Open with the same message I did in RD room.

[krkey]

hey folks, how are we doing in here. For those who do not know me let me identify the points I am quite willing to defend.

a.) the resurrection of Jesus

b.) that the transcendantal theory is the best explanation for the Near Death Experience ( as opposed to the dying brain theory)

I would simply ask that if anyone challenges me on these points, they do it in a scholarly, well thought out manner. I also ask that they be willing to defend an alternative view, thus requiring both of us to argue from the positive. I will stick with bible scholars ( such as N.T Wright, William Lane Craig etc) regardless of theologicial strip to make my point. a very abreviatted form of my argument for the resurrection would be as thus. All NT Scholars, regardless of religious views agree on the four following points.

a.) Jesus existed

b.) Jesus was crucified and died in the process

c.) there is no body

d.) the apostles had post mortum experiences How they differ is the best explanation( Craig-resurrection, Ludemann-Hallucinations)

As for the Near death experience (NDE) I will refer strickly to the peer reviewed article on it in the Dec 2001 Journal of the Lancet to make my points, and also to literature that article saw as fit to site( such as Michael Sabom's Recollections of Death) a brief out line of my argument would be as thus.

a.) the people who experienced it believe it was a real experience.

b.) they have documented vertical evidence ( Lancet Journal)

c.) They have documented cases with NDEers gaining new knowledge( Sabom Study)

d.) visual based NDEs have occured in the people born blind ( Ring study) T

he dying brain hypothesis cannot allow points b, c, or d, thus the transcental theory most be the correct one. Thus the soul exist The dying brain theory cannot be correct.

Might wait around for a little while, to see some responses.

[UnrepentantSinner]

A simple question regarding the divinity of Jesus relative to Eden.

I find the evidence for the Eden Narrative uncompelling and the Tree of Knowledge Narrative even more so. If one has concluded the Tree in Eden didn't exist, then does what happened on the Tree on Golgotha matter?

And a public welcome to the Forum. :) I'm sure some of the other RD raiders will greet you soon.

[Phil]

krkey,

I live in CST zone, so it is after 1am here, and I'm just off to bed with unfortunately no time to reply in full. Don't despair, however, because I'm sure other JREFers will be responding in due time.

In the meantime, I'll caution you about a couple of things, and then leave you to your own devices: Anecdotal evidence and appeals to authority will get you nowhere on this forum. You might as well not present any such arguments, because you'll be wasting your time, and everyone else's.

Also, if you haven't already done so, you might consider doing a search on this site for the Pam Reynolds case. There was a great thread not long ago that delved into many of the points of NDE you mention.

[krkey]

Unrep.- Christ rose if the Garden of Eden existed or it did not, what is important is what happened on easter sunday, not Gen 1.

I am willing to engage in constructive criticism, and I am puzzled why anyone in this forum would be opposed to me using the appropriate scholars and scholarships within these areas to make my points.

I do not believe in intellectual anarchy. I believe in the process of peer review, scholarly concensus etc. If people in here are not willing to accept peer reviewed scholarship, appropriate medical references etc then kindly let me know, I will simply leave.

For example if someone says Jesus is a copy of a pagan diety I will simply point out this argument has been dropped for over 100 years and has no scholarly support. That should be enough.

this here reflects my view on most bible critics. http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by krkey
Unrep.- Christ rose if the Garden of Eden existed or it did not, what is important is what happened on easter sunday, not Gen 1.


But if a sinful nature were never infused into humanity by eating of the Fruit of Knowledge, what was Jesus' resurrection supposed to accomplish? Or do you feel that sin is an inherent aspect of human nature and so the Tree Narrative can be approached as metaphorical?

[krkey]

Unrep.- Christ rose if the Garden of Eden existed or it did not, what is important is what happened on easter sunday, not Gen 1.

I am willing to engage in constructive criticism, and I am puzzled why anyone in this forum would be opposed to me using the appropriate scholars and scholarships within these areas to make my points.

I do not believe in intellectual anarchy. I believe in the process of peer review, scholarly concensus etc. If people in here are not willing to accept peer reviewed scholarship, appropriate medical references etc then kindly let me know, I will simply leave.

For example if someone says Jesus is a copy of a pagan diety I will simply point out this argument has been dropped for over 100 years and has no scholarly support. That should be enough.

this here reflects my view on most bible critics. http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

[krkey]

Thats odd, it double posted me. 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.

[UnrepentantSinner]

O.k. Laying aside Sin for a moment I'd like to get to something I brought up in RD forum and I believe you replied but I've slept since then.

If NDE's are to be held up as evidence for the validity of Christian tenets, why do some people, such as Buddhists (http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/thaindes.htm) have culturally specific NDEs? Wouldn't there be a universal experience, and one wholly in keeping with Christian tenets?

Additionally, NDEs and Reincarnation are held as evidence by New Agers like Victor Zammit (http://www.victorzammit.com/) a bolstering their claims about the soul, the afterlife and such. If NDEs can validate New Ager claims, how then can they also validate Christian claims?

[LW]

Originally posted by krkey
All NT Scholars, regardless of religious views agree on the four following points.

Actually, not all scholars agree to them.

a.) Jesus existed

I personally find it more plausible that Jesus was a real historical figure than not, but be prepared for lenghty argument on this subject when triadboy finds this thread.

But anyway, there are people who believe that Jesus was a completely mythological person who was basically put together from old myths.

b.) Jesus was crucified and died in the process

Those who don't believe that Jesus existed obviously don't agree on him being crucified. Also, one school of thought is that Jesus didn't die but was still alive when taken down from cross and later recovered.

c.) there is no body

True. However, the same thing might be said for the vast majority of historical figures. We don't even really know where Jesus's tomb was.

d.) the apostles had post mortum experiences

Again, not all agree on this one. Some people argue that the resurrection stuff and the like was added to Christianity only after Paul started to force-fit his mysticism into the person of Jesus.

So, in only one point of four is really agreed on.

[Skeptical Greg]

krkey,

Here is a site that will keep you busy for a while..

Did Jesus Exist ? (http://www.didjesusexist.com/)


A lot of scholarly sources there, disagree with you..


About the original sin thing.


If man was originally without sin ( created perfect by a God ), how was man able to gain the knowledge of evil, without God playing a role, i.e. making it happen?

[Hexxenhammer]

Hey krkey! Glad to see you jumped over here from the readers digest forums. I won't type in any funny caveman voices over here (to give you a hint who I was on the readers digest boards). Welcome!

[krkey]

a.) name the historian or NT Testamant scholar who denys the historicial existance of Christ. No relevant scholar or historian disagrees with my views on the first one. I am aware of Christ Mythers, but not a single one of the current batch is in any way a qualified historian and I will simply choose to do what NT scholars do, ignore them. They are little better then holocaust deniers. I will be extremely disappointed if any poster in this forum engages in the Pseudo Historicial nonsense. Why would anyone want to engage in such pseudo history anyways. It does not help the spread of scholarship

b. The swoon theory has been not been used in scholary circles again for over 200 hundred years. It was abandoned because a half dead Jesus would have convinced nobody, and it doesnt deal with his treatment before death ( being whipped lose of blood, then crucifixion) and offers no explanatory power for the conversion of James and Paul. I will also state that the pagan myth theory has been dead since the 1890s. What is the point in trying to revive these long dead ideas? They have no scholarly value.

The issue becomes relevant because their was no body in ancient times either. All the Sanhedrin had to do stop Christianity was produce the body.

If you arguing Paul teaches a spritual resurrection then you are simply wrong. That idea had no meaning in Judaism, verse 15:12 of 1st Cor. would not have been asked had this been true( Pagans did believe in a spiritual resurrection) and lastly the word he uses in verse 44 is that of Suma, which always refers to something physical in Greek( Soma in biblicial Theology by Robert Gundry) The only difference between Paul and his fellow Pharisees was Pauls belief that for Jesus the, resurretion had already occured.

My four point are agreed upon among NT scholars, you might be wise to use them.

That was a joke right Diogenes? The author of that website is a young infidel of 22 named Peter Kirby. He has no relevant degrees nor is in any ways is considered a bible scholar. I will put it to you this way, when those articles are presented to me in a peer reviewed NT Journal I will take them seriously. Not until then. This most certainly falls into the category of why we most be extremely careful when using web based resources. A well typed paper does not make it scholarship. Do all scholars believe the earth rotates..... well I found a website claiming that isn't true. Surely it is questionable after reading this. http://www.fixedearth.com/

I will say this one last time. I will not dignify any Christ Myther with a further response. I will treat you with all the respect due holocaust deniers, flat earthers etc.

Man was able to gain knowledge of evil because he was created by God with freewill.

Victor Zammit uses the NDE, along with many other things to argue for a new age view. Just because Zammit uses it this way does not mean that it is a appropriate use of the evidence. You might want to be careful with the culture specific argument for the NDE, researchers agree, especially in the case of Children's NDEs that there is a corp experience, unaffected by religious overviews. The reason an NDE would have a cultural influence is the reason why people view the world differently. I and an arab if seeing a women being beat would very likely come to a different conclusion and describe the event very differently, does that mean the event did not happen. The better approach here is to decide what offers the best explanation for the NDE, the Transcendental theory or the Dying Brain theory.

Whats up Mightor

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey

a.) the people who experienced it believe it was a real experience.

Hi,

I believe it was a mistake to open a thread with two separate topics. Perhaps you feel they are related, but the discussion for the resurrection of Jesus and for evidence of NDEs are two separate subjects, and should be handled in separate threads.

As for your NDE point a, SFW? There are people who really, really believe they were kidnapped and probed by aliens. Is that evidence of the truth of their claim? Throw this one right out.

[Skeptical Greg]

That was a joke right Diogenes? The author of that website is a young infidel of 22 named Peter Kirby. He has no relevant degrees nor is in any ways is considered a bible scholar.

You are apparently an idiot..

You obviously did not bother to look at any of the material presented, and dismissed the site, based on your opinion of the organizer of the web site.

How scholarly of you..:rolleyes:

[Phil]

Originally posted by krkey
a.) name the historian or NT Testamant scholar who denys the historicial existance of Christ. No relevant scholar or historian disagrees with my views on the first one. . .

. . . My four point are agreed upon among NT scholars, you might be wise to use them.
I cautioned you about using appeals to authority (http://skepdic.com/authorty.html) here, but so far that's all you've done.

You say Jesus was ressurrected. I'm not really concerned with what a bunch of men with letters after their names think. Introduce the evidence for your statement, and let's discuss that. Same goes for NDE.

I will say this one last time. I will not dignify any Christ Myther with a further response. I will treat you with all the respect due holocaust deniers, flat earthers etc. . .

. . . Victor Zammit uses the NDE, along with many other things to argue for a new age view. Just because Zammit uses it this way does not mean that it is a appropriate use of the evidence. . .

Question: If you're going to continue to cite the unsubstantiated ideas of these 'experts' as proof of your claim, why do you consider only your appeals to authority to be worthwhile?

[Upchurch]

Forgive me for being slow, but what is the RD room?

[Phil]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Forgive me for being slow, but what is the RD room?
I think it's Reader's Digest.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Forgive me for being slow, but what is the RD room?
Readers Digest. US and I tried to convince krkey to come over to the JREF a couple months ago after debating him on the RD boards.

[jimlintott]

I like physical evidence. I know, its a weakness.

To accept a bible scholar as an authority, wouldn't I have to accept the bible as some sort of authority? I don't accept the bible as any sort of scientific authorty any more than I would accept 'Moby Dick' as a text on marine biology.

Ever get smacked in the head and see stars? What causes that? Is it my soul tying to escape?

Why in the name of Occam's razor would you expect NDE to be anything but the brain dying?

What is the transcendental theory?

[Ladewig]

krkey - regarding NDEs

b.) they have documented vertical evidence ( Lancet Journal)

What is vertical evidence? I tried searching the web but cannot get a clear definition.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Phil

I cautioned you about using appeals to authority (http://skepdic.com/authorty.html) here, but so far that's all you've done.
.
.
Question: If you're going to continue to cite the unsubstantiated ideas of these 'experts' as proof of your claim, why do you consider only your appeals to authority to be worthwhile?



I noticed that pretty quickly too, when he states:

No relevant scholar or historian disagrees with my views on the first one. I am aware of Christ Mythers, but not a single one of the current batch is in any way a qualified historian and I will simply choose to do what NT scholars do, ignore them.

Not just appeal to authority, but any authority with a differing conclusion is dismissed as not being a legitimate authority. Plus anyone who is not an 'authority' is of course dismissed. Talk about trying to stack the deck!

How about dealing with actual evidence instead?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jimlintott
To accept a bible scholar as an authority, wouldn't I have to accept the bible as some sort of authority? I don't accept the bible as any sort of scientific authorty any more than I would accept 'Moby Dick' as a text on marine biology.I agree, although the metaphore is a bit off.

Further, I'm uncomfortable with the method of picking and choosing the "approved" NT scholars as authorities. True, peer reviewed articles are an excellent way of weeding out those with no basis in reality, but in this case it seems to me that the journal in question (Lancet?) is weeding out those with no basis in the New Testament.

To illustrate the point, let's say that we were going to argue the historicy of the Land of Oz, but our only standard of reference for data is to put it against the Oz books. Were an archilogist to point out that no one has found a yellow brick road, that archiologist's findings would be discounted out of hand because he is not a valid authority in Oz studies.

If you are to discount a source, discount it based on the information provided, not because of who the infomration comes from.

Which isn't to say that you must consider information from a source that is consistantly incorrect. It's just not practical. But you are discounting information without showing that it is either wrong or that the source is consistantly wrong.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by krkey

a.) Jesus existed

b.) Jesus was crucified and died in the process

c.) there is no body

d.) the apostles had post mortum experiences How they differ is the best explanation( Craig-resurrection, Ludemann-Hallucinations)


Yea, but do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? I ask because the points you raise are not at all unique - and they are not very interesting - yawn. I mean:
- Jesus - existed = so what?
- He was crucified and died in the process = and this would make him different from whom?
- There is no body = OK - usually not, unless you happen to be mummified.
- The apostles had [Jesus] post mortem experiences = again so what? Do you believe they actually saw what they claimed to have seen?

I am truly interested in your responses.

Barkhorn.

[krkey]

I am highly beginning to suspect this is a waste of time. The christ myth has no scholarly support, PERIOD. The existance of Christ is a historicially accepted fact, get over it. I hate to mention it, but diogenes I was familiar with that site before you posted it. As I said, it is proof positive why you should use internet sources with caution.

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. I do not play historicial pick and choose. Incidentally I am not picking and choosing my NT points, atheist NT scholars agree on the same points I stated.

I used peer reviewed scholarship to further spread intellectual inquiry. I refuse to waste my time reinventing the wheel, the swoon theory is dead and so is the copy cat thesis.

Apparently diogenes you do not understand the process of peer review and census conclusion. But I am the idiot because I refuse to consider explanations that are as dead as the dodo.

arctic penquin- vertical evidence is essentially seeing something that the normal human visual range does not allow. For example lie on your back and attempt to read a piece of paper on top of a
ceiling fan. Thats vertical evidence.

The transendental theory would essentially be the afterlife hypothesis. I reject the dying brain because it does not explain vertical evidence( Lancet Study) gaining new knowledge( Sabom study) and visual based NDEs in those born blind( Ring study)

[jimlintott]

The transendental theory would essentially be the afterlife hypothesis.

I'm sorry. Silly me. I still don't understand transcendental theory. If it's an actual theory why not just state it. Saying it is like something else isn't helpful to me. Difficult to accept or refute without knowing what it is. I don't know what the afterlife hypothesis is either.

Please illuminate me.

What is the transcendental theory and why does it explain NDE?

[krkey]

I was thinking about what arctic penquin said, I did post too much for me to be able to defend what I said. I am not used to format or tempo of this forum, so basically I made an elementary mistake.

In the interest of fairness why dont we do a slight change. I am obviously quite outnumbered in here and that simply does not allow me to concentrate on any one area. A better idea might be this. A one on one formal debate between myself and someone in this room and the point we desire to defend. For this debate I will defend the resurrection as the best explanation for start of Christianity and my opponent my defend as he so desires.

A possible format could be as follows.

a.) opening
b.) rebuttals( 10 post each perhaps )
c.) conclusion

after that other people could intervine and make comments on the debate

[Terry]

Originally posted by krkey
a.) name the historian or NT Testamant scholar who denys the historicial existance of Christ. No relevant scholar or historian disagrees with my views on the first one.[...]

Umm... that kind-of smacks of the "no true Scotsman" falacy, doesn't it?

--Terry

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by krkey
I am highly beginning to suspect this is a waste of time.
Me too - but for different reasons.


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 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.

So what? By your definition, so is "I Claudius". Just because a text get's the place names right (most of 'em) and get's some of the people right doesn't make it's a useful historical text. But the NT is much more than that - it is filled w/ super natural derring-do.

So - I ask you again - do you accept these super natural events as actually having occured? Just where do you stand on this issue?

I used peer reviewed scholarship to further spread intellectual inquiry. I refuse to waste my time reinventing the wheel, the swoon theory is dead and so is the copy cat thesis.

Peer review is of little help when what these peers are reviewing is the stuff of legend and fable.

Barkhorn.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by krkey
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. Whoa! Time out!

Popular conscensus proves nothing. At one point in history, it was popularly believed that the earth was flat, but that does not mean it was so.

Further, there is a great deal of modern fiction that deals with real historical people, places and events. This doesn't make historical fiction into historical fact.

Do you have evidence to back your claim or do you have people on a bandwagon?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by krkey
I am highly beginning to suspect this is a waste of time. The christ myth has no scholarly support, PERIOD. The existance of Christ is a historicially accepted fact, get over it. I hate to mention it, but diogenes I was familiar with that site before you posted it. As I said, it is proof positive why you should use internet sources with caution.

You're going to keep running up against the same wall over and over with this approach. No one here is interested in who believes what. We're interested in why they believe.

I'm sure lots of people believe Jesus was a historical figure. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not they're right, and having a bunch of letters after their names does not address that.

Sooner or later, you'll have to start discussing the content of their arguments, rather than just mentioning the existence of these putative experts, before you'll convince a single soul. You might as well save yourself some time and either start doing it now, or just quit while you're ahead.

But I am the idiot because I refuse to consider explanations that are as dead as the dodo.

What makes you think competing ideas are as dead as the dodo? Again, not who thinks they are and who thinks they are not, buy why. "Why" is the number one question you're going to get around here, and it's a pretty damn useful one.

For example, the concept of the lumeniferous ether is pretty much dead as the dodo too, as you say. But I can tell you the exact reasons why it's as dead as the dodo -- the Michelson-Morley experiments, invariance of the speed of light, particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics, etc. What are your corresponding reasons for rejecting the possibility that the events of Jesus' time were not recorded perfectly accurately?

Jeremy

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by krkey
I am highly beginning to suspect this is a waste of time. The christ myth has no scholarly support, PERIOD. The existance of Christ is a historicially accepted fact, get over it.

And what does that prove about his activities or divinity?


I hate to mention it, but diogenes I was familiar with that site before you posted it. As I said, it is proof positive why you should use internet sources with caution.

Sounds like good advice.. I agree.

I accept the NT as historicial for the same reason as I accept historians such as Josephus as historicial, it passes the test.

What test is that ?

A bit of the accurate history in the NT..

From :__________ Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html)

( Hint: ____ don't just criticize the source, try to refute the content ... )

"If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born."

and

" Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false. "
..........................................

"....From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false. "

There is much more.. Why would the accurate history of a man, leave out some 30 years of the man's life, who probably didn't live more than three or four years longer than that?

Why was nothing written about the man until at least 60 ( and 60 is being very generous ) years after he died and the bulk of the gospels as much as 200 hundred or more years later.. And nothing in the native language of those supposedly closest to him..

What kind of history are you used to and rely upon, that is so chronologically detached from the events it depicts?

I used peer reviewed scholarship to further spread intellectual inquiry.

Care to share?


We await your scholarly review of any of these points....

[krkey]

I am waiting, one on one challenge. That is fair. Diogenes, why don't we have that debate like I mentioned earlier.

[jan]

Originally posted by krkey
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.

But the few things that can be cross-checked with other sources are pretty f*cked up (like what it says about Herodes). So I would say it doesn't pass the test.

Originally posted by krkey
In the interest of fairness why dont we do a slight change. I am obviously quite outnumbered in here and that simply does not allow me to concentrate on any one area. A better idea might be this. A one on one formal debate between myself and someone in this room and the point we desire to defend. For this debate I will defend the resurrection as the best explanation for start of Christianity and my opponent my defend as he so desires.

A possible format could be as follows.

a.) opening
b.) rebuttals( 10 post each perhaps )
c.) conclusion

after that other people could intervine and make comments on the debate

Don't be such a girl. You are in the pit of lions, face it, deal with it.

[Hexxenhammer]

krkey, you should also throw your 2 cents around the rest of the board. I'm sure you'll find lots of stuff to chip in about without immediatly throwing yourself to the wolves so to speak like you did with this thread.

If you get sick of debate check the community page and you'll see everyone is pretty nice around here, just argumentative.

[Evil_Jesus]

Damn people settle down! I am here and still quite alive! I didn't know my little hoax was gonna cause such an uproar (well I might have had an inkling:D ) Anyway believe in me, drink school and stay in drugs (in Mr.T voice)

[I'll_buy_that]

I don't care to debate here, but Reader's Digest? come on now :rolleyes:


I used peer reviewed scholarship to further spread intellectual inquiry.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by krkey
c.) there is no body

I disagree with literally every point you made, but the only one I'll respond to is this one.

Why does it matter? When Mary first saw the empty tomb, her immediate assumption was that some human agency (probably the disciples) had moved it. The empty tomb convinced no one at the time: why should it convince us? It was only when Jesus reappeared that people became convinced. Ergo, the resurrection stands or falls on the testimony of the witnesses. The empty tomb means no more now than it did then, and it didn't mean anything to anyone then.

John
20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

20:2
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.


But, when it comes to the testimony of those who saw the risen Jesus, we must consider that the same document that provides that also claims that many other saints were raised from the dead, and seen by the people of Jerusalem. Do you believe the resurrection of the saints? Or do you concede that this claim is false?

Matthew
27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

27:53
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


To recap:

1) The empirical evidence - the empty tomb - is insufficient. It didn't convince anybody then, so why should it convince us now?

2) The testimonial evidence is corrupted by testimony that contradicts itself - one part claims that many, many dead were resurrected, and the other parts make no mention of this.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by krkey
I am waiting, one on one challenge. That is fair. Diogenes, why don't we have that debate like I mentioned earlier.

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 ... )

I'll try to address any points you raise, but it is hard to do 'one on one here'..


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..

Take my word for it, our hardest hitters haven't even picked up their bats yet..

If you should decide to disappear they may not even notice you were here.. These things disappear off the front page real fast..

I would definitely seperate the NDE and NT stuff, and take them one at a time.. No one can fault you for that..


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..

You might want to consider going back to swapping bible verses with bornagain2 and cinnamon81.. They are really impressed with you..

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?

Now, if you have been talking to Jesus yourself, that is a different matter.. Of course people claim that all the time, and we have to pick and choose which ones to believe.. Will it be the mother who drowns her children, or the TV Evangelist who wants you to send money?
The problem is, that no one can seem to arrange a live interview....

[Keneke]

Okay, let's tally the score. Forget the rest of these remarks, some of them very barbed, and respond to me.

To reply to krkey's original statments:

1. Jesus's resurrection. There is no proof that he was risen. Anecdotal accounts do not count as evidence.

2. NDE's are transcendental instead of material. From a scientific standpoint, mystical energies of any sort cannot be measured by any means. Indeed, Holy Spirit, chi energy, and ectoplasm cannot be measured in any discernable way. So, if the only evidence we have is people seeing a light while hovering near death, and seeing themselves from a distance, how is this anecdotal evidence proof of anything besides the fact that such things do exist?

3. Jesus existed. Perhaps. It is likely he existed.

4. Jesus was crucified and died in the process A little less likely than his mere existence, but still somewhat probable.

5. There is no body. You mean, there was no body in the tomb, right? This is where people have problems, because all of a sudden we go from what is possible to what is physically impossible. Discounting tomb raiders, outright lies, or some other mundane explanation, there is no way for this to happen. Use Occam's Razor: what is more likely to have occurred? A miracle from God, or something more simple?

6. The apostles had post-mortem experiences. (I'd leave your spelling errors in there, but I do not want to belittle your position by poking fun at your spelling. Too many people do that on here, and it's improper.) Once again, we are attempting to prove something physically impossible by anecdotal evidence. We cannot even prove if the previous point is true.

7. The people who experienced it [NDEs] believe it was a real experience. The actual experience is light, floating, etc. What a person believes happened in irrelevant to what actually is. If you believe a hoax is a real UFO, that means nothing to fact.

8. They have documented vertical evidence. They have anecdotes of a person seeing themselves floating. Again, anecdotal. Is there proof that their soul is apart from their body? Is there even proof that man is no more than a body? (My eyes were really opened on THAT little debate on here recently.)

9. Documented cases of new knowledge On this point and the last, I googled Sabom and can only find a few charts and lots of rationalization. Could you please point me to this evidence? I also found a page where a skeptic claims that the accounts of new knowledge and vertical evidence are not admissable. (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/skeptic03.html)

10. Visual NDEs have occurred in people born blind. First and foremost, this does not prove transcendentalism in the least. The optic nerves (indeed any brain cell), when blood is lost, fires off neurons at random. I see sparks of light when I get dizzy from blood loss, even with my eyes closed.

How can you say NDEs are transcendental when scientists have not yet proven the existence of the supernatural or even God?
I will continue next email.

[hgc]

Originally posted by krkey
I am waiting, one on one challenge. That is fair. Diogenes, why don't we have that debate like I mentioned earlier. As they say in the venacular: That ain't never gonna happen.

There's no way to keep out all comers in threads around here. And you've stumbled into a particularly interesting topic (existence of Jesus), notwithstanding that you think it's not even worthy of debate.

[Keneke]

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.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Diogenes
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?. . .

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?

[Keneke]

Originally posted by hgc
And you've stumbled into a particularly interesting topic (existence of Jesus), notwithstanding that you think it's not even worthy of debate.

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.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Phil
Hello?

krkey?
Dude, it's only been since 2pm. Maybe he just had something to do. (Unlike me...)

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Also, cut the newbie some slack. I don't think he realized that there would be such little acceptance of his fallacies.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Keneke

Dude, it's only been since 2pm. Maybe he just had something to do. (Unlike me...)
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.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Keneke


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. 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.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by krkey
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.

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). )

[Keneke]

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 (http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html) 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. :(

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Keneke
And did you read the essay (http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html) he referenced that sum up his views?

Oh my... no I had not read it.... Um, I guess it is fine to continue to rip him a new one. :)

[Keneke]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
(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.

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.

[Keneke]

It's 5 o clock. Quitting time. Laterz.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Keneke


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

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.

[Yahweh]

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.)

[krkey]

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

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by krkey
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

Fine, I'll be happy to challenge you, one on one.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey
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
I guess you missed the bits in both the old and new testaments about humility, Mr. "man enough".

[toddjh]

Originally posted by krkey
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.

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

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

Jeremy

[krkey]

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

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by krkey

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.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Fine, I'll be happy to challenge you, one on one.
Hey, if Yahweh or Yahzi or anyone else wants to try the one on one approach, I'lll keep my big fat mouth shut, except to order a beer and a dog every once in a while.

Obviously, I can't make that claim for everyone else though, but I'll give it a shot.

[krkey]

Yahweh has already choosen to debate me, so first come, first served. If for whatever reason that fall through I will happily choose anyone else

[krkey]

I am not going to post anymore, instead I am going to wait to discuss a proper debate format with Yahweh. Not that I have a possible debate, that needs to be the center of my attention.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Readers Digest. US and I tried to convince krkey to come over to the JREF a couple months ago after debating him on the RD boards.

I am sure he realises his mistake, now.

[Martin]

Originally posted by krkey
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 timeIf you want to have some fun, test your mettle, and maybe make yourself feel superior, debate is perfect. For actually producing the best arguments and getting to the facts, a round-table discussion is vastly superior. But apparently, you're not man enough for such a meaningful discussion. Pity. The fact that you have chosen not to take this option causes me to suspect that you would much rather win a frivolous debate than simply put your best arguments up against ours for scrutiny. If you're not going to do this, perhaps you ought to leave. No point in wasting our time.

[krkey]

I am simply trying to make things a bit more fair, after all it seems I am outnumbered 10 to 1. Which makes more sense to focus ones energy on a debate or run off on 100 different tangents. As for your scrutiny, I would take it a bit more seriously if it was constructive inquiry, not destructive inquiry. I feel absolute no need to proof scholarly concensus or rebut long dead ideas.( It would be a horrible thing if this mentallity of this room was ever adopted. I cannot imagine what would happen if no one was allowed to accept work outside their speciality without having to proof it. Inquiry would slow to a craw) For example how many people still debate Lamarckan evolution?( that many New testment scholars debate the tomb robbery, swoon theory or pagan copy cat thesis) The ideas I have seen thrown at me have been dead in New Testament scholarly circles for at least a century, mainly two. ( it is no different then insisting a person prove the earth is a sphere or debunking geocentrism) One one one I can simply do a better job.

[krkey]

while a bit off topic( but anyone can see that it has bearing) and a personal rarity for me this paper from the secular web I completely agree with. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=287

Not all ideas are created equal. Theories such as swoon, myth, copycat thesis, tomb robbery do not belong on any serious inquiry about the origins of Christianity because they are long dead and throughly demolished within all New Testament scholarly circles, be the scholar an atheist or a Christian. Even Christ mythers such as Well's and Doughtery do not use the Pagan copy cat thesis, they simply argue for midrashic history.

[Tez]

Originally posted by krkey
while a bit off topic( but anyone can see that it has bearing) and a personal rarity for me this paper from the secular web I completely agree with. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=287

Not all ideas are created equal. Theories such as swoon, myth, copycat thesis, tomb robbery do not belong on any serious inquiry about the origins of Christianity because they are long dead and throughly demolished within all New Testament scholarly circles, be the scholar an atheist or a Christian. Even Christ mythers such as Well's and Doughtery do not use the Pagan copy cat thesis, they simply argue for midrashic history.

krkey could you indulge someone with no clue (i.e. me) and very briefly state/list what it is that contemporary NT scholars (atheist and christian) do theorize about. "Midrashic history" was one clue I gleaned, can you list a few others.

Appreciated.

[a_unique_person]

krkey, have you heard of Bishop Spong?

[Quasi]

Originally posted by krkey
while a bit off topic( but anyone can see that it has bearing) and a personal rarity for me this paper from the secular web I completely agree with. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=287

Not all ideas are created equal. Theories such as swoon, myth, copycat thesis, tomb robbery do not belong on any serious inquiry about the origins of Christianity because they are long dead and throughly demolished within all New Testament scholarly circles, be the scholar an atheist or a Christian. Even Christ mythers such as Well's and Doughtery do not use the Pagan copy cat thesis, they simply argue for midrashic history.

I guess that depends on your strict definition of NT scholarly circles. I certainly have discussed this within interested parties, especially in the wake of the Catholic Church scandals here in Boston.
1) The catholic church has documented evidence, which is taught in catholic schools that the majority of the NT was written centuries after Jesus was supposed to have died.
2) There is documented evidence that a man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans around the time of the believed crucifiction. Whether this was the historical Jesus must be taken as faith- Jesus was a popular name.
3) The empty tomb- again, we have no proof of this, so the Biblical version is irrelevant, and should be disregarded. The site of Christs burial is now a very sacred Islamic shrine.
4) The Bible could not have been written because of omissions- This is trying to prove a negative, because it is already known the Bible stories have changed over the years, and the death of these characters could have been omitted. So this again is an irrelevant point as we will never know.
5) NDE's have already been satisfactorily explained, and can be induced in a centrifuge chamber when the persons life is in no danger at all. I do not see how nerves firing has any connection to the Bible. If you do not agree, please explain your problems with the relevant clinical trials.

On a different note, from my studies of the Bible and confidence artists, every day I cannot help but draw comparissons between modern day frauds such as Sylvia Brown and Jesus. Sylvia has also made many miraculous claims, telling people garbage so they keep coming back. She is also the leader of her own Gnostic religion. She is also being "persecuted." It is not too hard to see the people in Jesus' time getting sick of his rediculous claims and choosing Barabas instead. If this is too much to swallow, I am not surprised, as you have obviously been exposed to a great deal of christian education. The main problem with Biblical scholarly research is that there are very few facts to check, and it is clear that no miracles are happening now, which is unacceptable from a Biblical christian viewpoint. Philisophically, you must then beleive that christianity is the only one true religion, and that we shoud be converting the Islamic hordes to the "true" faith. What do you think?

[jim_scotti]

Originally posted by Quasi


5) NDE's have already been satisfactorily explained, and can be induced in a centrifuge chamber when the persons life is in no danger at all. I do not see how nerves firing has any connection to the Bible. If you do not agree, please explain your problems with the relevant clinical trials.


Interesting - can you point me to a reference for these NDE experiments? I'd like to read more about the details.

Jim.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by toddjh
I bet Yahweh or Yahzi would be more than happy to go at it mano a mano, as would I,
It's hard to complain about people putting words in my mouth when they are the very words I would say. :D

Krkey, you have several options:

1. Start a new thread called "Yahzi VS Krkey." In the opening post, state that this is a one-on-one thread, and neither of us will respond to any posts except from each other. Then simply ignore every post not from me. I'll do the same, and ignore every post not from me. Wait, I mean. not from you.

2. Go over to Internet Infidels and use their Formal Debate forum to challenge me. I'm known as Yahzi over there, too.

3. Live with the open air here, and just respond to the posts you want to respond to. Most of us are saying the same thing anyway.

Choose your weapon!

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by krkey
Yahweh has already choosen to debate me, so first come, first served. If for whatever reason that fall through I will happily choose anyone else
What? He's a lame newbie! He smokes crack! He wets the bed!
:p
Aw, dang it Yahweh, you stole my chew toy.
:D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Quasi

1) The catholic church has documented evidence, which is taught in catholic schools that the majority of the NT was written centuries after Jesus was supposed to have died.


That is equivalent to telling fundies the devil said it.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by krkey
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.

I believe Mark was not finalized until after the Fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) In Mark, the mythical Jesus makes reference to the fall of Jerusalem. MOST impartial scholars date Mark to around 70 AD. For people with an xian agenda, yes, the earliest date the better. However Justin Martyr writing in 150 AD knows nothing of ANY of the gospels. Matthew/Luke (90 AD) and John (120 AD)


The hypothetical document quelle is accepted as having been written in the mid ad 50 range.

The Q Document is supposedly the sayings of Jesus. Why would this be written 20 years after he died. If anything Q was the sayings of an insignificant sage from the time of his life - significant to his meager followers - but insignificant in history.


Mark is next in order,

I would say Q (30 AD), then Paul (50 AD) then Mark (70 AD)


but to properly date this one needs to first arrive at a date for luke-acts,

Acts was written 100 years after Paul

though seperate pieces, they were written by the same author.

Most definitely not

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.

Not true

[/b]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 [/b]

You are under the influence of some mighty bias xian research! With research like that, next you will claim dinosaurs were on the Ark!

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)

EARLY church tradition claimed that John was still living to prop up the idea the "this generation" was still alive - giving hope that Jesus' promise was still to be fulfilled. (John was supposedly way over 100 years old) Alas Jesus' promise went unfulfilled.

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.

You seem to forget there were hundreds of gospels. Each with slightly different takes on the life of the mythical dying god-man. The 'church fathers' HAD to make a stand on a few, or risk fracturing the church.


Matthew was a minor apostle who also was a tax collector, his job would have left him as persona non grata among ancient readers.

No one knows who wrote Matthew. It certainly wasn't someone alive during the supposed life of Jesus.

Also, if the NT is simply intended as apologetic fiction

You are confusing 'apologetic fiction' with Christian mythology

The didache is dated no later then 100ad

You are High-larious! Surely you realize there were Gnostic writings BEFORE the Gospels?! Do you not know of the Therapeutae of Alexandria? My God man! Where did you study? Do you not realize Mark is a Gnostic idea refashioned to a specific geography and time?

Why didn't the church write the rest of the life of Jesus,

Now you have revealed your ignorance. Are you not aware of the Infancy Gospels? Do you think there were only 4 gospels?!

[/b]why did it start with John the Baptist. [/B]

Mark started with John - yes. Mark knows nothing about the virgin birth in Bethleham. Mark starts a couple of years before the 'crucifiction'. It's simply the Gnostic myth re-created into reality.

Isn't it funny Paul doesn't know who John is? Paul doesn't really know anything about Jesus does he? Doesn't know about the virgin birth, Bethlaham, Jerusalem - all Paul knows is the crucified/resurrected god-man. Why? Because Paul was writing to Gnostics. It was with Mark that a geography and time were re-threaded through the story.

At the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews knew Yahweh had broken His promise. The only hope was to refashion the Gnostic myth into history to give hope to a beaten people. The funny thing about xians is - they believe the myth is history! (By the way, xians were ridiculed in the early 2nd century for just that belief)

You have a lot to learn.

Good luck in your debate with Yahweh. You'll need it.

[Loki]

krkey,

My four point are agreed upon among NT scholars, you might be wise to use them.
What about Islamic scholars? They would seem to meet your requirement for "serious" historical study and NT research, yet I'd suspect that to a man they would argue Christ was never crucified?

On what grounds are you dismissing 1400 years of Muslim opinion?

[Keneke]

May I just say that while you say you want a one-on-one, you still respond to other's questions though you said you were going to remain quiet. Plus you try to suggest that a one-on-one debate is a manly and honorable competition, when competition isn't exactly the point here, truth is.

Was I wrong for defending you from the harpies? Are you so petty as to deserve their name-calling vengeneance? You shame me.

/dramatics

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Keneke
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.
.................................................. ........




Thanks for bringing this to my attention..

But please note, I did say " apparently ".. Which would be a poor reflection on my perceptive abilities, should it prove to be unfounded....


That said, I apologize to krkey and all, for my bad manners...

[Gregor]

Too late to the pile-on. DANG-IT; DANG-IT; DANG-IT

Mr. Kenkey

So many fallacious posts (and I'm so late to the party).

1. I enjoyed the No True Scotsman: Mythicists are not scholars - 'cuz I said so. Go see Wells and Doherty.

2. Smart people accept a early date to Mark, Matt - If you don't, you're not smart.

etc.
etc.

So, you're a shill for Tektonic's ministries. Fine. Turkel gets no traction here. He's a weak apologist and (I assume from the venom of his articles) a miserable individual.

3. Your early dating of the synoptics is as far to the right as you can get. We could spend days and pages pointing out the errors in your assumptions (obviously derived from some fundamentalist board like Tektonics). But one refutation should do it - Please review the similarities between Luke/Acts and Josephus. Please explain that the author of Luke/Acts did not rely upon Antiquities or War (and by such explain how Luke/Acts was not written after 90 C.E.)

And I caution Yahweh in his debate - anyone taking the extreme positions of our young jedi will never accept the outcome of a debate.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by krkey
I feel absolute no need to proof scholarly concensus or rebut long dead ideas

...so funny, dude!

:id:

Barkhorn.

[hgc]

I nominate triadboy as debate opponent for krkey. He seems to have a lot of relevant facts at his fingertips.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hgc
I nominate triadboy as debate opponent for krkey. He seems to have a lot of relevant facts at his fingertips.

The problem is, krkey has stated he will choose his opponent. I have a feeling, Triadboy will not get chosen.

However, I look forward to Triadboy's participation, solicited or not.

[Ladewig]

If a debate format is decided upon, would you separate the NDE topic from the resurection topic?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Diogenes
That said, I apologize to krkey and all, for my bad manners...

I don't think WEBLOS are supposed to act that way, are they, little mister? :)

[Gregor]

And what, again, is the premises that will be debated? Is it "Resolved: That it is historically true that Yeshua the Nazarene bodily rose from the dead?"

Kind of tough to debate, without reliable first-person accounts, we'll never agree to historicity. Debating historicity of the resurrection will never be resolvable. Things too easily degrade into the McDowellian arguments at 5,000 feet: "No one would die for a lie" or "success of Xianity means the truth of the resurrection" - all of which is really weak and probative of nothing.

It is probably easier to debate "Resolved: That the gospels present a consistent story of bodily resurrection that does not conflict with Paulian epistles." With that, we at least get a two-fold debate: (1) Are the gospels consistent on the fact of resurrection, featuring the later interpolation of Mark, the gospel of secret Mark, and gnosticism on resurrection and (2) Did Paul preach a spiritual versus bodily resurrection.

This is at least subject to logical debate structure.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Diogenes


The problem is, krkey has stated he will choose his opponent. I have a feeling, Triadboy will not get chosen.

However, I look forward to Triadboy's participation, solicited or not.

My nipples are bursting with pleasure that you and hgc have so much confidence in me, but I look forward to Yahwehs responses too.

I agree with Gregor. Debating the historicity of the resurrection is like debating how many elves work with Santa. However, the accuracy of the Gospels is appalling and the physical knowledge Paul had of Jesus is non-existant - I don't think krkey would like that debate.

[Keneke]

Hey, Diogenes, I didn't mean to pick on *you* either. You ain't the worst, believe me. ;)

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Gregor
It is probably easier to debate "Resolved: That the gospels present a consistent story of bodily resurrection that does not conflict with Paulian epistles." With that, we at least get a two-fold debate: (1) Are the gospels consistent on the fact of resurrection, featuring the later interpolation of Mark, the gospel of secret Mark, and gnosticism on resurrection and (2) Did Paul preach a spiritual versus bodily resurrection.

The key word is "story". I still say that proving consistency (or whatever can be proven at this point) still does not prove the resurrection as a fact. There's nothing testable and repeatable there.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Keneke
Hey, Diogenes, I didn't mean to pick on *you* either. You ain't the worst, believe me. ;)

I didn't feel picked on.. I really appreciate you giving me pause..:)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy

Debating the historicity of the resurrection is like debating how many elves work with Santa.


LOL..:D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy


However, the accuracy of the Gospels is appalling and the physical knowledge Paul had of Jesus is non-existant - I don't think krkey would like that debate.
I found this Item by Hyam Maccoby quite interesting..

Paul's Bungling Attempt At Sounding Pharisaic (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby3.htm)

I bring this up because krkey provided us with a link to the home of our favorite apologetic... " James Patrick Holding ', over at Tektonics.org...

Holding reviewed a book by Maccoby titled " The Mythmaker "..

The scholarly import of the review can be ascertained in the first paragraph as Holding, the true Christian that he is, opens up with a fusillade of ad hominem...

Meeting Up with the Mythmaker (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_MUM.html)

Between the Old and the New Testaments, perhaps the greatest heroes in all of Judaism were the Maccabee family - the brave fellows who stood up to the desecrator of the Temple and all-around jerk Antiochus Epiphanes. We remember the result of their deeds at this season along with those of our Savior. Today there is another "Maccoby" and he is neither warrior nor priest. He is a Talmudic scholar and a leading nuisance-writer against Christianity. Such is one way in which the family has gone downhill. The next sentence is equally telling...

Few scholars take the works of Hyam Maccoby seriously; you will not often see him quoted as an authority, and his books (like the one evaluated here, The Mythmaker - Harper and Row, 1986) belong on the same shelf as items like Holy Blood, Holy Grail and James the Brother of Jesus. In other words, Maccoby is a conspiracy theorist, and has all of the associated practices.


The rest of the review is a riot...

[arcticpenguin]

I like Yahweh to represent the local side. We will send this scrawny teenager out to fight the mighty krkey armed with nothing but a slingshot.

[Phil]

So when does it start? I guess we'll have to wait for Yahweh to get out of school.

Anyway, I've got a cold beer, a hot dog, peanuts, and a score card.

Waiting for the umpire to yell, "Play ball!!."

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Phil
So when does it start? I guess we'll have to wait for Yahweh to get out of school.

Anyway, I've got a cold beer, a hot dog, peanuts, and a score card.

Waiting for the umpire to yell, "Play ball!!."

I believe Yahweh is in the training room getting a pre-game rubdown. But soon he will appear on the field of battle wearing his favorite leather codpiece.

[Dragonrock]

[Howard Cossel voice]
Hello everyone! Howie Coleslaw welcoming everyone to JREF forum stadium. It's a beautiful fall day and we look forward to bringing a good match.

An experienced veteran from another board issued a challenge. A challenge that echoed throughout the fora. That challenge was accepted. Accepted by a young upstart, a boy, perhaps new to this world, but not without his own past. The gauntlet was cast and as been retrieved.

But now, a few words about our competitors…

Krkey, who is he? What do we know of this shadowy competitor? He appeared suddenly, bringing references and links and a cocky self-assuredness that got the attention of even the most relaxed of posters.

Yahweh, the local boy with more than his share of controversy. Few have not heard of him. But all know that he is a skilled fighter with more than a few wins under his belt.

What will be the outcome of this monumental battle? Will it be a Clash of the Titans or will David meet Goliath? Only time will tell.

We will return to this epic confrontation after this brief word from our sponsor.
[/Howard Cossel voice]

[Phil]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
[Howard Cossel voice]
Hello everyone! Howie Coleslaw welcoming everyone to JREF forum stadium. It's a beautiful fall day and we look forward to bringing a good match.

. . .

We will return to this epic confrontation after this brief word from our sponsor.
[/Howard Cossel voice]
Awesome, Dragonrock. Can you do the guy from NFL films, too?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Keneke


From there an interesting debate might ensue, but comparing the Bible to a book that is obviously fiction is apples and oranges.

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."

[jan]

Although so far I have not learned much from krkey, he triggered some interesting replies worth reading.

[Skeptical Greg]

While we are waiting for krkey to return, here is one of my favorite rebuttals of the Resurrection theory..

By Richard Carrier

Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (2000) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/1.html)

An excerpt..

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. ...



. .... Rather than the Almighty, One, True Creator of the Universe showing his love for all of mankind, by having his son executed, then raising him from the dead


Carrier says.. " And, as I say quite directly, "A god ought to know better."

[Beleth]

Originally posted by krkey
Yahweh has already choosen to debate me, so first come, first served. If for whatever reason that fall through I will happily choose anyone else
If you are going to have a formal debate, then you will also need a judge. I volunteer to be that judge.

I have 8 years' worth of experience judging debates already, and, as anyone who has read my stuff here can attest to, I am about as big a fence-sitter as you are likely to find. I do know some things about Yahweh's background that I do not know about yours, krkey, but it will not cloud my judgment.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
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."

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?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes
"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


"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

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Beleth

I have 8 years' worth of experience judging debates already

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?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Keneke
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?
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.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Keneke
[B]

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]

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.

[krkey]

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.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by jan
Although so far I have not learned much from krkey, he triggered some interesting replies worth reading.
That smirk on your avatar is just right for the occasion.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Keneke
plausibility (in at least the historical parts, if not the supernatural parts).

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

Jeremy

[krkey]

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 (http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html) 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 (http://www.tektonics.org/vector-a.html) by another non scholar( by his admission) .

I will give you a hint, the Christian community does not take Well Doherty, or Carrier seriously.

[krkey]

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.

[krkey]

Keneke

I will certainly take that debate about did Paul teach a spiritual resurrection with if once yahweh and I are done

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by Keneke

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.



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".

[Skeptical Greg]

While we wait... More from Richard Carrier

( Regarding the resurrection )

1. The Event is not Proportionate to the Theory (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/1c.html)
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.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

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. ;)

[krkey]

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.

[krkey]

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.

[arcticpenguin]

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".

[krkey]

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.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey
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.
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.

[krkey]

truly a brilliant rebutal penquin.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by krkey

When Christ Mythers that have been mentioned in this room can meet the following requirements (http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html) 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.

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.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by krkey
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.

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.

[Skeptical Greg]

One reason to assume a post 70 authorship of Luke/Acts..

From: Early Christian Wrtings: The Gospel of Luke (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html)
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.

[krkey]

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_Feeble_Mind]

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?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by krkey
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
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.

[krkey]

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

[krkey]

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.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by krkey


My earlier post had a link rebutting Carrier.



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...

[Phil]

Originally posted by krkey
. . . 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). . .
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.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by krkey
I was lead to believe this forum wanted to engage in constructive criticism about the New Testament.

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

[krkey]

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

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by krkey
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.


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...

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by krkey
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.

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.

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

Barkhorn.

[krkey]

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.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by krkey
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

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.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by krkey
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"

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

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

[Skeptical Greg]

135 Posts and no presentation of the facts supporting

a.) the resurrection of Jesus



We are waiting....

[krkey]

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

[Phil]

Originally posted by krkey
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
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.

[krkey]

as I said earlier I will do that in a one on one debate. Because I want the infidels in here to do as much leg work as I am. I want them to defend a stated alternative theory. I am waiting for Yahweh to respond, if he doesn't in a day or two how about you Phil.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Beleth
In other words, I don't expect to be persuaded. I expect to be able to determine who is more persuasive.

Good for salesmen. Bad for finding the truth. I expect nothing concrete out of this debate, for either side.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by krkey
as I said earlier I will do that in a one on one debate. Because I want the infidels in here to do as much leg work as I am. I want them to defend a stated alternative theory.

I smell an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy in the works. "No one can conclusively prove an alternative explanation, therefore mine must be true!"

That's not going to fly around here, either. You have to make your case completely independently of anyone else's.

Jeremy

[Phil]

Originally posted by krkey
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
As much as I love you, Diogenes, I have to point out to krkey that we are not the same person.

[krkey]

still don't get it do you Phil. My point with Ceaser crossing the Rubican is that is not a reproducable event either. I am not claiming the resurrection is reproducable either, I am simply asserting that it is the best explanation for the start of Christianity. Why do I want a one on one debate. Keep things fair, allow me to stay focused. Why do I want my opponent to defend an alternative theory, I feel if any atheist wants Christians to take them seriously they should offer a reliable counter explanation.

[krkey]

Sorry about that Phil, I got a bit cross eyed on that post. Mistakes happen, I think everyone understand even with my gaffer what I was saying

[Phil]

Originally posted by krkey
Sorry about that Phil, I got a bit cross eyed on that post. Mistakes happen, I think everyone understand even with my gaffer what I was saying
No worries.

And I have to apologize. I was supposed to be sitting quietly drinking my beer, which I will return to now with much anticipation.

[krkey]

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

[krkey]

I like that idea of a beer. It is my birthday( I am 25) so I just might go get one. Might ask Phil to pass one to be honest( would you pass a beer to a Christian?)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by krkey
still don't get it do you Phil. My point with Ceaser crossing the Rubican is that is not a reproducable event either. I am not claiming the resurrection is reproducable either, I am simply asserting that it is the best explanation for the start of Christianity.

Without first establishing the divinity of Jesus (and, before that, the existence of a god), resurrection becomes a physical impossibility. In what sense is it the best explanation?

Why do I want my opponent to defend an alternative theory, I feel if any atheist wants Christians to take them seriously they should offer a reliable counter explanation.

You're the one who came here, wanting us to take you seriously. The rest of us have no burden other than skepticism.

Jeremy

[krkey]

last post for awhile, I am going to go get that beer. Lets speak extremely hypothetically here. The resurrection does not absolutely proof God. It merely proofs the resurrection. Other possible( but unlikely explanations)
a.) all the cells came back to life
b.) aliens did it( God only knows why, maybe they liked him)
c.) Jesus was a cyborg from the future
d.) Jesus was resurrected by people from the future as a naughty pranks.

These objections are humorous but they do make a point. In theory the resurrection is possible without God. Thus I do not need to prove God to assert the resurrection. Once you accept the resurrection, it is your choice how you explain it.

[Phil]

Originally posted by krkey
I like that idea of a beer. It is my birthday( I am 25) so I just might go get one. Might ask Phil to pass one to be honest( would you pass a beer to a Christian?)
So you'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, huh?

One beer coming up. And I hope you're enjoying your birthday.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by krkey
I like that idea of a beer. It is my birthday( I am 25) so I just might go get one. Might ask Phil to pass one to be honest( would you pass a beer to a Christian?)


Happy Birthday!

And now I shall return to reading with great enjoyment. My one course in New Testament History leaves me ill prepared to participate but I am enjoying the refresher and have even enjoyed a few instances of having anticipated a point before it was made.

I hope Yahweh isn't too busy with homework to play.

"Hello Yahweh's mom, can Yahweh come out to play, please? Just until the street lights come on, ma'am. Thank you."

[Beleth]

Originally posted by krkey
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. The cannon ball holes make all the difference in the world. If you showed a skeptic a pristine Fort Sumter with no cannon ball holes, then no amount of witness testimony would convince him that cannon balls had ever hit it.

[krkey]

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)


[/B]The cannon ball holes make all the difference in the world. If you showed a skeptic a pristine Fort Sumter with no cannon ball holes, then no amount of witness testimony would convince him that cannon balls had ever hit it [/B]

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."

Now I am going to get that beer

[Keneke]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Bah, you've just elevated the genre of "true fiction" to historical accurate status.

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

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey
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
What's your best explanation for the rise of Scientology? Mormonism? Hinduism? Islam? Various Kool-Aid cults? All thosse religions & sects exist (except for the cults that suicided themselves). Does that mean that their myths are true as well?

Stating that the NT is historical is not the same as demonstrating it.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey
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)

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."

Now I am going to get that beer
I know what you mean; like the James ossuary. Someone certainly tried to make "repairs" on that. :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by krkey
The resurrection does not absolutely proof God. It merely proofs the resurrection. ...........


Once you accept the resurrection, it is your choice how you explain it.


Before you can assert that the resurrection is the cause of the rise of Christianity you have to demonstrate that the resurrection took place..

In the absence of that demonstration, it is logical to assume something else ( perhaps yet to be determined, doubtful to be agreed upon ) is responsible..

If you want to assert that the belief in the resurrection is the cause of the rise of Christianity, then it might be best that you start another thread...

On the other hand, there might be little objection here to that assertion...

Anyone?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by krkey
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

I addressed your other points...

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....

Or, how would you address this problem with the writings of Paul...




You just ignored it...

[Beleth]

Originally posted by krkey
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]

Originally posted by krkey
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 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21118&highlight=anecdotes+evidence) 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 (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) 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]

Originally posted by krkey
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]

Originally posted by 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?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]

Originally posted by Keneke


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]

Originally posted by scribble


(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]

Originally posted by Diogenes


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]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


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]

Originally posted by hgc
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]

Originally posted by Keneke

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]

Originally posted by Diogenes
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]

Originally posted by krkey
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.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by krkey

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

Are you saying the difference between Wells and Kent Hovind is what you wish to debate?

[Gregor]

Ahh, Balaam, we have another talking ass.

Please present your credentials next to G.A. Wells. Please set forth how you devoted decades to Biblical scholarship.

Tell us whe you were invited to Oxford to speak.

Tell us what published articles you have presented.

Tell us what books you have written.

Me thinks you are simply a high school senior with a ken for Buybull inerrancy and access to Robert Turkel.

Your treatment of Josephus was a tour de force. I shall inform Steve Mason in Onterio that he should resign and stop writing about 'ole Joe.

Feel free to cite uberconservatives like Colin Hemer. But don't try and paint apologist churchmen like secular historians. It sounds like you've read one book in your illustrious career. You should read William Lane Craig - you'd like him, he's an ultraconservative, too.

If you equate Wells with Hovind, it shows what a reactionary you are. With an attitude like yours, I assume you agree with the determination that the world was created on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C., that Noah got 80,000 animals on the ark, and that there's still a REALLY old disciple out there whose still hanging on til Yeshua returns.

[krkey]

I do not pretent to be a New Testament Scholar, however I do eventually plan to get my doctorate in that area. I most certain am a historian, or at least the college I am going to graduate from will certify me as one in december. But seeing Wells has his degree in German and I am going to get mine in History I already feel I am better then Wells.

Well Kent Hovind was invited to the University of Tennessee to speak, he most be a acceptable biologist now. He has also spoken at many universities around the nation. See I am not interested in Well's speaking engagements, I am interested in his relevance to NT studies. Which is none

Point me to the article Well's has published in New Testament Journals.

Me thinks you are trying to sell me skeptical snake oil.

Hate to break it to you about Hemer. He is a secular classical historian and was never a church man. Personally I find Craig to be bit better scholar then Wells, after at least he has a degree in what writes about and does not defend a belief as noxious as holocaust denial.

My treatment of Josephus comes from using secular sources( such as Hemer, Sherwin-White, Ramsey and Bruce) who have written about the book of Acts. Perhaps it might offend your pet views but there is no compelling reason to accept a textual relationship between Acts and Josephus.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by krkey
Hate to break it to you about Hemer. He is a secular classical historian and was never a church man.

So what? Shouldn't the question be decided on its merits and not on whether someone entered the fray as a believer or not?

If you dismiss everyone who is not a believer because they don't believe it, then, yeah, everyone who you don't dismiss is going to come down on the believer side.

[Gregor]

Your bleating Xian claims are still unsupported, young Turkelite.

Mr. Hemer is identified on the back of one of his two books as a Research Fellow at Cambrige. It doesn't list him as a Dr. It doesn't provide that he has five degrees in NT studies from Bob Jones U. I don't know if he has them or not, but does that mean people should be ignored without advanced degrees?

What? What? Are you hoisted on your own petard if Mr. Hemer has no such provenance?

Only a whining Christian would make such a claim.

Please tell me how you know Mr. Hemer and please post his CV. Considering that he died when you were in short pants, what do you know of him.

And please don't describe him as some unbiased "secular historian." WMCraig calls him an "Anglican" historian and he apparently (as I have only read reviews) tries his best to establish Acts as accurate history and extraordinarily early. We can trust that he's a Xian apologist.

And from your half-arsed posting up to this point, you'll pardon me if I don't accept your global assertions of other "historians" assertions of mid-first century Luke.

And even an appeal to numerousity in NT "scholars" has inherent problems. You see, if you're an evangelical, bookish type and looking for a academic spot until Christ returns, it's only natural to follow NT studies. If you go into it with the bias of being a Buybull thumper, do you think your theories are going to side with reasoned logic, or are they bent over backwards towards orthodoxy?

Show me a group of Islamic scholars who have examined the evidence and find L/A to be before 85, and then I'll be more convinced.

[krkey]

I could not leave this discussion in good conscience without explaining my seemingly stubborn demand upon strictly using scholarly sources and my refusal to recognize Maccoby, Wells or Doherty with this regard.
A scholar is a person who is trained in the various fields necessary to interact with the relevant data. For example a biologist at the least would need a good background in biology( to say the least) and chemistry.
The same logic applies to the New Testament Scholarship, which is a branch of classical scholarship. At the very least a scholar in this area should have the following attributes.
a.) a solid foundation in Roman, Greek and Jewish History
b.) fluency in Greek and at least a profectiancy in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic
c.) a background in Ancient cultures and their customs
d.) a solid background in archaelogy
e.) and lastly the holistic ability to tie it all together

Without this background a person cannot hope to interact with any ancient document, including the New Testament.

A prime example of this is the question being asked why doesn’t Paul show any knowledge of the life of Jesus. This argument is fallacious for numerous reasons.
a.) first he does now events from the life of Jesus. He knows his brother James (Galations 1:19, John 7, Mark 6.3) He knows about the last supper ( 1st Co 10:14-22 and 11:27-30) and the apostles, the empty tomb and the resurrection ( 1st Co 15). See also Romans 6:23 , 10:9-10 versus John 3:16.
b.) The next question is why should Paul have had to mention it in the first places in his epistles. He already told the story once. The only reasons he should have to repeat himself are:
1.) A point was forgotten ( unlike in a oral based society)
2.) A argument over a point occurred
3.) He needed to repeat himself
Final death nail in this argument is from the type of writing Paul was employing, which is that of an epistle. It assumes a high background knowledge among it readers, unlike the synoptics, John and Acts which are middle context documents.
An example of a high context statement
a.) The Challenger exploded. The person hearing this statement is assumed to know that this event happened in 1986, in Florida, to a space shuttle, during the launch because of ice on the o-rings
An example of middle context statement
a.) The Challenger exploded in 1986 during launch- This statement offers more information, but still the reader needs to fill in the relevant facts of the cause of the explosion
An example of low context statement
The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on January 28th, 1986, during the Reagan administration, while in take off. It killed all the astronauts and was caused by ice on the o-rings. This statement has little need for background knowledge within the reader.
The reason I hold to scholarly concensus is that while not an absolute gurantee of correctness, it is certainly more probable that it is correct. I feel the same way about trying to revive long deads ideas in any applicable area of scholarship, they were abandoned for appropriate reasons. How many defenders of Lamarckan evolution exist now days. I do not embrace the methodology employed in this forum because to do it i would slow inquiry to a virtual halt, because nobody can trust the concensus of any expert and literally would have to proof the idea himself.
The Christ Myth has no support among New Testament scholars. Even Robert Price does not support it in his book Beyond Born Again. Even the extreme fringe the Jesus Seminar refuses to support it . Among regular historians it is received about as warmly as holocaust denial. To quote Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith, certainly not an evangelical historian. ( this comes from Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald, eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986)
a.) “I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."
b.) “..many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space”
c.) "(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

There are legitimate debates within New Testament scholarship, among them are explanations for the rise of Christianity; the resurrection( N.T Wright), hallucinations (Gerd Ludemann) and legend ( Burton L. Mack). No current NT scholar holds to the swoon, theft or copycat thesis, regardless of theological views.
Another legimate debate is the dating, authorship and order of creation for the synoptics ( John is held to be independent). Typical of scholarly views across the board are as thus:
a.) Mark-55AD-75AD
b.) Matthew 60AD-80AD
c.) Luke/Acts 60AD-80AD
d.) John- 60-90 AD

Another debate is the order of the creation and which book should be the priority in the synoptics. The classical views maintains that Mark was created first, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Quelle as their sources, plus unique independent material. Challenging this view, and finding some revival of the Griesbach view (priority of Matthew). Also being debated is which is more important to atributing authorship to a book, church tradition( after all they were there) or textual sciences. I find it very unlikely that Well’s, Doherty or Maccoby have anything relevant to offer to this.
There is no compelling reason to accept the NT is not properly preserved. No historicial document has a greater degree of textual harmony( this means that text A agrees with the wording of text B) of about 99%. For example the Vedas are only preserved with 90% textual harmony. Also no document was written closer to event in question then new testament.( at most 40 years). Also no document has copies preserved from as close to event at hand, for example the oldest copy of Tacticus dates from the ninth century.
There is no compelling reason to belief the New Testament is not historicially accurate.( this is not the same as innerrant)
a.) Aristotles dictum- any document is considered innocent until prove guilty.
b.) It claims to be historicial.
c.) It deals with historicial events, places and people
d.) It was qouted as historicial by Pagans( such as Celsus), Christians and Hereticial Groups. The noncanocials never received this respect
e.) There is no known counter tradition for authorship of the books involved
f.) Noncanocial writings never wrote upon areas which the Canocial writings discussed
g.) It takes two generations to form a legend, regardless of dating of the documents, they were created within one.( Sherwin-White Study)
h.) Oral tradition is stable ( Sherwin-White Study)

For all these reasons, the NT passes the historians criteria for being a historicial document. Now to cut if off before the question comes forward, what about the book of Mormon or Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.
a.) The book of Mormon is presumed innocent as with all historicial documents. However archaelogy and textual sciences have demonstrated it is a forgery.
b.) Dianetics is philosophy and self health, not history
c.) I already addressed the Koran, but I will do so again. It was never qouted as historicial by its critics. I am quote satisfied with scholarship on this subject, which would seem to indicate it is a composite of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christianity and Mohammeds writings.

I would highly recommend with those in this room to read real scholarship. This is now my last post, I do have a debate to concentrate on.

[jan]

What does all this stuff about Wells mean? All I hear is something like

Originally posted by krkey

Wells ε German → Wells ε Ignored



Edited to add: This crossed with krkey's posting, in which he gave more detailed explanations about Wells.

[Gregor]

Poppycock

You set forth a silly list of criteria, then in your first argument, there is no need for ANY of those criteria. Your PRIME example of why "fluency" in Greek is needed is a PRIME example why your statements are poppycock.

Part a) (while arguably factually incorrect - as no empty tomb discussion exists at all!) requires none of your essential elements

Part b) is clearly factually incorrect and requires none of your essential elements

The "death nail" is factually incorrect and is assumption on your part.

Your statement of "scholarly consensus" is a myth. No such animal exists.


Different analyses and arguments require different talents.

[TruthSeeker]

Excuse the interruption Mr. KrKey, but the debate has begun. Please join us. Thank you.

the thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29220)

[Keneke]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

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.


For the last time, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT. Could Oz be historic and therefore similar to the bible? Fine! That assumption does not invalidate my point.

Do you even understand my position?

I will state it one more time since you don't seem to be listening to me: WoO is not as good of a book for comparison with the Bible than another book presented as historical. I don't care that the only reason WoO is fiction is because people say so; the validity of that statement is moot towards my point. I am sure someone will argue that point with you, and you can go get your rocks off all you like.

Once again, stop creating my position for me. It's very annoying.

[Loki]

krkey,

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.

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

Your turn (fill in the blanks ) :

1. The Bible's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings ) references to Jesus are true because _________

2. The Quran's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christian writings and some writings of Mohammed) references to Jesus are false because _________

Let me guess. *All* Islamic scholars are incorrect in their research, study and conclusions because "many scholars" say they are. I assume you meant to say "many christian scholars..."?

How many Muslim scholars agree that Christ was resurrected?

On what grounds are the conclusions of Muslim scholars "invalid"?

Why would any historian researching the "truth" of the NT and Jesus overlook the Quran? It's a collection of writing some of which relate directly to the topic at hand, and which (claim) to add additional explanation. Why ignore it?

[krkey]

Response to Loki

am quite satisfied with the view of many scholars on the Bible that it is a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings. Then it is evident you have never, ever read a single New Testament Scholar in your entire life ( the fact you read zero shows it takes little knowledge to satisify you)

The Bible's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings ) references to Jesus are true because __
The New Testament is most certainly NOT a collection of jewish oral traditions. That view, of Midrashic history was abandoned a long time ago. It might be wise to read a history book. If you had read a history book say this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0156013150/qid=1066869125/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-7102003-7446320?v=glance&n=507846)
you will have learned that in fact the Arians were a forth century Schism within the church about the nature of Christ. Now if you had read any book on biblicial scholarship (might I recommend this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830814027/qid=1066869278/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7102003-7446320?v=glance&s=books) here)

The Quran's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christian writings and some writings of Mohammed) references to Jesus are false because Because they come from the seventh century AD, and the far older documents( read book above) which have a different take on the event were written within 20-40 years during a time period if they were not true they most certainly would have been rebuted by hostile witnesses, say the Pharisees or Sadduccees.

Let me guess. *All* Islamic scholars are incorrect in their research, study and conclusions because "many scholars" say they are. I assume you meant to say "many christian scholars..."? Actually I would say that Islamic scholar are on the right track in their view that the Qu'ran is a composite document from at least three sources, Arian Christianity( this part is mainly Hymns) Jewish Oral tradition and the writings of Mohammed. Also they have been heavily tampered (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm) with

How many Muslim scholars agree that Christ was resurrected To this question I do not have a clue, but I would recommend if you are so curious then why don't you ask them?


On what grounds are the conclusions of Muslim scholars "invalid"? I would say on no grounds

Why would any historian researching the "truth" of the NT and Jesus overlook the Quran? It's a collection of writing some of which relate directly to the topic at hand, and which (claim) to add additional explanation. Why ignore it Because historians have far better documents to deal with, not in the least the New Testament, Josephus, Suetinious, Pliny and Tacticus. Who should historians pick, document from the 1st and 2nd century or the 7th century?

[krkey]

About Colin Hemer

He received his doctorate in 1969 and for awhile taught hellenistic Greek, He was also involved with research at Macquarie University (http://www.mq.edu.au/) . After reading Sir William M Ramsey writings (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Ramsay%2C%20William%20M./002-4913612-0146416) especially on Acts Hemer decided to investigate the historgraphy of acts in his landmark study (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0931464587/qid=1066871218/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-4913612-0146416?v=glance&s=books)

Before his untimelly death of cancer in 1987 he was a senior researcher at Cambridge (http://www.cam.ac.uk/) and was involved with its Tyndale House.

Here are some views on the book here (https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_12S17D3J5.HTM)


Well Hemer set the benchmark for all studies on the book of acts. And it may offend the pet notions of some atheist, but it should be dated no later then AD62. Incidentally my information on Hemer came from my copy of The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. I wonder why Gregory couldn't find this stuff. And lastly Gregory are you so daft as to think Islamic scholars have an opinion one way or another about Acts

[Loki]

krkey,

Hey, thanks for responding!

Then it is evident you have never, ever read a single New Testament Scholar in your entire life
I assume this comment is in response to my using the term "Arian christian" in relation to the Bible. Fair enough! The dangers of making a fast post, I guess. The point I was attempting to make was in relation to the *method* in which the two books (Bible and Quran) have been assembled. It seemed to me that you were implying the Quran's *method of construction* was somehow different/flawed compared to the Bible. My quick "cut and paste" was aimed at demonstrating a similar comment was applicable to the Bible. But yes, the word "Arian" should be removed from my Bible comment. Arian concepts relating to the (potential)divinity of humans didn't make it into the Bible. I'd be intertested to see why you think some of the core Arian theological concepts are inherent in Islam?

The New Testament is most certainly NOT a collection of jewish oral traditions.
I was referring to the Bible as a whole, but even so I guess this comment is supposed to relate to the Gospels?

Because they come from the seventh century AD, and the far older documents( read book above) which have a different take on the event...
Ah...a different take on the event. What is the (claimed) source for this "different take" again?

... were written within 20-40 years during a time period if they were not true they most certainly would have been rebuted by hostile witnesses, say the Pharisees or Sadduccees
So :

Absence of Pharisees rebuttal = Gospels accounts must be true.

How about :

Absence of Pharisees support = Gospels accounts must be false.

See any difference in these two statement's validity (or lack of)?

To this question I do not have a clue,
Excuse me? You don't know how many Muslim scholars think Jesus was not resurrected? One? More than one? All? Why wouldn't you know? If you haven't studied their conclusions and their reasons, how can you dismiss them?

Because historians have far better documents to deal with, not in the least the New Testament, Josephus, Suetinious, Pliny and Tacticus.
So you believe there *are* grounds for grading the two sources - dates, and time elapsed between event and writing.

Who should historians pick, document from the 1st and 2nd century or the 7th century
Who should historians pick, documents from the 1st and 2nd century, or documents from the 7th century that claim to expand on the earlier doument, and which claim to be from the the same source? Seems to me historians need to examine *both*, unless and until the second documents claims can be shown to be false. Can you demonstrate that the Quran's claims to be "from God" and "about the real Jesus" to be false?

[krkey]

Gregory I have this novel notion for you, now pay attention. Whenever you translate from one lanquage to another, meaning is lost. Why is this you ask? Because some words in one language have no meaning or direct relation with a word in another language. Thus the first step to being a bible scholar is at least a proficiency in the language of its composition, in the case of the NT, Greek. But you are right there is no discussion in the New Testament about whether the tomb was empty, the vast majority view is that it was.( Only NT scholar I can think who disagrees with this is Crossan) Here are just a few reasons, that NT scholars, regardless of religious views accept the tomb as historicial fact.
a.) the use of women witnesses in a first century Judean setting. This is the equivalent of using blacks as witnesses in the 1930 southern USA
b.) The use of Joseph of Arimethea, a member of the Sanhedrin that had executed Jesus is almost certainly true. There is no apologetic need to make this man up and the town of Arimethea has no prophetic value( ie if they were making it up they would certainly used a different town)
c.) Pauls testimony implies an empty tomb. Compare the Christian saying in 1st Co 15:3-5 with Acts 13:28-31 and Mark 15:36-16:7
d.) Tombs of these nature have been discovered in Israel before
e.) The earliest account in Mark is not colored by legend. As further evidence of the antiquity of this account it does not mention the name of Caiphas, it simply says the High Priest( think what you would think if I said the president)
f.) the polemic of Matthew 28:11-15 implies the tomb and also implies it was empty
g.) There is no known counter tradition

To qoute secular historian Michael Grant- whatever the differences in the text, it is certain that the tomb was empty
These are the reasons, NT scholars, regardless of theological views except the tomb was empty.

Perhaps you should read this here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830815694/qid=1066872313/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-4913612-0146416?v=glance&s=books) and here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801021758/qid=1066872357/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/002-4913612-0146416?v=glance&s=books) . Perhaps I should email Ludemann ( A nonbelieving scholar and inform him he is wrong about the tomb being empty)

I will inform anthropologist and historians Bruce J. Malina (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Malina%2C%20Bruce%20J./002-4913612-0146416) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Rohrbaugh%2C%20Richard%20L./002-4913612-0146416)

That they have been corrected by Gregor from the Randi forum and are in fact wrong about ancient documents being high context writings.

You are right about there being no such thing as scholarly concensus. When I get done I am going to the following debates

a.) did the holocaust happen
b.) is the earth round
d.) Did Booth kill Lincoln
c.) the merits of Lamarckan evolution

[krkey]

Most people date Islam (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195107993/qid=1066874480/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/002-4913612-0146416?v=glance&n=507846) to the seventh century. This view is not really contested. Muslims consider the Book of Barnabas to be the true story of Jesus. This is dated from the mid second century, as opposed to the synoptics and John from at most 40 years after the death of Jesus( and thats at most)

Actually lack of Pharisee support can be explained by the Radical Claim of the apostles, that a resurrection occured before the end of time( see John 11) and it did have some Pharisee support.

I have studied muslim scholars conclusion on the Qu'ran. If they are muslims then they believe that Jesus was never crucified. If the scholar is not a muslim, he might believe in the resurrection( assuming he was a Christian)

Arian element that can clearly been seen in the Qu'ran.
a.) Uniterianism, Jesus is lesser then God
b.) Jesus will come again, Judge the earth etc

Why not use the seventh century ones. The older ones are far better and closer to the event at hand

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey

a.) the use of women witnesses in a first century Judean setting. This is the equivalent of using blacks as witnesses in the 1930 southern USA

Of course if you were attempting to appeal to the downtrodden, it wouldn't be so odd.

[krkey]

actually yes it would because in that world, the downtrodden did not listen to women. Women were considered so worthless as witnesses that they were not allowed to testify about lunar changes. If they had wanted to use downtrodden witnesses, they certainly would have used downtrodden men.

Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to a women- J sot 19a

Happy is he whose children are mae and alas for him whose children are female- B Kidd 82B

[Loki]

krkey,

Arian element that can clearly been seen in the Qu'ran.
a.) Uniterianism, Jesus is lesser then God
b.) Jesus will come again, Judge the earth etc
I suppose the fact that Unitarianism seems a better fit with the overall text of the gospels rather than the Trinity isn't really relevant to this conversation? I'm interested in the way you ascribe the "Jesus will come again, Judge the earth etc" to the Arian view, and therefore imply it's not part of the orthodox view.

Why not use the seventh century ones. The older ones are far better and closer to the event at hand
Hmmm...I guess thre's no harm try to sneak a quick "assume the conclusion" into the conversation. The issue is *why* are the older ones better. You give two reasons - because they are "closer to the event" and because they are "better". I'll concede the first, but the second is just plain sneaky of you! Again, I'd ask why would the 7th century writings be dismissed, given that they *claim* to be from the same source (god) as the 1st century writings, and that they *claim* to expand and correct the originals. Can you address these claims?

[krkey]

You seem to forget that Arians held many views that were mainstream, they view that made them difference was their view on the nature of Christ. I will rephrase my prior response, NT documents are better because they are closer to the event at hand. Muslim documents are way to far removed as to have any historicial value on this issue.

[krkey]

Actually the new testament claims to be the writing of men, not God. For example Mark wrote the recollections of Peter, John wrote John and Matthew composed Matthew. As for Mohammeds claim of writing for God I am simply skeptical of that. It has no bearing on the issue of Christianity

[Loki]

krkey,

You seem to forget that Arians held many views that were mainstream, they view that made them difference was their view on the nature of Christ
No, I didn't "forget" that. I asked *you* to highlight those concepts within Islam that *you* felt were clearly examples of an "Arian influence". You listed two. The second surprised me, since it appears to be a mainstream (orthodox) christian concept. I'm just trying to understand why you felt the need to mention something that is cleary not an "Arian Christian" concept in response to my question? Your reply seems to indicate that, in fact, you put it there for no reason at all?

Muslim documents are way to far removed as to have any historicial value on this issue.
Fair enough - you can hold that opinion. Can I ask you then, how "far removed" are the books and writings of the "NT scholars" you are referring to? Would they be further removed than the Quran? Would this "distance" weaken or strengthen the value of these writings compared to, say, Muhammad and other Muslim scholars of the past 1400 years?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by krkey
I have studied muslim scholars conclusion on the Qu'ran. If they are muslims then they believe that Jesus was never crucified. If the scholar is not a muslim, he might believe in the resurrection( assuming he was a Christian)
It appears you do have a clue, then.

I don't generally bother with Biblical studies. I take the King James version to be the only one that matters. It's the one people believe in: it defines the faith.

[Gregor]

While our prattling blatherskite will ignore it, one can plat tit for tat.

Ok, let me get into character. . . Let's see, I'm a raging infant horrible. . . I'm so convinced of being on a mission for God that I'll slant the truth and my arguments. . . I'll only accept as "scholarly" pieces those that agree with me. . . I'm a fan of ultraconservatives. . .

OK, I'm ready. Here's my reply

Well, Mr. KrKey, if you'd only read what I post, you'll find true knowledge and insight, although I know your prejudice wouldn't let you. If you read these you'd see that I'm correct, all scholars agree with me, and you're going to hell.


Just check out: "Putting Away Childish Things"
by Uta Ranke-Heinemann. She proves to the whole world the falsity of the myths in the narratives.

Then maybe you should read this "The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus" by John Dominic Crossan to learn of the Jewish oral traditions of the Jesus myths and how they can be faulty.

Then you should read this "The Five Gospels : What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the AUTHENTIC Words of Jesus"
by Robert W. Funk to see what scholars all agree on. There is no debate, and you're wrong.

Then you should read this "Josephus and the New Testament"
by Steve Mason to learn how the author of Acts relied upon Josephus. He's got the sole correct answer.

Then you should read "Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth" by Burton L. Mack from one of the most 'secular' scholars in the field. He's the only one with the correct answer.

Then to learn about the other Xian writings, please read "The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader"
by Bart D. Ehrman.

Whew!

Hey, it's easy when you delude yourself that you're the only one with the "Truth" (tm Bob Jones University).

[krkey]

Try a real statement of my views. I accept scholarship, real scholarship by people who have demonstrated they have the competance to deal with the subject at hand. Wells, Doherty and Maccoby are by no more New Testament scholars any more then Kent Hovind is a biologist.( all you have to do to disprove my claim is show me the university that gave them at least a masters in the New Testament. The fact this has yet to be done strengthens my view that it cannot be done. Without that I refuse to compare people who have devoted their entire lives, and have shown proper aptitude in the subject, be them believers or nonbelievers with the above mentioned gaggle of clowns. It is an insult. It literally is the same as putting Richard Dawkins on the same level as Hovind)

I have never said a person is not a scholar for holding a post seventy AD date for Mark, many New Testament scholars do. Many do not. I am simply arguing that their is compelling arguments for not doing this.

I have read Dominic Crossan before so I see no reason to go farther with him. His argument for the priority of Peter and Thomas has no support by any person but himself. While I do respect Crossan's numerous credentials my time would be more wisely spent studying scholars, regardless of theological strip who are more mainstream.

I have already read Burton L Mack, his book is currently resting on the top row of my bookshelf. I did not find him very convincing. He simply did not offer any explanation for easter sunday(wise move), often times used the phrases similiar to "you can only imagine or "it is possible". It is very unwise to make assumptions about the Quelle document such as he did, its existance is at best hypothetical and even if it does exist we still do not know the contents of it. Again I respect him as a legimate scholar though I would argue he is only convincing to those already convinced.

I will confess I have not read Funk and will see if I can check it out from my library. From what I see so far at amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006063040X/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-5985822-5043307?v=glance&s=books&vi=customer-reviews) he seems to be taking three stars, which is not a very good sign for his argument. But as I said I will read it if it is available from the library. As a rule though, I do not waste much time on any book from amazon with less then 3 1/2 stars( because only three stars means that it has only has average failed to convince half of all people, remember you cannot do zero stars in amazon.com ) I suspect a few round with this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830815449/ref=ase_tektonministries/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books) might do you well

I already own Ehrman so need to further look at it. I have not read Mason by I think I can suspect the flaw with his methodology already. He confuses similar language and similar descriptive events as proof of dependence upon one or another. This in fact only proves that different people can describe a similar event in a similar way.

For example if you and I were both asked to write about September 11 we would both mention the world trade center and the pentagon. We would also use similar words and phrases to describe the event in question.

Here are the objections from Colin Hemer (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0931464587/qid=1066954800/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1970756-91on this subject about a literary connection between Acts and Josephus.
A.) It should be noted that when the two authors touch upon a subject, they often conflict. This hardly helps the argument for dependence immediately. For example the date of the census under Quirinius, Theudas reference, and date of succession of Festus.
B.) The author of Luke tends not to paraphrase his sources, while Josephus does this for both brevity and to alter the mood of his writings. The author of Luke was a far better historian then Josephus with his materials
C.) Josephus is attempting a comprehensive history of a people (Ant) or period (BJ) whereas Luke’s work is extremely narrow and selective in its focus
D.) Where Josephus’ major works are extended over many books, Luke has written two books tersely.
E.) The advocacy implicit in the two authors writers is different: Luke is on any view self-effacing, his purpose theologicial ( even if its expression is through a historical record) whereas Josephus’ record is intensely personal in areas where his own conduct had incurred criticism, he does not have a similar theological motive.
F.) The theological outlook of Josephus is close to the ethical providential theism of Dionysus, but the further assimilation of luke to this comparison is difficult to substain. Although both authors may be trying to communicate with a pagan readership, where Josephus may be prone to accommodate, Luke’s theology, even as presented in Acts 17, may interact with pagan thinking, but is bold to counter it. These two headings involve a different resolution of the history-theology tension in the two writers.
G.) Josephus’ writing is strongly marked by rhetoric, and stands in a distinctively rhetoricial tradition within ancient historiography; Luke, while capable of sophisticated literary style in his preface, is never rhetorical.
H.) The speeches in Josephus are characteristic products of the rhetoricial tendency; those of Acts are brief, and if we may adduce the “speeches” of Jesus in the third Gosepl, their content is reproduced almost verbatim in part from a preserved source( Mark) or a closely inferable one ( Q or equivalent)
I.) Josephus, while a an invaluable witness to matters within his experience, is prone to sensationalize and exaggerate; Luke is restrained. Josephus dwells on the horror of the famine in domed Jerusalem or the grotesque fate of refugees, or a mother eating her child, a scene complete with speeches. This problem is especially apparent in the treatment of numbers. In Acts 4,000 men follow the Egyptian bandit into the desert, and in Josephus 30,000. Josephus has not less than three million Jews in an anti-Roman demonstration, can we accept such a figure?
01745?v=glance&s=books)

Another difficulty with the theory of a literary
connection between Acts and Josephus is the details
excluded from Acts which certainly would have been
known to the author of Luke and most certainly
recorded by him, because they were such major details
within early Christian history.


a.) Fire of Rome
b.) Death of Paul
c.) Death of Peter
d.) Death of Judas the brother of Jesus (mentioned in
Josephus)
e.) First Persecutions of Nero
f.) Fall of Jerusalem ( mentioned in Josephus)
g.) Beginning of 1st Judean Revolts ( mentioned in
Josephus)
h.) 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 from 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 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.

Points d , e and g are all grave difficulties for any
assumption of a literary connection between Acts and
Josephus. These were all events mentioned within
Josephus, all had a major effect upon the Christian
community. To suggest the author of Luke, would use
Josephus for certain material and not these major
events is absurd. Another difficulty is point H, it is
baffling to say the least why Luke would use Josephus
but not the writing of Paul, by which time would have
been in circulation.

Lastly this theory offers little explanation for
certain points of specialized knowledge within Acts.
Hemer has identified over 191 pieces of information
that are of a specialized nature, only readily
available to a person if he been at those locations(
which is extremely difficult in ancient times, people
did not travel nearly as much.) Lastly this needs to
be considered, if Luke is not the author, why the
absolute attributation of it to Luke. Does your
author attempt to explain the “we” passages in Luke.
Why is there no know counter tradition of authorship.
If it was a forgery, wouldn’t it make much more sense
to attribute it to say Barnabas.

Five out of 191 points.

16:13 A small river, the Gangites, flow close to the
walls of Philippi.
17:18 The Athenians call Paul a “babbler” ( sorry my
computer does not type Greek, this is the best
translation) which is a word of characteristically
Athenian slang
17:23 Paul would have seen the Athenian object of
worship in profusion at the main approach to the agora
from the northwest.
19:35 Has the correct title for the chief executive
magistrate in Ephesus.
20:14-15 The sequence of places mentioned in these
verses is entirely correct and natural

I got sick of typing, I was originally going to do
twenty. Does your author successfully explain these
things?

Forgot to mention, here is Crossan getting
demolished (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801021758/qid=1066955061/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books) in debate.

as for faith, I prefer the Christian definition (http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html)

No reply you said Gregor?

[krkey]

I forgot to add this part to difficulties with Josephus-Acts connection

Here are the objections from Colin Hemer on this subject about a literary connection between Acts and Josephus.
A.) It should be noted that when the two authors touch upon a subject, they often conflict. This hardly helps the argument for dependence immediately. For example the date of the census under Quirinius, Theudas reference, and date of succession of Festus.
B.) The author of Luke tends not to paraphrase his sources, while Josephus does this for both brevity and to alter the mood of his writings. The author of Luke was a far better historian then Josephus with his materials
C.) Josephus is attempting a comprehensive history of a people (Ant) or period (BJ) whereas Luke’s work is extremely narrow and selective in its focus
D.) Where Josephus’ major works are extended over many books, Luke has written two books tersely.
E.) The advocacy implicit in the two authors writers is different: Luke is on any view self-effacing, his purpose theologicial ( even if its expression is through a historical record) whereas Josephus’ record is intensely personal in areas where his own conduct had incurred criticism, he does not have a similar theological motive.
F.) The theological outlook of Josephus is close to the ethical providential theism of Dionysus, but the further assimilation of luke to this comparison is difficult to substain. Although both authors may be trying to communicate with a pagan readership, where Josephus may be prone to accommodate, Luke’s theology, even as presented in Acts 17, may interact with pagan thinking, but is bold to counter it. These two headings involve a different resolution of the history-theology tension in the two writers.
G.) Josephus’ writing is strongly marked by rhetoric, and stands in a distinctively rhetoricial tradition within ancient historiography; Luke, while capable of sophisticated literary style in his preface, is never rhetorical.
H.) The speeches in Josephus are characteristic products of the rhetoricial tendency; those of Acts are brief, and if we may adduce the “speeches” of Jesus in the third Gosepl, their content is reproduced almost verbatim in part from a preserved source( Mark) or a closely inferable one ( Q or equivalent)
I.) Josephus, while a an invaluable witness to matters within his experience, is prone to sensationalize and exaggerate; Luke is restrained. Josephus dwells on the horror of the famine in domed Jerusalem or the grotesque fate of refugees, or a mother eating her child, a scene complete with speeches. This problem is especially apparent in the treatment of numbers. In Acts 4,000 men follow the Egyptian bandit into the desert, and in Josephus 30,000. Josephus has not less than three million Jews in an anti-Roman demonstration, can we accept such a figure?

[triadboy]

Krkey,

This gets 4 and a half stars on Amazon. Please read it.


Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, and Morality

[krkey]

Triadboy Again you do not seem to comprehend my statement I do not waste my time on the ranting of the idiotic views of any village atheist. I have about as much desire to deal with their writings as I have to deal with the writings of Duane Gish (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932766285/qid=1066958025/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books) Hey look he also got four stars. My criteria while I might have left it unspoken is for dealing with books written by scholars( wait a minute now, Duane Gish unlike the gaggle of Christ Mythers I have been presented with actually has a relevant degree in the subject he writes. Wow I found something worse then young earth creationism, Christ Mything)

But I will read it if you read perhaps this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830814027/qid=1066958328/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books) or this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385025335/qid=1066958412/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books)

Please tell me that was a brain fart and you seriously do not believe what you recommend was in any way useful as anything other then fuel for a fire.

[krkey]

Well folks goodnight, my computer lab closes in 10 minutes and I do not have internet access at my house. I will simply await till tomorrow Gregors argument against my complete destruction of any textual relationship between Acts and Josephus.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by krkey
Triadboy Again you do not seem to comprehend my statement I do not waste my time on the ranting of the idiotic views of any village atheist. I have about as much desire to deal with their writings as I have to deal with the writings of Duane Gish (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932766285/qid=1066958025/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books) Hey look he also got four stars. My criteria while I might have left it unspoken is for dealing with books written by scholars( wait a minute now, Duane Gish unlike the gaggle of Christ Mythers I have been presented with actually has a relevant degree in the subject he writes. Wow I found something worse then young earth creationism, Christ Mything)

But I will read it if you read perhaps this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830814027/qid=1066958328/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books) or this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385025335/qid=1066958412/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books)

Please tell me that was a brain fart and you seriously do not believe what you recommend was in any way useful as anything other then fuel for a fire.

Do me a small favor, and read this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29167)

Tell me what you think about emotional investment.

I'll promise you this. If you can manage to convince me of any of this God or Christ stuff, I'll go back to being a Christian.

I'm serious. I'm no "scholar" or other some such. I'm just some guy that is trying to figure things out in a neutral way.

Care to take the challenge and try to convince me? Your chance to save a soul!!!

To be honest, I have no idea how this will turn out. I have no problem saying I'm wrong. If you want this real challenge, PM me and let me know...

I'm willing to honestly put my beliefs on the line. Are you willing to try to affect change?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by krkey
I accept scholarship, real scholarship by people who have demonstrated they have the competance to deal with the subject at hand.
I see you are uninterested in a debate over principles, but merely want to sling around titles to see who can come up with the most accredentialed authority.

Well, the Catholic Church has the best authority of all Christian denominations. I take it therefore you will soon inform us of your conversion to Catholicism.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I see you are uninterested in a debate over principles, but merely want to sling around titles to see who can come up with the most accredentialed authority.

Well, the Catholic Church has the best authority of all Christian denominations. I take it therefore you will soon inform us of your conversion to Catholicism.


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


(I am learning so much in Mr. Krkey's threads. Thanks to all of you.)

[Gregor]

First, many of your topics are make weight arguments, and a number are surely subjective.

A - I don't know if I'd agree with this, and I'd need to compare the two entries side by side.

B appears to be incorrect - you need to give an example for me to even consider what you are saying

C is not quite accurate but irrelevant - while Joe was more focused on history at its core and Acts was history plus theology. It doesn't help you argument one bit.

D So? point? And L/A only had to read two books to borrow from.

E & F - again, going to motivation, not content

G - too vague without examples

I - I recognize the cut and paste, but I cannot recall where.

Well, while I don’t know whether you cut and pasted your materials or summarized them yourself, I do get the benefit (and inherent limitations) of relying upon a summary by another. What follows is also obviously more comprehensive than your simplifications - but as I admit, I didn't prepare it.

Richard Carrier has already summarized many of the salient facts and arguments that Mason makes to support the Luke reliance upon Josephus.

The following is an abbreviated cutting from infidels:

“Among the[] stories or facts [that are identical in both Josephus and Acts and thus militate in favor of copying] are:

• The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8).

• The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).

• The death of Agrippa I as God's vengeance for accepting praise as a god (Acts 12:21-3; JA 19.343-52)
. . .
[See the actual article for ten more]”

“Mason concludes with one overriding similarity of tactic between L and J that is unlikely to have been independently devised: both very cleverly paint their religions as respectable Graeco-Jewish philosophical schools. Some of these features:

• L begins by asserting that Christian teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as J emphasizes that Jewish teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by Moses . . .

• L and J use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth.

• L's emphasis, far greater than in any other NT text, on the virtues of poverty [like] Josephus

• L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).

• L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis,.

• L calls the Pharisees the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), yet no one else but Josephus uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189)."

"Conclusion

"Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd.”

The full review can be found at infidels.org


DEBATING WILLIAM CRAIG

And Jeff Lowder has responded to Craig’s historicity of the resurrection debate topics here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey
Triadboy Again you do not seem to comprehend my statement I do not waste my time on the ranting of the idiotic views of any village atheist. I have about as much desire to deal with their writings as I have to deal with the writings of Duane Gish (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932766285/qid=1066958025/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books) Hey look he also got four stars. My criteria while I might have left it unspoken is for dealing with books written by scholars( wait a minute now, Duane Gish unlike the gaggle of Christ Mythers I have been presented with actually has a relevant degree in the subject he writes. Wow I found something worse then young earth creationism, Christ Mything)

But I will read it if you read perhaps this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830814027/qid=1066958328/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books) or this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385025335/qid=1066958412/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1970756-9101745?v=glance&s=books)

Please tell me that was a brain fart and you seriously do not believe what you recommend was in any way useful as anything other then fuel for a fire.
Steve Allen was not a "village atheist", he was a Christian.

Furthermore, you are revealing that you will dismiss any atheist as a source. You appeal to authority, and you liberally apply the 'true Scotsman' fallacy to determine whom you will regard as an authority.

In short, you are intellectually dishonest.

[krkey]

Arctic, are you illilterate? I have said again and again I do respect atheist SCHOLARS such as Crossan and Ludemann. I refuse to waste my time with just an exChristian though.

[whitefork]

The penguin can spell "illiterate" correctly, in any event.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by krkey
I refuse to waste my time with just an exChristian though.

Just to get an idea of where your head is - I'd love to know what your particular OT beliefs are concerning:

Adam and Eve
Cain and Abel
Tower of Babel
Jonah in the big fish
Noah and the Flood
The Adventures of Lot
Moses and the Exodus

Are these real to you? (i.e. actual historical events) If you are a Christian - I assume you believe them as real.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by krkey
Arctic, are you illilterate? I have said again and again I do respect atheist SCHOLARS such as Crossan and Ludemann. I refuse to waste my time with just an exChristian though.
I'll write this real slow to match your comprehensive skills:
Allen was not an ex-Christian. He was a Christian. I use the past tense because he is dead. You say you respect scholars, but it very clear through other things you say that you respect only scholars whose viewpoint matches your own.

[krkey]

First, many of your topics are make weight arguments, and a number are surely subjective.

A - I don't know if I'd agree with this, and I'd need to compare the two entries side by side.

Luke seems to place the census or Quirinius around 6AD while Josephus places it during the time of Herod. The egyptian in acts has 4000 men, In josephus 30,000( Acts is more likely correct here.) If Luke was simply copying Josephus, why the difference here

B appears to be incorrect - you need to give an example for me to even consider what you are saying. From Hemer on this. Downings examination of Josephus' handling both of the Old Testament text and noncanocial material in the Epistle of Aristeas is of much interest. He concludes that Josephus is free in altering the wording of his sources, and the historian does think this at variance with his strong professions of accuracy. Further, Josephus seems to paraphrase for the sake of change, since most ofthese changes have no obvious motivation. There is no real invention of material, though he may variously rearrange, tidy, conflate or embellish his sources. The second part of the study, which applies these findings to the purpose and method of luke is less successful. Downing claims that luke is actually much closer verbally to his sources than Josephus, and points in at least one connection tto his relative brevity.

C is not quite accurate but irrelevant - while Joe was more focused on history at its core and Acts was history plus theology. It doesn't help you argument one bit.

I will inform the classical historians of your correction. My point in this is to establish difference between Acts-Josephus. The more differences, the less likely there is a connection

D So? point? And L/A only had to read two books to borrow from.


But this needs to be asked, if Luke was composing so late as you suggest, why didn't he use any of Pauls writings? This is extremely difficult for a Josephan connection, because the later you date Luke, the more and more difficult it becomes to explain why he never used Pauls writings. You want me to believe a Christian would use Josephus, but not Paul

G - too vague without examples.

Point H provides the example, the speeaches of Jesus in mark

I - I recognize the cut and paste, but I cannot recall where.

Nor do I , its from page 97-98 of Hemer

The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8). As I posted earlier Luke and Josephus have different dates for these events, kinda odd indeed if they copied one another.

• The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171). From Hemer on Theudas. Theudas is said to precede Judas whose revolt was directed against the census of Quirinius in 6AD and therefore a fortiori he most precede the dramatic date of Gamiel scence. But the sequence clashes with Josephus' dating of a revolt by a theudas under the procurator fadus, a time after Judas and more then 10 years too late for the ostensible chronology of this scene in acts....It is possible tha Josephus rather than luke is wrong. For the "Egyptian see above"

The death of Agrippa I as God's vengeance for accepting praise as a god (Acts 12:21-3; JA 19.343-52)

And why should this be any evidence for a literay connection? This is something both a Jew and a Christian would find offensive. I found 9-11 to be offensive, and I assume you did. Does that mean we now copied of each other.

• L begins by asserting that Christian teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as J emphasizes that Jewish teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by Moses . . .Why should it again be puzzling that a Christian would use a similiar phraselogy as that of a Jew? Similiar background often produce similiar thought patterns.

• L and J use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth. and both you and I use the word science to describe a science. Does that mean you and copied from each other? The problem with this argument is obvious, for it to have any bite it needs show there were numerous other words the author of Luke could have used.

• L's emphasis, far greater than in any other NT text, on the virtues of poverty [like] Josephus many people in modern times extol the virtues of charity. In ancient times povery was considered to be virtious. That luke had a common view for his time, that Josephus shared with him should not be suprising.

L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).

What other Christian author should have used it?

L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis,. This can be equally explained by the fact Josephus was a hellinized Jew and Luke was a former pagan

conclusion

Mason and Carrier are simple enganging in naive, uncriticial, 2 dimensional history without properly thinking through their Parallels. Also please xplain the second part of my post and why didnt Luke include all that material which would have been known to him

[krkey]

First a small correction. Luke has the census of Quirinious during the time of Herod, who died on four BC. Josephus has it during 6AD.

Here is why the argument isnt compelling( see above posts)

a.) Does not explain why Luke and Josephus have contradictory views on events if one use the others.
b.) does not explain why Acts excluded the material that it did, including relevant material that is in Josephus ( Death of Judas brother of Jesus, or anything relating to the Judean revolt)
c.) does not explain how Luke had such a high knowledge of various hellenistic settings.
d.) offers no explanation for why Acts never used the writings of Paul. The later one dates Acts, the more difficult this becomes.
e.) has no explanation for the "we" passages
f.) why would the Church attribute this anonymous document to Luke? He was a minor figure within Christianity. Why not someone more famous, such as Barnabas

Your Parallels are not very convincing. They are too general, they can equally be explained by two contemporary writers writing about similiar experiences. This is in fact a superior argument, because it much more adequately explains points a-f. These are the reasons the majority of scholars dismiss a Acts-Josephus connection.

In order for this argument to be viable, you need to find something like below.

The author of Luke used Mark as one of his sources. He used it almost verbatim

Mark 10:18-22 -Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'"
He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth."
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions


Luke 20:18-23 An official asked him this question, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.'"
And he replied, "All of these I have observed from my youth."
When Jesus heard this he said to him, "There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.

In order to establish a textual relationship between Acts and Josephus you need something similiar to this.( especially now this demonstrates Luke qouted his sources' almost verbatim)

[Faithkills]

"I have said again and again I do respect atheist SCHOLARS such as Crossan and Ludemann" - krkey

Something is sound or unsound, true or not true regardless of who said it.

Your entire metalogic is based on a fallacy.

You could make a valid SNR argument to defend why you may not have been _aware_ of some argument on this basis, but to reject the information for reasons other than the merit, once presented, betrays you. You are not interested in the truth. You are interested in getting people to _believe_ your fiction. I suspect from my short but deep reading of this place that won't happen.

I also suspect that if you actually made a sound logical case or presented evidence to support your case you would find many people did actually come to your side.

It's a point of pride with "us" (if I may presume) that we always do adopt new thought when it's proven. I doubt that makes any sense to you at all. I am sure you think I am lying, as I am sure you think other people are like you. The dishonest always do and you must assume we are all as intellectually dishonest as you are. But we aren't all like you. In fact it is for this very reason that some come to think in these ways. Refusal to be intellectually dishonest to oneself.

I, for one, mortal as anyone else, would dearly love to think what you believe. I doubt you can fathom how much I dearly want to. However I will not believe. Anything. My life is too short to fill my mind with fancies when reality is endlessly fascinating and endlessly terrible already. I may change my mind at a further date as my death approaches and retreat to belief. But it will be a sour and humiliating retreat.

FK

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Keneke


For the last time, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT. Could Oz be historic and therefore similar to the bible? Fine! That assumption does not invalidate my point.

Do you even understand my position?

I will state it one more time since you don't seem to be listening to me: WoO is not as good of a book for comparison with the Bible than another book presented as historical.

Consider this thread to be my presentation of the Wizard of Oz as historical.

This is the point. The fact that I can present as good of a case for the historicity of the WoO, based on the contents of the books alone, tells us an awful lot about how fruitful of an exercise it is.

Who cares if anyone actually presents it as historical? The question is whether it _can_ be presented as historical.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Here, here, Faithkills. :)

Welcome to the board.

[krkey]

I sincerely doubt that Faithkills, I have seen atheist agree that Jesus lived, Crucified and diead, the tomb was empty, the apostles saw him after his death. They explain every necessary factor for Christianity as a mass hallucination. I do not believe you are lying, but the first thing I learned as a Christian was that it demands a complete reorientation of ones life, and I had to give up some stuff I found to be rather pleasurable, such as premartial sex. Those things are not easy to give up and I do sincerely believe many objections to Christianity are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff. My only advice to you would be to study the evidence for the resurrection, read anything by Craig and study the secular explanations. In the end you might come away as I did and realize it takes more faith to accept the secular ones.

I do not use nonscholars because I am a laymen in the end it is simply a form or protection for me( against false knowledge) and it offers a far greater chance that the information will be valid. Would you consider using a first year law student to defend you at a trial?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by krkey
I do not use nonscholars because I am a laymen in the end it is simply a form or protection for me( against false knowledge) and it offers a far greater chance that the information will be valid. Would you consider using a first year law student to defend you at a trial?

This is still a false analogy. To disregard a point because of the source is to concede the point.

[Faithkills]

"I have seen atheist agree that Jesus lived, Crucified and diead, the tomb was empty, the apostles saw him after his death" - krkey

I don't want to debate the term atheist atm, but there are two basic flavors. Those who believe there is no god, who are basically no different from you, and probably should be more properly called antitheists. And those who, lacking data to support the premise, simply don't count the existance of a divine Jesus among useful and significant knowlege to concern oneself with. In any event the term atheist has become so overloaded that it's usefulness in debate is largely mitigated.

However I would doubt the former type would ever stipulate apostles saw a resurrected Jesus.

" had to give up some stuff I found to be rather pleasurable, such as premartial sex. Those things are not easy to give up and I do sincerely believe many objections to Christianity are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff" - krkey

Hehe, boy you make it tough to pass up, but for the sake of argument, I'll merely address the implication.

If the suggestion is that a philosophy has merit based on, and in proportion to, the sacrifice it entails, I can assure you giving up the belief in an eternal soul and eternal life for the cause of intellectual integrity is a far greater sacrifice than any premarital sex you may, or may not have, had the opportunity to indulge in. And for a far lesser reward.

I can assure you that on my deathbed the premarital sex I engaged in will not figure prominently in my thinking.

"In the end you might come away as I did and realize it takes more faith to accept the secular ones." - krkey

If Knowlege is power, then Faith is the abdication of power. I do not accept a god for whom the greatest virtue is believing something without proof. I submit to you that getting you to believe something without proof benefits other men more than it would benefit a god. Think about that. I would like to believe in a god of love, or pleasure, or happiness. Faith, not so much.

"a form or protection for me( against false knowledge)" - krkey

Do you have so little confidence in yourself that you cannot determine consistency yourself? If this lack of confidence in your ability is founded in any way, then it is even more likely this is a waste of time.

" Would you consider using a first year law student to defend you at a trial?" - krkey

This isn't the question though is it? The question is rather, having the choice of whose defense to accept after seeing both defenses performed, I chose to take the one that succeeded regardless of the credentials.

But if I WERE in the position to have to choose, without knowlege, I would listen to the projected defenses and form my own opinion.

If I could not have even that I would go by credentials as a last resort. I would not at all be happy about this.

Krkey, in your 'heart', or rather the holographic thinking part of your brain, you must know the answer. So I ask you.. why do this? You seem to have a measure of intelligence.. do you think you will be able to successfully delude yourself forever? You are wasting time, and deep down I think you know how limited that time is. You came here, I suspect from one part ego, clearly, but the other part is to test the mettle of your delusion. I think you have sense enough to know what's coming and you want to make sure you are covered. But in the end it's more than possible you will not be able to escape your own intellect. A guess on my part, maybe I am wrong. Maybe you can keep the delusion together long enough to serve you and comfort you till you die. But coming to places like this is not the best way to increase your chances of success. And be warned if it falls apart late in the game you will be in a world of hurt.

You ask of others that they capitulate to faith. Perhaps you should capitulate to the knowable and reality? Barring that at least capitulate wholly to faith and stop trying to construct a rationale out of the unreasonable.

You can build a bridge out of rainbows, but I for one am not going to be traversing it. But I sympathize completely with where you want to build the bridge to. I want to go there too.

Kansas sucks the big green one.

FK

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by krkey
the first thing I learned as a Christian was that it demands a complete reorientation of ones life, and I had to give up some stuff I found to be rather pleasurable, such as premartial sex. Those things are not easy to give up and I do sincerely believe many objections to Christianity are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff.

I know these questions are personal, but I hope you will answer them:

How long have you been a Christian?
What were you before that?
How did you become a Christian?
Do you belong to a denomination? Which one?

Thanks.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

The fact that I can present as good of a case for the historicity of the WoO, based on the contents of the books alone, tells us an awful lot about how fruitful of an exercise it is.

Yes, if society's predisposition for filing WoO under fiction is taken away. The angle I was coming from is that because of people "common knowledge" that WoO is fiction, we should compare the Bible to something more historical (yet still fiction) in order to show them by analogy the error of their ways. That's all. Nothing else. I never stated that you can or can not prove WoO is history.

[Gregor]

Why Krkey is a fraud

To call JD Crossan an aetheist is proof positive. Unless something has changed from all of his books, he's a former Catholic monk, a professor at a xian univerity, and an avowed christian.

His other arguments are false by hyperbole.

Everything he says is a giant "One True Scotsman" fallacy.

e.g. "It's not borrowing unless its verbatim"

"You're not a scholar unless you agree with me."

on

and on

and on

[krkey]

Gregor still doesnt get it. Crossan- "God did not exist during the Jurassic Period" if you assert God does not exist then you are an atheist. If you assert Jesus was eaten by dogs and never rose then you are nonbeliever at the least.

Yes I am a sticker for scholarship. If he could have explained how the clowns Wells, Doherty and Maccoby are qualified scholars (http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html) then I would have backed off this argument a long time ago.

All he has to do to kick over my arguments against a Luke-Josephan connection is to find one part of Josephus that luke uses verbatim. I managed to find a verbatim connection between Mark and Luke, why can't he do this with Luke and Josephus( I wonder why) Notice something folks, he never tried to kick over my argument against luke contradicting details in Josephus, omitting relevant details from Josephus, non use of Paul's writings and Lukes hellenistic knowledge. All he has to offer is some connection which are so general they could be used to prove any document is connect to another document.

Folks I was going to stick around and try to do something productive in here. But I can see that this is simply a waste of time as the infidels in here are at best a little better then Young Earth Creationist, they denigrate and refuse to use scholarship that doesnt support their pet historical views.( Before anyone says anything about me I have said again and again I have no problem with Atheist bible scholars) And just as YECs have their favorite nonscientist I can see the infidels have their favorite nonhistorians, who for whatever reason they believe are more qualified then real historians or bible scholars. All in all I refuse to muck in the mud of this intellectual nonsense anymore.

[triadboy]

krkey,

Adam and Eve
Cain and Abel
Tower of Babel
Jonah in the big fish
Noah and the Flood
The Adventures of Lot
Moses and the Exodus

Are these real to you?


You seem to be having a difficult time with this.

[Faithkills]

You sir, are an intellectual of the basest sort.

You gird yourself in the "scholarship" of others, but refuse to participate in the activity yourself.

Stand apprised that you can quote god himself and it would not make a whit of difference;)

Think and argue for yourself or don't kid yourself that you are engaged in thought. You are engaged in belief, and justification thereof, which is, alas your right. But don't expect it to stand in the place of reason or be accepted as such.

When arguing amongst believers there are rules. Those rules demand that no one looks behind anyone else's curtain since there's a man behind each. My what a pretty god you have.. but have you seen mine?

Thus you are frustrated when attempting to debate non-believers, who tend to go straight to the heart of the matter.

Yes, yes, I know. Yours goes to eleven.

Taa.

FK

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by krkey
IThose things are not easy to give up and I do sincerely believe many objections to Christianity are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff.
Why? Having to give them up didn't stop you from becoming Christian. Why do you think it prevents other people?

You seem to be implying that you can overcome your base desires, but other people simply lack the moral strength to do so. It sure sounds like you think you're better than the rest of us.

I recognize this attitude, because I share it. Giving up the security blanket of God, facing death and moral uncertainity, is really difficult. Not everybody has the moral strength to do it. I sincerely believe that many objections to Atheism are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff.

Hmm, well, now we have two people claiming to be more moral than other one. That's not very helpful How can we decide which one really is more moral?

Here's a test: supposed I die, and find myself before the Pearly Gates. St. Peter says to me, "There's a been a bit of a mix-up in the Book of Life, and we're not sure if you were an atheist or a Christian. Could you please tell me what you are, right now, and that will be good enough."

How would you answer this question?

Here's my answer: "Is there a place called Hell? Does it have anybody in it? Because if there is, then I am not a Christian. My moral nature cannot allow me to be happy in Heaven while people are unjustly suffering in Hell."

Now you tell me which answer is more moral: yours or mine.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by krkey
But I can see that this is simply a waste of time as the infidels in here are at best a little better then Young Earth Creationist, they denigrate and refuse to use scholarship that doesnt support their pet historical views
Hey chunky boy - none of the arguments I advanced to you questioned the validity of your scholars. None. You ignored them. The only arguments you chose to respond to were ones that questioned your authorities, and now you are running away because you can't win those arguments.

You came in here with no other agenda than arguing that your Bible believers are the only true authorities, and when people challenged you on that, you whined and ran away.

I really expected more of you. I have no idea why, but I did.

[Yahweh]

I'm currently spending a little of my free time causing trouble in the RD rooms...

Feel free to join if you like: http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@174.PyvRaE6Qt6h.9@.efe9a79/4384