Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth. - Page 189

Mr Clingford · 3rd November 2009, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

It's annoying when that happens, isn't it?

!

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Do you have any views, apart from Nazareth, which we've already touched on, about the historical accuracy of the NT?

I hope you know that I'm sincere in asking, and I'm certainly not asking for solid evidence, but I respect your opinions.

Avoiding the extremes of 'It's in the Bible and God wrote it so it's all true' and 'The Bible is complete bollocks so of course anything in it is wrong and worthless' is a good place to start!
The quote about the gospels not being history is a good point. The gospels appear to be making points about what Jesus is like. Whether the story actually happened as written does not seem to matter to them. One simple example of this is that events happen in different orders, even in single stories like the Temptation of Jesus - there is a little difference in the order of the temptations in Matthew and Luke. Since we can't tell if so many of the stories about Jesus took place or not, the point of them for me is what they say about the character of Jesus and his mission.

I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event. Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify or not the historicity of the NT and, of course, a lot depends on one's starting assumptions. I think the early date of composition for a lot of the NT, i.e., the mid and latter parts of the 1st C, is of significance. We know, therefore, that there were communities believing that the Messiah had come from the mid 1st C. Paul's early letters tell us something about this. Xtianity did not develop communities, ideas and writings centuries after Jesus, but we can see that they go back as early as c.50s, only 20 years after the death of Jesus. We can argue about whether Jesus was only human etc, but we know that in the mid 1st C some Jews believed different things to others and they became known as Xtians.

That's a bit of a start on a big topic.

I have no doubt of your sincerity and appreciate your stating it.

BobTheDonkey · 3rd November 2009, 06:35 AM

That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al.

While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al.

Mr Clingford · 3rd November 2009, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al.

Hmm ,what do we mean by 'veracity of the NT'? That it is all historically true? That there was a preacher called Jesus (in the Greek) in the early 1st C? I take it to mean that at least there was a preacher who had followers and who thought he was the Messiah and we have an unbroken chain from the time of Jesus to now. Perhaps I mean more but that will do for the moment. There is nothing, though, that proves that Jesus was God, or that there is a God, god or gods.

Your point is true, of course, but I think that if you take the line that the earlier something is to the period about which it talks, then on balance it is likely to be more accurate, all things considered, the earlier it is produced. Some of these writings were produced when people who knew Jesus were still alive and preaching their good news and arguing about what was true. The writings were not produced in a vacuum. I apologise if this a bit disjointed, but my brain is a bit fuzzy ATM.

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al.

The Bible is an interesting collection of documents about what people thought and held important. I am glad I don't live in those times (modern healthcare is amazing, thank God (only kidding!)). It is especially hard to find religious meaning in some of the stories in the OT, but they can be fascinating sociologically. Some are fun too. The portrayal of God as somewhat incompetent at finding a helpmate for Adam in the creation story amuses me. It's so far from how theists normally view God.

Akhenaten · 3rd November 2009, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

Avoiding the extremes of 'It's in the Bible and God wrote it so it's all true' and 'The Bible is complete bollocks so of course anything in it is wrong and worthless' is a good place to start!

I agree. I think the situation has ended up that way now though, not because of the subject matter, but because of the way it has been presented.

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

The quote about the gospels not being history is a good point. The gospels appear to be making points about what Jesus is like. Whether the story actually happened as written does not seem to matter to them. One simple example of this is that events happen in different orders, even in single stories like the Temptation of Jesus - there is a little difference in the order of the temptations in Matthew and Luke. Since we can't tell if so many of the stories about Jesus took place or not, the point of them for me is what they say about the character of Jesus and his mission.

We've reached another point of agreement.

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event.

Actually, I find myself a little surprised that there isn't more archæological evidence turning up. Not evidence for the veracity of the Gospels and other stories so much, but at least for some of the people and places that are mentioned. They're still out there digging, I guess, so hope springs eternal.

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents.

Yet another point of agreement. This is going swimmingly

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify or not the historicity of the NT and, of course, a lot depends on one's starting assumptions. I think the early date of composition for a lot of the NT, i.e., the mid and latter parts of the 1st C, is of significance. We know, therefore, that there were communities believing that the Messiah had come from the mid 1st C. Paul's early letters tell us something about this.

A lot of people, including myself, sometimes like to point to the fact that the NT was written post hoc as a sign that it can't be taken as history, but the point you make is quite valid. It wasn't THAT long afterwards and there was no TV to confuse the issues. Some facts must have remained intact, although as I think we agree, it's well-nigh impossible to sort them from the allegories and metaphors.

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

Xtianity did not develop communities, ideas and writings centuries after Jesus, but we can see that they go back as early as c.50s, only 20 years after the death of Jesus. We can argue about whether Jesus was only human etc, but we know that in the mid 1st C some Jews believed different things to others and they became known as Xtians.

That's a bit of a start on a big topic.

It is. It's a pity it didn't do better in this thread, but that's not the topic's fault. Perhaps there'll be other opportunities in the future, when the demographic here has changed slightly, if you catch my meaning

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

I have no doubt of your sincerity and appreciate your stating it.

Thank you. Frankly I'm sick of this thread, but at least it might serve as a place to make introductions, ready for the next iteration of the topic.

Cheers,

Dave

Akhenaten · 3rd November 2009, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al.

I don't know that those are entirely fair comparisons.

The truth that's in the NT is unlikely to ever form evidence for the existance of Heaven, or the Holy Spirit, but I don't know that we should entirely rule out that there are some historical facts hidden in there somewhere.

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al.

I have no religion whatsoever, so I'm not likely to read the Bible in a search for enlightenment or anything like that either, if that's what you mean by 'studying as a religious text'.

Yeah, a bit like the Odyssey seems reasonable, although the Odyssey is a more interesting yarn, for my money.

Cheers,

Dave

Simon39759 · 3rd November 2009, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event. Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents

I am not sue about that one. I can't recall anything conclusive showing up on that subject, do you remember where you got that information from?

BobTheDonkey · 3rd November 2009, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

I don't know that those are entirely fair comparisons.

The truth that's in the NT is unlikely to ever form evidence for the existance of Heaven, or the Holy Spirit, but I don't know that we should entirely rule out that there are some historical facts hidden in there somewhere.

I have no religion whatsoever, so I'm not likely to read the Bible in a search for enlightenment or anything like that either, if that's what you mean by 'studying as a religious text'.

Yeah, a bit like the Odyssey seems reasonable, although the Odyssey is a more interesting yarn, for my money.

Cheers,

Dave

The comparison between Buddhism and Christianity in my prior response is simply to compare when the teachings were translated to text. In Christianity, it was 20-30 years after Christ was crucified. In the case of Buddhism, Buddha's teachings were written down while he was still alive. Thus, the bible is no more or less accurate.

There are, of course, many differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Studying both, however, we find that the religion is more of a reflection of the cultures and societies than archeological gold mines, much less evidence of any of the supernatural recordings/teachings (resurrection/heaven/karma/nirvana/etc). No different from studying Norse tales, nor Greek tales, etc.

Akhenaten · 3rd November 2009, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Simon39759

I am not sue about that one. I can't recall anything conclusive showing up on that subject, do you remember where you got that information from?

I'm not about to become a poster boy for the Exodus, but I'm sure I've read a bit somewhere about the Hebrews who lived in and around the Delta at something like the appropriate time.

I also will search for references to them.

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

The comparison between Buddhism and Christianity in my prior response is simply to compare when the teachings were translated to text. In Christianity, it was 20-30 years after Christ was crucified. In the case of Buddhism, Buddha's teachings were written down while he was still alive. Thus, the bible is no more or less accurate.

There are, of course, many differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Studying both, however, we find that the religion is more of a reflection of the cultures and societies than archeological gold mines, much less evidence of any of the supernatural recordings/teachings (resurrection/heaven/karma/nirvana/etc). No different from studying Norse tales, nor Greek tales, etc.

Yeah, I think we about agree then. Good-oh.

Cheers

calebprime · 3rd November 2009, 09:57 AM

Just got Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman, from the library.

News to me: He makes the case that Jesus didn't teach that he himself was divine. (except in John, which is different from the other three gospels)

According to Ehrman, Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God would occur in his own generation, on earth. (Which, of course, didn't happen).

Ehrman also points out the difference between Jesus' death in Matthew and Luke: Ignominious, alone, despairing in Matthew, but in Luke, calm and assured.

Simon39759 · 3rd November 2009, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

I'm not about to become a poster boy for the Exodus, but I'm sure I've read a bit somewhere about the Hebrews who lived in and around the Delta at something like the appropriate time.

I also will search for references to them.

I would be grateful. I was under the impression that many of these artifacts, such as the Yakov Royal Ring and the Serabit slavery Inscription had now been discredited, or at least found not to be very conclusive.

Hokulele · 3rd November 2009, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by calebprime

Just got Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman, from the library.

News to me: He makes the case that Jesus didn't teach that he himself was divine. (except in John, which is different from the other three gospels)

According to Ehrman, Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God would occur in his own generation, on earth. (Which, of course, didn't happen).

Ehrman also points out the difference between Jesus' death in Matthew and Luke: Ignominious, alone, despairing in Matthew, but in Luke, calm and assured.

It is a good book. Regarding the point about the Kingdom of God, it is also interesting to note that the Gospels clearly indicate that it will be an earthly kingdom, and God is responsible for everything about it. When you get to the Epistles, it changes to a Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus has the starring role. My take on it is that Jesus wasn't a messiah figure when he was alive (assuming there was a singular "he"), but preached about the coming of something very similar. Later, as it became very clear that there was no chance in heck of a soon-to-be Kingdom of God on earth (dang Romans!), the story changed. That change is recorded in the New Testament.

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

It is a good book. Regarding the point about the Kingdom of God, it is also interesting to note that the Gospels clearly indicate that it will be an earthly kingdom, and God is responsible for everything about it. When you get to the Epistles, it changes to a Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus has the starring role. My take on it is that Jesus wasn't a messiah figure when he was alive (assuming there was a singular "he"), but preached about the coming of something very similar. Later, as it became very clear that there was no chance in heck of a soon-to-be Kingdom of God on earth (dang Romans!), the story changed. That change is recorded in the New Testament.

It's funny to me how clear this becomes when you drop the assumption that the 4 gospels are all telling the same story.

Akhenaten · 3rd November 2009, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Simon39759

I would be grateful. I was under the impression that many of these artifacts, such as the Yakov Royal Ring and the Serabit slavery Inscription had now been discredited, or at least found not to be very conclusive.

Hey! Those are MY turquoise mines!

I agree that the finds you mention, and others of the same ilk, have been discredited as Exodevidence (cool new word, minted just this second - get your copy today!). The only evidence I was recalling was for the existance of Hebrews in Ancient Egypt. Frankly, I've got no idea where the lazy buggers have gotten too. Those reeds aren't going to cut themselves you know.

Cheers,

Dave

Akhenaten · 3rd November 2009, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

It's funny to me how clear this becomes when you drop the assumption that the 4 gospels are all telling the same story.

That confused me for years. In fact, probably until I started reading yours and Hokulele's work. Take one warm fuzzy feeling each from petty cash.

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Simon39759

So... "there is an absolute universal morality that is only absolute and universal for the people that applies it (aka sane people)".

That's not very absolute, is it?

Universal truth or absolute morality exists regardless of whether or not people are sane, that is why it is called absolute. I've always said if people are not in the will of God they will eventually fail or suffer the consequences, and the extinct Nazis and Spartans eventually did, whereas the Christian Church is still a strong force in the world after 2000 years.

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

I missed your comments on this DOC:

"It may then come as something of a surprise, almost an embarrassment, to recognise that the earliest statements about Jesus are in the form of belief rather than history in the modern sense . . . theology takes precedence over history in the Christian story."

– J. L. Houlden, Jesus - A Question of Identity, p11

The Rev. J. L. Houlden is Emeritus Professor of Theology at King's College, University of London.

Could you please post a link to your response so I can read it again?

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

Paulhoff · 3rd November 2009, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

Yes, don't write it down, just make it up has you go along, use only those parts that seem to pull the wool down over their eyes.

Paul

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

From Wiki's article on Hitler:

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhit...itlerJesus.htm

The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions.

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by X

Please, DOC, for the love of your God, take an introductory course in logic.

Please

I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about.

Simon39759 · 3rd November 2009, 03:30 PM

Considering he transferred to a seminary and dedicated several years of his life to studying for becoming a priest, he definitively put his beliefs in Christianity in action.
But, I guess that it does not count for some vague reason... Special pleading is a way of life for you, after all.

Paulhoff · 3rd November 2009, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions.

Remember how some so-called god called the Jews his chosen people……………..

Paul

Lucian · 3rd November 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

I'm not sure what you mean. When you say, "And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did," does "that" refer to:

A. Preaching the gospel
B. Not writing all this stuff down.
C. A and B.

If your answer is either B or C, what about Matthew? I suspect most of the posters on this thread doubt that Matthew wrote the gospel assigned to him, but I thought you believed that he did.

If, however, you are saying that none of the apostles* wrote anything down, are you admitting that the gospels are not first hand accounts of eyewitnesses and are therefore of questionably historical reliability?

*Except maybe John, who wasn't martyred, according to your lists.

Hokulele · 3rd November 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about.

If you are truly using probablistic logic in your arguments here, the problem with your reasoning is that your entailment isn't valid.

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by X

It might help you understand why all the "evidence" you have trotted out so far is not actually evidence, and why your arguments are invalid.

You've used almost every logical fallacy I can name in this thread alone.

Every post of yours in which you try to provide evidence, fails due to these fallacies.

The fact is that you do not see this, do not understand this, and disregard our explanations of it.

You plainly have no understanding of logic. This is why you do not understand our objections to what you say.

So please, take a course in introductory logic and critical thinking. It will help you.

Because, to date, you have not provided one iota of what was promised in the thread title.

All you've done is provided irrelevancies, nonsense, and off-topic blather which you pretend is related to the topic.

Another generalized opinionated post that offers no information, and no specific examples. Why don't people just let my 1200 posts stand for themselves instead of continually trying to influence others with such generalized opinions and no specifics.

Cleon · 3rd November 2009, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions.

Odd. When you were confronted with the murderous actions of Christopher Columbus, you didn't say anything of the sort. Instead, you made excuse after excuse for him.

Cleon · 3rd November 2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're lying here.

Why?

Because you've repeatedly engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy. To whit:

Argument ad populum. (You didn't even know what this was, until someone explained it to you.)
Appeal to authority. (Not to mention appeal to false authority.)
Quotes out of context.
Non-sequitur.

I know, I know. Your response is going to be along the lines of "waaah another post with no information." But you'll be lying again.

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Remember how some so-called god called the Jews his chosen people……………..

They are His chosen people, that is why Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the apostles and all the writers of the NT were Jewish. Unfortunately not all the Jews have accepted the NT but world history is not over yet.

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Universal truth or absolute morality exists

Really?

So you keep saying...

Please provide an example of an 'absolute morality' that has NOT been debunked

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions.

Whereas all other christians proclaim belief in Christianity with ridiculous superstitions, faulty logic and/or outright lies

Do you have a point?

Paulhoff · 3rd November 2009, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

They are His chosen people, that is why Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the apostles and all the writers of the NT were Jewish. Unfortunately not all the Jews have accepted the NT but world history is not over yet.

And there is a very good reason, Jesus didn't do anything that the Messiah supposed to do in the Hebrew Bible, and it is written, “An anointed king who will lead the Jews back to the land of Israel and establish justice in the world". And there are a whole lot of things that this Jesus didn’t do. So, they are still waiting for that Messiah guy.

Paul

X · 3rd November 2009, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about.

Then why do you routinely (some would say "solely") rely on logical fallacies to make your arguments?

You seem to think that because someone described Luke as a first-rate historian, that it must be so.
Which plainly shows you have no concept of why "Argument from Authority" is a fallacy. If you did, you wouldn't use it.

And even there, you have to quote-mine the guy.
Showing you have no concept of why quote mining is considered dishonest. If you did, you wouldn't do it.

You have repeatedly referred to the number of Christians in the world, and how man posts you've made, as evidence for your claims.
Showing you have no concept of why "Argument from Popularity" is a fallacy. If you did, you wouldn't use it.

You have made many posts where your conclusion in no way follows from your statements.
Showing you have no concept of what a non sequitur is nor why it is considered fallacious. If you did, you wouldn't use it.

If, as you claim, you have taken a course covering these concepts, then it is patently obvious to anyone reading this thread (except you) that you are failing utterly to apply critical thinking skills to your apologetics.

Somewhere between your brain and your writing, the reasoning part of your brain gets bypassed.

So, if you are familiar with critical thinking, USE IT!

Originally Posted by DOC

Another generalized opinionated post that offers no information, and no specific examples. Why don't people just let my 1200 posts stand for themselves instead of continually trying to influence others with such generalized opinions and no specifics.

No information, you say?
Did you read my post?
My point was very clear, and is there for everyone to read.
As for not posting specific examples, well, your "1200 posts stand for themselves".
I was spoilt for choice, and didn't feel like spending the time digging.

If anyone wants examples, read the last 5 pages of this thread. They abound.

And for the record: I wasn't trying to influence others. I was trying to influence YOU.
I was/am attempting to get you to start thinking about what you preach, instead of only thinking what you preach.
So that you can actually make effective posts people will respect and think about, instead of the low-grade garbage you've been spewing these last few years.

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

if you say so.....

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions.

So,what about the slave owners of the south? Were they being christian or weren't they?

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Odd. When you were confronted with the murderous actions of Christopher Columbus, you didn't say anything of the sort. Instead, you made excuse after excuse for him.

Christopher Columbus was not perfect but my posts in the Columbus thread speak for themselves, I'm not going to repeat them all here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88366

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Christopher Columbus was not perfect but my posts in the Columbus thread speak for themselves

Indeed they do... collectively spelling out, in letters a gazillion miles high, the word FAIL

From that thread

Originally Posted by Cleon

DOC, you have this severe addiction to historical myopia. Contrary to the impression you might be getting at school, history is not about the factoids--it's about the context.

Originally Posted by DOC

I'm not going to repeat them all here.

Promises, promises...

Lucian · 3rd November 2009, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

They are His chosen people, that is why Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the apostles and all the writers of the NT were Jewish. Unfortunately not all the Jews have accepted the NT but world history is not over yet.

I thought Luke was supposed to be Greek.

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by X

You seem to think that because someone described Luke as a first-rate historian, that it must be so.
Which plainly shows you have no concept of why "Argument from Authority" is a fallacy. If you did, you wouldn't use it.

Yes, but some evidence has been given for why we can conclude Gospel writer Luke was a first rate historian. Go to this site and scroll down to the 84 detailed facts of Luke.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=51643

If we know he got all of these highly detailed facts right it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing he got the 35 miracles he reported on (in the same matter of fact style he reported the 84 facts) right.

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Yes, but ....

you need to quote mine to use that "first rate historian" nonsense.

Do you enjoy being dishonest?

DOC · 3rd November 2009, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Lucian

I thought Luke was supposed to be Greek.

This rabbi says Luke was a Jew:

http://searchwarp.com/swa413755.htm

Cleon · 3rd November 2009, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

This rabbi says Luke was a Jew:

http://searchwarp.com/swa413755.htm

Yeah, his website is hilarious.

3rd November 2009, 06:22 AM	#7521
Mr Clingford Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,310	Originally Posted by Akhenaten It's annoying when that happens, isn't it? ! Originally Posted by Akhenaten Do you have any views, apart from Nazareth, which we've already touched on, about the historical accuracy of the NT? I hope you know that I'm sincere in asking, and I'm certainly not asking for solid evidence, but I respect your opinions. Avoiding the extremes of 'It's in the Bible and God wrote it so it's all true' and 'The Bible is complete bollocks so of course anything in it is wrong and worthless' is a good place to start! The quote about the gospels not being history is a good point. The gospels appear to be making points about what Jesus is like. Whether the story actually happened as written does not seem to matter to them. One simple example of this is that events happen in different orders, even in single stories like the Temptation of Jesus - there is a little difference in the order of the temptations in Matthew and Luke. Since we can't tell if so many of the stories about Jesus took place or not, the point of them for me is what they say about the character of Jesus and his mission. I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event. Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents It is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify or not the historicity of the NT and, of course, a lot depends on one's starting assumptions. I think the early date of composition for a lot of the NT, i.e., the mid and latter parts of the 1st C, is of significance. We know, therefore, that there were communities believing that the Messiah had come from the mid 1st C. Paul's early letters tell us something about this. Xtianity did not develop communities, ideas and writings centuries after Jesus, but we can see that they go back as early as c.50s, only 20 years after the death of Jesus. We can argue about whether Jesus was only human etc, but we know that in the mid 1st C some Jews believed different things to others and they became known as Xtians. That's a bit of a start on a big topic. I have no doubt of your sincerity and appreciate your stating it.
	__________________ God is my copilot. But we crashed into a mountain and I had to eat him. Last edited by Mr Clingford; 3rd November 2009 at 06:23 AM. Reason: Added a para break

3rd November 2009, 06:35 AM	#7522
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 521	That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al. While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al.
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 521	__________________ [As] to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed. - Red3

3rd November 2009, 07:15 AM	#7523
Mr Clingford Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,310	Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al. Hmm ,what do we mean by 'veracity of the NT'? That it is all historically true? That there was a preacher called Jesus (in the Greek) in the early 1st C? I take it to mean that at least there was a preacher who had followers and who thought he was the Messiah and we have an unbroken chain from the time of Jesus to now. Perhaps I mean more but that will do for the moment. There is nothing, though, that proves that Jesus was God, or that there is a God, god or gods. Your point is true, of course, but I think that if you take the line that the earlier something is to the period about which it talks, then on balance it is likely to be more accurate, all things considered, the earlier it is produced. Some of these writings were produced when people who knew Jesus were still alive and preaching their good news and arguing about what was true. The writings were not produced in a vacuum. I apologise if this a bit disjointed, but my brain is a bit fuzzy ATM. Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al. The Bible is an interesting collection of documents about what people thought and held important. I am glad I don't live in those times (modern healthcare is amazing, thank God (only kidding!)). It is especially hard to find religious meaning in some of the stories in the OT, but they can be fascinating sociologically. Some are fun too. The portrayal of God as somewhat incompetent at finding a helpmate for Adam in the creation story amuses me. It's so far from how theists normally view God.
	__________________ God is my copilot. But we crashed into a mountain and I had to eat him.

3rd November 2009, 07:20 AM	#7524
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford Australia Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by Mr Clingford Avoiding the extremes of 'It's in the Bible and God wrote it so it's all true' and 'The Bible is complete bollocks so of course anything in it is wrong and worthless' is a good place to start! I agree. I think the situation has ended up that way now though, not because of the subject matter, but because of the way it has been presented. Originally Posted by Mr Clingford The quote about the gospels not being history is a good point. The gospels appear to be making points about what Jesus is like. Whether the story actually happened as written does not seem to matter to them. One simple example of this is that events happen in different orders, even in single stories like the Temptation of Jesus - there is a little difference in the order of the temptations in Matthew and Luke. Since we can't tell if so many of the stories about Jesus took place or not, the point of them for me is what they say about the character of Jesus and his mission. We've reached another point of agreement. Originally Posted by Mr Clingford I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event. Actually, I find myself a little surprised that there isn't more archæological evidence turning up. Not evidence for the veracity of the Gospels and other stories so much, but at least for some of the people and places that are mentioned. They're still out there digging, I guess, so hope springs eternal. Originally Posted by Mr Clingford Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents. Yet another point of agreement. This is going swimmingly Originally Posted by Mr Clingford It is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify or not the historicity of the NT and, of course, a lot depends on one's starting assumptions. I think the early date of composition for a lot of the NT, i.e., the mid and latter parts of the 1st C, is of significance. We know, therefore, that there were communities believing that the Messiah had come from the mid 1st C. Paul's early letters tell us something about this. A lot of people, including myself, sometimes like to point to the fact that the NT was written post hoc as a sign that it can't be taken as history, but the point you make is quite valid. It wasn't THAT long afterwards and there was no TV to confuse the issues. Some facts must have remained intact, although as I think we agree, it's well-nigh impossible to sort them from the allegories and metaphors. Originally Posted by Mr Clingford Xtianity did not develop communities, ideas and writings centuries after Jesus, but we can see that they go back as early as c.50s, only 20 years after the death of Jesus. We can argue about whether Jesus was only human etc, but we know that in the mid 1st C some Jews believed different things to others and they became known as Xtians. That's a bit of a start on a big topic. It is. It's a pity it didn't do better in this thread, but that's not the topic's fault. Perhaps there'll be other opportunities in the future, when the demographic here has changed slightly, if you catch my meaning Originally Posted by Mr Clingford I have no doubt of your sincerity and appreciate your stating it. Thank you. Frankly I'm sick of this thread, but at least it might serve as a place to make introductions, ready for the next iteration of the topic. Cheers, Dave
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

3rd November 2009, 07:32 AM	#7525
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford Australia Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al. I don't know that those are entirely fair comparisons. The truth that's in the NT is unlikely to ever form evidence for the existance of Heaven, or the Holy Spirit, but I don't know that we should entirely rule out that there are some historical facts hidden in there somewhere. Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al. I have no religion whatsoever, so I'm not likely to read the Bible in a search for enlightenment or anything like that either, if that's what you mean by 'studying as a religious text'. Yeah, a bit like the Odyssey seems reasonable, although the Odyssey is a more interesting yarn, for my money. Cheers, Dave
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon Last edited by Akhenaten; 3rd November 2009 at 07:34 AM.

3rd November 2009, 08:36 AM	#7526
Simon39759 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,020	Originally Posted by Mr Clingford I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event. Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents I am not sue about that one. I can't recall anything conclusive showing up on that subject, do you remember where you got that information from?

3rd November 2009, 09:05 AM	#7527
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 521	Originally Posted by Akhenaten I don't know that those are entirely fair comparisons. The truth that's in the NT is unlikely to ever form evidence for the existance of Heaven, or the Holy Spirit, but I don't know that we should entirely rule out that there are some historical facts hidden in there somewhere. I have no religion whatsoever, so I'm not likely to read the Bible in a search for enlightenment or anything like that either, if that's what you mean by 'studying as a religious text'. Yeah, a bit like the Odyssey seems reasonable, although the Odyssey is a more interesting yarn, for my money. Cheers, Dave The comparison between Buddhism and Christianity in my prior response is simply to compare when the teachings were translated to text. In Christianity, it was 20-30 years after Christ was crucified. In the case of Buddhism, Buddha's teachings were written down while he was still alive. Thus, the bible is no more or less accurate. There are, of course, many differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Studying both, however, we find that the religion is more of a reflection of the cultures and societies than archeological gold mines, much less evidence of any of the supernatural recordings/teachings (resurrection/heaven/karma/nirvana/etc). No different from studying Norse tales, nor Greek tales, etc.
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 521	__________________ [As] to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed. - Red3

3rd November 2009, 09:28 AM	#7528
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford Australia Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by Simon39759 I am not sue about that one. I can't recall anything conclusive showing up on that subject, do you remember where you got that information from? I'm not about to become a poster boy for the Exodus, but I'm sure I've read a bit somewhere about the Hebrews who lived in and around the Delta at something like the appropriate time. I also will search for references to them. Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey The comparison between Buddhism and Christianity in my prior response is simply to compare when the teachings were translated to text. In Christianity, it was 20-30 years after Christ was crucified. In the case of Buddhism, Buddha's teachings were written down while he was still alive. Thus, the bible is no more or less accurate. There are, of course, many differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Studying both, however, we find that the religion is more of a reflection of the cultures and societies than archeological gold mines, much less evidence of any of the supernatural recordings/teachings (resurrection/heaven/karma/nirvana/etc). No different from studying Norse tales, nor Greek tales, etc. Yeah, I think we about agree then. Good-oh. Cheers
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

3rd November 2009, 09:57 AM	#7529
calebprime Somewhat Elitist Parasite Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,991	Just got Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman, from the library. News to me: He makes the case that Jesus didn't teach that he himself was divine. (except in John, which is different from the other three gospels) According to Ehrman, Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God would occur in his own generation, on earth. (Which, of course, didn't happen). Ehrman also points out the difference between Jesus' death in Matthew and Luke: Ignominious, alone, despairing in Matthew, but in Luke, calm and assured.
	__________________ again: By the way have you anyone here aside from myself produced what to you is or should be the very first principle of clear thinking?--yrreg Last edited by calebprime; 3rd November 2009 at 09:59 AM.

3rd November 2009, 10:58 AM	#7530
Simon39759 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,020	Originally Posted by Akhenaten I'm not about to become a poster boy for the Exodus, but I'm sure I've read a bit somewhere about the Hebrews who lived in and around the Delta at something like the appropriate time. I also will search for references to them. I would be grateful. I was under the impression that many of these artifacts, such as the Yakov Royal Ring and the Serabit slavery Inscription had now been discredited, or at least found not to be very conclusive.

3rd November 2009, 11:05 AM	#7531
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 20,143	Originally Posted by calebprime Just got Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman, from the library. News to me: He makes the case that Jesus didn't teach that he himself was divine. (except in John, which is different from the other three gospels) According to Ehrman, Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God would occur in his own generation, on earth. (Which, of course, didn't happen). Ehrman also points out the difference between Jesus' death in Matthew and Luke: Ignominious, alone, despairing in Matthew, but in Luke, calm and assured. It is a good book. Regarding the point about the Kingdom of God, it is also interesting to note that the Gospels clearly indicate that it will be an earthly kingdom, and God is responsible for everything about it. When you get to the Epistles, it changes to a Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus has the starring role. My take on it is that Jesus wasn't a messiah figure when he was alive (assuming there was a singular "he"), but preached about the coming of something very similar. Later, as it became very clear that there was no chance in heck of a soon-to-be Kingdom of God on earth (dang Romans!), the story changed. That change is recorded in the New Testament.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

3rd November 2009, 11:32 AM	#7532
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,154	Originally Posted by Hokulele It is a good book. Regarding the point about the Kingdom of God, it is also interesting to note that the Gospels clearly indicate that it will be an earthly kingdom, and God is responsible for everything about it. When you get to the Epistles, it changes to a Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus has the starring role. My take on it is that Jesus wasn't a messiah figure when he was alive (assuming there was a singular "he"), but preached about the coming of something very similar. Later, as it became very clear that there was no chance in heck of a soon-to-be Kingdom of God on earth (dang Romans!), the story changed. That change is recorded in the New Testament. It's funny to me how clear this becomes when you drop the assumption that the 4 gospels are all telling the same story.
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC

3rd November 2009, 11:43 AM	#7533
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford Australia Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by Simon39759 I would be grateful. I was under the impression that many of these artifacts, such as the Yakov Royal Ring and the Serabit slavery Inscription had now been discredited, or at least found not to be very conclusive. Hey! Those are MY turquoise mines! I agree that the finds you mention, and others of the same ilk, have been discredited as Exodevidence (cool new word, minted just this second - get your copy today!). The only evidence I was recalling was for the existance of Hebrews in Ancient Egypt. Frankly, I've got no idea where the lazy buggers have gotten too. Those reeds aren't going to cut themselves you know. Cheers, Dave
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon Last edited by Akhenaten; 3rd November 2009 at 11:45 AM.

3rd November 2009, 11:49 AM	#7534
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford Australia Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by joobz It's funny to me how clear this becomes when you drop the assumption that the 4 gospels are all telling the same story. That confused me for years. In fact, probably until I started reading yours and Hokulele's work. Take one warm fuzzy feeling each from petty cash.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

3rd November 2009, 03:03 PM	#7535
DOC Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by Simon39759 So... "there is an absolute universal morality that is only absolute and universal for the people that applies it (aka sane people)". That's not very absolute, is it? Universal truth or absolute morality exists regardless of whether or not people are sane, that is why it is called absolute. I've always said if people are not in the will of God they will eventually fail or suffer the consequences, and the extinct Nazis and Spartans eventually did, whereas the Christian Church is still a strong force in the world after 2000 years.

3rd November 2009, 03:10 PM	#7536
DOC Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by Akhenaten I missed your comments on this DOC: "It may then come as something of a surprise, almost an embarrassment, to recognise that the earliest statements about Jesus are in the form of belief rather than history in the modern sense . . . theology takes precedence over history in the Christian story." – J. L. Houlden, Jesus - A Question of Identity, p11 The Rev. J. L. Houlden is Emeritus Professor of Theology at King's College, University of London. Could you please post a link to your response so I can read it again? Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

3rd November 2009, 03:14 PM	#7537
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 7,810	Originally Posted by DOC Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did. Yes, don't write it down, just make it up has you go along, use only those parts that seem to pull the wool down over their eyes. Paul
	__________________ "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given. Mine "Still looking for that honest person." besides you Randi Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much. Christianity, Years of fear. - mine I'm so old I remember when dirt came to life

3rd November 2009, 03:18 PM	#7538
DOC Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by six7s From Wiki's article on Hitler: http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhit...itlerJesus.htm The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions.
	Last edited by DOC; 3rd November 2009 at 03:20 PM.

3rd November 2009, 03:29 PM	#7539
DOC Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by X Please, DOC, for the love of your God, take an introductory course in logic. Please I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about.

3rd November 2009, 03:30 PM	#7540
Simon39759 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,020	Considering he transferred to a seminary and dedicated several years of his life to studying for becoming a priest, he definitively put his beliefs in Christianity in action. But, I guess that it does not count for some vague reason... Special pleading is a way of life for you, after all.

3rd November 2009, 03:31 PM	#7541
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 7,810	Originally Posted by DOC The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions. Remember how some so-called god called the Jews his chosen people…………….. Paul
	__________________ "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given. Mine "Still looking for that honest person." besides you Randi Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much. Christianity, Years of fear. - mine I'm so old I remember when dirt came to life Last edited by Paulhoff; 3rd November 2009 at 03:41 PM.

3rd November 2009, 03:32 PM	#7542
Lucian Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 423	Originally Posted by DOC Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did. I'm not sure what you mean. When you say, "And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did," does "that" refer to: A. Preaching the gospel B. Not writing all this stuff down. C. A and B. If your answer is either B or C, what about Matthew? I suspect most of the posters on this thread doubt that Matthew wrote the gospel assigned to him, but I thought you believed that he did. If, however, you are saying that none of the apostles* wrote anything down, are you admitting that the gospels are not first hand accounts of eyewitnesses and are therefore of questionably historical reliability? *Except maybe John, who wasn't martyred, according to your lists.
Lucian Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 423	__________________ …nealles druncne slog heorðgeneatas…

3rd November 2009, 03:35 PM	#7543
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 20,143	Originally Posted by DOC I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about. If you are truly using probablistic logic in your arguments here, the problem with your reasoning is that your entailment isn't valid.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

3rd November 2009, 03:46 PM	#7544
DOC Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by X It might help you understand why all the "evidence" you have trotted out so far is not actually evidence, and why your arguments are invalid. You've used almost every logical fallacy I can name in this thread alone. Every post of yours in which you try to provide evidence, fails due to these fallacies. The fact is that you do not see this, do not understand this, and disregard our explanations of it. You plainly have no understanding of logic. This is why you do not understand our objections to what you say. So please, take a course in introductory logic and critical thinking. It will help you. Because, to date, you have not provided one iota of what was promised in the thread title. All you've done is provided irrelevancies, nonsense, and off-topic blather which you pretend is related to the topic. Another generalized opinionated post that offers no information, and no specific examples. Why don't people just let my 1200 posts stand for themselves instead of continually trying to influence others with such generalized opinions and no specifics.

3rd November 2009, 03:49 PM	#7545
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 13,915	Originally Posted by DOC The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions. Odd. When you were confronted with the murderous actions of Christopher Columbus, you didn't say anything of the sort. Instead, you made excuse after excuse for him.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky **** cancer! My blog

3rd November 2009, 03:54 PM	#7546
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 13,915	Originally Posted by DOC I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're lying here. Why? Because you've repeatedly engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy. To whit: Argument ad populum. (You didn't even know what this was, until someone explained it to you.) Appeal to authority. (Not to mention appeal to false authority.) Quotes out of context. Non-sequitur. I know, I know. Your response is going to be along the lines of "waaah another post with no information." But you'll be lying again.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky **** cancer! My blog

3rd November 2009, 04:09 PM	#7547
DOC Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by Paulhoff Remember how some so-called god called the Jews his chosen people…………….. They are His chosen people, that is why Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the apostles and all the writers of the NT were Jewish. Unfortunately not all the Jews have accepted the NT but world history is not over yet.

3rd November 2009, 04:18 PM	#7548
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by DOC Universal truth or absolute morality exists Really? So you keep saying... Please provide an example of an 'absolute morality' that has NOT been debunked
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project

3rd November 2009, 04:21 PM	#7549
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by DOC The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions. Whereas all other christians proclaim belief in Christianity with ridiculous superstitions, faulty logic and/or outright lies Do you have a point?
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project Last edited by six7s; 3rd November 2009 at 04:39 PM. Reason: proclaim, not proclaimed

3rd November 2009, 04:30 PM	#7550
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 7,810	Originally Posted by DOC They are His chosen people, that is why Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the apostles and all the writers of the NT were Jewish. Unfortunately not all the Jews have accepted the NT but world history is not over yet. And there is a very good reason, Jesus didn't do anything that the Messiah supposed to do in the Hebrew Bible, and it is written, “An anointed king who will lead the Jews back to the land of Israel and establish justice in the world". And there are a whole lot of things that this Jesus didn’t do. So, they are still waiting for that Messiah guy. Paul
	__________________ "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given. Mine "Still looking for that honest person." besides you Randi Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much. Christianity, Years of fear. - mine I'm so old I remember when dirt came to life

3rd November 2009, 06:18 PM	#7551
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Follow the scratchy sounds of a violin novice... Posts: 2,053	Originally Posted by DOC I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about. Then why do you routinely (some would say "solely") rely on logical fallacies to make your arguments? You seem to think that because someone described Luke as a first-rate historian, that it must be so. Which plainly shows you have no concept of why "Argument from Authority" is a fallacy. If you did, you wouldn't use it. And even there, you have to quote-mine the guy. Showing you have no concept of why quote mining is considered dishonest. If you did, you wouldn't do it. You have repeatedly referred to the number of Christians in the world, and how man posts you've made, as evidence for your claims. Showing you have no concept of why "Argument from Popularity" is a fallacy. If you did, you wouldn't use it. You have made many posts where your conclusion in no way follows from your statements. Showing you have no concept of what a non sequitur is nor why it is considered fallacious. If you did, you wouldn't use it. If, as you claim, you have taken a course covering these concepts, then it is patently obvious to anyone reading this thread (except you) that you are failing utterly to apply critical thinking skills to your apologetics. Somewhere between your brain and your writing, the reasoning part of your brain gets bypassed. So, if you are familiar with critical thinking, USE IT! Originally Posted by DOC Another generalized opinionated post that offers no information, and no specific examples. Why don't people just let my 1200 posts stand for themselves instead of continually trying to influence others with such generalized opinions and no specifics. No information, you say? Did you read my post? My point was very clear, and is there for everyone to read. As for not posting specific examples, well, your "1200 posts stand for themselves". I was spoilt for choice, and didn't feel like spending the time digging. If anyone wants examples, read the last 5 pages of this thread. They abound. And for the record: I wasn't trying to influence others. I was trying to influence YOU. I was/am attempting to get you to start thinking about what you preach, instead of only thinking what you preach. So that you can actually make effective posts people will respect and think about, instead of the low-grade garbage you've been spewing these last few years.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." Learn the difference, people!

3rd November 2009, 06:24 PM	#7552
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,154	Originally Posted by DOC Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did. if you say so.....
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC

3rd November 2009, 06:26 PM	#7553
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,154	Originally Posted by DOC The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions. So,what about the slave owners of the south? Were they being christian or weren't they?
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC

3rd November 2009, 06:49 PM	#7554
DOC Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by Cleon Odd. When you were confronted with the murderous actions of Christopher Columbus, you didn't say anything of the sort. Instead, you made excuse after excuse for him. Christopher Columbus was not perfect but my posts in the Columbus thread speak for themselves, I'm not going to repeat them all here. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88366
	Last edited by DOC; 3rd November 2009 at 06:57 PM.

3rd November 2009, 07:02 PM	#7555
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by DOC Christopher Columbus was not perfect but my posts in the Columbus thread speak for themselves Indeed they do... collectively spelling out, in letters a gazillion miles high, the word FAIL From that thread Originally Posted by Cleon DOC, you have this severe addiction to historical myopia. Contrary to the impression you might be getting at school, history is not about the factoids--it's about the context. Originally Posted by DOC I'm not going to repeat them all here. Promises, promises...
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project