Open with the same message I did in RD room.

Oh, brother...

krkey said:

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.
Click to expand...

Appeal to Authority again, this seems to be your favorite Kranky.

For the record Kent Hovind is "Kent Hovind" because his beliefs/statements are contradicted by documented scientific evidence - NOT because he got his degree from a diploma mill.

You are mightily impressed by all of those NT scholars that you spout off about. But you must know that reliance on their reputations - as opposed to their ideas - is an elementary fallacy of logic.

So how do you rebut Richard Carrier’s IDEAS?

Barkhorn.
 
krkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because, I suspect your debate will include clever little things like "Case closed" when, in reality, it is not.

The forums are an open dialog for all. How will your debate benefit you? Suppose during the debate someone not in the debate brings up a valid point? Sure, it can be ignored, but "your opponent" can simply quote it and you are left answering all the posts as you are now.
 
One reason to assume a post 70 authorship of Luke/Acts..

From: Early Christian Wrtings: The Gospel of Luke
Another detail is worth noting. In Acts 25:13, Luke writes, "When a few days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived in Caesarea on a visit to Festus." Luke assumes a knowledge of who this Bernice was in his Greco-Roman readers. This would be most easily assumed after she had been made famous by her affair with the emperor Titus in c. 69 CE. Juvenal mentions her in his Satires in the book on "The Ways of Women," while Suetonius comments on "his notorious passion for queen Berenice, to whom it was even said that he promised marriage" (Titus 7.1). This lends further probability to a post-70 date of Acts.
Click to expand...
 
I do not use Christ Mythers, nor respect them, for the simple fact they do not have the proper training to engage in New Testament Scholarship. The reason I compare these people to Kent Hovind is simple, Kent Hovind argues for scientific ideas with no support behind them, christ mythers make historicial arguments with no support behind them. They are little better then holocaust deniers.

My reliance on people well trained in their subject is not from a lack of logic, but from an understanding when I use expert sources I am more likely to get a correct opinion. I do not waste my time with trash resources for the simple fact my time is valuable. I am simply beginning to believe the infidels in this room refuse to use relevant scholarship because they know it will destroy their pet notions.

As an aside, we do this everyday within our lives. For legal advice we go to lawyers. For gun repairs we go to gunsmiths. For bug problems we go to the exterminator. I could go on but I think you get my point. I do not use your gaggle of Christ mythers because they have no relevant training in their field ( unless someone wants to explain how a German scholar and a man with a associates degree does qualify)

My earlier post had a link rebutting Carrier.

If a debate cannot be done properly in here then we can simply jump to the theology forum, it can certainly be done their.
 
A bit off topic, but not too much...

I tried googling for Christ myths and mystery religions, but most (all?) listed were apologetics. Anyone have reliable links regarding these?
 
krkey said:
I do not use Christ Mythers, nor respect them, for the simple fact they do not have the proper training to engage in New Testament Scholarship
Click to expand...
So you only want to discuss things with people who have the same assumptions and judgment on who is an authority as you do? Boy did you pick the wrong forum.
 
to easy to rebut that one Diogeses. Lets look a little at the verse.

Luke 25:13 - After several days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to welcome Festus.

The fact it say nothing else about this later famous women is further proof of an older date, not the other way around.

Well folks let see the material diogenes forgot to deal with in his argument for a late date.

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
g.) it shows no knowledge of Paul's writings. This is best explained by the fact they were not yet in circulation, thus requiring an earlier date for luke. Paul's writings were used in the Didache, dated to 100Ad. If Luke is some a similiar time period, why no use of these writings?

yet another argument for an older date. The main issue of acts is the relationship between Jews, Jewish Persecutuions and Early Christians. It had a neutral approach to the Romans. This all applies to a pre Judean Revolt scenario( yet another thing not recorded in acts, I wonder why?) had it been written after the fall of Jerusalem, the Christian-Jew controversy would have been none existant and the focus would have been on the now Roman persections
 
I was lead to believe this forum wanted to engage in constructive criticism about the New Testament. I am completely convinced that with perhaps a few exceptions the posters in this room are little different then young earth creationist. They have little desire to interact with relevant scholarship and will use any rebutal, no matter how long dead, to make a point. Their rebutals are no different then creationist use of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
 
krkey said:


My earlier post had a link rebutting Carrier.

Click to expand...

Where was that, the fact that your ' rebuttal ' would not contstitute a refutation, notwithstanding?


So far your ' rebuttals ' have consisted of statements to the effect of...

" I don't waste time on such drivel .. "


You continually discredit the source and not the content.. Who do you think you are fooling here?

You are not talking to ' bornagain2' and ' cinnamon81 ', who seem to be impresssed with anyone who has access to a spell checker...
 
krkey said:
. . . As an aside, we do this everyday within our lives. For legal advice we go to lawyers. For gun repairs we go to gunsmiths. For bug problems we go to the exterminator. I could go on but I think you get my point. I do not use your gaggle of Christ mythers because they have no relevant training in their field ( unless someone wants to explain how a German scholar and a man with a associates degree does qualify). . .
Click to expand...
Not the same thing.

Most lawyers don't practice law as it governs the Land of Lilliput. Gunsmiths don't repair guns that fire invisible bullets at demons.

And the exterminator can show you the body of the bugs or rats he's exterminated. We don't have to take his word that he's killed them simply because he's read more books on how to kill bugs than anyone else.
 
krkey said:
I was lead to believe this forum wanted to engage in constructive criticism about the New Testament.
Click to expand...

Yes. So talk about the New Testament. Skip the nonsense about who is or isn't qualified to discuss it, and discuss it. You're not going to fool a single person on this forum with your "la la I can't HEAAAAR you" approach.

If your goal here is to appear unflappable in the face of criticism, then congratulations. You share that honor with creationists, psychics, and the other woo-woos who wander in here from time to time. But if your goal is convince anyone other than yourself, you are taking an utterly hopeless and transparent approach.

Jeremy
 
question for the room

If one of you was on trial for murder ( and could not afford an attorney) and the court choose to appoint a first year law student to defend you, what would you think. If you protested to the judge that this man is not a lawyer and the judge said

"Don't you complain, points stand on their own merits"

I bet you would not be happy with that answer because the person choosen to defend you simply is not trained enough for his job, no matter how smart he is

Or another scenario. You need to have heart surgery. You learn the hospital plans to use a first year med student. They tell you dont worry, we are positive he knows what he is doing. I am sure you would be comforted.

This is why I do not use your Christ mythers or Carrier( he is a doctorate in history I am aware of that. However he still does not have the training to properly study the NT. Learning greek might be a start). Everyday in society we go to experts. That is what I am doing. Nothing more
 
krkey said:
to easy to rebut that one Diogeses. Lets look a little at the verse.

Luke 25:13 - After several days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to welcome Festus.

The fact it say nothing else about this later famous women is further proof of an older date, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

If she wasn't already famous, why would he have mentioned her at all?

As for your other points, most apologetics, when arguing with ' Christ Mythers ', use the argument of " common knowledge ", as an excuse for Paul not having mentioned virtually anything about Jesus ministry, or even Jesus himself.. It's as if there were no information available....

What's good for the goose...

Or, how would you address this problem with the writings of Paul...
 
OK - I get it...

krkey said:
I do not use Christ Mythers, nor respect them, for the simple fact they do not have the proper training to engage in New Testament Scholarship. The reason I compare these people to Kent Hovind is simple, Kent Hovind argues for scientific ideas with no support behind them, christ mythers make historicial arguments with no support behind them.
Click to expand...

And, specifically, just what kind of historical support do all of your NT scholars have for the divinity of Jesus beyond the bible?

They are little better then holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this line gets big yuks at the Annual Meeting of Bible Apologetics.

Barkhorn.
 
Wrong once again Phil. The New Testament most certainly exist( care to state otherwise) It is most certainly a historicial source. Christianity most certainly exists. Christianity clearly had a beginning. NT scholars debate what caused that beginning. I can no more show you Julius Ceaser crossing the Rubican(however I can show you the Rubican). I cannot show you the resurrection but I can show you the mount of olives, or golgatha. The resurrection is no more reproducable then Ceaser crossing the Rubican. Doesnt mean it didnt happen.

I cannot show you Fort Sumter being bombed. However I can certainly show you the fort now, the cannon ball holes and witness testimony for it.
 
krkey said:
question for the room

If one of you was on trial for murder ( and could not afford an attorney) and the court choose to appoint a first year law student to defend you, what would you think. If you protested to the judge that this man is not a lawyer and the judge said

"Don't you complain, points stand on their own merits"

I bet you would not be happy with that answer because the person choosen to defend you simply is not trained enough for his job, no matter how smart he is

Or another scenario. You need to have heart surgery. You learn the hospital plans to use a first year med student. They tell you dont worry, we are positive he knows what he is doing. I am sure you would be comforted.

This is why I do not use your Christ mythers or Carrier( he is a doctorate in history I am aware of that. However he still does not have the training to properly study the NT. Learning greek might be a start). Everyday in society we go to experts. That is what I am doing. Nothing more
Click to expand...

Your analogies are worthless.

Instead, would you like to be defended by the best attorney in the land, yet, since the prosecution consists of only a janitor, your lawyer refuses to address the issue and instead constantly points out that the prosecution is just a janitor?

If our sources are so easy to dismiss, simply address the issues they bring up, don't tell us who they are.
 
krkey said:
If one of you was on trial for murder ( and could not afford an attorney) and the court choose to appoint a first year law student to defend you, what would you think. If you protested to the judge that this man is not a lawyer and the judge said

"Don't you complain, points stand on their own merits"
Click to expand...

You've got it exactly backward. The situation here is akin to getting terrible representation from a famous lawyer. When you try to appeal, saying that your lawyer didn't call any witnesses, declined to cross-examine, and made no closing argument, the judge says, "How dare you accuse him of incompetence? Don't you know he's famous?"

So tell us what your "experts" say, and let their points stand on their own. But don't expect anyone to slap their head and go, "Oh, he must be right!" the minute you say someone has some letters after his name.

Everyday in society we go to experts. That is what I am doing. Nothing more
Click to expand...

People often become experts because their ideas make sense. So just give us the ideas directly, and let's skip the middleman. If the experts' ideas make sense, you have nothing to lose. The only reason you'd want to muddy the waters is if you're worried that the content isn't compelling.

Jeremy
 
So why would luke mention her at all. Because Luke, the probable author was their. Well folks you be the judge, who made the stronger argument, me or Phil.

I posted 11 points in defence of an older date. The best Phil can do is find a single reference, to a women who became famous later( as if it that would prove a later date, I suppose a CIA document mentioning George Bush the Elder in the early 1970s most have actually been written later because Bush did not become famous until the Reagen Election of 1980. Brilliant logic)

Why dont you try kicking over my 11 points Phil
 
krkey said:
question for the room

If one of you was on trial for murder ( and could not afford an attorney) and the court choose to appoint a first year law student to defend you, what would you think. If you protested to the judge that this man is not a lawyer and the judge said

"Don't you complain, points stand on their own merits"

I bet you would not be happy with that answer because the person choosen to defend you simply is not trained enough for his job, no matter how smart he is

Or another scenario. You need to have heart surgery. You learn the hospital plans to use a first year med student. They tell you dont worry, we are positive he knows what he is doing. I am sure you would be comforted.

This is why I do not use your Christ mythers or Carrier( he is a doctorate in history I am aware of that. However he still does not have the training to properly study the NT. Learning greek might be a start). Everyday in society we go to experts. That is what I am doing. Nothing more
Click to expand...
Doctors and lawyers don't have to prove anything supernatural.

No one is debating the existence of the NT or Xianity, only that you're appealing to authority that cannot, or at least has not, offered any verifiable proof of the claim upon which these things are based, namely the divinity of Christ. And until that evidence is presented, their arguments and authority will hold no more weight than any of the various other nonbelievers already mentioned in this thread.

And I hope you are bright enough to know the difference between your Caesar example in the previous post and the divinity of Christ. You must be making a joke. Otherwise, you're not smart enough to understand anything I say, and I have wasted my time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom