Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Jesus the Circular Messiah?
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 106 of 122 (487408)
10-31-2008 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object
10-30-2008 4:02 PM


Ray writes:
Very few scholars of any persuasion deny that Christ lived.
I'm a scholar and I deny that Christ lived. Pretty much pisses on your assertation, no?
Do I win 5?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-30-2008 4:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-31-2008 5:14 PM Larni has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 107 of 122 (487437)
10-31-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Cold Foreign Object
10-30-2008 8:57 PM


Re: Did you ever go to school Ray?
Cold Foreign Object writes:
The fact that you are an Atheist-evolutionist and I am a Christian-creationist explains your opinion concerning my understanding of history and science.
Prove us wrong then. And I'm NOT an "atheist-evolutionist". Not that you'll believe me on that.
Do you know what historic certainty is, Brian? Concerning Jesus HC exists. Concerning other ancient histories it is, most of the time, lost.
Yes, which is the point we're trying to make, all that stuff has to be accepted on FAITH, not on any EVIDENCE.
Plausibility, as defined by your usage (message-wide), is ad hoc.
Ad hoc? This can be applied to ANYTHING for which there is no direct evidence, and is thus NOT an ad hoc argument.
The main point here is that the ad hoc position presupposes the facticity of doubt and uncertainty.
Is it just me or does this sentence simply not make sense? Anyway, it is NOT an ad hoc argument.
Admitting to the possibility of uncertainty is ad hoc
No it isn't. In fact we can't be certain about ANYTHING. Speaking in a strict "everything in science is tentative" sense, of course. But the point is that saying we can't be certain because there is NO evidence of it, is NOT an ad hoc argument. It is true in ANY situation.
The agenda in service to Skepticism is seen and supported.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm sorry, but this sentence again makes NO sense to me.
Blue box comment is a claim that presupposes no evidence to exist supporting the claim that Christ lived.
There isn't
If this were true where did anyone obtain the idea that Jesus lived?
From the bible of course. It's in there isn't it? Just like Superman is in the Superman comics. So, if someone, one million years from now, were to find a superman comic, and he spread around that this all actually happened, and a large part of the world agreed with him, based ONLY on that comic, would he be right?
What is your source for the Jesus you speak of?
He isn't speaking of an actual Jesus, therefore there is no source. He is simply using logic and the facts we DO know about that time to come up with a plausible explanation for the inspiration of the Christ in the bible.
Again, the agenda in service to Skepticism is supported.
Am I the only one that is having trouble understanding some of the things he says? Again, what is this all about?
We have, of course, studied the claims of the N.T. Anytime that you are ready to get specific let me know.
I'm ready now. But please, provide REAL evidence for your claims, I'd hate to go around an entire thread with nothing else to do then answer: "Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true". That would be ever so boring for the casual reader.
"May or may not" Which is it?
We don't know. Which is the ENTIRE point. You claim this did happen, so it's up to you to provide evidence for that claim. We say there isn't any evidence for it, and so far, you haven't provided any.
Of course since you are an Atheist you have made up your mind
Of course, since you are a creationist, you have made up your mind. But there are people out there that haven't. If they would ask you for evidence for your claims, what would you tell them?
(= ad hoc uncertainty tactic exposed and supported).
Once again, it is NOT an ad hoc argument, it can be applied to many situations.
All this says is that St. Matthew and St. Mark and St. Luke and St. John and St. Paul (= five separate sources) are liars.
You have evidence of the writers of the gospels? You have evidence they were in fact describing accurately what happened? If so, please provide it, if not, then you can't claim they're telling the truth, other then that that is what you believe. Oh, by the way, if they ALL got it right, why are there inconsistencies between them?
We explain your belief by remembering that you are an Atheist
We explain your belief by remembering you are a creationist. But there are people out there that are undecided, if they asked you for evidence, what would you tell them?
Since we already know that Atheism believes N.T. authors to be liars what is your point?
They don't, they say they don't see any evidence that they are telling the truth. And if no such evidence is provided, their stories are just as true as any Superman comic.
Hundreds of millions of persons from diverse backrounds disagree.
Almost got through an entire post without this one, but noooo, you just had to. So, here we go again: "Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true."
What evidence do you have that said sources are liars or deluded?
None, which is why I'm not calling them liars, which evidence do you have that they are telling the truth? You see, I'm saying that when there is NO evidence to support something, how strongly should we advocate that thing as being true?
Plausibility is rendered subjective.
Yes, what is plausible to some is not plausible to another. However, you can't claim something to be true by how strongly someone believes in it.
You have made claims thus far and nothing else.
No, he has presented a plausible solution to the inspiration for the Christ of the bible, using logic and data. You, on the other hand "have made claims thus far and nothing else."
Skepticism and Agnosticism are not presupposed by History or Science.
False, Scepticism is VERY important in science, and I would say for history also.
Your "NEVER proven" claim is ad hoc, and I have explained why.
Since it is NOT an ad hoc argument, you have NOT explained why.
Since the most vocal and vituperative critics of the Bible (= Jesus Seminar "scholars," which includes Atheists) agree that Jesus lived, your opinion, in addition to being ad hoc and deceitful, exists within the lunatic fringe.
I'm pretty vocal and a critic, and I say the Christ of the bible NEVER existed. And for you to be claiming someone to be in the lunatic fringe.....well, I'm not even going to comment.
LOL!
Couldn't have summed it up better myself.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-30-2008 8:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 108 of 122 (487457)
10-31-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Larni
10-31-2008 6:48 AM


I'm a scholar
Prove it.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Larni, posted 10-31-2008 6:48 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Larni, posted 11-01-2008 7:04 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 109 of 122 (487458)
10-31-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by bluescat48
10-31-2008 12:55 AM


Re: Did you ever go to school Ray?
Where is the evidence that these individuals existed and that they wrote the books attributed to them? We don't believe them to be liars but we want evidence that what they or whoever wrote the books is telling actual accounts.
I don't believe that you wrote the above comments.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2008 12:55 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2008 5:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 113 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2008 10:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 110 of 122 (487460)
10-31-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object
10-31-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Did you ever go to school Ray?
Where is the evidence that these individuals existed and that they wrote the books attributed to them? We don't believe them to be liars but we want evidence that what they or whoever wrote the books is telling actual accounts.
I don't believe that you wrote the above comments.
Fine then you must agree that it is rather unintelligent to accept what is written without evidence. (No, I didn't write it, I typed it.)

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-31-2008 5:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-31-2008 6:28 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 111 of 122 (487466)
10-31-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by bluescat48
10-31-2008 5:28 PM


What claims do you have a problem with?
The N.T. says a city called Jerusalem exists.
The N.T. says the Romans ruled over first century Palestine.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2008 5:28 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2008 10:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 114 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2008 10:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 120 by ramoss, posted 11-17-2008 2:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 112 of 122 (487481)
10-31-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object
10-31-2008 6:28 PM


Is that supposed to mean anything. The Illiad states that Troy existed.
Does that mean that the Illiad is historical. All Mythology caotains some truth. Is Gone With the Wind history, It has that Burning of Atlanta in it?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-31-2008 6:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 113 of 122 (487486)
10-31-2008 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object
10-31-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Did you ever go to school Ray?
Cold Foreign Object writes:
I don't believe that you wrote the above comments.
If you don't believe he wrote that comment, how can you believe the N.T. to be written by the people that are claimed to have written it?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-31-2008 5:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by iano, posted 10-31-2008 11:10 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 114 of 122 (487487)
10-31-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object
10-31-2008 6:28 PM


Cold Foreign Object writes:
What claims do you have a problem with?
Any claim that does not have any supporting evidence.
The N.T. says a city called Jerusalem exists.
Since that city still exists today, I don't think anyone has a problem with that claim.
The N.T. says the Romans ruled over first century Palestine.
Since thre is much supporting evidence for this. I don't see anyone having a problem with this claim.
So, you have provided two claims of the N.T. that are supported by evidence. How about those other parts, that aren't supported by evidence, are they true as well? If you say they are, what do you base this on?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-31-2008 6:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 115 of 122 (487488)
10-31-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Huntard
10-31-2008 10:27 PM


Re: Did you ever go to school Ray?
Huntards sig writes:
I hunt for the truth
Huntards net writes:
If you don't believe he wrote that comment, how can you believe the N.T. to be written by the people that are claimed to have written it?
Starvation beckons..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2008 10:27 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Huntard, posted 11-01-2008 5:11 AM iano has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 116 of 122 (487514)
11-01-2008 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by iano
10-31-2008 11:10 PM


Re: Did you ever go to school Ray?
iano writes:
Starvation beckons..
I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're trying to say here. (Yes, I don't understand everything )

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by iano, posted 10-31-2008 11:10 PM iano has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 117 of 122 (487520)
11-01-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object
10-31-2008 5:14 PM


Scholar, n.
A learned person. (Yup, I hold graduate and post graduate qualifications in psychology and cognitive behavioural therapy).
A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
(Yup, I still study and as you can see my specialism is cbt).
A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship. (Yup, I'm currently funded by the UK National Health service to conduct research into the effects of worry in a primary care setting (would you like me to send you the research prop?)).
So we have an assertion/piss interface.
But enough of this dick waving: you lose.
Edited by Larni, : DVD extras.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-31-2008 5:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 118 of 122 (488771)
11-17-2008 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Cold Foreign Object
10-30-2008 8:57 PM


Re: Did you ever go to school Ray?
The "agree-with-me-or-you-are-uneducated" card.
I never asked you to agree with me, I am just pointing out the fact that you don’t appear to understand what history is.
However, it is abundantly clear that as far as the academic discipline of history goes, you are indeed either uneducated in that area, or you are grossly misunderstanding it. The errors you make are errors that beginners most commonly make. Get a book, something such as ”A history of History’, or any ”introduction to history’, then hopefully you can get involved in discussions without looking like a square peg in a round hole.
The fact that you are an Atheist-evolutionist and I am a Christian-creationist explains your opinion concerning my understanding of history and science.
It also explains why you have a very nave and childlike understanding of these two subjects. This is okay of course, but you are discussing things with adults who know what they are talking about, so you really should listen to them as they have put in the time and have a good knowledge of these subjects. Try and learn about these subjects instead of expecting adults to accept your incorrect understanding of them as being accurate, and then having a tantrum when subject specialists point out your errors.
Do you really think that people who have studied history and science at postgraduate level dismiss your views simply because you believe in God? Could it possibly be that people dismiss your views of these subjects because your views are incorrect?
Do you know what historic certainty is, Brian? Concerning Jesus HC exists. Concerning other ancient histories it is, most of the time, lost.
I think you must believe that the word ”certainty’ means ”certain’. But used in an historical research context it doesn’t mean ”certain’. Historians never claim absolutes when formulating hypotheses, there is just too much that we do not know, and we do not know what will be discovered in the future that may falsify an historical theory.
Historical research is very similar to scientific research in this way since both disciplines must include falsifiable theories for their claims, and as such this allows for the possibility that some information may be brought to light to change the historian/scientist point of view, therefore historians and scientists never claim certainty for their theories.
Plausibility, as defined by your usage (message-wide), is ad hoc.
Well, it really isn’t Ray. It is at the root of all historical/archaeological research, and if you ever take the time to go on that college course then you will discover that for yourself.
All historical hypotheses are based on plausibility. Take the parting of the Sea of Reeds as an example. Now, historians know that using the ”God-did-it’ approach is not part of historical research, so they look for plausible reasons for the sea parting. As you will be aware, historians have offered plausible reasons for the sea parting, the eruption of Thera for example, simply because God is beyond historical investigation. How can a being that cannot be shown to exist be held responsible for anything? The ”god-did-it’ approach may be okay for in a theological or philosophical context, but it has no part in serious historical research because all it does is offer an explanation for ”x’, ”y’, or ”z’ that cannot be falsified.
The concept purposely fails to take a clear and definitive position in service to an agenda of Skepticism.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, but historians do need to be sceptical in a way. They do at least need to try and be as objective as possible when carrying out their research as bias is sometimes quite easy to spot in a paper, plus being too biased can cloud your judgement and imbalance your sources. Historians need to treat all their sources in exactly the same way if their research is to be worthwhile, no source should have any special treatment as this skews the research. This is why I treat the Hebrew Bible in exactly the same way that I treat every other piece of ancient text, it is scrutinised as a text, complete with knowledge that its authors were as biased in their recording of events as any other ancient people. Many authors of ancient texts are known to have exaggerated the events they recorded, Rameses’ battle with the Hittites, Merneptah’s Palestinian campaign, and Chemosh’s victory over Israel are all good examples of historical exaggeration, and this theme is reflected explicitly in many Bible tales such as Joshua’s ”obliteration’ of the inhabitants of Canaan, or Samson’s jawbone rampage.
If you give any source preferential treatment then you are not carrying out a fair and balanced enquiry into the past. If you wish to accept with certainty that Yahweh continually interacted in human history then you need to accept that Chemosh, Baal, Brahma, and the rest of the beings in the celestial zoo also did the same, but then you are now outside the realms of historical research and into the realms of theology, philosophy and fantasy.
But your Atheism, according to your own testimony, is a clear and unshakeable position based on the evidence. The main point here is that the ad hoc position presupposes the facticity of doubt and uncertainty.
Well it isn’t unshakable, I just haven’t read or been presented with any decent evidence in the last 20-odd years to make me reconsider my position. In fact, people such as yourself, Buz, and a host of others, including some people I have tutored and worked with, have reinforced my atheism simply because of how these people present themselves. Every fundy I have met (including discussion boards) really do demonstrate an ignorance of history, archaeology, and even the construction of the Bible itself that used to leave me in utter bewilderment. I used to wonder why a person who claims to love the Bible is happy to be so ignorant about it. Fundies are not really that interested in the Bible, they are too busy spewing hatred at their fellow man to spend time studying their scriptures. But as far as studying history and archaeology goes, I really think that fundies are not intelligent enough to understand these disciplines, to me it is the only reasonable conclusion. They keep repeating mantras that people are bored to tears refuting, and when people who know what they are talking about point out the errors in the fundy’s thinking the fundy goes on a rant simply because they do not have the intellectual capacity to gain even a basic grasp of these disciplines. This ignorance and severely limited intelligence is further supported by the actual arguments presented by fundies. We see it time and again. The fundy goes to a website, or a popular book, and finds an argument written there by another fundy that looks like a very strong argument to them, so they use these arguments to support their position, but invariably the arguments they use are childish and easily dismantled. Look at the fairly recent topic posted by Postelnit on the logical refutation of atheism. Nearly every example Postelnit presented was a logical fallacy, he actually thinks that just because HE thinks that it is impossible for things to happen ”by chance’ or a building needs builders, then he automatically assumes that the universe needs a builder, and to him this builder is God. Postelnit speaks of logic, then doesn’t have the intellect to apply the argument from incredulity to his article. This is what scholars are up against. Many people have probably read Postelnit’s article on the Net and thought that it looks like he has slaughtered the atheists, but his article is embarrassing, how an adult can think that this article is any good is beyond me, but I can guarantee you that there will be adults who think Postelnit makes a good case.
People need to research things for themselves and stop automatically swallowing any old tripe that they think supports their position. You have been at this discussion board stuff for a long time Ray, you really should have developed a better understanding of these topics that you demonstrate here.
So I really need to assume that either you consider yourself an expert in every academic discipline known to man, or you have decided that you are correct and everyone else is incorrect regardless of qualifications, training, or experience, or that you really do not have the intellectual capacity to understand these subjects at a decent academic level, or that, finally, you really aren’t all that interested in learning about these subjects. I’m not that sure which one I would apply to you, but if I were pushed I’d say that you have already made up your mind about everything and nothing anyone suggests to you will even be considered to be correct because you have already decided what the truth is.
But your personal status as an Atheist, which is based on the same database of evidence available to everyone, is not threatened by any doubt or uncertainty.
Atheism is as much a faith as Christianity or ”Zuesism’. The thing is Ray, my status as an atheist has nothing to do with the rules of historical research, I didn’t make these rules up, these rules were set in motion over two and a half thousand years ago by Hecateus, so you really cannot blame me and my atheism can you? Then again, I am sure you could find a way.
Admitting to the possibility of uncertainty is ad hoc. You are not agnostic. This is why plausibility, in this particular subject and context (Biblical veracity), is an ad hoc tactic attempting to deceive Christians into accepting a false presupposition.
There is an explicit problem here Ray, and maybe this will explain why you have a different view of history as an academic discipline as those of use who have qualifications in the subject. You are confusing history with theology and/or philosophy. History is based on evidence from sources, and is compared to what we already know from other sources and other disciplines, and this is where the plausibility factor comes in. Look at the military conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua. Now, from a theological stance it is easy to accept this book as being an accurate record of what happened in the past. However, from an historical stance these events must be scrutinised and placed into a history that we already have a very good background of. We need to fit the Bible claims into the known history of the time and place if its veracity is to have any credibility, and this is where plausibility comes in. Is it plausible that an army wiped out the entire population of Canaan in a 5 year period during the 15th or 13th centuries BCE? Well, given all the evidence that we already have then it is highly implausible that this happened, so from an historical stance we need to conclude that, as written, the conquest of Canaan as given in the Book of Joshua didn’t happen. This is why fundies such as William Albright and Nelson Gleuck HAD to reinterpret the Bible narratives to fit the external evidence. Plausibility Ray, that’s why they HAD to change their opinions about Bible history, and don’t tell me that the racist bigot Albright had his god-sense removed.
The agenda in service to Skepticism is seen and supported. Blue box comment is a claim that presupposes no evidence to exist supporting the claim that Christ lived. If this were true where did anyone obtain the idea that Jesus lived?
I never said that there wasn’t evidence that Jesus lived, the issue is the faith put in that evidence by researchers. The FATC is, fundy researchers uncritically accept the evidence whilst real researchers critically analyse this evidence.
What is your source for the Jesus you speak of?
I am not speaking of any particular Jesus. I am saying that ”Jesus’ was a popular name in first century Palestine, plus, wandering preachers were numerous in first century Palestine, therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that there was a wandering preacher named Jesus. Remember though, that although it is perfectly plausible that there was a preacher called Jesus this doesn’t mean that there definitely was.
Again, the agenda in service to Skepticism is supported.
The correct term you are looking for is ”objective historical research’.
We have, of course, studied the claims of the N.T. Anytime that you are ready to get specific let me know.
Theological claims or historical claims Ray? If you know the difference then pick an example and I will again demonstrate your ignorance and hatred of the Bible.
"May or may not" Which is it? Of course since you are an Atheist you have made up your mind (= ad hoc uncertainty tactic exposed and supported).
“May or may not”, means what it says. It may be based on a real person or it may not, it means we do no know for certain Ray, and these are the two opitions.
All this says is that St. Matthew and St. Mark and St. Luke and St. John and St. Paul (= five separate sources) are liars.
Again Ray you are showing your ignorance and hatred of the Bible and of what history is. Here is a little history lesson for you Ray, please try and take it in.
History is NOT what happened in the past Ray, History is what someone TELLS us happened in the past. History is the written word on the page, formed in the mind of the person recording the information.
Since all history is constructed in the human mind, then it is subject to that person’s bias and opinions. Thus, we have to be aware that what we read about the past MAY not be completely accurate, the account could be entirely false, but it is still history as we have a narrative about past ”events’.
Therefore, your evangelists and wee Saul are in exactly the same boat as any other historical texts. The Gospels and Paul’s letters, are as likely to contain inaccuracies as any other text, these authors are no different from any other author, and their work is as likely to be as biased as any other text.
Of course you fail to recognise that we do not even know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and as far as Paul goes, almost half of the texts allocated to him have now been taken off him!
All the Gospels are anonymous Ray, this is basic Sunday School material, so the evangelists cannot be accused of anything because we do not know if we have anything that they actually wrote.
This is where your hatred of the Bible is really explicit Ray, you really do not care enough about the Bible to actually find out about its construction and history.
We explain your belief by remembering that you are an Atheist. Since we already know that Atheism believes N.T. authors to be liars what is your point?
But this is YOUR opinion of what Atheism believes bout the NT authors, you are the one using the word ”liars’. If you really would like an atheist historian’s view of the N.T authors you really should ask an atheist historian instead of presenting what YOU think other people believe.
Hundreds of millions of persons from diverse backrounds disagree.
But more people disagree! Lol
As we keep pointing out, popularity has nothing to do with accuracy.
What evidence do you have that said sources are liars or deluded?
I never said they were liars or deluded.
Plausibility is rendered subjective. You have made claims thus far and nothing else.
Every historical hypothesis is subjective Ray, even your frequent incoherent rants are subjective but in an academic context, it is the plausibility of your arguments, supported by evidence that is scrutinised by your peers.
You have sided with a wandering Rabbi to exist and nothing else. Again, what is the source for this claim?
You wish me to provide references for wandering preachers (I don’t believe I said Rabbi, but maybe I did) in first century Palestine?
I can provide these sources Ray, but will my effort really make any difference to you?
Skepticism and Agnosticism are not presupposed by History or Science. Your "NEVER proven" claim is ad hoc, and I have explained why.
But your explanation is incorrect Ray, this is what everyone keeps saying to you. You appear to completely misunderstand what science and history are.
Why do you keep ignoring people who actually know these subjects very well, many have doctorates, yet you are correct and these countless experts are all wrong. Educate yourself Ray, buy an introduction to history book and I guarantee that its author will inform the reader that no historical theory is ever proven.
Since the most vocal and vituperative critics of the Bible (= Jesus Seminar "scholars," which includes Atheists) agree that Jesus lived, your opinion, in addition to being ad hoc and deceitful, exists within the lunatic fringe.
Whether the Jesus seminar, Bob Hope, Uncle Tom Cobbly, or the Banana Splits agree that Jesus lived has no bearing at all on whether He did live, why can’t you understand this?
When all of Europe believed that the Earth was flat did this mean the Earth was flat Ray?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-30-2008 8:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 119 of 122 (488788)
11-17-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Cold Foreign Object
10-30-2008 3:35 PM


So, the fact that there is insufficient evidence to say he didn't exist is enough evidence that he 'did' exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-30-2008 3:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 120 of 122 (488790)
11-17-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object
10-31-2008 6:28 PM


Let's see,
Gone with the Wind claims Atlanta Geo exists.
The Sorcerer's stone claims London exists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-31-2008 6:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by bluescat48, posted 11-17-2008 5:37 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024