Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_SteelHead]

What evidence would you accept?

Any real, tangible, objective evidence. Arguments are not evidence. Feelings are not evidence.

[_SteelHead]

Franktalk,

Taken in context here, you seem to be saying that the Gospel according to Mathew resulted from Mathew writing down the words of Christ.

In fact, the Gospel according to Mathew was written well after the traditional death of Christ (between about 80 and 90 CE) by an unknown and well educated Jewish male. It was based primarily on the Gospel of Mark, itself written by an unknown author, as well as on the "Q source" compilation of oral traditions of the early church.

The facts of the matter (as opposed to your imagination) pretty much destroy any shred of credibility that you might have had with regard to your argument against Chap's position.

I will not disagree, but I will add that the Jesus story was a spoken story for some time before being written down. I am very aware of it and chose not to drift off on a tangent. I think if you knew the real history of what happened it would change your mindset. But that is a guess on my part. Thanks for posting the best guess scholars have today. The best way to know what happened would be to obtain a first hand account. This can happen and will happen one day. Let us just say that many of us have been here many times. If someone had their veil removed then we could obtain a first hand account. I do not have my veil removed. But to the extent I can I communicate with my greater self about truth I have been led to some truths.

Now since my comments have not been peer reviewed and published please ignore them. Feel free to embrace any source you wish.

Let me ask you a question. If someone had access to advanced medical knowledge way above what man knows today could a body not age? Given that as possible could we have someone on the earth who walked with Christ many years ago?

Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

John is still with us. And please don't drag up some old papers telling a different story. I have read them. John walks the earth. I have never met him or communicated to him in anyway that I know of. But I know he is alive.

Oh you "know" John walks the Earth ? Do tell. How do you know this?

[_spotlight]

Oh you "know" John walks the Earth ? Do tell. How do you know this?

Cause he was stuck on the side of the road without a jack even though he had a tire iron and John came by to the rescue and lifted the car up while Frank swapped out the tires. Duh. He knew it wasn't one of the three Nephites because of the dialect spoken.

Parsimonious and razors be damned, I'll go for the more contrived and universally failed (thousands of abandoned gods) answer, because in cloud cuckoo land, all ideas are equally goood.

Yep, Franktalk shot down with his own logic. All ideas deserve equal respect no matter how ludicrous.

[_Franktalk]

What evidence would you accept?

I am not sure any evidence would be accepted. I do not think that placing their fingers into the wounds of Christ would make a difference. This is why I write in general terms.

[_Franktalk]

Oh you "know" John walks the Earth ? Do tell. How do you know this?

I will tell you this much. In the scriptures there is a prophecy that involves John. I can tell you that the prophecy has been fulfilled.

[_spotlight]

What evidence would you accept?

I am not sure any evidence would be accepted. I do not think that placing their fingers into the wounds of Christ would make a difference. This is why I write in general terms.

This is an interesting post seeing as you regard the CCC as one who is as lost to religious authority as you regard me lost to scientific authority.

[_The CCC]

What evidence would you accept?

Any real, tangible, objective evidence. Arguments are not evidence. Feelings are not evidence.

OK. Prove by objective evidence your mother loved you.

[_The CCC]

This is an interesting post seeing as you regard the CCC as one who is as lost to religious authority as you regard me lost to scientific authority. [/quote]

Not really. I'm just very particular on whom I regard as religious authorities, and scientific authorities.

[_spotlight]

Not really. I'm just very particular on whom I regard as religious authorities, and scientific authorities.

Umm, my comment was about how Franktalk views those in religious institutions, not about your views.

[_spotlight]

OK. Prove by objective evidence your mother loved you.

There's a nice discussion of this in the comments section here.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... tural-yes/

This comment points out the error in your thinking.

Your analogy is seriously flawed because you’re mixing up different categories of ‘things.’ In this case, you’re shifting from an emotion to an object.

Instead of demanding evidence that truthspeaker’s mother “loved him” you ought to ask if he could provide any objective evidence showing that his mother existed. My guess is that he could. More important, we can in theory provide scientific evidence that any person did or didn’t exist — objective, unbiased evidence capable of convincing a neutral rational observer.

You don’t think supernatural beings, entities, or forces are just ways of feeling and behaving, do you? Presumably not. God’s love is not God. So evidence for the supernatural is not going to be anything like evidence that somebody loves you, or that “love” exists (unless you actually think Love is some sort of magical energy field or essential substance, in which case you need to read something about ‘abstractions.’)

Stop playing games. This is not a gotcha. It’s an old and tired ploy, a bait ‘n switch that fools nobody — unless it’s still fooling you.