Open with the same message I did in RD room.

I must add a few things here. Kudos to Diogenes for calming down. Calling someone an idiot may not be the worst thing on these forums, but that's no excuse to stoop to the level of those namecallers.

1. Unrepenant Sinner's question on the Garden of Eden is irrelevant to the mere existence of Jesus and his resurrection. We can argue over why Jesus was needed in a another thread. Even the question about culturally specific NDEs does not affect the debate over the possible transcendental nature of NDEs, except as a hint towards an explanation of why it would not be. The alternative explanation is there in case the supernatural cannot be proven, which it has not.

2. "It is obvious that one person had to do the orginal evil deed, whatever it may have been." To believe this, first you must assume the creationist theory, something not agreed upon at all.

3. You say that NT scholars agree with you. Surely scholars can be wrong. Everyone once thought that the world was flat. Theories get overturned every decade. And nothing, nothing that is assumed by these scholars is evidence that any of it is supernatural in nature. You ignore the appeal to authority claim made against you multiple times.

4. You say that the NT is historical. Historical is not factual. The adage "Winners write the history books" is proof of the fluidity of history when filtered through the view of a man. Being historical proves nothing.


In short, you have broken rules of debate and logic, and have not proven yourself to anyone with a decent grasp of logic. I am sorry, and I do not want to name call or embarass you, but if you cannot deliver what you say you are going to deliver, perhaps you should re-think your views and your logic skills. None of your points can be proven, and almost all of us (I assume) are shaking our heads in disbelief at your incorrect assumptions. I am sorry.

Now then, if you want to believe such things, go right ahead.
 
Diogenes said:
Why don't you address the questions I raised about the historical accuracy of the Bible?

What about a biography, written 200 years after someone dies, and missing the first 30 years of his life.. ( We'll ignore the part about being the son of God for now ... )

You are the one who gave us a list of imperitives that a lot of people have responded to, and you haven't bothered to counter. . .

. . .I know it can be rough, people asking you for sources and evidence and stuff; not taking you at your word about all your scholarly efforts. . .

. . . P.S. Looks like Yahzi took care of the resurrection..

Why should anyone believe 2,000 years later what the God inspired authors of the bible could'nt agree on.. When? Where? How many witnesses?. . .
Click to expand...

Do I hear crickets?


Hello?


krkey?

Hey man, I gave you fair warning in the second reply in this thread, but you dove in with your clothes on anyway. I thought that was an indication that you either had plenty of ammunition, or a sizeable pair. Your ammunition seems to have been quickly used up, what about the other?

Hello?

krkey?
 
hgc said:
And you've stumbled into a particularly interesting topic (existence of Jesus), notwithstanding that you think it's not even worthy of debate.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the mere existence of Jesus proves nothing of his divinity. I tend to think he did exist, and I am sure that birth records found from some old scroll in the Dead Sea could prove that a man named Joshua bar Josef existed at that time. But that's as far as any bible scholar could go. All you can find is written word on papyrus...and even then it could be falsified, anecdotal, even total fiction. However, proof he did not exist would stop everything else right in its tracks, but chances of that happening are even slimmer. He probably existed, but the point is moot.
 
Also, cut the newbie some slack. I don't think he realized that there would be such little acceptance of his fallacies.
 
Keneke said:

Dude, it's only been since 2pm. Maybe he just had something to do. (Unlike me...)
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't mean to harsh your buzz. But if you look closer at the thread, you'll see that questions were posed to him last night that he has not addressed with anything but further appeals to authority.
 
Keneke said:


The problem is that the mere existence of Jesus proves nothing of his divinity. I tend to think he did exist, and I am sure that birth records found from some old scroll in the Dead Sea could prove that a man named Joshua bar Josef existed at that time. But that's as far as any bible scholar could go. All you can find is written word on papyrus...and even then it could be falsified, anecdotal, even total fiction. However, proof he did not exist would stop everything else right in its tracks, but chances of that happening are even slimmer. He probably existed, but the point is moot.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think it's more probable than not too. And also that it'll likely never be proven either way. So it's not usually worth talking about beyond that, except when someone comes along and claims that it's fact beyond debate. Then you've got a fight on your hands, and well you should.
 
krkey said:
I accept the NT as historicial for the same reason as I accept historians such as Josephus as historicial, it passes the test. It claims to be historicial It deals with historicial, people, places and events. It was qouted as historicial by Christians, by heretical groups and by pagans. This is enough to demonstrate any document in question is historicial.
Click to expand...

You know, the Oz series of books pretty much passes the same test. It claims to be historical (shoot, L. Frank Baum is known as the "Royal Historian of Oz"), it deals with historical people, places, and events (there was a Kansas, and, in fact, there was a little girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas who had an Aunt "Em" (M - as in Maude Gauge Baum, L Frank Baum's wife), and we know that tornado's hit Kansas in the late 1890s). Now, the Wizard of Oz talks about a lot of things that are not confirmed (not disproven, mind you, but not confirmed), but then, so does the bible.

The only thing that separates the Bible from The Wizard of Oz as a historical document is that Christians, heretical groups, and pagans apparantly quote the bible as historical (ignoring those who don't). Do you really think that "A lot of people that I agree with think it is historical" is really an argument? Because, in the end, that is all you have.

(FWIW, you can make the same case about almost any story from literature - Moby Dick, Robinson Crusoe, etc, or, for that matter, any story at all. The bible is historical only to the extent to which it is an actual reflection of historical events. However, the bible contains demonstratably not true events (e.g. see the timing on the birth of jesus). Thus, given it is demonstrated unreliable, anything it says cannot be trusted until it is demonstrated reliable (there are some of those, too). )
 
feeble: Yeah, I know, that's why I said "You need to re-think your views and logical skills" instead of insulting him.

And did you read the essay he referenced that sum up his views? In spite of some interesting points (like the dismissal of Bible contradictions as proof of discrediting the entire thing) I have never read a more grumpy, scathing insult-ridden essay since Tricky tore into Franko! The guy rails against contempt-filled atheists, which shows the large amount of hypocrisy in his bitter heart. I guess because he only deals with bitter outspoken atheists, that all of us are that way. :(
 
pgwenthold said:
(FWIW, you can make the same case about almost any story from literature - Moby Dick, Robinson Crusoe, etc, or, for that matter, any story at all.
Click to expand...

Somehow, that doesn't intuit quite right...let me think.

Ah yes, the bible has at once been presented as history. A fictional story is almost self-evident as such, unless it is totally presented as history. Yeah, I know that any fictional book COULd be presented as story, but let's look on this a little differently. Instead of comparing Oz to God, let's compare the Bible to...I dunno, is there one central book for Scientology? Perhaps the story of alien ghosts possessing human bodies can be compared to Jesus.

From there an interesting debate might ensue, but comparing the Bible to a book that is obviously fiction is apples and oranges. But yes, I can see how Oz could be taken for truth by the gullible. Put thousands of years of belief and patriarchy behind it, and yes, we could definitely rule the world.
 
Yes...

Keneke said:


The problem is that the mere existence of Jesus proves nothing of his divinity.
Click to expand...

My point exactly, and I did give krkey an out by asking him if he actually believed this stuff, as he stated that he was prepared to "defend" the resurrection of Jesus (a kind of weasel approach IMO).

I'm not at all sure that he is a full-blown credophile, (that essay can be read as his critique of us “no-nothings” - rather than evidence for his belief system). I think perhaps that he is after an intellectual yanking of the skeptic chain - his version of it anyway.

Oh well, the way things are going I guess we will never get to find out if he is a fundie or not.

Barkhorn.
 
I consider myself a worthy opponent, even without the historical degrees. Even for a youngin like myself, I could still speak volumes of absolutely mindblowing intellecutal discovery (as many of the others here). I also have a sense of humor (good for me!).

Seriously, Mr. Krkey, dont expect a one on one debate, it aint going to happen (welcome to the public message board).

I recommend you contribute to the boards in a positive way before you (as someone previously suggested) throw yourself to the wolves.

I hope we havent scare you off too quickly.

Just to state my position:
I think it is likely Jesus Christ (or Yeshua) was an actual historical figure. I think of him as a spiritual leader (like Ghandi or Buddha) who had a lot of good ideas regarding humantarian belief. I dont believe he was anything more than Ghandi was, he was not the son of God, he did not rise from the dead, I dont believe any of the parnormal claims of the bible and I question the historical accuracy of it.

On the subject of Near Death Experiences, its nothing remarkable. Its just wishful thinking to believe you are actually experiencing something "devine" (or paranormal). I am familiar with many of the Near Death Experience claims, I would be happy to discuss them. (As I mentioned above, I see myself as quite the challenging opponent.)
 
As I said earlier I will only debate a person one to one. If anyone in this room is man enough to step up to the plate, we can go at it, one on one. The fact no one has choosen to take this option causes me to suspect that skeptics would much rather gang up on a single person( knowing he does not have enough time to properly answer all objections) then simply debate a person one on one. If no one is going to do this, I will simply leave. No point in wasting my time
 
krkey said:
As I said earlier I will only debate a person one to one. If anyone in this room is man enough to step up to the plate, we can go at it, one on one. The fact no one has choosen to take this option causes me to suspect that skeptics would much rather gang up on a single person( knowing he does not have enough time to properly answer all objections) then simply debate a person one on one. If no one is going to do this, I will simply leave. No point in wasting my time
Click to expand...

Fine, I'll be happy to challenge you, one on one.
 
krkey said:
As I said earlier I will only debate a person one to one. If anyone in this room is man enough to step up to the plate, we can go at it, one on one. The fact no one has choosen to take this option causes me to suspect that skeptics would much rather gang up on a single person( knowing he does not have enough time to properly answer all objections) then simply debate a person one on one. If no one is going to do this, I will simply leave. No point in wasting my time
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the bits in both the old and new testaments about humility, Mr. "man enough".
 
krkey said:
As I said earlier I will only debate a person one to one. If anyone in this room is man enough to step up to the plate, we can go at it, one on one. The fact no one has choosen to take this option causes me to suspect that skeptics would much rather gang up on a single person( knowing he does not have enough time to properly answer all objections) then simply debate a person one on one.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of willingness, it's a matter of impossibility. I bet Yahweh or Yahzi would be more than happy to go at it mano a mano, as would I, but the fact of the matter is that there are tons of people on this forum who will jump into any debate, even if it has been declared "one-on-one" from the get-go.

I will simply leave. No point in wasting my time
Click to expand...

If you are unable to function within the practical constraints of this forum, then that's probably a good idea.

Jeremy
 
I am puzzled at how anyone could arrive at such a late date for the composition on the New Testament. There is no compelling reason( with the exception of perhaps John) to date any book later then 70 ad, this time period being obviously a lot less then the 200 years as suggested in this forum.
The first New Testament documents were written by Paul, from the range of 45AD until his execution in 60AD. The hypothetical document quelle is accepted as having been written in the mid ad 50 range. Mark is next in order, but to properly date this one needs to first arrive at a date for luke-acts, though seperate pieces, they were written by the same author. Acts should be dated no later then 62AD because it does not contain any of the following information.
a.) Fire of Rome
b.) Death of Paul
c.) Death of Peter
d.) Death of Judas
e.) First Persecutions of Nero
f.) Fall of Jerusalem

All of these events would have had a major impact on the church, and the best explanation for the author of acts not having mentioned it is the fact they had not yet occured.

The book of luke is dependant on the book of mark. So if luke was written in 60AD ( I am not asserting Luke-Acts, though by the same author, was composed at the same time) then logically Mark has to be written earlier, a date of approx 58 AD would better fit the data. Also, mark is very simple, which is another sign of it antiquity, in general the later, the more complex. As proof of this brevity is the lack of mentioning the name of the high priest who killed Jesus (Caiphas), seeing he was such a famous figure( longest reigning high priest) it is certain Mark would have known his name. The reason he did not include it is similiar to the reason if I was to mention the president did this today, everyone in this room would know I am refering to Bush Jr.

As there is no need to date mark later then 58AD, then one should not see fit to date matthew much later then 75AD( Matthew is dependant on Mark)

John has no textual relationship to the synoptics. While it can be dated later( church tradition does state that John was not marytred for his faith, he died of old age) It does betray an knowledge of prefall of Jerusalem conditions( lightfoot study here http://www.theism.net/authors/pnarkinsky/lightfoot.html)

Also these needs to be considered, if these books were simply intended as apologetic fictions, then why the use of Matthew, Mark and Luke as authors. Matthew was a minor apostle who also was a tax collector, his job would have left him as persona non grata among ancient readers. Mark was a NT bad boy, he abandoned Paul ( Acts 15) and lastly Luke was a minor figure in the New Testament. Also, if the NT is simply intended as apologetic fiction why the use of women witnesses at the empty tomb. This is the equivalent to the use of black witnesses in 1930 southern USA. Lastly if these books were written as apologetic fictions, why didn't they put words into the mouth of Jesus dealing with such divisive issue as relationship of former Jews and Gentiles to the Law, baptism of the dead etc.

The death nail in this argument is the existance of the didachehttp://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:839OSwt9VR4J:www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/didache.pdf+didache+and+date&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 which contains part of each NT book. The didache is dated no later then 100ad

Why didn't the church write the rest of the life of Jesus, why did it start with John the Baptist. Before the start of his ministry Jesus simply was not important and these details were irrelevant. Also it simply needs to be considered paper was rare and expensive, why waste it on such needless thrills
 
krkey said:

a.) Jesus existed

b.) Jesus was crucified and died in the process

c.) there is no body

d.) the apostles had post mortum experiences

...and after that Jesus appeared to natives in South America - which as it turns out were one of the lost tribes of Israel! Hundreds of years later the angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and told him where to find Golden Plates written by these South Americans - which he found! - and translated in the presence of witnesses!!! These translations are The Book of Mormon - signed by witnesses!

C'mon krkey, can't you spot myth? If not, you really should be a Mormon.

I understand "a, b, c, and d" are leading to the resurrection conclusion. However, "a, b, c, d" are impossible to prove. And "NT scholars" can't really help because there is such a limited amount of material to be scholarly about. Everybody can rehash the same ideas and material over and over, but it doesn't change the fact that there is pitifully little written about Jesus. And what IS written contradicts other accounts.

Something is fishy with this story. And yes I will bring up Paul being from Tarsus - the hotbed of Mithraism. The dying-god story that goes back centuries before Jesus. Paul speaks of the spiritual Jesus - not the physical.

I believe - even if there was an insignificant sage named Jesus - his life became so mythified as to render him totally undetectable.

If you are familiar with mythology - then the Gospels should become clear on a different level - not history.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom