[Merged] Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2) - Page 45

Akhenaten · 27th June 2012, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Another derogatory post that does not respond to a post of mine or give examples.

It responds directly to your imputation that Agatha hasn't read the same book that you yourself are falsely claiming to have read.

No examples are necessary because your posts are out there speaking for themselves for all to see and everyone is more than aware of your hypocritical behaviour in this matter.

DOC · 27th June 2012, 09:57 PM

Here is an interesting quote of Bart Ehrman on page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?":

"And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death."
_____

Giordano · 27th June 2012, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I have read much of the book, although not all of it. I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus.

You are proclaiming your honesty by quoting my own post incompletely and out of context?!? Unbelievable! I clearly indicated in the very post you quote that you had eventually read some of the book, but (and I got the information from your own posts) not the portions that contradict the divinity of Jesus.

Two simple questions:
(1) Was my own post completely and fully factual?
(2) Did you quote only part of my post, thus giving you an opportunity to deny something I never accused you of?
(2) Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

Akhenaten · 27th June 2012, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by joobz

Another post avoiding an apology for falsely implying Agatha had not read the book that you, yourself, had not read.

This is false, I merely asked for the page numbers of the information she was giving.

And how were you going to check that the quotes and the page numbers were correct, DOC?

Look them up in your own copy?

But you can't do that, can you, DOC?

Why can't you look up page numbers and quotes in your own copy of the book, DOC?

Originally Posted by DOC

I gave page numbers 2 or 3 times. There was always the chance she could have not portrayed exactly what Ehrman said since she seemed to be saying it on memory.

Unlike you, DOC, Agatha has credibility.

It seems to me that all you're doing here is trying to project your own dishonest behaviour onto someone else.

Fortunately for all concerned but yourself it's as abject a failure as everything else you've posted here.

Originally Posted by DOC

And I have read more of the book "Did Jesus Exist" than probably 95% of the people on this site.

Apart from this being irrelevant to the question of Agatha having read the book, how did you establish this figure?

Originally Posted by DOC

If it wasn't for me, I have a feeling very few in here would even know of the book.

If it weren't for you, very few people would refer to the employment of weasel words to evade honest answers to questions as 'Wilburing' and even fewer people would know that the name of the red herring that dishonest participants throw into discussions is 'Nimrod'.

Some achievement, DOC.

Originally Posted by DOC

And as stated many times my threads are not about me.

As stated by whom?

The same person who refers to them as 'my threads'?

Do you ever think anything through before you start hitting keys?

DOC · 27th June 2012, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

...Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine, and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here.

You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman.

Akhenaten · 27th June 2012, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Giordano

This^^^^^
Agatha clearly read the book. DOC clearly had not read the book...

I have read much of the book, although not all of it.

Had you not been busted so badly you would have happily continued pretending that you had read the entire book. As usual you completely underestimated the opposition here and rather than admit the truth you've resorted to desperately flailing about trying to smear others in the hope that your relative credibility will be increased.

This tactic in itself is an epic failure, DOC. Your 'arguments' here and in other threads are among the longest-running and most widely shared jokes in this Forum and nothing short of the vast majority of the membership suddenly developing amnesia will ever grant you the tiniest skerrick of credibility.

Originally Posted by DOC

I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus.

You also perpetrated this lie, which I assure you, isn't going to just fade away.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

What book?

"Did Jesus Exist" by Skeptic Bart Ehrman.

Yeah, but which edition?

This one:

Originally Posted by DOC

"Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Or this one:

Originally Posted by DOC

Here is a quote from the inside jacket of the book.

<snip>

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Are you going to at least try to address this attempted subterfuge?

Akhenaten · 27th June 2012, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Here is an interesting quote of Bart Ehrman on page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?":

It's not interesting at all. The only reason you're posting it is that it's one of the snippets available in the many reviews of the book available online and you hope that you can use it to continue the ridiculous charade that you've read the damned thing.

You'll be in China any day now. Just in time to watch the departure of the 200,000,000 troops heading off to the Philipines.

Originally Posted by DOC

"And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death."
_____

If this was the 'Evidence for why we know there are Christians' thread you might have a point.

As it is, you don't.

Quelle surprise.

Akhenaten · 27th June 2012, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

You are proclaiming your honesty by quoting my own post incompletely and out of context?!? Unbelievable! I clearly indicated in the very post you quote that you had eventually read some of the book, but (and I got the information from your own posts) not the portions that contradict the divinity of Jesus.

Two simple questions:
(1) Was my own post completely and fully factual?
(2) Did you quote only part of my post, thus giving you an opportunity to deny something I never accused you of?
(2) Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

DOC is not just unwilling to answer this post - he is utterly incapable of it.

Akhenaten · 27th June 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Giordano

...Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here.

Why then are you so driven to keep touting a book that is providing evidence that the New Testament writers were lying through their teeth?

As for your disagreement with that evidence - so what? You've been doing the same thing for years and all you've managed to do is deconvert a couple of people and make a laughing stock of your beliefs.

Why in the name of Horus do you persist?

Originally Posted by DOC

You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman.

Missed this, did you?

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

Who in here disagrees with Bart Ehrman and most other biblical scholars and believes the Jesus of Nazareth never existed? And why do you feel that way?

Why are you asking this question after having already ignored these posts and many more just like them?

Originally Posted by wollery

I'm perfectly willing to concede that there probably was a Jewish preacher in the 1st century called Yeshua, who quite possibly had a father called Yusef.

So what?

Originally Posted by dafydd

I am prepared to believe that Jesus existed, but stories about his life have been greatly exaggerated.

Originally Posted by Beerina

That's the key part. There are plenty of skeptics who think some preacher dude might have existed who then got whacked for, oh, I don't know. Stirring up the people against the Romans and/or Jewish Establishment?

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

DOC, many skeptics here agree with Ehrman that there is much evidence that an early 1st century apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jeshu ben Joseph existed and that he became the basis for the mythical Jesus Christ. This is very similar to the situation in which a real person known as Nicholas of Myra, who lived during the 3rd and 4th centuries, became the basis of the mythical Santa Claus.

Originally Posted by Belz...

I think you should re-read that. The Jesus of the bible -- the one making miracles and being generally non-human -- didn't exist. There may or may not have been an actual person who was the basis of the story. If there was, it isn't a problem for atheists, since you're still missing some important steps to validate Christianity's claims.

Originally Posted by Resume

No.

Lot's of us will spot you a Jesus, of Nazareth even. We just won't spot you the miraculous crap, the whole son of god deal.

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

Personally, I couldn't give two ***** less if there existed some crazy preacher named Jesus. The real question is whether miracle Jesus existed. He didn't. Bart Ehrman agrees.

Originally Posted by Good Lt

By the way, even Christopher Hitchens was willing to accept that there may have been a popular preacher living in the time of Jesus who may have fit the bill for such an individual.

But that doesn't prove:

A) he was God's son
B) that God exists
C) that Christianity is the one true faith
D) that miracles occur
E) that his death absolved the world of any sin
F) that the Bible is true or divine in any way
G) etc etc etc

Originally Posted by Mojo

But the Jesus he says existed is not the same as the Jesus you say existed. From Jerry Coyne's comments about the book:

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

It's one thing to say Jesus existed. It's quite another to say he walked on water.

Akhenaten · 27th June 2012, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus.

Yes, you have. Several times. And yet strangely you've never expounded upon what those reasons might be.

Why is that, DOC?

Is it because the review you were cribbing from didn't get as far as explaining them?

Akhenaten · 27th June 2012, 11:07 PM

So, returning to the topic of the thread . . .

Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?

Mojo · 27th June 2012, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I have read much of the book, although not all of it.

DOC, you have already boasted, in this very thread, that not only have you not read most of the book but that you have no intention of reading it:

Originally Posted by DOC

I already know the historical evidence for Christ is there so I don't need to read most of the book which deals with that. And I don't agree with his conclusion. I have no desire to read much more but I would like to see the page #'s of what Agatha was talking about.

Craig B · 27th June 2012, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine, and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here.

You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman.

To state that someone existed, and to state that the person in question is a god, are statements of such a different order, that establishing the first doesn't even start to establish the second.

Consider the more ancient godmen Mithras and Osiris. If I was able to show that either of these existed as men, would that be evidence that they were also gods? It would be no evidence at all, to a person who didn't believe that anyone is a god. The situation is not symmetrical. To prove Joe Bloggs, for example, doesn't exist at all, proves indeed that he is not god. But evidence that he does exist, is not evidence that he is god. Most atheists, including Dawkins and Hitchens, believe Jesus to have existed as a man.

Mojo · 27th June 2012, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

So, returning to the topic of the thread . . .

Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?

And is the evidence for the historical Abraham Lincoln evidence for the existence of vampires?

Agatha · 28th June 2012, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Another derogatory post that does not respond to a post of mine or give examples.

You expect me to link to the lack of an apology, or give examples where you fail to apologise? You've made 6912 posts; I am not going to link to every single one to show that you failed to apologise, your posts (as you often repeat) stand for themselves and the lack of an apology is plain for all to see.

You haven't read Ehrman's book in its entirety, by your own admission, you haven't even read your own holy book in its entirety, again by your own admission. Just because you can't be bothered to read the books you tout as support for your weird version of your religion, you should not expect that others are as ignorant of the facts. Ehrman's book doesn't support your views so why you introduced it is a mystery.

You suggested that I was lying when I explained that I both owned Ehrman's book and had read it; I pulled you up on that implication and you have so far failed to apologise. If you consider that me pointing out your rudeness is "derogatory", the solution is in your hands - do not accuse other people of lying.

joobz · 28th June 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

This is false, I merely asked for the page numbers of the information she was giving. I gave page numbers 2 or 3 times. There was always the chance she could have not portrayed exactly what Ehrman said since she seemed to be saying it on memory.

and yet she was portraying the book accurately. In other words, your challenge of her scholarship was found to be misplaced. And yet, you have failed to apologize for this.

Originally Posted by DOC

And I have read more of the book "Did Jesus Exist" than probably 95% of the people on this site.

evidence?

Originally Posted by DOC

If it wasn't for me, I have a feeling very few in here would even know of the book.

evidence?

I expect an apology if you are unable to Support these claims.

Originally Posted by DOC

And as I've stated many times my threads are not about me.

Nope. They are about information.
It is important to demonstrate when a person isn't a reliable source of information.

DOC · 28th June 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

...Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?

Muslim martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal. They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel.

On the other hand the Christian martyrs of the 1st century (which wiki reports on here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. This does not make sense, especially given that the writings of that time portrayed them as uncertain and cowardly before the death of Jesus. When their leader Jesus was crucified they could have simply walked away and gone back to fishing. These facts while not proving a resurrection, give some support to accounts of a resurrection and thus is some evidence.

On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.

As someone once said about the "beginning" of the two religions, Christianity spread when the sword was used on them, and Islam (the so-called religion of peace) spread by use of their swords on others. So the beginning growth of the two religions happened in almost opposite ways.

Akhenaten · 28th June 2012, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

...Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?

Muslim Martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal.

Why do we need to restrict the question to modern martyrs?
How does having a political/nationalistic goal negate the effect of one's martyrdom on proving the truth of one's religion?
On what basis are you assuming that Christian martyrs are without political/nationalistic goals?

Originally Posted by DOC

They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel.

How does this negate the effect of their martyrdom on proving the truth of their religion?

Originally Posted by DOC

On the other hand the Christian Martyrs of the 1st century (which wiki reports on here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

I'd like to see a direct quote of those words before I respond more fully.

You seem to have used a wiki link and then inserted your own words under it, as though those were the words used in the reference.

I'm sure you'll understand my rigour in checking sources, since you are such a stickler for these things yourself.

Originally Posted by DOC

This does not make sense, especially given that the writings of that time portrayed them as uncertain and cowardly before the death of Jesus.

Which writings would these be, DOC?

Not the Bible, I would hope, since that's the very document that you're in the middle of failing to demonstrate as a true and accurate account of real world events.

Originally Posted by DOC

When Jesus was crucified they could have simply walked away and gone back to fishing.

Who are you talking about?

Originally Posted by DOC

These facts while not proving a resurrection, give some support to accounts of a resurrection and thus is some evidence.

What facts?

Originally Posted by DOC

On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.

Whatever else their motivations, DOC, no martyrs of any stripe have ever gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.

They are, by definition, dead.

Originally Posted by DOC

As someone once said about the "beginning" of the two religions, Christianity spread when the sword was used on them, and Islam spread by use of the their swords on others.

Yeah, you said it. That, more than anything else, is how we know it's complete balderdash.

Originally Posted by DOC;

So the beginning growth of the two religions was very different.

Your argumentum ad so is, as always, a waste of pixels, and in no way does it address the question you were asked. As a matter of fact, it looks as though you'd already forgotten the question about halfway through your response.

joobz · 28th June 2012, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Muslim Martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal.

unlike christian marytrs who were politically opposed to Roman Rule?

Originally Posted by DOC

They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel.

Unlike the children's crusade? (which wasn't actually children)

Originally Posted by DOC

On the other hand the Christian Martyrs of the 1st century ... were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

Nothing to gain except sociopolitical goals.

Originally Posted by DOC

This does not make sense, ...

except that it does and is extremely similar to muslim martrs.

Originally Posted by DOC

On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.

unlike Constantine?

Mojo · 28th June 2012, 07:37 AM

DOC, is the widely accepted existence of a historical Abraham Lincoln evidence for why we know Bram Stoker told the truth?

Fast Eddie B · 28th June 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

On the other hand the Christian martyrs of the 1st century (which wiki reports on here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

On the other hand the (Jonestown/Heaven's Gate, your choice) martyrs of the 20th century (which wiki reports on here)

[find the Wiki links yourself I find them too depressing.]

were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

Quote:

This does not make sense...

You're right on that point - martyrdom rarely makes sense...

...nor do most religions, when viewed objectively.

DOC · 29th June 2012, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

On the other hand the (Jonestown/Heaven's Gate, your choice) martyrs of the 20th century (which wiki reports on here)

[find the Wiki links yourself I find them too depressing.]

were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

Both of those cases for the most part had their charismatic leaders right there (along with many other followers) to pressure them, and Jim Jones at Jonestown also had a gun. This is much different from Christianity where Christ was not there in person to pressure them. Also the Jonestown and Heaven's gate deaths occurred for the most part at a single place and over a short period of time.

And none of the Christian martyrs that we know of killed themselves. There deaths were caused by others when they refused to deny their faith.

And Jesus did say there would be many false prophets come after him.

Akhenaten · 29th June 2012, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by DOC;

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

On the other hand the (Jonestown/Heaven's Gate, your choice) martyrs of the 20th century (which wiki reports on here)

[find the Wiki links yourself I find them too depressing.]

were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

Both of those cases for the most part had their charismatic leaders right there (along with many other followers) to pressure them, and Jim Jones at Jonestown also had a gun.

John 18:10

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

Originally Posted by DOC;

This is much different from Christianity where Christ was not there in person to pressure them.

You really believe that Christianity was founded by the alleged Jesus, don't you DOC?

Do you have any idea at all (having been told dozens of times in this very thread) how ludicrous that is?

Originally Posted by DOC;

Also the Jonestown and Heaven's gate deaths occurred for the most part at a single place and over a short period of time.

And how does that affect the power of the martyrdom of those involved to prove the truth of their religions?

Originally Posted by DOC;

And none of the Christian martyrs that we know of killed themselves.

Isn't a martyr someone who suffers persecution and death for their beliefs? How does this preclude suicide, especially when that suicide is carried out under duress?

Originally Posted by DOC;

There deaths were caused by others when they refused to deny their faith.

Where?

Originally Posted by DOC;

And Jesus did say there would be many false prophets come after him.

You have no idea what the alleged Jesus said.

Akhenaten · 29th June 2012, 02:36 AM

Speaking of martyrs . . .

Where and how did Simon Zelotes die, DOC?

Akhenaten · 29th June 2012, 02:48 AM

I wonder if it was here

dafydd · 29th June 2012, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Tyre2.jpg
I wonder if it was here

Where did you get that photo? That place ceased to exist a long time ago.

DOC · 29th June 2012, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

...You really believe that Christianity was founded by the alleged Jesus, don't you DOC?

Do you have any idea at all (having been told dozens of times in this very thread) how ludicrous that is?...

Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed. Bart Ehrman believes that the apostle Paul met with Peter (Jesus' right hand man) and James (the brother of Jesus). Writings written by people who didn't know their writings would end up in something called a bible said this Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Bart Ehrman said there were Jews shortly after the crucifixion who believed Jesus was the Messiah. Writings written by people who didn't know their writings would end up in something called a bible said this Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel. We have evidence some of the apostles went into the world and preached the gospel, We have evidence Peter (Jesus' right hand man) spent his last years in Rome, the center of Christianity for at least 1500 years.

If you don't believe this Jesus founded Christianity that is your right.

Akhenaten · 29th June 2012, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

...You really believe that Christianity was founded by the alleged Jesus, don't you DOC?

Do you have any idea at all (having been told dozens of times in this very thread) how ludicrous that is?...

Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed.

Even if he was right, that has nothing to do with the question of who founded Christianity.

Originally Posted by DOC

Bart Ehrman believes that the apostle Paul met with Peter (Jesus' right hand man) and James (the brother of Jesus).

You will of course be giving a proper cite for this claim, won't you.

Originally Posted by DOC

Writings written by people who didn't know their writings would end up in something called a bible said this Jesus claimed to be the Messiah.

Writings that for all we know were made up out of whole cloth.

You appear to have completely forgotten that evidence for the veracity of these writings is the very thing that you've been failing to provide in this thread for the last four years.

Originally Posted by DOC

Bart Ehrman said there were Jews shortly after the crucifixion who believed Jesus was the Messiah.

And for the 1473rd time DOC presents evidence for the existence of Christianity.

Originally Posted by DOC

Writings written by people who didn't know their writings would end up in something called a bible said this Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel.

It's a politically motivated fairytale.

Or have you found that long-awaited evidence that you claimed to have all those years ago?

Originally Posted by DOC

We have evidence some of the apostles went into the world and preached the gospel,

We have evidence that someone did these things, but none at all that they were apostles of the alleged Jesus. The point is, DOC, that it was these people, Paul chiefly amongst them, who founded Christianity, and not the alleged Jesus, who, for all the evidence we have, may not have existed in any way, shape or form.

Originally Posted by DOC

We have evidence Peter (Jesus' right hand man) spent his last years in Rome, the center of Christianity for at least 1500 years.

We, or more specifically, you, have no such thing.

Originally Posted by DOC

If you don't believe this Jesus founded Christianity that is your right.

Believing that Mars is made out of Raspberry Ripple ice cream is my right as well, DOC, but that's not the point.

My belief that Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus is based on historical and biblical evidence.

Ignorance of that evidence is your right, of course, but as I pointed out in the post to which you've pretended to respond here, it's quite ludicrous.

Fast Eddie B · 29th June 2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed.

Stipulated.

Time to move on.

Akhenaten · 29th June 2012, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

...You really believe that Christianity was founded by the alleged Jesus, don't you DOC?

Do you have any idea at all (having been told dozens of times in this very thread) how ludicrous that is?...

Bart Ehrman believes . . .

<prattlesnip>

Yeah, yeah. We know.

When do you plan on responding to the 80%+ of the post that you snipped out to insert this nimrodness?

The part about the martyrs that was actually the main thrust of it, in other words.

Geeze you're transparent.

Akhenaten · 29th June 2012, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Where did you get that photo? That place ceased to exist a long time ago.

Sshhhh! Don't tell DOC, but it's actually a photoshop of a bare rock covered in fishing nets.

Mojo · 29th June 2012, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed.

DOC, many people believe (and there is much evidence to support this belief) that Abraham Lincoln certainly existed. Is this evidence for the existence of vampires?

Lucian · 29th June 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

DOC, many people believe (and there is much evidence to support this belief) that Abraham Lincoln certainly existed. Is this evidence for the existence of vampires?

Yes it is. I grew up in Springfield, Illinois, where Lincoln lived for many years and where he is buried. Springfield is notable for its absence of vampires--I never saw a single one when I lived there. Clearly, Honest Abe slew them all in the nineteenth century. And if he was able to slay them, that must mean that they exist. It's the only logical conclusion, and I understand logic: I got an A in Logicalness 101 in college.

Akhenaten · 29th June 2012, 07:31 AM

Well, that's me convinced then.

joobz · 29th June 2012, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Both of those cases for the most part had their charismatic leaders right there (along with many other followers) to pressure them, ...

Matthew 10:32-39

Quote:

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Yup, no pressuring there at all.

Belz... · 29th June 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Muslim martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal.

And you know that non-modern Christian so-called martyrs were not because... ?

Belz... · 29th June 2012, 08:53 AM

I just noticed that DOC is simply avoiding the posts that ask the hard questions or make difficult arguments. How... odd.

Akhenaten · 29th June 2012, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I just noticed that DOC is simply avoiding the posts that ask the hard questions or make difficult arguments. How... odd.

It's almost as though he had no intention of taking part in an honest discussion.

Helen · 29th June 2012, 11:04 AM

I think I may have found an explanation for DOC's posts:

Originally Posted by DOC

Writings written by people who didn't know their writings

catsmate1 · 29th June 2012, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed. Bart Ehrman believes that the apostle Paul met with Peter (Jesus' right hand man) and James (the brother of Jesus).

It's a pity he's unable to provide evidence for these claims then.

27th June 2012, 09:46 PM	#1761
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC Another derogatory post that does not respond to a post of mine or give examples. It responds directly to your imputation that Agatha hasn't read the same book that you yourself are falsely claiming to have read. No examples are necessary because your posts are out there speaking for themselves for all to see and everyone is more than aware of your hypocritical behaviour in this matter.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

27th June 2012, 09:57 PM	#1762
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,753	Here is an interesting quote of Bart Ehrman on page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?": "And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death." _____
	Last edited by DOC; 27th June 2012 at 10:08 PM. Reason: delete last paragraph

27th June 2012, 10:03 PM	#1764
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by joobz Another post avoiding an apology for falsely implying Agatha had not read the book that you, yourself, had not read. This is false, I merely asked for the page numbers of the information she was giving. And how were you going to check that the quotes and the page numbers were correct, DOC? Look them up in your own copy? But you can't do that, can you, DOC? Why can't you look up page numbers and quotes in your own copy of the book, DOC? Originally Posted by DOC I gave page numbers 2 or 3 times. There was always the chance she could have not portrayed exactly what Ehrman said since she seemed to be saying it on memory. Unlike you, DOC, Agatha has credibility. It seems to me that all you're doing here is trying to project your own dishonest behaviour onto someone else. Fortunately for all concerned but yourself it's as abject a failure as everything else you've posted here. Originally Posted by DOC And I have read more of the book "Did Jesus Exist" than probably 95% of the people on this site. Apart from this being irrelevant to the question of Agatha having read the book, how did you establish this figure? Originally Posted by DOC If it wasn't for me, I have a feeling very few in here would even know of the book. If it weren't for you, very few people would refer to the employment of weasel words to evade honest answers to questions as 'Wilburing' and even fewer people would know that the name of the red herring that dishonest participants throw into discussions is 'Nimrod'. Some achievement, DOC. Originally Posted by DOC And as stated many times my threads are not about me. As stated by whom? The same person who refers to them as 'my threads'? Do you ever think anything through before you start hitting keys?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 27th June 2012 at 10:59 PM.

27th June 2012, 10:22 PM	#1766
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Giordano This^^^^^ Agatha clearly read the book. DOC clearly had not read the book... I have read much of the book, although not all of it. Had you not been busted so badly you would have happily continued pretending that you had read the entire book. As usual you completely underestimated the opposition here and rather than admit the truth you've resorted to desperately flailing about trying to smear others in the hope that your relative credibility will be increased. This tactic in itself is an epic failure, DOC. Your 'arguments' here and in other threads are among the longest-running and most widely shared jokes in this Forum and nothing short of the vast majority of the membership suddenly developing amnesia will ever grant you the tiniest skerrick of credibility. Originally Posted by DOC I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus. You also perpetrated this lie, which I assure you, isn't going to just fade away. Originally Posted by Akhenaten Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz What book? "Did Jesus Exist" by Skeptic Bart Ehrman. Yeah, but which edition? This one: Originally Posted by DOC "Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST. Or this one: Originally Posted by DOC Here is a quote from the inside jacket of the book. <snip> YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST. Are you going to at least try to address this attempted subterfuge?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 27th June 2012 at 11:14 PM.

27th June 2012, 10:31 PM	#1767
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC Here is an interesting quote of Bart Ehrman on page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?": It's not interesting at all. The only reason you're posting it is that it's one of the snippets available in the many reviews of the book available online and you hope that you can use it to continue the ridiculous charade that you've read the damned thing. You'll be in China any day now. Just in time to watch the departure of the 200,000,000 troops heading off to the Philipines. Originally Posted by DOC "And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death." _____ If this was the 'Evidence for why we know there are Christians' thread you might have a point. As it is, you don't. Quelle surprise.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 27th June 2012 at 11:17 PM.

27th June 2012, 10:00 PM	#1763
Giordano Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by DOC I have read much of the book, although not all of it. I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus. You are proclaiming your honesty by quoting my own post incompletely and out of context?!? Unbelievable! I clearly indicated in the very post you quote that you had eventually read some of the book, but (and I got the information from your own posts) not the portions that contradict the divinity of Jesus. Two simple questions: (1) Was my own post completely and fully factual? (2) Did you quote only part of my post, thus giving you an opportunity to deny something I never accused you of? (2) Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god?

27th June 2012, 10:17 PM	#1765
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,753	Originally Posted by Giordano ...Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god? I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine, and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here. You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman.

27th June 2012, 10:37 PM	#1768
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by Giordano You are proclaiming your honesty by quoting my own post incompletely and out of context?!? Unbelievable! I clearly indicated in the very post you quote that you had eventually read some of the book, but (and I got the information from your own posts) not the portions that contradict the divinity of Jesus. Two simple questions: (1) Was my own post completely and fully factual? (2) Did you quote only part of my post, thus giving you an opportunity to deny something I never accused you of? (2) Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god? DOC is not just unwilling to answer this post - he is utterly incapable of it.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

27th June 2012, 10:54 PM	#1769
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Giordano ...Does not Ehrman's book contradict the central premise of this thread (and your own belief) that Jesus was the divine son of god? I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here. Why then are you so driven to keep touting a book that is providing evidence that the New Testament writers were lying through their teeth? As for your disagreement with that evidence - so what? You've been doing the same thing for years and all you've managed to do is deconvert a couple of people and make a laughing stock of your beliefs. Why in the name of Horus do you persist? Originally Posted by DOC You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman. Missed this, did you? Originally Posted by Akhenaten Originally Posted by DOC Who in here disagrees with Bart Ehrman and most other biblical scholars and believes the Jesus of Nazareth never existed? And why do you feel that way? Why are you asking this question after having already ignored these posts and many more just like them? Originally Posted by wollery I'm perfectly willing to concede that there probably was a Jewish preacher in the 1st century called Yeshua, who quite possibly had a father called Yusef. So what? Originally Posted by dafydd I am prepared to believe that Jesus existed, but stories about his life have been greatly exaggerated. Originally Posted by Beerina That's the key part. There are plenty of skeptics who think some preacher dude might have existed who then got whacked for, oh, I don't know. Stirring up the people against the Romans and/or Jewish Establishment? Originally Posted by Foster Zygote DOC, many skeptics here agree with Ehrman that there is much evidence that an early 1st century apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jeshu ben Joseph existed and that he became the basis for the mythical Jesus Christ. This is very similar to the situation in which a real person known as Nicholas of Myra, who lived during the 3rd and 4th centuries, became the basis of the mythical Santa Claus. Originally Posted by Belz... I think you should re-read that. The Jesus of the bible -- the one making miracles and being generally non-human -- didn't exist. There may or may not have been an actual person who was the basis of the story. If there was, it isn't a problem for atheists, since you're still missing some important steps to validate Christianity's claims. Originally Posted by Resume No. Lot's of us will spot you a Jesus, of Nazareth even. We just won't spot you the miraculous crap, the whole son of god deal. Originally Posted by The Dark Lord Personally, I couldn't give two *** less if there existed some crazy preacher named Jesus. The real question is whether miracle Jesus existed. He didn't. Bart Ehrman agrees. Originally Posted by Good Lt By the way, even Christopher Hitchens was willing to accept that there may have been a popular preacher living in the time of Jesus who may have fit the bill for such an individual. But that doesn't prove: A) he was God's son B) that God exists C) that Christianity is the one true faith D) that miracles occur E) that his death absolved the world of any sin F) that the Bible is true or divine in any way G) etc etc etc Originally Posted by Mojo But the Jesus he says existed is not the same as the Jesus you say existed. From Jerry Coyne's comments about the book: Originally Posted by TimCallahan** It's one thing to say Jesus existed. It's quite another to say he walked on water.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

27th June 2012, 10:57 PM	#1770
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC I've already pointed out Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus. Yes, you have. Several times. And yet strangely you've never expounded upon what those reasons might be. Why is that, DOC? Is it because the review you were cribbing from didn't get as far as explaining them?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 27th June 2012 at 11:07 PM.

27th June 2012, 11:07 PM	#1771
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	So, returning to the topic of the thread . . . Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

27th June 2012, 11:27 PM	#1772
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,102	Originally Posted by DOC I have read much of the book, although not all of it. DOC, you have already boasted, in this very thread, that not only have you not read most of the book but that you have no intention of reading it: Originally Posted by DOC I already know the historical evidence for Christ is there so I don't need to read most of the book which deals with that. And I don't agree with his conclusion. I have no desire to read much more but I would like to see the page #'s of what Agatha was talking about.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

27th June 2012, 11:29 PM	#1773
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,001	Originally Posted by DOC I've already said he doesn't believe Jesus was divine, and I don't agree with him on that for several reasons, some I have given in here. You have to walk before you can run, and you have to believe Jesus existed before you can believe he was divine. Many skeptics won't believe my evidence when I say Jesus existed, but they might believe Bart Ehrman. To state that someone existed, and to state that the person in question is a god, are statements of such a different order, that establishing the first doesn't even start to establish the second. Consider the more ancient godmen Mithras and Osiris. If I was able to show that either of these existed as men, would that be evidence that they were also gods? It would be no evidence at all, to a person who didn't believe that anyone is a god. The situation is not symmetrical. To prove Joe Bloggs, for example, doesn't exist at all, proves indeed that he is not god. But evidence that he does exist, is not evidence that he is god. Most atheists, including Dawkins and Hitchens, believe Jesus to have existed as a man.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,001	Last edited by Craig B; 28th June 2012 at 12:30 AM.

27th June 2012, 11:31 PM	#1774
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,102	Originally Posted by Akhenaten So, returning to the topic of the thread . . . Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity? And is the evidence for the historical Abraham Lincoln evidence for the existence of vampires?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th June 2012, 01:56 AM	#1775
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,229	Originally Posted by DOC Another derogatory post that does not respond to a post of mine or give examples. You expect me to link to the lack of an apology, or give examples where you fail to apologise? You've made 6912 posts; I am not going to link to every single one to show that you failed to apologise, your posts (as you often repeat) stand for themselves and the lack of an apology is plain for all to see. You haven't read Ehrman's book in its entirety, by your own admission, you haven't even read your own holy book in its entirety, again by your own admission. Just because you can't be bothered to read the books you tout as support for your weird version of your religion, you should not expect that others are as ignorant of the facts. Ehrman's book doesn't support your views so why you introduced it is a mystery. You suggested that I was lying when I explained that I both owned Ehrman's book and had read it; I pulled you up on that implication and you have so far failed to apologise. If you consider that me pointing out your rudeness is "derogatory", the solution is in your hands - do not accuse other people of lying.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff. Last edited by Agatha; 28th June 2012 at 01:57 AM.

28th June 2012, 05:50 AM	#1776
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	Originally Posted by DOC This is false, I merely asked for the page numbers of the information she was giving. I gave page numbers 2 or 3 times. There was always the chance she could have not portrayed exactly what Ehrman said since she seemed to be saying it on memory. and yet she was portraying the book accurately. In other words, your challenge of her scholarship was found to be misplaced. And yet, you have failed to apologize for this. Originally Posted by DOC And I have read more of the book "Did Jesus Exist" than probably 95% of the people on this site. evidence? Originally Posted by DOC If it wasn't for me, I have a feeling very few in here would even know of the book. evidence? I expect an apology if you are unable to Support these claims. Originally Posted by DOC And as I've stated many times my threads are not about me. Nope. They are about information. It is important to demonstrate when a person isn't a reliable source of information.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

28th June 2012, 07:19 AM	#1777
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,753	Originally Posted by Akhenaten ...Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity? Muslim martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal. They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel. On the other hand the Christian martyrs of the 1st century (which wiki reports on here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. This does not make sense, especially given that the writings of that time portrayed them as uncertain and cowardly before the death of Jesus. When their leader Jesus was crucified they could have simply walked away and gone back to fishing. These facts while not proving a resurrection, give some support to accounts of a resurrection and thus is some evidence. On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves. As someone once said about the "beginning" of the two religions, Christianity spread when the sword was used on them, and Islam (the so-called religion of peace) spread by use of their swords on others. So the beginning growth of the two religions happened in almost opposite ways.
	Last edited by DOC; 28th June 2012 at 07:45 AM.

28th June 2012, 07:34 AM	#1778
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Akhenaten ...Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity? Muslim Martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal. Why do we need to restrict the question to modern martyrs? How does having a political/nationalistic goal negate the effect of one's martyrdom on proving the truth of one's religion? On what basis are you assuming that Christian martyrs are without political/nationalistic goals? Originally Posted by DOC They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel. How does this negate the effect of their martyrdom on proving the truth of their religion? Originally Posted by DOC On the other hand the Christian Martyrs of the 1st century (which wiki reports on here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. I'd like to see a direct quote of those words before I respond more fully. You seem to have used a wiki link and then inserted your own words under it, as though those were the words used in the reference. I'm sure you'll understand my rigour in checking sources, since you are such a stickler for these things yourself. Originally Posted by DOC This does not make sense, especially given that the writings of that time portrayed them as uncertain and cowardly before the death of Jesus. Which writings would these be, DOC? Not the Bible, I would hope, since that's the very document that you're in the middle of failing to demonstrate as a true and accurate account of real world events. Originally Posted by DOC When Jesus was crucified they could have simply walked away and gone back to fishing. Who are you talking about? Originally Posted by DOC These facts while not proving a resurrection, give some support to accounts of a resurrection and thus is some evidence. What facts? Originally Posted by DOC On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves. Whatever else their motivations, DOC, no martyrs of any stripe have ever gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves. They are, by definition, dead. Originally Posted by DOC As someone once said about the "beginning" of the two religions, Christianity spread when the sword was used on them, and Islam spread by use of the their swords on others. Yeah, you said it. That, more than anything else, is how we know it's complete balderdash. Originally Posted by DOC; So the beginning growth of the two religions was very different. Your argumentum ad so is, as always, a waste of pixels, and in no way does it address the question you were asked. As a matter of fact, it looks as though you'd already forgotten the question about halfway through your response.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 28th June 2012 at 08:12 AM.

28th June 2012, 07:36 AM	#1779
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	Originally Posted by DOC Muslim Martyrs today for the most part have some political/nationalistic goal. unlike christian marytrs who were politically opposed to Roman Rule? Originally Posted by DOC They hate the West and Israel and their suicide bombings are a warfare tactic to try to win a war and achieve their nationalistic objectives of destroying Israel. Unlike the children's crusade? (which wasn't actually children) Originally Posted by DOC On the other hand the Christian Martyrs of the 1st century ... were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. Nothing to gain except sociopolitical goals. Originally Posted by DOC This does not make sense, ... except that it does and is extremely similar to muslim martrs. Originally Posted by DOC On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves. unlike Constantine?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

28th June 2012, 07:37 AM	#1780
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,102	DOC, is the widely accepted existence of a historical Abraham Lincoln evidence for why we know Bram Stoker told the truth?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky Last edited by Mojo; 28th June 2012 at 07:41 AM. Reason: link

28th June 2012, 12:48 PM	#1781
Fast Eddie B Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 1,112	Originally Posted by DOC On the other hand the Christian martyrs of the 1st century (which wiki reports on here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. On the other hand the (Jonestown/Heaven's Gate, your choice) martyrs of the 20th century (which wiki reports on here) [find the Wiki links yourself I find them too depressing.] were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. Quote: This does not make sense... You're right on that point - martyrdom rarely makes sense... ...nor do most religions, when viewed objectively.
	Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 28th June 2012 at 12:52 PM.

29th June 2012, 02:13 AM	#1782
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,753	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B On the other hand the (Jonestown/Heaven's Gate, your choice) martyrs of the 20th century (which wiki reports on here) [find the Wiki links yourself I find them too depressing.] were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. Both of those cases for the most part had their charismatic leaders right there (along with many other followers) to pressure them, and Jim Jones at Jonestown also had a gun. This is much different from Christianity where Christ was not there in person to pressure them. Also the Jonestown and Heaven's gate deaths occurred for the most part at a single place and over a short period of time. And none of the Christian martyrs that we know of killed themselves. There deaths were caused by others when they refused to deny their faith. And Jesus did say there would be many false prophets come after him.
	Last edited by DOC; 29th June 2012 at 02:18 AM.

29th June 2012, 02:34 AM	#1783
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC; Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B On the other hand the (Jonestown/Heaven's Gate, your choice) martyrs of the 20th century (which wiki reports on here) [find the Wiki links yourself I find them too depressing.] were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain. Both of those cases for the most part had their charismatic leaders right there (along with many other followers) to pressure them, and Jim Jones at Jonestown also had a gun. John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Originally Posted by DOC; This is much different from Christianity where Christ was not there in person to pressure them. You really believe that Christianity was founded by the alleged Jesus, don't you DOC? Do you have any idea at all (having been told dozens of times in this very thread) how ludicrous that is? Originally Posted by DOC; Also the Jonestown and Heaven's gate deaths occurred for the most part at a single place and over a short period of time. And how does that affect the power of the martyrdom of those involved to prove the truth of their religions? Originally Posted by DOC; And none of the Christian martyrs that we know of killed themselves. Isn't a martyr someone who suffers persecution and death for their beliefs? How does this preclude suicide, especially when that suicide is carried out under duress? Originally Posted by DOC; There deaths were caused by others when they refused to deny their faith. Where? Originally Posted by DOC; And Jesus did say there would be many false prophets come after him. You have no idea what the alleged Jesus said.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

29th June 2012, 02:36 AM	#1784
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Speaking of martyrs . . . Where and how did Simon Zelotes die, DOC?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

29th June 2012, 02:48 AM	#1785
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	I wonder if it was here
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

29th June 2012, 04:07 AM	#1786
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,482	Originally Posted by Akhenaten http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Tyre2.jpg I wonder if it was here Where did you get that photo? That place ceased to exist a long time ago.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th June 2012, 04:41 AM	#1787
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,753	Originally Posted by Akhenaten ...You really believe that Christianity was founded by the alleged Jesus, don't you DOC? Do you have any idea at all (having been told dozens of times in this very thread) how ludicrous that is?... Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed. Bart Ehrman believes that the apostle Paul met with Peter (Jesus' right hand man) and James (the brother of Jesus). Writings written by people who didn't know their writings would end up in something called a bible said this Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Bart Ehrman said there were Jews shortly after the crucifixion who believed Jesus was the Messiah. Writings written by people who didn't know their writings would end up in something called a bible said this Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel. We have evidence some of the apostles went into the world and preached the gospel, We have evidence Peter (Jesus' right hand man) spent his last years in Rome, the center of Christianity for at least 1500 years. If you don't believe this Jesus founded Christianity that is your right.
	Last edited by DOC; 29th June 2012 at 04:48 AM.

29th June 2012, 05:14 AM	#1788
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Akhenaten ...You really believe that Christianity was founded by the alleged Jesus, don't you DOC? Do you have any idea at all (having been told dozens of times in this very thread) how ludicrous that is?... Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed. Even if he was right, that has nothing to do with the question of who founded Christianity. Originally Posted by DOC Bart Ehrman believes that the apostle Paul met with Peter (Jesus' right hand man) and James (the brother of Jesus). You will of course be giving a proper cite for this claim, won't you. Originally Posted by DOC Writings written by people who didn't know their writings would end up in something called a bible said this Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Writings that for all we know were made up out of whole cloth. You appear to have completely forgotten that evidence for the veracity of these writings is the very thing that you've been failing to provide in this thread for the last four years. Originally Posted by DOC Bart Ehrman said there were Jews shortly after the crucifixion who believed Jesus was the Messiah. And for the 1473rd time DOC presents evidence for the existence of Christianity. Originally Posted by DOC Writings written by people who didn't know their writings would end up in something called a bible said this Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel. It's a politically motivated fairytale. Or have you found that long-awaited evidence that you claimed to have all those years ago? Originally Posted by DOC We have evidence some of the apostles went into the world and preached the gospel, We have evidence that someone did these things, but none at all that they were apostles of the alleged Jesus. The point is, DOC, that it was these people, Paul chiefly amongst them, who founded Christianity, and not the alleged Jesus, who, for all the evidence we have, may not have existed in any way, shape or form. Originally Posted by DOC We have evidence Peter (Jesus' right hand man) spent his last years in Rome, the center of Christianity for at least 1500 years. We, or more specifically, you, have no such thing. Originally Posted by DOC If you don't believe this Jesus founded Christianity that is your right. Believing that Mars is made out of Raspberry Ripple ice cream is my right as well, DOC, but that's not the point. My belief that Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus is based on historical and biblical evidence. Ignorance of that evidence is your right, of course, but as I pointed out in the post to which you've pretended to respond here, it's quite ludicrous.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 29th June 2012 at 05:18 AM.

29th June 2012, 05:19 AM	#1789
Fast Eddie B Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 1,112	Originally Posted by DOC Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed. Stipulated. Time to move on.

29th June 2012, 05:35 AM	#1790
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Akhenaten ...You really believe that Christianity was founded by the alleged Jesus, don't you DOC? Do you have any idea at all (having been told dozens of times in this very thread) how ludicrous that is?... Bart Ehrman believes . . . <prattlesnip> Yeah, yeah. We know. When do you plan on responding to the 80%+ of the post that you snipped out to insert this nimrodness? The part about the martyrs that was actually the main thrust of it, in other words. Geeze you're transparent.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

29th June 2012, 05:42 AM	#1791
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Originally Posted by dafydd Where did you get that photo? That place ceased to exist a long time ago. Sshhhh! Don't tell DOC, but it's actually a photoshop of a bare rock covered in fishing nets.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

29th June 2012, 06:53 AM	#1792
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,102	Originally Posted by DOC Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed. DOC, many people believe (and there is much evidence to support this belief) that Abraham Lincoln certainly existed. Is this evidence for the existence of vampires?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

29th June 2012, 07:19 AM	#1793
Lucian Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,550	Originally Posted by Mojo DOC, many people believe (and there is much evidence to support this belief) that Abraham Lincoln certainly existed. Is this evidence for the existence of vampires? Yes it is. I grew up in Springfield, Illinois, where Lincoln lived for many years and where he is buried. Springfield is notable for its absence of vampires--I never saw a single one when I lived there. Clearly, Honest Abe slew them all in the nineteenth century. And if he was able to slay them, that must mean that they exist. It's the only logical conclusion, and I understand logic: I got an A in Logicalness 101 in college.
Lucian Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,550	__________________ skepticalhumanities.com virtualskeptics.com

29th June 2012, 07:31 AM	#1794
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,683	Well, that's me convinced then.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

29th June 2012, 08:09 AM	#1795
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	Originally Posted by DOC Both of those cases for the most part had their charismatic leaders right there (along with many other followers) to pressure them, ... Matthew 10:32-39 Quote: 32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c] 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. Yup, no pressuring there at all.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser