Open with the same message I did in RD room.

[Beleth]

I was so about to leave, was about to talk out the door, go get the beer but this comment has got to be the silliest statement I have seen yet and it demand a immediate response( and chuckle)

That you find it silly is more an indication of your lack of reasoning skills than it is of the merit of the argument.

Perhaps it should be pointed out to the skeptic that people often times repair things and sometimes such repairs will appear as prestine. This is no different then saying " I dont believe in no battle of Gettysburg, look around their aint no corpses or junk on the ground."

The skeptic would rightly point out that repairs never look pristine.

Your Gettysburg analogy is just as easily demolished. Fields have a tendency to return themselves (without human intervention) to the state they were in before a battle. Forts do not.

 

[Yahweh]

Welcome back, Yahweh.

I just want to describe why I was gone:
(Yesterday) At 5:35 PM, I accepted the challenge.
At 6:00 PM, I ate dinner (it was a bowl of salad).
At 6:30 PM, I took a shower.
At 7:00 PM, I went to bed.
(Today) At 7:00 AM, I woke up. (I've mentioned that I have a very erratic
At 3:40 PM, I got home from school.
And until now (5:12 PM), ma has been on the phone with doctors.

Dont worry, regardless of the fact that I have 2 speeches to write for one class (I'm on the Forensics team) to be written and memorized by Friday, 2 more speeches in another class (I'm on the Debate team) due tomorrow, I always have time to make my 21+ posts per day at these boards.

Start a new thread, I am ready willing and fully able to debate. I will even sacrifice sleep if need be, sleep if for the weak, and I refuse to bow.

 

[krkey]

Guess you have never restored antiques. I will give you a hint. Holes can be patched. Then get this, you repaint the object its original color. Then, wow this must be a miracle, the paint covers all surfaces equally, thus providing the restored item with the appearance it originally had. Is that to difficult to understand?

Lets try this with Fort Sumter. The damaged lumber would be removed. Fort Sumter is made out of mortar, so guess what people might have done. They would make more mortar and patch the holes. Then we have this odd thing called the environment. Overtime, often rapidly the mortar will blend with the old mortar. So guess what we have here?? Well I will be, it appears to be a pristine fort.

 

[Loki]

krkey,

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.

You're making a lot of noise about "appropriate training" to study the gospels and draw conclusions. I'm still interested in your reasons for ignoring Muslim scholars? Surely it's not simply because they come to a different conclusion, is it? The fact that they conduct their study of the NT in the light of additional material (the Quran) isn't necessarily a problem is it? Shouldn't all *true* NT scholars consider the Quran in their deliberations? After all, it claims to be discussing the same issues and events as the NT.

will state here and now the resurrection is not absolutely provable. I will simply state it is the best explanation for the events concerning the rise of Christianity, If my opponent can offer me a equally explanatory theory as the resurrection as I have said in other forums I will renounce my religion

Why does the resurrection explain the "rise of christianity" better than the Muslim explanation - that Jesus was indeed a great Prophet of Allah, and that christianity was simply "a phase" (an evolutionary step) on the way to the truth of Islam? In what way does your "Son of God" explanation trump the Muslim one?

 

[Keneke]

I will state here and now the resurrection is not absolutely provable. I will simply state it is the best explanation for the events concerning the rise of Christianity, If my opponent can offer me a equally explanatory theory as the resurrection as I have said in other forums I will renounce my religion

Thank you for jovially diving into the chaotic nature of this forum (finally). A malleable metal hardens when hammered, meaning that you will come out the other side a better person for it.

Now then, let's look at your request. You are looking for an alternate explanation to the resurrection of Christ. This is just like searching for a theory. You look at the available evidence and form a best-fit. To follow this vein, perhaps you should look at this thread to show why second-hand accounts are inadmissable as evidence.

Considering this, how can we even assume something like this occurred? All we have is a written history that has been translated multiple times. There is no best fit to the facts because there are no facts! There is an ancient civilization that we have writings for, and that is all. Could it have been fiction? Could it have been real? How are we to know? Are we supposed to believe everything we read?

So, let's use Occam's Razor here. Since we cannot know anything but what we read, what is more likely? That someone wrote fiction (for any number of reasons)? Or did a God change the Laws of Physics in order to show the world a thing or two? In a world that revolves around the scientific method, we cannot even prove the existence of God, or anything supernatural! And just like Randi said in a previous Swift, religion seems to be getting exemption from the skeptic's eye, though it is really the same.

Religion is about beliefs. If you want to believe that Christ was ressurected, that's fine. But we cannot know. I have a feeling we can never know.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

My personal opinion on the doctrine of original sin, it is one of the most obvious truism ever. It is obvious that one person had to do the orginal evil deed, whatever it may have been. It is painfully obvious to all that this pattern has continued. All people can imagine a world without war, violence etc and we all know that these things arise by not loving one another, thus the world we live in is our fault. If mankind, way back when, had not choosen to go down the path of violence, etc, perhaps we might be in that ideal state.

Well, I'm joining this thread rather late, but the above post (from the first page) is remarkable. And not in a good way. To be kind, it demonstrates a flawed logical formulation.

Now, krkey's conclusion might be true (of course this is debatable), but the process he uses does little to bolster his contention.

 

[Beleth]

Guess you have never restored antiques. I will give you a hint. Holes can be patched. Then get this, you repaint the object its original color. Then, wow this must be a miracle, the paint covers all surfaces equally, thus providing the restored item with the appearance it originally had. Is that to difficult to understand?

Assuming a patronizing tone will not convince anyone here of your veracity.

It's not difficult to understand at all. It's just merely untrue.

Of course holes can be patched. But upon sufficiently close inspection, one can tell that a hole was there at one time and was patched.

Of course objects can be repainted. But the color and the chemical composition of the new paint will never exactly match the color and the chemical composition of the original paint.

Broken things can never be returned to their original pristine state.

Is that too difficult to understand?

Lets try this with Fort Sumter. The damaged lumber would be removed. Fort Sumter is made out of mortar, so guess what people might have done. They would make more mortar and patch the holes. Then we have this odd thing called the environment. Overtime, often rapidly the mortar will blend with the old mortar. So guess what we have here?? Well I will be, it appears to be a pristine fort.

But it doesn't.

New wood has replaced old. New mortar has replaced old. A sufficiently skilled analyst would be able to tell the difference.

If you were to tell me "Fort Sumter was hit numerous times by cannon balls and suffered major damage, but the repair job was done so well that no one can tell that it had been repaired", then I would ask for further proof of your statement that it had been hit by numerous cannon balls, as I see no evidence that it had been.

I am perfectly willing to believe you. You just have to present your case convincingly.


Tell you what. While you are out enjoying your birthday beer, I will come over to your place and slice your car in half with a chainsaw. I will then have a tow truck come and tow the entire left half of your car away. I will then replace the left half of your car with a brand new car, of the same make and model as your current car but of a newer calendar year. I will also attempt to match up the paint as well as possible.

Do you think you could tell the difference?

Do you think an appraiser could tell the difference when you went to sell it as a used car?

Do you see how this analogy is just as absurd are yours have been?

 

[pgwenthold]

So true fiction and historically accurate documents are different, but Wizard of Oz and the Bible are the same?

Well, tell me one difference between the Wizard of Oz and the Bible outside of "everyone accepts the WoO as fiction, but are still arguing about the bible"? You have yet to do so. What makes the WoO "obviously fiction," outside of the fact that everyone accepts it as such? Is there any feature in the book that indicates it is fiction that is also not present in the Bible?

As someone else pointed out, the claim comes down to, the bible is historically accurate in the parts that are true. But how is that any different from the WoO? It has historical parts to it. Then there are the parts that are not establishable as historical (in fact, the Oz historian has indicated in the Emerald City of Oz that Glinda enchanted the land of Oz so to make it undetectable by outside mortals - now try to disprove that!). I don't see the Bible as being any different in that regard.

 

[Gregor]

Krkey

The following may seem like a personal attack, but it isn't. It's an objective review of your tactics so far in posting on this thread.

Your major failings include:

1. An implied appeal to YOUR authority. While you haven't specifically stated that you are some sort of scholar, you've got that Turkel-smell about you. It's sort of a "trust me, I've read all there is to read" type of smegma that doesn't wash with me. If you've got some skins, let us know what they are. Otherwise, I'll just assume you're a Robt Turkel wannabe - a guy who reads some, but for the good of God fails to cite, quote accurately, or honestly debate. So, what do we know about you?

2. You are the posterboy of the no true scotsman fallacy. You dismiss anyone who dates Mark to after 70 as no true NT scholar. You dismiss anyone questioning historicity as a quack. You're condesention is surely Turkel-like.

3. You make so many unsupported statements and gross generalizations (e.g. most scholars date Mark to before the fall). If you want to make a statement like this, please post a listing of the dating of the gospels by Meiers, Crossan, Funk, Friedman (admittedly an OT guy), Ehrman, Erickson, Friedricksen, Mack, Koester, Wells, and others. Give me some authorities, buddy.

4. You ignore posts you don't like. You never explained how Luke/Acts could parrot Josephus (circa 85 CE) yet pre-date Josephus.

5. Your argument for the early date of Luke is the weak (if not fallacious) argument from absence - it does not mention an event, it must not post-date the event. If we were to list the historical events that Luke/Acts does not mention, the list would be long, indeed. Absence provides no assistance to dating.

6. Your dismissal of older, German theories is too quick. First, modern scholars do not reject the arguments that Yeshua did not die because they have been proven false. Rather, how much more can you say? A Christian scholar couldn't publish much more about a argument that was raised earlier and can't be estiblished or disproven. Yet, there's still some discussion to be found about the ideas of an early burial, etc.

At present, I read you as an apologist wannabe, who has only read what some better-read wannabe told him to read.

Demonstrate some scholarship, and I might pay attention to your arguments.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Gregor,
I will be holding my breath, as I await our learned scholar's return and respond to your points.

We have no reason thus far, to expect that response to contain any substance..

I don't know if you noticed, but krkey went out for a beer last night and didn't return..


There is always the possibility he was struck blind and deaf on his way to the corner store..

He didn't mention that he was headed to Damascus for that beer, did he?

 

[scribble]

nce 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.

(Emphasis mine)

He's not interested in talking about FACTS, people... in case you hadn't already noticed.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

(Emphasis mine)

He's not interested in talking about FACTS, people... in case you hadn't already noticed.

Yeah, we noticed early on..

His rules for debate read something like this.

" If you quote a source, it will be ignored, unless it is a source I consider relevant. This will be regardless of content.."

Last time I checked, such reasoning does not fall under the generally accepted definition of a debate..

 

[hgc]

Yeah, we noticed early on..

His rules for debate read something like this.

" If you quote a source, it will be ignored, unless it is a source I consider relevant. This will be regardless of content.."

Last time I checked, such reasoning does not fall under the generally accepted definition of a debate..

Let's apply that standard to any quotes from the bible, and see how far he gets. Since it's religious propoganda and unga-bunga claptrap, it can't be considered a relevant source when debating factual history.

 

[Keneke]

Well, tell me one difference between the Wizard of Oz and the Bible outside of "everyone accepts the WoO as fiction, but are still arguing about the bible"? You have yet to do so. What makes the WoO "obviously fiction," outside of the fact that everyone accepts it as such? Is there any feature in the book that indicates it is fiction that is also not present in the Bible?

As someone else pointed out, the claim comes down to, the bible is historically accurate in the parts that are true. But how is that any different from the WoO? It has historical parts to it. Then there are the parts that are not establishable as historical (in fact, the Oz historian has indicated in the Emerald City of Oz that Glinda enchanted the land of Oz so to make it undetectable by outside mortals - now try to disprove that!). I don't see the Bible as being any different in that regard.

That's not the point I am making. Do you even know the point I am making?

We know WoO is fiction. Yes, given THIS condition and THAT condition, we can pass it off as history, but why not choose something that is closer to it? Instead of comparing the Bible to it, and throwing needless variables into the equation, we should compare the Bible to something that has tried to pass itself of as history or truth but isn't (as far as we can tell), like the tenets of Scientology. That's all I ever wanted to say. I don't want to argue that the WoO could be history. I know you're trying to demonstrate the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory, but I never wanted to argue against that. Now please stop attacking the wrong argument.

 

[Keneke]

Let's apply that standard to any quotes from the bible, and see how far he gets. Since it's religious propoganda and unga-bunga claptrap, it can't be considered a relevant source when debating factual history.

And if he does want to represent it as history, use Loki's Muslim angle. Why does the Bible trump the Koran? Can't have it both ways.

 

[Keneke]

KRKEY! Please go to the thread titled "Yahweh's Theological Challenge". Thank you.

 

[pgwenthold]

We know WoO is fiction.

Care to support that? How do you know the WoO is fiction? There is nothing in the story itself that says "this is not true." The author does not say he is writing fiction, but says that he is recording the history of Oz.

The only thing we have that says the Wizard of Oz is fiction is that everyone agrees that it is fiction. This is what distinguishes the WoO from the Bible.

The original claim was that the bible was more likely historical because, inter alia, it contains things that can be confirmed to be historically true. I just pointed out that such aspects mean nothing. Many (if not most) fictional stories have some real basis for some aspects of them.

If an alien civilization were to come across single copies of the bible and the WoO a million years from now, long after our civilization were wiped out, which would they think would be fiction and which is not? If they don't go for the supernatural, then both would be dismissed as fairy tales. If they allow for the supernatural, which would they accept? OK, so they try to verify some information. They look for Jesus, and find indications that some of the characters and places might have been, although there is no indication that the described events really happened. They look to verify the WoO, and find the historical Dorothy and Aunt Em and Kansas, but find no indication that the described events really happened. Would they come to the conclusion that the WoO is fiction, but the Bible is not?

 

[Beleth]

I don't know if you noticed, but krkey went out for a beer last night and didn't return..

It's because I cut his car in half and he noticed. Sorry about that!

 

[krkey]

This is going to be my last posting in here with the exception of a possible informative post in here about the nature of the debate. Fron now on I am going to devote my attention to preparing for my debate with Yahweh. As for the Luke-Acts objections being reliant on the Josephus this is simply not true. Josephus and Luke at times use the similiar lanquage to describe an event, but this does not prove one used the other, it simply proves that similiar lanquage can be used to describe similiar events. Look at the death of Herod in Acts verses the death of Herod in Josephus, while they have some superficial similiarities the differences are enough to suggest that they are not textually related. (Colin Hemer)
While I do not feel there is any literary connection between the two documents if there were this does not endanger a older date for luke, because Josephus quite possibly could have used Acts to get his information.

Yes Diogenes I will perfectly see fit to ignore nonscholars( ie people without the relevant background in the subject material) Diogenes- Bible Scholarship, why invest in that when the rantings of a German scholar so fits my pet views. As I said earlier I will not consider the people cited in here to be any better scholars then Kent Hovind and I yet to see anyone post an example of how they have the relevant background to have a meaningful contribution.

I am quite satisfied with the view of many scholars on the Koran that it is a composition of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christian writings and some writings of Mohammed.

Actually my debate rules are a bit simpler. I simply insist your source have the relevant training and background in the appropriate area. As I told someone else earlier, if I was to use Wells, Doherty or perhaps 99% of infidels.org for a term paper I would received an automatic F for use of inappropriate sources. In the real world of scholarship, it is very picky about who you use.

Allow me to rephrase, when I use a scholarly source I am much more likely to get a correct evaluation of the data.

As for the bible not being a source of history, many secular historians such as Hemer, Bruce and Sherwin-white would flatly disagree with you. I treat the bible no differently then I treat any other source from antiquity


Meiers, Crossan, Funk, Friedman (admittedly an OT guy), Ehrman, Erickson, Friedricksen, Mack, Koester, Wells, and others. Give me some authorities, buddy.

Would you kindly explain how Wells is a appropriate scholar. Last time I looked being a German scholar is about as relevant to the bible as underwater basket weaving.

Abscence of facts within a historicial document is a great argument for dating it. Say you found an older looking book about American History that ended with the Mexican-American war. The most natural assumption for this is that the author was unaware of it. This is the same argument employed by Colin Hemer in Acts within the Hellenistic Setting.

I can only conclude if I am the speaking image of Holding then the people in here are spitting images of Till, you have an absolute disdain for any kind of historicial authority which would disagree with your pet notions and a absolute fascination with pseudo-historians. Tell me again, what is the difference between Wells and Kent Hovind.

 

[Beleth]

Tell me again, what is the difference between Wells and Kent Hovind.

Actually, in a proper debate, it will be up to you to tell us things like that.

If you are going to appeal to authority, be prepared to show why the authority you are appealing to should be considered an authority.

You couldn't ask for a better judge than me in this case. I know diddly-squat about Biblical scholars (so I come in with no preconceived notions about any of them), and I know how useful appeals to authority are.