. So what? Have you never had a novel idea or discovery only to learn that someone else had already gone on record as having discovered or invented this thing?

See "Stigler's law of eponymy"

I don’t how that is relevant to the conversation I was having.

[_Analytics]

LOL! It takes more than “skill” to bring yourself back to life again after you were dead.

It takes precisely nothing more nor less than the resurrection skill to bring yourself back to life. Haven't you played Dungeons and Dragons?

After all, Lucifer has some power too, but that doesn't mean he isn't the father of lies.

I see. So you believe a supernatural being like the devil exists, but a supernatural being like God doesn’t exist. Interesting.

My (lack of) belief in the devil is commensurate with my (lack of) belief in God. That is why I said "too." Imaginary beings with imaginary powers--isn't that the topic of this thread?

[_zerinus]

You guys are not making a lot of sense, therefore I have nothing more to add.