Open with the same message I did in RD room.

pgwenthold said:
Please provide anything that would show that the Wizard of Oz is "obviously fiction" that would not apply to the bible, outside of "everybody accepts it as fiction."
Click to expand...

Invisible Pink Unicorns.

edit: But seriously, folks... Multiple stories, centuries of research, plausibility (in at least the historical parts, if not the supernatural parts). What is more likely, that the Bible is fiction or that Oz is fiction? The fact that even skeptics admit that Jesus, as a man, may have existed, is enough to bring it a step above pure fiction.

Now then, you can just as easily spin a tale of a composite Jesus or a Jesus-myth creation by power-hungry priests. But we have to start somewhere. We have no proof of either book being fiction or fact, but then again, we have proof of nothing except "I think, therefore I am." If you constantly break everything down in such a manner, we won't get anywhere. The sun will probably rise tomorrow. The Chiefs will probably win more games. The Bible is probably less fictional than the Wizard of Oz. Can we go from there?
 
Diogenes said:
"So, first of all, a resurrection of one man observed by a handful of others in one tiny spot on one tiny planet in one tiny corner of the cosmos is more consistent with a very minor deity (or a very stingy and secretive one), or even more likely a natural event: for there is an easy naturalistic explanation in religious zealotry or scientific ignorance. "
Richard Carrier
Click to expand...

"Why'd you choose such a backward time
In such a strange land.
If you'd come today you would have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication."
--Tim Rice
Click to expand...
 
Re: You need a judge

Beleth said:

I have 8 years' worth of experience judging debates already
Click to expand...

Yet officially judging debates is, according to krkey's link, called "learning a few fallacy names and going to town". If the logical process is itself called to question, what use are you....or any of us?
 
Re: Re: You need a judge

Keneke said:
Yet officially judging debates is, according to krkey's link, called "learning a few fallacy names and going to town". If the logical process is itself called to question, what use are you....or any of us?
Click to expand...
Formal debates rarely if ever decide an issue. All a judge does at a formal debate is decide which side is better at both presenting their own arguments and countering their opponent's arguments.

In other words, I don't expect to be persuaded. I expect to be able to determine who is more persuasive.
 
Keneke said:


edit: But seriously, folks... Multiple stories, centuries of research, plausibility (in at least the historical parts, if not the supernatural parts). What is more likely, that the Bible is fiction or that Oz is fiction? The fact that even skeptics admit that Jesus, as a man, may have existed, is enough to bring it a step above pure fiction.
B]
Click to expand...


Dorothy, as a little girl who had an Aunt "M" (Maude Gauge), did exist. It's not even an issue of "may have existed." She did exist.

The Wizard of Oz series also talks about places we know exist, such as Kansas, California, and Australia. In fact, lots of works of fiction talk about real people, real places, and real event. They can do this and still be fictional stories. Plausibility? Bah, you've just elevated the genre of "true fiction" to historical accurate status.
 
I haven't heard anything from yahweh and the flavor of the room seems to be for triadboy debating me. Well folks I will email traidboy and the debate can begin as soon as he and I figure out a format.
 
Keneke said:
plausibility (in at least the historical parts, if not the supernatural parts).
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that it's plausible except for the parts where it's not?

Jeremy
 
I noticed triadboy you did nothing to kick over my arguments that luke-acts was written approx 62AD except to say that most scholars date mark to approx 70 AD( which is not even true, many date in prior). Here is another argument for earlier dating of Luke. In the prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem it is vague, it only refers to it being done by the enemies of the Jews
Luke 19:43 - Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. Surely if that was a prophecy written after the fact then it would have included much more details.( the author could have got it from Josephus, heck it would probably be common knowledge) The fact it only says "enemies" is proof again of a necessity for an older dating of luke-acts

Your argument also hinges on the assumption Jesus was not the son of God, obviously he could make a prophecy if he was. Also two secular objections can also be added to this argument.

a.) The OT frequently describes the fall of Jerusalem, so Jesus could have got the idea from there.

b.) Jesus simply could have been intelligent enough to see the conditio.n in Judea and realize it would lead to war, which the Jews would lose.

The mentioning of the fall of Jerusalem is no good reason for a dating later then 70AD for the synoptics and John. Another good argument for a early dating of Luke-Acts is that it shows no knowledge of Pauls letters. The best explanation for this is that they were yet in circulation, thus again requiring an early date for Luke-Acts.

The current explanations employed by nonbelieving NT scholars is that of legend( Burton L. Mack) or mass Hallucinations (Gerd Ludemann). Midrashic history is the simple process of retelling OT stories in later literature, some have tried to claim the NT is this, but this ideas is being abandoned.

When Christ Mythers that have been mentioned in this room can meet the following requirements I will consider then bible scholars. Not until then. A German scholar ( Wells) or a man with an associates degree only in history ( Doherty) is certainly not worthy to be a NT scholar and should be regarded with the same opinions as Kent Hovind.

I went through and I checked the last scholars to defend swoon and tomb robbery explanations.

The last NT scholar to attempt to defend the tomb robbery was H.S Reimarus who died in 1769. The last NT scholar to attempt to defend the swoon theory was H.E.G. Paulus in Das leben Jesu in 1828. The idea of jesus as copy of pagan myths died in the 1890s along with the school of comparative religions. So I would recommend putting your copies from Rhett Butler's library up for sale( perhaps on ebay) and use the money to buy some up to date scholarship, not your gaggle of irrelevant Christ Mythers. A good book to start with might be F.F. Bruces New Testament History.

Well Phil, one irrelevant historian( if you disagree explain how he is qualified to have a relevant opinion on the NT) deserves a rebutal by another non scholar( by his admission) .

I will give you a hint, the Christian community does not take Well Doherty, or Carrier seriously.
 
Triadboy told me that he feels yahweh should be the man to debate me. So I will give yahweh a day or two to write me back, I wrote him a brief outline for a debate. If I do not get a response, I will be more then willing to debate someone else.
 
Keneke

I will certainly take that debate about did Paul teach a spiritual resurrection with if once yahweh and I are done
 
Keneke said:
Invisible Pink Unicorns.

edit: But seriously, folks... Multiple stories, centuries of research, plausibility (in at least the historical parts, if not the supernatural parts). What is more likely, that the Bible is fiction or that Oz is fiction?The fact that even skeptics admit that Jesus, as a man, may have existed, is enough to bring it a step above pure fiction.
Click to expand...

I just thought I would point out that, there really was a Dorthy which the Dorthy in "the wizard of oz" was based off of. As a matter of fact she's buried not to far from here, so I could actually, like, dig up her bones; which is more than we can say for our buddy Christ. The fact that Jesus may have actually existed still does not lend the stories anymore credibility than what we find in "The Wizard of Oz".
 
While we wait... More from Richard Carrier

( Regarding the resurrection )

1. The Event is not Proportionate to the Theory
The miracle of the resurrection is inadequate to the task of convincing all mankind, and so a failure as far as divine plans go. The colloquialism of a tiny event happening only in Palestine makes no sense if a god wanted all mankind, including the Chinese, to witness the event and be saved. It makes more sense if it was a local idiosyncracy and not a divine event at all. That is to say, The Resurrection, as told, is more consistent with a mere natural occurrence which inspired a few local yokels, than with an act of a cosmic god aimed at saving all mankind. It is too small, too puny, too long ago. A god ought to know better. But men, we know, are prone to think of their little tiny place as the whole of creation, and of their little tiny slice of history as the whole of time. Men, we know, are more than capable of making this story up, or of believing it without really checking the details. The story is all too sensible as a yarn, whether sincere or devious. But as the centerpiece of a divine, cosmic plan, it makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
 
Why does there have to be a debate? I think the traditional "post-and-respond-to-posts" works fine. krkey, this isn't some sort of competition; it is ridiculous for you to expect the forum to change because you are uncomfortable. Just take your time responding; many of the comments made will be similar to each other and you will be able to address several at once. Other comments you can pretend got lost in the sea of posts so you don't have to respond to them. ;)
 
A few reasons why the copycat thesis is toast within New Testament scholarship.

a.) The differences between the pagan deity in question and Jesus are vast and the similarities are few.

b.) Among the alleged similarities are only a superficial similarity, for example Horus'( or Osiris) resurrection was done by I believe his mother, sewning him back together. The resurrection of Dionysus was symbolic, it was meant to represent seasonal changes.

c.) Jewish culture was extremely hostile to Paganism. For example one can witness the reaction to Pontius Pilate placing pagan symbols on Jewish coins with circulation, and the fact Roman legions did not display their pagan banners in Judea. Also to be considered is the fact Romans would even execute their own troops for entering into Jewish Temple area, which shows again extreme Jewish hostility toward Paganism and the cause of 2nd Judean revolt was attempting to build a pagan temple to Zeus in Jerusalem.

d.) Biblical command did not allow for association with Paganism and pagans.

d.) Jewish Culture already had two negative enocunters with Paganism. The Seleucids and the Romans. This would have made them hostile toward these Pagan ideas

e.) Jewish culture already had a dim view of Egyptian Gods, because of the historicial belief of enslavement of Jews by Egyptians.

f.) how would the apostles have come to this Paganism in the first place, do you seriously believe that they had a copy of the Egyptian book of the dead on them?

These are a few reasons why the copy cat thesis has been dropped with NT scholarship circles.
 
Forgot to mention, no archaeological evidence has been found within Judea for any form of Paganism being practiced by people of Jewish origin within the first century.
 
Here's a paraphrased quote from my New Testament History professor (back when)
"Several times in my life I have questioned the existence of God, but I have never doubted my own immortality".
 
what do you care feeble? If you don't want to debate then don't. I have found people who do want to. Case closed.
 
krkey said:
Forgot to mention, no archaeological evidence has been found within Judea for any form of Paganism being practiced by people of Jewish origin within the first century.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, there are enough pieces of "the true cross of Jesus" to build a house out of. There's also the James ossuary...

Oh, never mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom