Why do biblical literalists refuse to answer questions?

You are asking me what parts I think are 100% true historically?
I gave you a link to what the overwhelming majority of historians and NT-scholars think is true and why (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus), but I can’t do the reading for you. Keep in mind that to ascertain 100% truth in history of antiquity is never possible, if you are after that, stay clear from history.

When it comes to questions beyond scholarly consensus: If I wanted give you a complete overview which scholarly arguments for what I personally deem more reasonable than others and why, I’d still be typing in two weeks time. So maybe you should specify your question.

If you are interested in historical truth I suggest you try to follow the discussion among historians and reputable Bible-scholars for yourself whilst staying clear of freaks such as John Allegro who deny that Jesus ever existed. They are to the research on the historical Jesus what climate change deniers are to climatology.

 

No there’s not just some hyperbole. What we saw here was a statement that is arguably wrong, just as it would be arguably wrong to state that the Bible tells us nothing but plain historical facts.

Just out of interest: why do you think Acts has “better history” than the Gospels? There’s wide agreement among scholars that the author of Acts is one and the same as the author of the Gospel of Luke. Even if you go for the traditional theory that this author was a companion of Paul who witnessed some of the events he describes in Acts personally (which is something that not quite as many scholars agree upon), he could hardly have been a first hand witness to all the events he describes in that book. As for the reliability of 2nd hand testimony: history of antiquity would be a rather blank sheet if we only relied on first hand testimony. While I agree that first hand testimony is better than second hand testimony (which early Christians also agreed to, which is why they found it so important that accounts could be somehow traced back to 1th hand witnesses), and while I agree that it is always advisable for an historian to retain due skepticism towards any witness in view of his personal agenda and selective memory, often it seems to me that some people (on both sides of the fence) set double standards when it comes to the witnesses of the New Testament.

You may be better educated, but you are just as impolite. And sadly it seems your atheism made you blind for or at least comparatively mild on the lack of education in the fundamentalist atheist camp. (See first sentence)

 

Yes, I am a German native speaker. You could have gathered as much from our previous discussion. But how does this answer my question? However: I’m quite happy not to address you. Feel free not to address me either. I think you and I have serious communication-problems in spite of having the same mother tongue and I don’t think it’s possible for me to have an intelligible conversation with you. You live in a world of your own and by that I don’t mean Bavaria.

 

Sorry, but that is nonsense. The fact aside that some Christians do indeed take the resurrection to be of a merely spiritual rather than a bodily nature: Genesis and the Gospels are completely different literary genres. It’s well possible to read the Genesis accounts allegorically whilst attributing literal truth to the Gospels without being inconsistent in the slightest.
To believe that every single statement of every single Gospels resurrection narrative is literally true, on the other hand, ignores that the Gospels contradict each other. These contradicting details refute the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy as held by evangelical fundamentalists, but are otherwise rather insignificant and don't touch the core of a belief in Jesus' resurrection based on the empty tomb.
Sadly this thread somehow shows that it's not only evangelical fundamentalists that are incapable of making finer distinctions.

 

Did Jesus ever have a birthday party?

The word "birthday" wasn't used until the 14th Century. Therefore the use of the word in earlier context has to be highly suspect because earlier cultures did not celebrate people's birthdays. They recognized when their kids reached a certain age into the transition to adulthood. All societies do that. But they never woke up one morning and said "happy 33rd birthday."

 

Why is the sky blue?
Why do cats meow instead of bark?
Why does a shark eat meat and not veggies?
Why does the Sun rise in the morning and set in the evening?

Get the picture? It's not for YOU to question the Most High. just live accordingly. If you are not "Chosen" you will be destroyed.

That's Life.

 

The refraction of the sunlight. The structure of feline anatomy. They're hungry predators. The rotation of the earth.

 

So you don’t think any of the following verses are to be taken literally?

“The LORD is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made.” (Psalm 145:9)

“and all the ends of the earth will see
the salvation of our God.” (Isaiah 52:10b)

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17)

( Jesus said: ) "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)

“ For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. “ (Romans:11:32)

“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.” (1.Tim. 2:3-6)

Or could it be that all are chosen?

 

Hyperbole is often arguably wrong. The Bible contains very little in the way of Historical fact

Obviously you don;t understand that better does not mean good. the fact that the acts were within his lifetime that he would be speaking to epople with fresh memories makes a hug difference to people remebering stuff from decades before.

History of the antiquity is a largely blank sheet. We rely on archeological research and other primary sources. Second hand testimony is close to worthless. Where is my double standard?

This is not a polite forum if you havn't noticed. The beleivers lie through their teeth pretending they have knowledge of things they are entirely ignorant of (History,Philosophy, Classical langauges) . They are so arrogant they just invent what they don;t know (which means they invent a lot).

There is no lack of education amongst atheists. I have no idea what a fundamentalist atheist is. All atheists don't beleive in God. perhaps you mean militant atheists? Militant atheists tend to be extremely well educated.

 

Kind of like atheists refuse to answer questions about their faith, evolution?

 

Firstly, the modern synthesis of Evolution is not a faith, it's a demonstrable theory about the diversity of life and the origins of that diversity.

Secondly it's not a faith if it's supported by the vast and varied amounts of evidence that the ToE is.

Thirdly, atheism and evolution are not the same subject, and many theists have used their brains and followed the evidence to the same conclusion that the scientific community has. Many atheists are also not necessarily convinced by that vast assemblage of human knowledge that goes into the theory

And finally, those atheists who do support the undeniable consensus that the modern synthesis is correct are more than willing to answer questions about the subject, though you would probably be better to speak to someone formally educated in the subject to get the most accurate answers.

- - - Updated - - -

Firstly, the modern synthesis of Evolution is not a faith, it's a demonstrable theory about the diversity of life and the origins of that diversity.

Secondly it's not a faith if it's supported by the vast and varied amounts of evidence that the ToE is.

Thirdly, atheism and evolution are not the same subject, and many theists have used their brains and followed the evidence to the same conclusion that the scientific community has. Many atheists are also not necessarily convinced by that vast assemblage of human knowledge that goes into the theory

And finally, those atheists who do support the undeniable consensus that the modern synthesis is correct are more than willing to answer questions about the subject, though you would probably be better to speak to someone formally educated in the subject to get the most accurate answers.

 

Really? Ill answer any question you like. I am pretty expert in History, Philosphy and Classics but I am not a science expert.

I won't shy away from any question or refuse to answer it. Ask away.

 

Because the text contained therein is not perceived or understood by those who dictate their existence solely on reasoning. It involves purpose as understood existsentially and not ackowleded by those who explicitly deny or refrain from it.

Your perceived outward angst is the reason that you may be having a difficult time engaging the opposition on such subjects. Perhaps if you were more altruistic in your approach you may advertise more participation on the subject. Rather than coming across as fullfilling your own biased agenda you could try a less concrete or diplomatic approach.

Adversely if I were to state (for example): "The Universe is shrinking! Prove me wrong!", it would hardly invite interesting discussion or debate. Such topics are perceived as pit-falls and avoided in favor of more balanced topics.

It's one thing to try to dispell a subject. It's another to openly explore it. Such as the case of ,say, the 4th dimension or beyond. It takes an incredibly open mind to explore such topics as they require listening to ideas and explorative research defacto.

Good luck.

 

"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." - Matthew 15:24

 

worst try for a tu quoque ever

 

Yes ,indeed, we don't refuse to answer questions because we have confidence in our own knowledge.

 

That seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder.

Obviously you did not understand that I never said Acts had “good” history. I asked you what makes you think it’s better than that of the Gospels and you still have not given me a conclusive argument for that assumption of yours.
The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and possibly even the first stages of John were also written when at some eyewitnesses of Jesus still must have been around. If you go for the two-source hypothesis (as most NT-scholars do) and assume that the oldest layer of Q carries the oldest traditions of Jesus (as not quite as many scholars do), Matthew and Luke probably contain much older and thus ‘fresher’ memories than Acts does. Acts itself is commonly dated at about AD 60-70, and starts off with events right after Jesus death in about AD 30, not exactly the freshest memory, and certainly not significantly fresher than memories of the living Jesus that Mark (commonly dated at about AD 70, earlier by some) draws on. You may of course assume that the author of Acts and his witnesses found the events they describe so significant that they kept the memory fresh, but the same would go for the memories the Gospels work with.

The double standards would lie in what you do and don’t accept as primary source and in when you do or don’t regard second hand testimony as worthless. That is assuming that you don’t doubt the historicity of stuff like Tacitus’ “Annals” very much, even though somebody who was born in AD 56 can hardly have been an eyewitness to events that happened in AD 14.

Of course I have noticed that this is not a polite forum. And that sad fact already partly answers your OP’s question.

So Anobsitar and 4Horsemen are representative for "the believers" now? This believer here thinks the whole discussion about Jesus' name - started by an atheist by the way, who hardly said more intelligent things than they did - was outright silly and pointless.

The size of your blinkers must be enormous! Sorry but most ‘militant’ atheists on this forum, don’t have the first clue about any of the things you’ve mentioned, let alone a clue about the topic they like blabbering on about the most: theology. That much is obvious even to me and I’m far from being the brightest bulb in those fields myself, I just happen to have a bit of scattered general knowledge. The term ‘fundamentalist atheist’ isn’t mine by the way, I just borrowed it, but I think it’s a very apt description for guys who can’t tolerate that other people hold different metaphysical convictions than they do and who hang on every single item of their high priest’s shrill credo, which far exceeds simple disbelief in God.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

 

So which one is to be taken as literal inerrant truth, that verse out of Matthew or Romans 11?

 

How about you answer this question FIRST ---> http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/319055-if-bible-fake.html And after that we'll continue this drab conversation.

 

Both scriptures pertain to the Israelites.

 

- Nope, Only the Israelites were "chosen", then rest of the nations are nothing. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

The Book is FOR the Israelites, NO other people. So if you understand that, you understand how to read the Holy Bible.

This is why a lot of so called Christians and Catholics "fall away" from the faith because they realize the book is not for them since they are not Israelites. So they wane into other Gods and worship them, which have no power at all.

 

Ask a sensible question about specific parts of the bible. Some of it
is pretty ridiculous, some of it is good information.

 

Indeed, and if you care on to read past the verse you quoted from Matthew 15 you’ll find that you don’t need to be an Israelite to be saved. Romans also tells us that those Israelites who did not believe in Christ will also be saved and that God will have mercy on all. And when John 3:17 tells us that “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” and we believe that to be literally true it would be akin to doubting Christ’s ability to do His job to say that anybody in this world will not be saved. Which is why very many Christians who believe in Christ’s ability to eventually draw all people to Himself (John 12:32), be it before or after death, believe in universal salvation. Seeing that we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves that’s at least what we ought to hope for if we deem ourselves Christians who follow Christ’s teachings. Didn’t quite feel the love in your answer to Alfalfa, just some glee over presumably being chosen for salvation yourself while most others will burn in hell.

 

So even evangelical fundamentalist reborn Christians will be destroyed then, because according to you - not being Israelites - they are not "chosen"? And Paul was wrong when he preached to the gentiles?

 

I already asked a sensible question in the title of the thread AND the OP, did you read it?

here I'll ask it again... WHY did White people whitewash all the images in the Bible if it's considered a "fairytale" and not a true book??