[Merged] Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2) - Page 51

Fireshadow · 11th July 2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Craig B

A good example of the principle you refer to is this. In 1633 Galileo was threatened with torture and death unless he denied that the Earth is in orbit round the Sun. He denied it in public and saved his life, though then kept under house arrest until he died.

Now, the fact that Galileo refused martyrdom: does that prove that he was wrong, and the Sun goes round the Earth? Only if he died to "prove" it, can we say he was right? Of course not! Galileo did the right thing. Statements of fact need no martyrs. They witness to their own truth! As a matter of reality the geneaologies of Jesus, and the accounts of the experiences of Paul's companions, disagree, and a million insane hagiographies of St Philomena will not change this unfortunate fact.

This is perhaps my favorite response to the idea that "martyr for a statement=truth of that statement". True, people are often martyrs for true things (Nathan Hale comes to mind: I regret I have but one life...) but it's unlikely that truth, in and of itself, will be a cause for martyrdom. In all the counter examples that have been given, it's been martyrs who've died for other causes, not people who chose not to be martyrs because the cause is, on its face, true, and therefore does not require someone to die for it.

GrandMasterFox · 11th July 2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

How about the Saxons martyred for resisting forced conversion to Christianity <snip>

Considering DOC still ignores repeated questions I asked him regarding jewish martyrs who died for the same reasons, I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.

TimCallahan · 11th July 2012, 01:58 PM

When it comes to differing accounts of the post Resurrection appearances of Jesus, we not only have the four versions in the gospels, we also this sequence from 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:3 - 8):

For I delivered to you as of first importance that I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James and then to all the apostles. Last of all as to one untimely born, he also appeared to me.

Not only is this sequence different from all of the other gospels, creating a fifth version of the Resurrection, it introduces 500 people to whom Jesus supposedly appeared at once. Since Paul probably wrote 1 Corinthians between the years 50 and 60, it antedates the gospel accounts of the appearances of the risen Christ. However, there are problems with it as a reputable witness. First of all, consider the 500+ people to whom Jesus is supposed to have appeared at one time. Assuming that Luke actually knew Paul, as Acts asserts, it's surprising that not even that gospel reports such a stunning piece of evidence. There would seem to be two possibilities here. First, the 500 are actually from the hand of Paul, but the story was not considered reputable by the gospel writers. The other possibility is that the 500 were inserted by a later editor.

The likelihood the 500 were inserted by a later editor is heightened by further evidence of tampering. Consider that, in Paul's epistle to the Galatians, James is clearly in charge. At the mere appearance of men sent by James, Cephas (Peter), who had been eating with the Gentiles withdraws and sits by himself. Had James been so far down in order on the list of those to whom the resurrected Jesus appeared, it seems doubtful he would have been in charge. Thus, this seems like a demotion by a later editor. This seems particularly true if one considers that Peter would have been one of the twelve to whom Jesus next appeared. If we restore James to what I think was his original position and leave out the 500, we would have this:

. . . and he appeared to James, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to all the apostles

Here we have a widening circle of people to whom Jesus appeared, first one, then 12, then all, with Paul tacked on at the end.

Reality Check · 11th July 2012, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

"Appeared to many" Eight people can be many.
...
Jerusalem was a big populated city.

Nine, one thousand, or a million can also be many.
However the zombies wandered into the city. The many refers to the population of the city which has been estimated as between 20,000 and 50,000 people. So the many as a proportion of the population would be in the thousands.
This includes the disciples and the other citizens of Jerusalem. These people were (according to you) incapable of seeing the zombies or unable to communicate to other people that they saw zombies.

So the question is just how dumb do you think your "eight" people were?

The fact that Matthew adds zombies to his story makes his story dubious since no reasonable person would accept these zombies without collaborating evidence. This is evidence that Matthew was just repeating some other oral story and adding his own fantasies to it.

Akhenaten · 11th July 2012, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Do you know about the zombies that only Matthew mentions?
“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
Matthew 27:52-53

Not only do the other gospels ignore the zombies, but everyone else in Jerusalem including the many that they appeared unto ignored them

!

"Appeared to many" Eight people can be many.

So can a thousand. On what basis are you suggesting eight?

Quibble and wilbur all you want DOC, the story says many saints appeared to many people, and yet the only place in the whole of everything that it's mentioned is in the book of Matty. That you would believe in such an astronomically unlikely occurence on the basis of its appearance in a story written by an anonymous author decades after the events it purports to narrate and based on any number of multi-hand sources with unknown provenance says much about your ability to apply critical thinking to any of this nonsense.

And none of what it says is at all good.

Originally Posted by DOC

Maybe the other authors weren't confident enough in the account to write about it, whereas Matthew was.

What does that tell you about the evidence on which the story was based, DOC?

I'm betting on "absolutely nothing".

Originally Posted by DOC

Or the accounts of those maybe eight people never got around to them. Jerusalem was a big populated city.

Again, where are you getting 'eight' from? Same place you got the passerby from in your version of the story of Paul's conversion?

In any case, haven't you been trying to claim that the synoptic gospels were written by eye-witnesses? Are you also going to claim that one of them saw the Running of the Zombies and yet the others didn't? Or didn't even hear about it?

Maybe they had a day out at the beach down in Tyre and missed all the excitement.

Or maybe it's just made up out of thin air for the benefit of a motley band of misguided zealots stirring up trouble in second century Syria.

Originally Posted by DOC

And the bible reports Peter converted 3000 on one day, and 5000 men (woman and children not counted) a short time later.

Originally Posted by DOC

Maybe it was more than just Peter's preaching that caused the great sudden growth.

What are you trying to say, DOC? That 8,000 people were converted because of the zombie story of which Peter himself apparently knew nothing?

Do you ever even try to think these things through?

Akhenaten · 11th July 2012, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by joobz

I would be skeptical about people rising from the dead. Seems like crazy fiction to me.

So you imply some miracles are more believable than others?

I would have said the implication was that only crazy people would believe such a daft story. If that's not what joobz was implying, allow me to state it more directly.

Only crazy people would be believe such a daft story.

Originally Posted by DOC

If God exists miracles are possible -- any miracle.

Ergo, the lack of any evidence in all of history for the occurrence of a single miracle is compelling evidence that your sky critter doesn't exist.

Logic 101, DOC. Remember?

BStrong · 11th July 2012, 06:43 PM

"Jesus was the first guy to come back from the dead that didn't scare the **** out of everybody."

Sam Kinison.

The bible is the best selling fiction book of all time.

DOC · 11th July 2012, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by welshdean

Context:
"If it is hard to imagine Jews inventing the idea of a crucified messiah, where did the idea come from? It came from historical realities. There really was a man Jesus. Some of the things he said and possibly did make some of his followers wonder if he could be the messiah. Eventually they became convinced: he must be the messiah. But then he ran afoul of the authorities, who had him arrested, put on trial, and condemned to execution. He was crucified. This, of course, radically disconfirmed everything his followers had thought and hoped since he obviously was the furthest thing from the messiah. But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back from the dead. The story caught on, and some (or all—we don’t know) of his closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised. This reconfirmed in a big way the hopes that had been so severely dashed by his crucifixion. For his reinspirited followers, Jesus truly is the one favored by God. So he is the messiah. But he is a different kind of messiah than anyone expected. God had a different plan from the beginning. He planned to save Israel not by a powerful royal messiah but by a crucified messiah.
Since no one would have made up the idea of a crucified messiah, Jesus must really have existed, must really have raised messianic expectations, and must really have been crucified. No Jew would have invented him. 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."

Context 2:
"I should stress that I am not saying that Luke and the other Gospel writers were trying to present disinterested accounts of the life of Jesus. These authors were anything but disinterested, and their biases need to be front and center in the critics’ minds when evaluating what they have to say. But at the same time, they were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation. The fact that their books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.
Some mythicists, though, do precisely that. As just one example, the Gospel of Luke indicates that Jesus’s hometown was Nazareth. As we will see later in the book, many mythicists deny that Nazareth even existed in the days of Jesus, and they refuse to take Luke’s and the other Gospels’ word for it, not deeming them as reputable historical sources since they are part of the Bible. But the reality is that Luke inherited oral traditions about Jesus and his connection with Nazareth, and he recorded what he had heard. What he heard may have been right or it may have been wrong, but the fact that later Christians long after he was dead placed his book into the canon of the New Testament has nothing to do with it."

Sorry folks, I still can't get page no.s for some reason. I'm new to both Calibre and the Kindle.

The above is from the Book "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman.

I'm curious, so it looks like it is possible to cut and paste (or download) off a Kindle?? I never had a Kindle. For some reason I thought it was not possible to do that. It would seem someone could copy the whole book then and give it to friends. That would seem to cut into sales. Can any Kindle or Calibre owners give more info on this?

Akhenaten · 11th July 2012, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

The above is from the Book "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman.

You don't say.

Originally Posted by DOC

I'm curious, so it looks like it is possible to cut and paste (or download) off a Kindle??

No it doesn't, and if you bothered to actually read what people post you'd at least have a slightly better chance of not posting such drivelous responses.

Originally Posted by welshdean

I've not uploaded it yet (to my kindle), it's still on the laptop and 'Calibre' doesn't seem to display page numbers.

Originally Posted by DOC

I never had a Kindle. For some reason I thought it was not possible to do that.

You've never had Ehrman's book either, but that hasn't stopped you pretending to quote from it.

Originally Posted by DOC

It would seem someone could copy the whole book then and give it to friends. That would seem to cut into sales. Can any Kindle or Calibre owners give more info on this?

Not in this thread they can't, and in all likelihood, not in any other thread on this Forum.

Any chance of you attending to the 347 outstanding questions that you're trying to Nimrod your way out of here?

DOC · 11th July 2012, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Any chance of you attending to the 347 outstanding questions...

If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one.

Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time. People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources.

Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", or anything by Ralph Muncaster, author of book "Examine the Evidence". Also former atheist and Chicago Times journalist, Lee Strobel, has a 2 DVD set called "The Case for Christ".

Akhenaten · 11th July 2012, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Any chance of you attending to the 347 outstanding questions...

If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one.

This does nothing to explain why you have plenty of time to post drivel, preach, and try to introduce off-topic derails but no time to deal with questions arising from the many and varied claims that you are wont to infect the thread with.

Originally Posted by DOC

Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time.

Garbage. You spend untold hours posting utter codswallop here. If you spent the same amount of time researching and responding to other people's posts then the threads you start wouldn't be the laughing stock that they are now.

Originally Posted by DOC

People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources.

"Take as gospel" in the context of this Forum means "treat as a fairytale", DOC.

Where in the name of Sobek do you think you are?

Originally Posted by DOC

Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics

<snip>

You claim to be pressed for time and yet you have enough spare to post that bilge?

Akhenaten · 11th July 2012, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one.

Have you at least had enough time to figure out who wrote the book of Acts yet?

DOC · 12th July 2012, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Have you at least had enough time to figure out who wrote the book of Acts yet?

Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it.

Mashuna · 12th July 2012, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", or anything by Ralph Muncaster, author of book "Examine the Evidence". Also former atheist and Chicago Times journalist, Lee Strobel, has a 2 DVD set called "The Case for Christ".

Yes, I imagine these books have helped quite a few Christians become atheists.

Akhenaten · 12th July 2012, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Have you at least had enough time to figure out who wrote the book of Acts yet?

Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend, but that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul . . .

How come the great historian didn't notice that he'd written down two different versions of the same story?

And completely forgot to mention the mysterious figure of the Wandering Ventriloquist?

Originally Posted by DOC

(who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it.

I assume you include these irrelevant bits of embroidery in your responses in the hope that they'll help to create an impression of your extensive biblical scholarship.

I have some bad news for you.

Marduk · 12th July 2012, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar,.

just one scholar out of the hundreds of thousands who have lived since his texts were written.
You'd have to be a really crappy historian to have one fan, are you sure he wasn't using sarcasm, like in "Adolf Hitler, what a great humanitarian he was".

now when I invented that quote to make my point it suddenly occurred to me that Hitler still has many thousands of Neo Nazi fans who believe he was a great leader

so Luke had just the one eh

theres this thing
"perspective"

Craig B · 12th July 2012, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend, but that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it.

DOC, it's irksome for people to point out defects in Luke's account of things, like the discrepancies in the accounts of Paul's revelation and the dating of Theudas, which indicate that he was not a Great Historian, while you simply keep repeating that somebody has said he was, as if you were telling us this for the first time, although it has been rebutted more than once in this thread.

DrDave · 12th July 2012, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

The above is from the Book "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman.

I'm curious, so it looks like it is possible to cut and paste (or download) off a Kindle?? I never had a Kindle. For some reason I thought it was not possible to do that. It would seem someone could copy the whole book then and give it to friends. That would seem to cut into sales. Can any Kindle or Calibre owners give more info on this?

As a kindle owner I can give you this info:

Kindle discussion thread is here --> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188007

ddt · 12th July 2012, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one.

Why do you need a million dollars for that? Didn't Jesus say that you should not worry about tomorrow (Matthew 6:34).

Originally Posted by DOC

Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time. People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources.

Rest assured that most, if not all, posters and lurkers here think that everything you posted here is utter drivel. Except for yourself, that is.

And here's an idea to tackle those 347 outstanding issues: start with one and carry the discussion to the end. For instance the discussion about the right translation of Luke 2:2. You haven't even been able to post here an explanation how Heichelheim and Geisler come to their (wrong) translation(s). So either respond to my analysis or concede that their claims are bollocks and be done with it.

Originally Posted by DOC

Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist",

Isn't that the book you've repeatedly linked to on Google Books, even though it has been pointed out that only Americans can see it?

GrandMasterFox · 12th July 2012, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

Why do you need a million dollars for that? Didn't Jesus say that you should not worry about tomorrow (Matthew 6:34).

And while we're at it

Originally Posted by Peter 1

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.

Mojo · 12th July 2012, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

Isn't that the book you've repeatedly linked to on Google Books, even though it has been pointed out that only Americans can see it?

The problem isn't so much that DOC repeatdly links to it, it is that, having been told that many posters can't see it he continues to tell people to read it rather than (as he has been requested to) summarising the argument he wants to use it for in his own words. It's almost as if he doesn't want people to be able to see the arguments he is trying to advance.

joobz · 12th July 2012, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it.

Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad.

pakeha · 12th July 2012, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Craig B

...

Quote:

Another miracle accepted as proved in the same year (1835) was the multiplication of the bone dust of the saint, which provided for hundreds of reliquaries without the original amount experiencing any decrease in quantity.

Well, if wiki says so, that's good enough for me!
Who knew-magically reproducing relics!

On the subject of Acts, DOC wrote:

Originally Posted by DOC

Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it.

But I'm still confused about the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus and the two different account of Paul's conversion, DOC.
Please clear this up.

catsmate1 · 12th July 2012, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Fireshadow

This is perhaps my favorite response to the idea that "martyr for a statement=truth of that statement". True, people are often martyrs for true things (Nathan Hale comes to mind: I regret I have but one life...) but it's unlikely that truth, in and of itself, will be a cause for martyrdom. In all the counter examples that have been given, it's been martyrs who've died for other causes, not people who chose not to be martyrs because the cause is, on its face, true, and therefore does not require someone to die for it.

As a point of fact Hale's last words were not "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" but probably a variation on "It is the duty of every good Officer, to obey any orders given him by his Commander-in-Chief"

Originally Posted by Marduk

just one scholar out of the hundreds of thousands who have lived since his texts were written.

A scholar who was criticised by his peers for allowing his beliefs to blind him to historical facts.

Fireshadow · 12th July 2012, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate1

As a point of fact Hale's last words were not "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" but probably a variation on "It is the duty of every good Officer, to obey any orders given him by his Commander-in-Chief"

A scholar who was criticised by his peers for allowing his beliefs to blind him to historical facts.

Yes, well, I'm not a historian, and no one has ever claimed I was. But you bring up another good point: The words of a man who is documented to have existed by multiple sources, and who died 250 years ago, are up for debate; who can be sure what an alleged man, who cannot be proven outside one holy book, and reportedly died 2000 years ago, actually said at his execution?

Akhenaten · 12th July 2012, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Fireshadow

Yes, well, I'm not a historian, and no one has ever claimed I was. But you bring up another good point: The words of a man who is documented to have existed by multiple sources, and who died 250 years ago, are up for debate; who can be sure what an alleged man, who cannot be proven outside one holy book, and reportedly died 2000 years ago, actually said at his execution?

Oh goody. We haven't had this one for a while.

Your post will be the trigger for DOC's "How do we know that Juilus Cæsar (for whom we have no signature) and Alexander the Great (who has no known grave) ever existed?" argument.

Always good for a laugh, some sidebar learning about real history and a few pictures.

Mister Agenda · 12th July 2012, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one.

Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time. People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources.

Judging from your nearly 7,000 posts, I assumed you were retired.

Originally Posted by DOC

Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", or anything by Ralph Muncaster, author of book "Examine the Evidence". Also former atheist and Chicago Times journalist, Lee Strobel, has a 2 DVD set called "The Case for Christ".

All of those authors write tripe, especially Stroebel. How I wish I could get back the time spent on him.

TimCallahan · 12th July 2012, 10:12 AM

DOC:

Just out of curiosity, in reference to Matthew's walking dead, why do you suppose the following?:

1) Why did only Matthew made reference to them?

2) Did they go back to their graves after the crucifixion was fininshed, or did they reclaim their lives and property?

As to Paul's 500 brethren to whom the risen Christ appeared, if you believe that Paul and Luke knew each other, why didn't Luke mention them?

Even given the possibility that different witnesses to the same event will have variations in their stories, how do you reconcile the risen Jesus meeting the disciples in Galilee, according to Matthew, and his meeting them in Jerusalem according to Luke?

Why, after they have seen the risen Christ, are the disciples, according to the last chapter of the Gospel of John, back home in Galilee fishing?

Craig B · 12th July 2012, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

DOC:

Just out of curiosity, in reference to Matthew's walking dead, why do you suppose the following?: ... 2) Did they go back to their graves after the crucifixion was fininshed ... ?

Nothing so straightforward! Matthew 27.

Quote:

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

So they remained in their open tombs from the death to the resurrection of Jesus, and only then commenced their peregrinations. That really takes some explaining!

joobz · 12th July 2012, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Craig B

Nothing so straightforward! Matthew 27. So they remained in their open tombs from the death to the resurrection of Jesus, and only then commenced their peregrinations. That really takes some explaining!

And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.

Craig B · 12th July 2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.

Nor anywhere else in the Gospels, either.

DOC · 12th July 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Judging from your nearly 7,000 posts, I assumed you were retired.

That is over 5 years, if I had the time some people on here seem to have I might have 20,000. No, I work full time, I'm not retired.

DOC · 12th July 2012, 02:21 PM

deleted

Reality Check · 12th July 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

The next verse is relevant:

Quote:

⁵⁴When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

So the centurion and a "whole company of soldiers" (verse 24) (and the other spectators presumably) saw all that happened - an earthquake and zombies!
Centurions commanded 60 to 80 men. That is a bit more than 8 even if the rest of the city were blind, deaf and dumb.

Resume · 12th July 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

No, I work full time, I'm not retired.

Hopefully not in the field of bible apologetics

kmortis · 12th July 2012, 02:31 PM

Guys, DOC's employment status and his post count is not the topic. Please return to the topic at hand.

DOC · 12th July 2012, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.

They might have been too busy evangelizing and getting martyred to write history books to most of the people who couldn't read anyway.

We know something big was happening for there to be such dynamic growth. Luke reports Peter converted 3000 one day and 5000 men (not including women) shortly afterward. Could there have been more going on then just the formerly cowardly Peter's preaching?

DOC · 12th July 2012, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

Hopefully not in the field of bible apologetics

No, Apologetics is just a sideline. My full time job duties have nothing to do with Chrisitianity.

dafydd · 12th July 2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

. Luke reports Peter converted 3000 one day and 5000 men (not including women) shortly afterward.

Any independent corroboration of this? Otherwise it's just another tall story.

welshdean · 12th July 2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Craig B

Nothing so straightforward! Matthew 27. So they remained in their open tombs from the death to the resurrection of Jesus, and only then commenced their peregrinations. That really takes some explaining!

Let me get this straight.
Jeebus dies.
An earthquake occurs.
The tombs of the saints are wrenched open.
Said saints are resurrected, but lie still for 36hours.
Said saints commence (new word for me. Thanks) their peregrinations.

These bloody zombies laid where they were for 36 hours, didn't move, then got up and perambulated around town on a drippy flesh, bones showing, Thriller-esque meet & greet?
They must have had the patience of a sain.... ahhh fuhgeddaboudit.

11th July 2012, 12:09 PM	#2001
Fireshadow Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Englewood, CO Posts: 1,171	Originally Posted by Craig B A good example of the principle you refer to is this. In 1633 Galileo was threatened with torture and death unless he denied that the Earth is in orbit round the Sun. He denied it in public and saved his life, though then kept under house arrest until he died. Now, the fact that Galileo refused martyrdom: does that prove that he was wrong, and the Sun goes round the Earth? Only if he died to "prove" it, can we say he was right? Of course not! Galileo did the right thing. Statements of fact need no martyrs. They witness to their own truth! As a matter of reality the geneaologies of Jesus, and the accounts of the experiences of Paul's companions, disagree, and a million insane hagiographies of St Philomena will not change this unfortunate fact. This is perhaps my favorite response to the idea that "martyr for a statement=truth of that statement". True, people are often martyrs for true things (Nathan Hale comes to mind: I regret I have but one life...) but it's unlikely that truth, in and of itself, will be a cause for martyrdom. In all the counter examples that have been given, it's been martyrs who've died for other causes, not people who chose not to be martyrs because the cause is, on its face, true, and therefore does not require someone to die for it.
	__________________ The fairness of unfairness is in everything's demise.

11th July 2012, 01:58 PM	#2003
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,116	When it comes to differing accounts of the post Resurrection appearances of Jesus, we not only have the four versions in the gospels, we also this sequence from 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:3 - 8): For I delivered to you as of first importance that I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James and then to all the apostles. Last of all as to one untimely born, he also appeared to me. Not only is this sequence different from all of the other gospels, creating a fifth version of the Resurrection, it introduces 500 people to whom Jesus supposedly appeared at once. Since Paul probably wrote 1 Corinthians between the years 50 and 60, it antedates the gospel accounts of the appearances of the risen Christ. However, there are problems with it as a reputable witness. First of all, consider the 500+ people to whom Jesus is supposed to have appeared at one time. Assuming that Luke actually knew Paul, as Acts asserts, it's surprising that not even that gospel reports such a stunning piece of evidence. There would seem to be two possibilities here. First, the 500 are actually from the hand of Paul, but the story was not considered reputable by the gospel writers. The other possibility is that the 500 were inserted by a later editor. The likelihood the 500 were inserted by a later editor is heightened by further evidence of tampering. Consider that, in Paul's epistle to the Galatians, James is clearly in charge. At the mere appearance of men sent by James, Cephas (Peter), who had been eating with the Gentiles withdraws and sits by himself. Had James been so far down in order on the list of those to whom the resurrected Jesus appeared, it seems doubtful he would have been in charge. Thus, this seems like a demotion by a later editor. This seems particularly true if one considers that Peter would have been one of the twelve to whom Jesus next appeared. If we restore James to what I think was his original position and leave out the 500, we would have this: . . . and he appeared to James, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to all the apostles Here we have a widening circle of people to whom Jesus appeared, first one, then 12, then all, with Paul tacked on at the end.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,116

11th July 2012, 03:25 PM	#2004
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by DOC "Appeared to many" Eight people can be many. ... Jerusalem was a big populated city. Nine, one thousand, or a million can also be many. However the zombies wandered into the city. The many refers to the population of the city which has been estimated as between 20,000 and 50,000 people. So the many as a proportion of the population would be in the thousands. This includes the disciples and the other citizens of Jerusalem. These people were (according to you) incapable of seeing the zombies or unable to communicate to other people that they saw zombies. So the question is just how dumb do you think your "eight" people were? The fact that Matthew adds zombies to his story makes his story dubious since no reasonable person would accept these zombies without collaborating evidence. This is evidence that Matthew was just repeating some other oral story and adding his own fantasies to it.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

11th July 2012, 05:47 PM	#2005
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,634	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Reality Check Do you know about the zombies that only Matthew mentions? “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Matthew 27:52-53 Not only do the other gospels ignore the zombies, but everyone else in Jerusalem including the many that they appeared unto ignored them ! "Appeared to many" Eight people can be many. So can a thousand. On what basis are you suggesting eight? Quibble and wilbur all you want DOC, the story says many saints appeared to many people, and yet the only place in the whole of everything that it's mentioned is in the book of Matty. That you would believe in such an astronomically unlikely occurence on the basis of its appearance in a story written by an anonymous author decades after the events it purports to narrate and based on any number of multi-hand sources with unknown provenance says much about your ability to apply critical thinking to any of this nonsense. And none of what it says is at all good. Originally Posted by DOC Maybe the other authors weren't confident enough in the account to write about it, whereas Matthew was. What does that tell you about the evidence on which the story was based, DOC? I'm betting on "absolutely nothing". Originally Posted by DOC Or the accounts of those maybe eight people never got around to them. Jerusalem was a big populated city. Again, where are you getting 'eight' from? Same place you got the passerby from in your version of the story of Paul's conversion? In any case, haven't you been trying to claim that the synoptic gospels were written by eye-witnesses? Are you also going to claim that one of them saw the Running of the Zombies and yet the others didn't? Or didn't even hear about it? Maybe they had a day out at the beach down in Tyre and missed all the excitement. Or maybe it's just made up out of thin air for the benefit of a motley band of misguided zealots stirring up trouble in second century Syria. Originally Posted by DOC And the bible reports Peter converted 3000 on one day, and 5000 men (woman and children not counted) a short time later. Originally Posted by DOC Maybe it was more than just Peter's preaching that caused the great sudden growth. What are you trying to say, DOC? That 8,000 people were converted because of the zombie story of which Peter himself apparently knew nothing? Do you ever even try to think these things through?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

11th July 2012, 06:08 PM	#2006
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,634	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by joobz I would be skeptical about people rising from the dead. Seems like crazy fiction to me. So you imply some miracles are more believable than others? I would have said the implication was that only crazy people would believe such a daft story. If that's not what joobz was implying, allow me to state it more directly. Only crazy people would be believe such a daft story. Originally Posted by DOC If God exists miracles are possible -- any miracle. Ergo, the lack of any evidence in all of history for the occurrence of a single miracle is compelling evidence that your sky critter doesn't exist. Logic 101, DOC. Remember?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

11th July 2012, 01:29 PM	#2002
GrandMasterFox Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by TimCallahan How about the Saxons martyred for resisting forced conversion to Christianity <snip> Considering DOC still ignores repeated questions I asked him regarding jewish martyrs who died for the same reasons, I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.

11th July 2012, 06:43 PM	#2007
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,781	*"Jesus was the first guy to come back from the dead that didn't scare the out of everybody."* Sam Kinison. The bible is the best selling fiction book of all time.

11th July 2012, 06:48 PM	#2008
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,741	Originally Posted by welshdean Context: "If it is hard to imagine Jews inventing the idea of a crucified messiah, where did the idea come from? It came from historical realities. There really was a man Jesus. Some of the things he said and possibly did make some of his followers wonder if he could be the messiah. Eventually they became convinced: he must be the messiah. But then he ran afoul of the authorities, who had him arrested, put on trial, and condemned to execution. He was crucified. This, of course, radically disconfirmed everything his followers had thought and hoped since he obviously was the furthest thing from the messiah. But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back from the dead. The story caught on, and some (or all—we don’t know) of his closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised. This reconfirmed in a big way the hopes that had been so severely dashed by his crucifixion. For his reinspirited followers, Jesus truly is the one favored by God. So he is the messiah. But he is a different kind of messiah than anyone expected. God had a different plan from the beginning. He planned to save Israel not by a powerful royal messiah but by a crucified messiah. Since no one would have made up the idea of a crucified messiah, Jesus must really have existed, must really have raised messianic expectations, and must really have been crucified. No Jew would have invented him. 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." Context 2: "I should stress that I am not saying that Luke and the other Gospel writers were trying to present disinterested accounts of the life of Jesus. These authors were anything but disinterested, and their biases need to be front and center in the critics’ minds when evaluating what they have to say. But at the same time, they were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation. The fact that their books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly. Some mythicists, though, do precisely that. As just one example, the Gospel of Luke indicates that Jesus’s hometown was Nazareth. As we will see later in the book, many mythicists deny that Nazareth even existed in the days of Jesus, and they refuse to take Luke’s and the other Gospels’ word for it, not deeming them as reputable historical sources since they are part of the Bible. But the reality is that Luke inherited oral traditions about Jesus and his connection with Nazareth, and he recorded what he had heard. What he heard may have been right or it may have been wrong, but the fact that later Christians long after he was dead placed his book into the canon of the New Testament has nothing to do with it." Sorry folks, I still can't get page no.s for some reason. I'm new to both Calibre and the Kindle. The above is from the Book "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman. I'm curious, so it looks like it is possible to cut and paste (or download) off a Kindle?? I never had a Kindle. For some reason I thought it was not possible to do that. It would seem someone could copy the whole book then and give it to friends. That would seem to cut into sales. Can any Kindle or Calibre owners give more info on this?
	Last edited by DOC; 11th July 2012 at 06:50 PM.

11th July 2012, 06:58 PM	#2009
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,634	Originally Posted by DOC The above is from the Book "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman. You don't say. Originally Posted by DOC I'm curious, so it looks like it is possible to cut and paste (or download) off a Kindle?? No it doesn't, and if you bothered to actually read what people post you'd at least have a slightly better chance of not posting such drivelous responses. Originally Posted by welshdean I've not uploaded it yet (to my kindle), it's still on the laptop and 'Calibre' doesn't seem to display page numbers. Originally Posted by DOC I never had a Kindle. For some reason I thought it was not possible to do that. You've never had Ehrman's book either, but that hasn't stopped you pretending to quote from it. Originally Posted by DOC It would seem someone could copy the whole book then and give it to friends. That would seem to cut into sales. Can any Kindle or Calibre owners give more info on this? Not in this thread they can't, and in all likelihood, not in any other thread on this Forum. Any chance of you attending to the 347 outstanding questions that you're trying to Nimrod your way out of here?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

11th July 2012, 09:12 PM	#2010
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,741	Originally Posted by Akhenaten Any chance of you attending to the 347 outstanding questions... If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one. Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time. People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources. Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", or anything by Ralph Muncaster, author of book "Examine the Evidence". Also former atheist and Chicago Times journalist, Lee Strobel, has a 2 DVD set called "The Case for Christ".
	Last edited by DOC; 11th July 2012 at 09:31 PM.

11th July 2012, 09:30 PM	#2011
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,634	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Akhenaten Any chance of you attending to the 347 outstanding questions... If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one. This does nothing to explain why you have plenty of time to post drivel, preach, and try to introduce off-topic derails but no time to deal with questions arising from the many and varied claims that you are wont to infect the thread with. Originally Posted by DOC Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time. Garbage. You spend untold hours posting utter codswallop here. If you spent the same amount of time researching and responding to other people's posts then the threads you start wouldn't be the laughing stock that they are now. Originally Posted by DOC People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources. "Take as gospel" in the context of this Forum means "treat as a fairytale", DOC. Where in the name of Sobek do you think you are? Originally Posted by DOC Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics <snip> You claim to be pressed for time and yet you have enough spare to post that bilge?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

11th July 2012, 09:32 PM	#2012
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,634	Originally Posted by DOC If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one. Have you at least had enough time to figure out who wrote the book of Acts yet?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 11th July 2012 at 09:33 PM.

12th July 2012, 12:03 AM	#2013
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,741	Originally Posted by Akhenaten Have you at least had enough time to figure out who wrote the book of Acts yet? Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it.
	Last edited by DOC; 12th July 2012 at 12:45 AM.

12th July 2012, 12:14 AM	#2014
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,578	Originally Posted by DOC Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", or anything by Ralph Muncaster, author of book "Examine the Evidence". Also former atheist and Chicago Times journalist, Lee Strobel, has a 2 DVD set called "The Case for Christ". Yes, I imagine these books have helped quite a few Christians become atheists.

12th July 2012, 12:16 AM	#2015
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,634	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Akhenaten Have you at least had enough time to figure out who wrote the book of Acts yet? Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend, but that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul . . . How come the great historian didn't notice that he'd written down two different versions of the same story? And completely forgot to mention the mysterious figure of the Wandering Ventriloquist? Originally Posted by DOC (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it. I assume you include these irrelevant bits of embroidery in your responses in the hope that they'll help to create an impression of your extensive biblical scholarship. I have some bad news for you.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

12th July 2012, 12:47 AM	#2016
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by DOC Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar,. just one scholar out of the hundreds of thousands who have lived since his texts were written. You'd have to be a really crappy historian to have one fan, are you sure he wasn't using sarcasm, like in "Adolf Hitler, what a great humanitarian he was". now when I invented that quote to make my point it suddenly occurred to me that Hitler still has many thousands of Neo Nazi fans who believe he was a great leader so Luke had just the one eh theres this thing "perspective"

12th July 2012, 01:34 AM	#2017
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by DOC Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend, but that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it. DOC, it's irksome for people to point out defects in Luke's account of things, like the discrepancies in the accounts of Paul's revelation and the dating of Theudas, which indicate that he was not a Great Historian, while you simply keep repeating that somebody has said he was, as if you were telling us this for the first time, although it has been rebutted more than once in this thread.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,871

12th July 2012, 02:40 AM	#2018
DrDave Guest Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Geneva Posts: 3,110	Originally Posted by DOC The above is from the Book "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman. I'm curious, so it looks like it is possible to cut and paste (or download) off a Kindle?? I never had a Kindle. For some reason I thought it was not possible to do that. It would seem someone could copy the whole book then and give it to friends. That would seem to cut into sales. Can any Kindle or Calibre owners give more info on this? As a kindle owner I can give you this info: Kindle discussion thread is here --> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188007

12th July 2012, 03:22 AM	#2019
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,314	Originally Posted by DOC If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one. Why do you need a million dollars for that? Didn't Jesus say that you should not worry about tomorrow (Matthew 6:34). Originally Posted by DOC Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time. People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources. Rest assured that most, if not all, posters and lurkers here think that everything you posted here is utter drivel. Except for yourself, that is. And here's an idea to tackle those 347 outstanding issues: start with one and carry the discussion to the end. For instance the discussion about the right translation of Luke 2:2. You haven't even been able to post here an explanation how Heichelheim and Geisler come to their (wrong) translation(s). So either respond to my analysis or concede that their claims are bollocks and be done with it. Originally Posted by DOC Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", Isn't that the book you've repeatedly linked to on Google Books, even though it has been pointed out that only Americans can see it?
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

12th July 2012, 04:52 AM	#2020
GrandMasterFox Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by ddt Why do you need a million dollars for that? Didn't Jesus say that you should not worry about tomorrow (Matthew 6:34). And while we're at it Originally Posted by Peter 1 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.

12th July 2012, 05:11 AM	#2021
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,069	Originally Posted by ddt Isn't that the book you've repeatedly linked to on Google Books, even though it has been pointed out that only Americans can see it? The problem isn't so much that DOC repeatdly links to it, it is that, having been told that many posters can't see it he continues to tell people to read it rather than (as he has been requested to) summarising the argument he wants to use it for in his own words. It's almost as if he doesn't want people to be able to see the arguments he is trying to advance.
	__________________ "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

12th July 2012, 05:15 AM	#2022
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by DOC Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it. Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad.
	__________________ 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

12th July 2012, 05:54 AM	#2023
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,967	Originally Posted by Craig B ... Quote: Another miracle accepted as proved in the same year (1835) was the multiplication of the bone dust of the saint, which provided for hundreds of reliquaries without the original amount experiencing any decrease in quantity. Well, if wiki says so, that's good enough for me! Who knew-magically reproducing relics! On the subject of Acts, DOC wrote: Originally Posted by DOC Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it. But I'm still confused about the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus and the two different account of Paul's conversion, DOC. Please clear this up.
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,967	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

12th July 2012, 06:19 AM	#2024
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,095	Originally Posted by Fireshadow This is perhaps my favorite response to the idea that "martyr for a statement=truth of that statement". True, people are often martyrs for true things (Nathan Hale comes to mind: I regret I have but one life...) but it's unlikely that truth, in and of itself, will be a cause for martyrdom. In all the counter examples that have been given, it's been martyrs who've died for other causes, not people who chose not to be martyrs because the cause is, on its face, true, and therefore does not require someone to die for it. As a point of fact Hale's last words were not "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" but probably a variation on "It is the duty of every good Officer, to obey any orders given him by his Commander-in-Chief" Originally Posted by Marduk just one scholar out of the hundreds of thousands who have lived since his texts were written. A scholar who was criticised by his peers for allowing his beliefs to blind him to historical facts.

12th July 2012, 06:36 AM	#2025
Fireshadow Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Englewood, CO Posts: 1,171	Originally Posted by catsmate1 As a point of fact Hale's last words were not "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" but probably a variation on "It is the duty of every good Officer, to obey any orders given him by his Commander-in-Chief" A scholar who was criticised by his peers for allowing his beliefs to blind him to historical facts. Yes, well, I'm not a historian, and no one has ever claimed I was. But you bring up another good point: The words of a man who is documented to have existed by multiple sources, and who died 250 years ago, are up for debate; who can be sure what an alleged man, who cannot be proven outside one holy book, and reportedly died 2000 years ago, actually said at his execution?
	__________________ The fairness of unfairness is in everything's demise.

12th July 2012, 06:53 AM	#2026
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,634	Originally Posted by Fireshadow Yes, well, I'm not a historian, and no one has ever claimed I was. But you bring up another good point: The words of a man who is documented to have existed by multiple sources, and who died 250 years ago, are up for debate; who can be sure what an alleged man, who cannot be proven outside one holy book, and reportedly died 2000 years ago, actually said at his execution? Oh goody. We haven't had this one for a while. Your post will be the trigger for DOC's "How do we know that Juilus Cæsar (for whom we have no signature) and Alexander the Great (who has no known grave) ever existed?" argument. Always good for a laugh, some sidebar learning about real history and a few pictures.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

12th July 2012, 07:07 AM	#2027
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,619	Originally Posted by DOC If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one. Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time. People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources. Judging from your nearly 7,000 posts, I assumed you were retired. Originally Posted by DOC Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", or anything by Ralph Muncaster, author of book "Examine the Evidence". Also former atheist and Chicago Times journalist, Lee Strobel, has a 2 DVD set called "The Case for Christ". All of those authors write tripe, especially Stroebel. How I wish I could get back the time spent on him.

12th July 2012, 10:12 AM	#2028
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,116	DOC: Just out of curiosity, in reference to Matthew's walking dead, why do you suppose the following?: 1) Why did only Matthew made reference to them? 2) Did they go back to their graves after the crucifixion was fininshed, or did they reclaim their lives and property? As to Paul's 500 brethren to whom the risen Christ appeared, if you believe that Paul and Luke knew each other, why didn't Luke mention them? Even given the possibility that different witnesses to the same event will have variations in their stories, how do you reconcile the risen Jesus meeting the disciples in Galilee, according to Matthew, and his meeting them in Jerusalem according to Luke? Why, after they have seen the risen Christ, are the disciples, according to the last chapter of the Gospel of John, back home in Galilee fishing?
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,116

12th July 2012, 11:02 AM	#2029
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by TimCallahan DOC: Just out of curiosity, in reference to Matthew's walking dead, why do you suppose the following?: ... 2) Did they go back to their graves after the crucifixion was fininshed ... ? Nothing so straightforward! Matthew 27. Quote: 50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. So they remained in their open tombs from the death to the resurrection of Jesus, and only then commenced their peregrinations. That really takes some explaining!
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,871

12th July 2012, 11:23 AM	#2030
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by Craig B Nothing so straightforward! Matthew 27. So they remained in their open tombs from the death to the resurrection of Jesus, and only then commenced their peregrinations. That really takes some explaining! And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people. And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.
	__________________ 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

12th July 2012, 11:27 AM	#2031
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by joobz And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people. And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books. Nor anywhere else in the Gospels, either.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,871

12th July 2012, 12:35 PM	#2032
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,741	Originally Posted by Mister Agenda Judging from your nearly 7,000 posts, I assumed you were retired. That is over 5 years, if I had the time some people on here seem to have I might have 20,000. No, I work full time, I'm not retired.

12th July 2012, 02:21 PM	#2033
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,741	deleted
	Last edited by DOC; 12th July 2012 at 02:23 PM.

12th July 2012, 02:24 PM	#2034
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by joobz And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people. The next verse is relevant: Quote: ⁵⁴When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!” So the centurion and a "whole company of soldiers" (verse 24) (and the other spectators presumably) saw all that happened - an earthquake and zombies! Centurions commanded 60 to 80 men. That is a bit more than 8 even if the rest of the city were blind, deaf and dumb.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 12th July 2012 at 02:26 PM.

12th July 2012, 02:24 PM	#2035
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,013	Originally Posted by DOC No, I work full time, I'm not retired. Hopefully not in the field of bible apologetics
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,013