Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Akhenaten]

Another derogatory post that does not respond to a post of mine or give examples.

It responds directly to your imputation that Agatha hasn't read the same book that you yourself are falsely claiming to have read.

No examples are necessary because your posts are out there speaking for themselves for all to see and everyone is more than aware of your hypocritical behaviour in this matter.

 

[DOC]

Here is an interesting quote of Bart Ehrman on page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?":

"And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death."
_____

 

[Giordano]

I have read much of the book, although not all of it. I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus.

You are proclaiming your honesty by quoting my own post incompletely and out of context?!? Unbelievable! I clearly indicated in the very post you quote that you had eventually read some of the book, but (and I got the information from your own posts) not the portions that contradict the divinity of Jesus.

Two simple questions:
(1) Was my own post completely and fully factual?
(2) Did you quote only part of my post, thus giving you an opportunity to deny something I never accused you of?
(2) Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

 

[Akhenaten]

Another post avoiding an apology for falsely implying Agatha had not read the book that you, yourself, had not read.

This is false, I merely asked for the page numbers of the information she was giving.

And how were you going to check that the quotes and the page numbers were correct, DOC?

Look them up in your own copy?

But you can't do that, can you, DOC?

Why can't you look up page numbers and quotes in your own copy of the book, DOC?

I gave page numbers 2 or 3 times. There was always the chance she could have not portrayed exactly what Ehrman said since she seemed to be saying it on memory.

Unlike you, DOC, Agatha has credibility.

It seems to me that all you're doing here is trying to project your own dishonest behaviour onto someone else.

Fortunately for all concerned but yourself it's as abject a failure as everything else you've posted here.

And I have read more of the book "Did Jesus Exist" than probably 95% of the people on this site.

Apart from this being irrelevant to the question of Agatha having read the book, how did you establish this figure?

If it wasn't for me, I have a feeling very few in here would even know of the book.

If it weren't for you, very few people would refer to the employment of weasel words to evade honest answers to questions as 'Wilburing' and even fewer people would know that the name of the red herring that dishonest participants throw into discussions is 'Nimrod'.

Some achievement, DOC.

And as stated many times my threads are not about me.

As stated by whom?

The same person who refers to them as 'my threads'?

Do you ever think anything through before you start hitting keys?

 

[DOC]

...Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine, and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here.

You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman.

 

[Akhenaten]

This^^^^^
Agatha clearly read the book. DOC clearly had not read the book...

I have read much of the book, although not all of it.

Had you not been busted so badly you would have happily continued pretending that you had read the entire book. As usual you completely underestimated the opposition here and rather than admit the truth you've resorted to desperately flailing about trying to smear others in the hope that your relative credibility will be increased.

This tactic in itself is an epic failure, DOC. Your 'arguments' here and in other threads are among the longest-running and most widely shared jokes in this Forum and nothing short of the vast majority of the membership suddenly developing amnesia will ever grant you the tiniest skerrick of credibility.

I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus.

You also perpetrated this lie, which I assure you, isn't going to just fade away.

What book?

"Did Jesus Exist" by Skeptic Bart Ehrman.

Yeah, but which edition?


This one:

"Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Or this one:

Here is a quote from the inside jacket of the book.

<snip>

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Are you going to at least try to address this attempted subterfuge?

 

[Akhenaten]

Here is an interesting quote of Bart Ehrman on page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?":

It's not interesting at all. The only reason you're posting it is that it's one of the snippets available in the many reviews of the book available online and you hope that you can use it to continue the ridiculous charade that you've read the damned thing.

You'll be in China any day now. Just in time to watch the departure of the 200,000,000 troops heading off to the Philipines.

"And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death."
_____

If this was the 'Evidence for why we know there are Christians' thread you might have a point.

As it is, you don't.

Quelle surprise.

 

[Akhenaten]

You are proclaiming your honesty by quoting my own post incompletely and out of context?!? Unbelievable! I clearly indicated in the very post you quote that you had eventually read some of the book, but (and I got the information from your own posts) not the portions that contradict the divinity of Jesus.

Two simple questions:
(1) Was my own post completely and fully factual?
(2) Did you quote only part of my post, thus giving you an opportunity to deny something I never accused you of?
(2) Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

DOC is not just unwilling to answer this post - he is utterly incapable of it.

 

[Akhenaten]

...Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here.

Why then are you so driven to keep touting a book that is providing evidence that the New Testament writers were lying through their teeth?

As for your disagreement with that evidence - so what? You've been doing the same thing for years and all you've managed to do is deconvert a couple of people and make a laughing stock of your beliefs.

Why in the name of Horus do you persist?

You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman.

Missed this, did you?

Who in here disagrees with Bart Ehrman and most other biblical scholars and believes the Jesus of Nazareth never existed? And why do you feel that way?

Why are you asking this question after having already ignored these posts and many more just like them?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that there probably was a Jewish preacher in the 1st century called Yeshua, who quite possibly had a father called Yusef.

So what?

I am prepared to believe that Jesus existed, but stories about his life have been greatly exaggerated.

That's the key part. There are plenty of skeptics who think some preacher dude might have existed who then got whacked for, oh, I don't know. Stirring up the people against the Romans and/or Jewish Establishment?

DOC, many skeptics here agree with Ehrman that there is much evidence that an early 1st century apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jeshu ben Joseph existed and that he became the basis for the mythical Jesus Christ. This is very similar to the situation in which a real person known as Nicholas of Myra, who lived during the 3rd and 4th centuries, became the basis of the mythical Santa Claus.

I think you should re-read that. The Jesus of the bible -- the one making miracles and being generally non-human -- didn't exist. There may or may not have been an actual person who was the basis of the story. If there was, it isn't a problem for atheists, since you're still missing some important steps to validate Christianity's claims.

No.

Lot's of us will spot you a Jesus, of Nazareth even. We just won't spot you the miraculous crap, the whole son of god deal.

Personally, I couldn't give two ***** less if there existed some crazy preacher named Jesus. The real question is whether miracle Jesus existed. He didn't. Bart Ehrman agrees.

By the way, even Christopher Hitchens was willing to accept that there may have been a popular preacher living in the time of Jesus who may have fit the bill for such an individual.

But that doesn't prove:

A) he was God's son
B) that God exists
C) that Christianity is the one true faith
D) that miracles occur
E) that his death absolved the world of any sin
F) that the Bible is true or divine in any way
G) etc etc etc

But the Jesus he says existed is not the same as the Jesus you say existed. From Jerry Coyne's comments about the book:

It's one thing to say Jesus existed. It's quite another to say he walked on water.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus.

Yes, you have. Several times. And yet strangely you've never expounded upon what those reasons might be.

Why is that, DOC?

Is it because the review you were cribbing from didn't get as far as explaining them?

 

[Akhenaten]

So, returning to the topic of the thread . . .

Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?​

 

[Mojo]

I have read much of the book, although not all of it.

DOC, you have already boasted, in this very thread, that not only have you not read most of the book but that you have no intention of reading it:

I already know the historical evidence for Christ is there so I don't need to read most of the book which deals with that. And I don't agree with his conclusion. I have no desire to read much more but I would like to see the page #'s of what Agatha was talking about.

 

[Craig B]

I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine, and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here.

You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman.

To state that someone existed, and to state that the person in question is a god, are statements of such a different order, that establishing the first doesn't even start to establish the second.

Consider the more ancient godmen Mithras and Osiris. If I was able to show that either of these existed as men, would that be evidence that they were also gods? It would be no evidence at all, to a person who didn't believe that anyone is a god. The situation is not symmetrical. To prove Joe Bloggs, for example, doesn't exist at all, proves indeed that he is not god. But evidence that he does exist, is not evidence that he is god. Most atheists, including Dawkins and Hitchens, believe Jesus to have existed as a man.

 

[Mojo]

So, returning to the topic of the thread . . .

Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?​

And is the evidence for the historical Abraham Lincoln evidence for the existence of vampires?

 

[Agatha]

Another derogatory post that does not respond to a post of mine or give examples.

You expect me to link to the lack of an apology, or give examples where you fail to apologise? You've made 6912 posts; I am not going to link to every single one to show that you failed to apologise, your posts (as you often repeat) stand for themselves and the lack of an apology is plain for all to see.

You haven't read Ehrman's book in its entirety, by your own admission, you haven't even read your own holy book in its entirety, again by your own admission. Just because you can't be bothered to read the books you tout as support for your weird version of your religion, you should not expect that others are as ignorant of the facts. Ehrman's book doesn't support your views so why you introduced it is a mystery.

You suggested that I was lying when I explained that I both owned Ehrman's book and had read it; I pulled you up on that implication and you have so far failed to apologise. If you consider that me pointing out your rudeness is "derogatory", the solution is in your hands - do not accuse other people of lying.

 

[joobz]

This is false, I merely asked for the page numbers of the information she was giving. I gave page numbers 2 or 3 times. There was always the chance she could have not portrayed exactly what Ehrman said since she seemed to be saying it on memory.

and yet she was portraying the book accurately. In other words, your challenge of her scholarship was found to be misplaced. And yet, you have failed to apologize for this.

And I have read more of the book "Did Jesus Exist" than probably 95% of the people on this site.

evidence?

If it wasn't for me, I have a feeling very few in here would even know of the book.

evidence?

I expect an apology if you are unable to Support these claims.

And as I've stated many times my threads are not about me.

Nope. They are about information.
It is important to demonstrate when a person isn't a reliable source of information.

 

[DOC]

...Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?

Muslim martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal. They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel.

On the other hand the Christian martyrs of the 1st century (which wiki reports on here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. This does not make sense, especially given that the writings of that time portrayed them as uncertain and cowardly before the death of Jesus. When their leader Jesus was crucified they could have simply walked away and gone back to fishing. These facts while not proving a resurrection, give some support to accounts of a resurrection and thus is some evidence.

On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.

As someone once said about the "beginning" of the two religions, Christianity spread when the sword was used on them, and Islam (the so-called religion of peace) spread by use of their swords on others. So the beginning growth of the two religions happened in almost opposite ways.

 

[Akhenaten]

...Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?

Muslim Martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal.

1. Why do we need to restrict the question to modern martyrs?
   
   
2. How does having a political/nationalistic goal negate the effect of one's martyrdom on proving the truth of one's religion?
   
   
3. On what basis are you assuming that Christian martyrs are without political/nationalistic goals?

They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel.

How does this negate the effect of their martyrdom on proving the truth of their religion?

On the other hand the Christian Martyrs of the 1st century (which wiki reports on here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

I'd like to see a direct quote of those words before I respond more fully.

You seem to have used a wiki link and then inserted your own words under it, as though those were the words used in the reference.

I'm sure you'll understand my rigour in checking sources, since you are such a stickler for these things yourself.

This does not make sense, especially given that the writings of that time portrayed them as uncertain and cowardly before the death of Jesus.

Which writings would these be, DOC?

Not the Bible, I would hope, since that's the very document that you're in the middle of failing to demonstrate as a true and accurate account of real world events.

When Jesus was crucified they could have simply walked away and gone back to fishing.

Who are you talking about?

These facts while not proving a resurrection, give some support to accounts of a resurrection and thus is some evidence.

What facts?

On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.

Whatever else their motivations, DOC, no martyrs of any stripe have ever gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.

They are, by definition, dead.

As someone once said about the "beginning" of the two religions, Christianity spread when the sword was used on them, and Islam spread by use of the their swords on others.

Yeah, you said it. That, more than anything else, is how we know it's complete balderdash.

So the beginning growth of the two religions was very different.

Your argumentum ad so is, as always, a waste of pixels, and in no way does it address the question you were asked. As a matter of fact, it looks as though you'd already forgotten the question about halfway through your response.

 

[joobz]

Muslim Martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal.

unlike christian marytrs who were politically opposed to Roman Rule?

They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel.

Unlike the children's crusade? (which wasn't actually children)

On the other hand the Christian Martyrs of the 1st century ... were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

Nothing to gain except sociopolitical goals.

This does not make sense, ...

except that it does and is extremely similar to muslim martrs.

On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.

unlike Constantine?

 

[Mojo]

DOC, is the widely accepted existence of a historical Abraham Lincoln evidence for why we know Bram Stoker told the truth?