[Merged] Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2) - Page 64

DOC · 9th August 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Fitter

There were also the "Welcome to Alexandria signs all over the freaking place.

Athens is named after the goddess Athena, does that mean she existed?

carlitos · 9th August 2012, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Maybe because I didn't say it. Which post did I say I didn't except Caesar's existence? I have a feeling it doesn't exist.

Accept.

So why do you ever bring up Caesar's lack of signature then? Why do you say things about Alexander not having a signature? What is your point?

DOC · 9th August 2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Fitter

There were also the "Welcome to Alexandria signs all over the freaking place.

You have to wonder why all the citizens of those cities didn't write documents about Alexander the Great. I have a feeling they did, though, but the documents just never survived.

Sorry I had to respond twice but then people will complain I'm editing if I put it in one post.

Akhenaten · 9th August 2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Maybe because I didn't say it. Which post did I say I didn't except Caesar's existence? I have a feeling it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

What documentation are you talking about, a carving of a name in a rock?

Deja vu, anyone?

8 August 2010

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja

No, that is not the case. We have copies of books written by Caesar

How do you know he wrote them?

Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja

we have the remains of buildings built upon his command with the concomitant inscriptions,

we have the contemporary letters by Cicero telling us about the machinations involved during the end of the Republic, we have the physical evidence of the countries conquered by Caesar.

It's pretty clear that he existed...

So we have all of this but not one signature? And no bones, no ashes?

Elapsed time: 2 years, 2 days.

Progress made: Nil.

And that's just one example.

Which was re-posted twice on the last page.

This blocking thing isn't working very well for you, DOC.

And you misspelt "accept".

Akhenaten · 9th August 2012, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Athens is named after the goddess Athena, does that mean she existed?

How do you know she didn't?

Akhenaten · 9th August 2012, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You have to wonder why all the citizens of those cities didn't write documents about Alexander the Great. I have a feeling they did, though, but the documents just never survived.

They didn't survive because Julius Cæsar burnt the Great Library down in 48 BCE.

No, wait . . .

That can't be right. Julius Cæsar didn't exist.

My head hurts.

Mashuna · 9th August 2012, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You have to wonder why all the citizens of those cities didn't write documents about Alexander the Great. I have a feeling they did, though, but the documents just never survived.

Sorry I had to respond twice but then people will complain I'm editing if I put it in one post.

DOC, if you like, I can explain to you how and when to edit posts so you don't get accused of dishonesty. It's really quite easy.

Akhenaten · 9th August 2012, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Sorry I had to respond twice but then people will complain I'm editing if I put it in one post.

You don't have any idea of how the time stamps on posts work, do you DOC?

Nobody is complaining about you editing posts, but they are quite entitled to point out the dishonesty of your doing so after other people have quoted them.

ETA: Ninja'd

carlitos · 9th August 2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

They didn't survive because Julius Cæsar burnt the Great Library down in 48 BCE.

No, wait . . .

That can't be right. Julius Cæsar didn't exist.

My head hurts.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

Maybe because I didn't say it. Which post did I say I didn't except Caesar's existence? I have a feeling it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

What documentation are you talking about, a carving of a name in a rock?

Deja vu, anyone?

8 August 2010

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja

No, that is not the case. We have copies of books written by Caesar

How do you know he wrote them?

Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja

we have the remains of buildings built upon his command with the concomitant inscriptions,

we have the contemporary letters by Cicero telling us about the machinations involved during the end of the Republic, we have the physical evidence of the countries conquered by Caesar.

It's pretty clear that he existed...

So we have all of this but not one signature? And no bones, no ashes?

Elapsed time: 2 years, 2 days.

Progress made: Nil.

And that's just one example.

Which was re-posted twice on the last page.

This blocking thing isn't working very well for you, DOC.

And you misspelt "accept".

...

joobz · 9th August 2012, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

And I've already given 4 possible reasons for the lack of mentioning of the risen saints by the other gospels.

yes you did.
One of your reasons included the fact that the account wasn't reliable. What do you think it means that the bible would contain unreliable information?

If DOC responds to this post without quoting this section, it means he is a closet liberal who voted for Obama.

DOC · 9th August 2012, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

DOC, if you like, I can explain to you how and when to edit posts so you don't get accused of dishonesty. It's really quite easy.

I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked.

But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future.

DOC · 9th August 2012, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

yes you did.
One of your reasons included the fact that the account wasn't reliable. What do you think it means that the bible would contain unreliable information?

What are you talking about?

joobz · 9th August 2012, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

What are you talking about?

reason number 2 that you gave said:

Originally Posted by DOC

2) if there was let’s say 8 saints raised and they appeared to maybe 8 or so people the word simply might not have gotten to the other writers, or if it did, they might not have been confident enough to report on the raised saints with certainty. Remember Luke has been called a great historian and great historians don’t just report on anything they hear about.

to which I replied:

Originally Posted by joobz

You keep saying 8. This is a made up number by you.
So you admit, then, that the story of the zombies could be completely false and that even Luke may have doubted the veracity of it... hmmm.
and yet it is in a gospel.

the full response to your post is found here
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...72#post8521872

Akhenaten · 9th August 2012, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked.

No he's not. You just can't see what he writes.

Except that you can.

Originally Posted by DOC

But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded.

And everyone else reserves the right to point out the dishonesty of doing so.

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions.

Either make time or continue to be called out for your dishonesty.

Simples.

Originally Posted by DOC

If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread.

False dichotomy.

Even your whining is fallacious.

Originally Posted by DOC

And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future.

Which matters not one whit. Your dishonesty and the posts pointing it out are, as you've just pointed out, part of the record. Whose problem do you think it is that you alone are unable to view that record?

joobz · 9th August 2012, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread.

Check my post above to see why this practice is not good.

ETA:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...63#post8523963

kmortis · 9th August 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked.

No he's not. You just can't see what he writes.

Except that you can.

Originally Posted by DOC

But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded.

And everyone else reserves the right to point out the dishonesty of doing so.

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions.

Either make time or continue to be called out for your dishonesty.

Simples.

Originally Posted by DOC

If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread.

False dichotomy.

Even your whining is fallacious.

Originally Posted by DOC

And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future.

Which matters not one whit. Your dishonesty and the posts pointing it out are, as you've just pointed out, part of the record. Whose problem do you think it is that you alone are unable to view that record?

I have to agree with you. If it's an occasional occurance, editing a post after it's been quoted is ok, but when it becomes so common an occurance that it's nearly a trademark, one has to start wondering why the poster is either making that many mistakes or why they're trying to decieve.

joobz · 9th August 2012, 09:38 AM

Interesting points, Akhenaten.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

No he's not. You just can't see what he writes.

Except that you can.

And everyone else reserves the right to point out the dishonesty of doing so.

Either make time or continue to be called out for your dishonesty.

Simples.

False dichotomy.

Even your whining is fallacious.

Which matters not one whit. Your dishonesty and the posts pointing it out are, as you've just pointed out, part of the record. Whose problem do you think it is that you alone are unable to view that record?

zooterkin · 9th August 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked.

What are you talking about?

catsmate1 · 9th August 2012, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Next time you say anything about me editing a post I'm going to block you for a month. And that includes responding to this post. So if you respond to this post and say anything derogatory about me you will be blocked.

Originally Posted by DOC

Give my accurate quote and I'll respond.

Such pathetic, blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy. Why not actually answer honestly?

InkBlotTest · 9th August 2012, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Maybe because I didn't say it. Which post did I say I didn't except Caesar's existence? I have a feeling it doesn't exist.

Ha ha ha ha, Oh man you’re good, no really, you’re good. Anyone who can split hairs like you do has to be a politician, are you a politician? Because you should be. Getting you to answer a question is like plaiting jelly, but that’s OK we can do it in baby steps.

I accept you didn’t actually use the words that stated "Caeser didn’t exist". So let me try again.

Using all the evidence that has been posted on this thread, and all the information available on the internet and in libraries, do you accept that Pontius Pilate existed – YES or NO?

Please don’t damage your credability by using the “please post the evidence” get out clause – just answer a straight forward question with a straightforward answer. Go on, you know you want to - I dare you.

IBT

Hokulele · 9th August 2012, 10:41 AM

Plus ca change...

Originally Posted by DOC

The only times I've ever went back to correct a post was on a spelling error or maybe forgot a word or something minor, big deal. All the other times that dealt with something more important I changed before I read any other post. Believe me I've known about the time stamp on the posts for many years.

Although, I do believe the "before I read any other post" bit, as he has made it clear that there are any number of posts in this forum he simply doesn't read. In spite of people telling him for years how dishonest the practice of editing without noting the edits made may be, he will not stop. It may be he simply cannot see the dishonesty.

Which is telling...

joobz · 9th August 2012, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

It may be he simply cannot see the dishonesty.

Which is telling...

I believe this.
He doesn't seem to think that cherry picking quotes is dishonest.
He doesn't seem to think special pleading is dishonest.
He doesn't seem to think repeating wrong/refuted information is dishonest.

Why would anyone expect him to view changing text as being potentially dishonest?

Wolrab · 9th August 2012, 11:01 AM

First Temple Priest: Well, look at that! The curtain just ripped in two from top to bottom!

Second Temple Priest: Dang! That thing was made of thread six times doubled! Get Mary, any Mary will do, to sew it up. Don't say anything to anyone! Maybe no one will notice.

welshdean · 9th August 2012, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

I believe this.
He doesn't seem to think that cherry picking quotes is dishonest.
He doesn't seem to think special pleading is dishonest.
He doesn't seem to think repeating wrong/refuted information is dishonest.

Why would anyone expect him to view changing text as being potentially dishonest?

Oh he knows they're dishonest, he really does. It's just that DOC sees nothing wrong in 'lieing for jeebus'. Take a look through the whole thread, I'd estimate that at least 60% of any of his posts contain a lie of some sort.
He is the most dishonest poster in these fora.

DOC, I've asked this at least 5 times now. Did jeebus get it wrong when he said 'as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly .... so will the son of man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth' ? Or did the writers of the NT not tell the truth?
It has to be one or the other, so which is it?

X · 9th August 2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future.

Most people don't have a problem with corrections, DOC. Or even additions. The problem is that you make changes and deletions. Sometimes sweeping ones, which completely change the meaning of your post. And you do this after someone has quoted your post pointing out the errors. That makes it look like your trying to pretend the errors never happened. It makes you look dishonest. And you do it frequently. I'd suggest reading replies before modifying your posts, and avoiding wholesale deletions. Use the strikethough feature instead.

Now, do me the favour of honestly addressing the link I provided, instead of discarding it because the reference wasn't written on paper. Because that's a dishonest way to pretend you weren't proven wrong.

pakeha · 9th August 2012, 11:37 AM

Such a thread.
Nothing really quite like it, is there?

Originally Posted by DOC

...Therefore since there is evidence for the existence of Jesus we have some evidence for the existence of the Christian God. ...

Originally Posted by DOC

But an empty tomb is some evidence for a resurrection and being divine. ...

Originally Posted by DOC

... historical writings do give historical evidence the earthquake was not ignored;

Matthew reports the Roman centurion at the cross said "Surely this is the Son of God" after experiencing the darkness and earthquake. ...

Originally Posted by DOC

...Suppose these risen saints did the likely thing. They went to any family members they might have. There is a good chance the family members of the saints were saved already, but if not, OK, now it is likely they got saved. Now that they are saved and saw a miracle they would probably inform others. That doesn’t guarantee those others they go see are going to believe them. If I see an alien out in the woods and go tell other people, there is no guarantee those people are going to believe me. ...

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

...Should you visit Jerusalem today, you will be shown the upper room where the Last Supper was held, the Via Dolorosa, i.e. the path Jesus walked to Golgotha, and the Holy Sepulcher. The one thing all these places have in common is that they are entirely fictional. After being flattened twice and built over, the Jerusalem of Jesus' day is largely lost to us.

Next you'll tell me Juliet's balcony in Verona is spurious, too!

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

...And if you really want some chuckles, ask him where Simon the Zealot is buried.

Good point!
So, DOC!
Where is Simon the Zealot buried?

welshdean · 9th August 2012, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by pakeha

[Snip]

Good point!
So, DOC!
Where is Simon the Zealot buried?

And how did he die?

I've asked this at least 10 times before, no answer from DOC, not once.
Dishonesty by omission?

TimCallahan · 9th August 2012, 12:52 PM

DOC: Since, in the matter of the resurrected dead of Matthew appearing to "many," you have construed, "Many" o be as few as eight, let's deal with another alleged Resurrection event, in which the number is far more precise (1 Cor. 15:6, bracketed material added):

Then he [the resurrected Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. died].

So, what happened to the 500+ brethren in the gospels? This is a stunning bit of evidence for the historical reality of the Resurrection. It's not something you would leave out. This would be particularly true of Luke, if, as conservative Christians assert, he was indeed a companion of Paul's on his journeys. Yet, none of the gospels mention the 500+ brethren who saw the resurrected Jesus at one time. Two reasons immediately come to mind:

1) The gospels, including Luke, make no mention of Paul's 500+ brethren because they never heard of them. The 500+ were added by a later editor and are, in fact, a forgery. If one examines 1 Cor. 15:5 - 8, one will find signs of tampering.

2) Paul actually did make the claim of the 500+, but Luke and the others did not consider the account reputable and ignored it.

If the first possibility is true, then the accounts of the Resurrection were open to tampering and may not have had anything to do with what actually happened. If the second is rue, then gospel writers felt free to alter accounts and to excise material they felt was either questionable or embarrassing.

So, DOC, other than the lame old excuse that some gospels writers included one thing and others included another, what's your explanation for why the gospel writers (especially Luke) excluded the 500+ brethren of 1 Corinthians 15 from heir resurrection accounts?

welshdean · 9th August 2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

DOC: Since, in the matter of the resurrected dead of Matthew appearing to "many," you have construed, "Many" o be as few as eight, let's deal with another alleged Resurrection event, in which the number is far more precise (1 Cor. 15:6, bracketed material added):

Then he [the resurrected Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. died].

So, what happened to the 500+ brethren in the gospels? This is a stunning bit of evidence for the historical reality of the Resurrection. It's not something you would leave out. This would be particularly true of Luke, if, as conservative Christians assert, he was indeed a companion of Paul's on his journeys. Yet, none of the gospels mention the 500+ brethren who saw the resurrected Jesus at one time. Two reasons immediately come to mind:

1) The gospels, including Luke, make no mention of Paul's 500+ brethren because they never heard of them. The 500+ were added by a later editor and are, in fact, a forgery. If one examines 1 Cor. 15:5 - 8, one will find signs of tampering.

2) Paul actually did make the claim of the 500+, but Luke and the others did not consider the account reputable and ignored it.

If the first possibility is true, then the accounts of the Resurrection were open to tampering and may not have had anything to do with what actually happened. If the second is rue, then gospel writers felt free to alter accounts and to excise material they felt was either questionable or embarrassing.

So, DOC, other than the lame old excuse that some gospels writers included one thing and others included another, what's your explanation for why the gospel writers (especially Luke) excluded the 500+ brethren of 1 Corinthians 15 from heir resurrection accounts?

Tim, are you having problems with your keyboard 't'?

[Deleted- I'll check my facts and repost later]

sackett · 9th August 2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by DOC
I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

What are you talking about?

Doc appears still to believe that when he puts someone on Ignore they're banished from the thread. He seems to regard what he calls "blocking" as a punishment if you offend him. Thus Akhnaten's continuing status as a blockee.

Doc's error was explained to him, and demonstrated to be erroneous, long ago -- my god, it must have been years ago!

I recall that Akhnaten asked for our sympathy "during the time of my blockage." Well, he got all the sympathy that condition deserves, and also my free advice: a heaping tablespoon of Metamucil stirred up well in 12 oz. of cool water, morning and evening. In two days, the little choochoo train will be right on time --

Oh no! I suddenly see my error, my unforgivable blunder! I didn't explain that you have to drink the awful stuff! No wonder Akhnaten is still blocked! Pharaoh, forgive me!

X · 9th August 2012, 03:03 PM

Last time he started blocking people, we formed a DOC-Bloc'd club.
As founder, I am proud to announce that we are again accepting new applicants...

Mashuna · 9th August 2012, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked.

But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future.

It just seems odd that you're getting so upset about being accused of dishonesty, while continuing to act in a fashion that often makes it look like you're being dishonest. Especially when it's so easy to remedy.

Reality Check · 9th August 2012, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I said I wouldn't answer any question with the inaccurate term "zombie" in it so I guess I can't answer. Zombies are generally not considered to have the same personality and health the person had before death. Use the term they use in the bible (saints or holy ones) if you care about accuracy.

Saints and holy ones do not rise from their grave. Zombies do.
You will agree that Jesus Christ rose from his grave?
So I will call them christs (small c so there is less confusion).

DOC, Why did ~20,000 people in Jerusalem ignore the darkness, earthquake and christs ("zombie") horde?
First asked on 17 July 2012, amended to include darkness on 9 August 2012.

And DOC
You assert that these risen saints are not zombies and use this as a rather pitiful excuse to avoid answering the question.
What is your evidence that the risen saints had different personalities (and thus are not zombies)?

Reality Check · 9th August 2012, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

It doesn't seem to have worked. I can still post.

I can read your post too

!

Reality Check · 9th August 2012, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

And I've already given 4 possible reasons for the lack of mentioning of the risen saints by the other gospels.

I never saw that post - can you give a link to it?
ETA: That would be a problem though since you did not understand what you replied to:

Originally Posted by InkBlotTest

could you tell me why no one else mentions dark sky, earthquakes and people coming back to life? Sorry to go on, but if you post a link to your source (excluding the bible) I'll be more than happy to leave you alone.

(my emphasis added)
InkBlotTest is asking the same question that I am asking.

However I would be still interested a link to your possible reasons that the other gospels ignored dark sky, earthquakes and people coming back to life.

Here is what was ignored according to Matthew:
45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people

It would be interesting to find out how the ~20,000 prople in Jerusalem who included

scribes,
people with money to pay scribes,
merchants who communicated with merchants in other cities,
temple officials (who probably were literate) and
Roman officials who had to report to their superiors what happened in the city.

did not notice or report

A darkness that lasted 3 hours.
The curtain of the temple being torn in two.
An earthquake.
The risen saintly ("zombie") horde.

Whoops - you want me to be accurate and I missed out the curtain!

DOC, Why did ~20,000 people in Jerusalem ignore the curtain, darkness, earthquake and christ/saintly/holy one/zombie horde?
First asked on 17 July 2012, amended to include the curtain on 10 August 2012.

joobz · 9th August 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Saints and holy ones do not rise from their grave. Zombies do.
You will agree that Jesus Christ rose from his grave?
So I will call them christs (small c so there is less confusion).

DOC, Why did ~20,000 people in Jerusalem ignore the darkness, earthquake and christs ("zombie") horde?
First asked on 17 July 2012, amended to include darkness on 9 August 2012.

And DOC
You assert that these risen saints are not zombies and use this as a rather pitiful excuse to avoid answering the question.
What is your evidence that the risen saints had different personalities (and thus are not zombies)?

Don't forget his many=8 argument to try and minimize the oddness of it being unnoticed.

ddt · 9th August 2012, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Alexander the Great conquered much of the world (including Jerusalem) and was called the 2nd greatest general of all time in the book "The military 100 : a ranking of the most influential military leaders of all time ". And yet all we have written (in existence) about him for about 300 years following his death is an off hand remark in a letter and one inscription. And there were several leaders named Alexander in Greece so even those might be suspect.

And I've already given 4 possible reasons for the lack of mentioning of the risen saints by the other gospels.

When I read this post, I had to rub my eyes twice and look at the date of posting thrice before I was convinced that I had read it right.

Really, DOC, do we have to go over that same drivel again? Do you really want to go over the copious amounts of evidence - even contemporary evidence - of the existence of Alexander the Great, as well as that of Caesar?

ddt · 9th August 2012, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Next time you say anything about me editing a post I'm going to block you for a month. And that includes responding to this post. So if you respond to this post and say anything derogatory about me you will be blocked.

You've been a member of this forum for over five years now and you still speak of "blocking"? And why did you edit that post? Couldn't you spell correctly, or did you write something completely different at first?

Fast Eddie B · 9th August 2012, 06:29 PM

I had a vague recollection that the first saint was the Roman centurion who allegedly pierced Jesus' side.

Seems bizarre, and maybe not the first saint, but details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Longinus

ddt · 9th August 2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I had a vague recollection that the first saint was the Roman centurion who allegedly pierced Jesus' side.

Seems bizarre, and maybe not the first saint, but details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Longinus

There's also Saint Procula, or Saint Claudia: Pontius Pilate's wife.

But neither doesn't help much with those "saints" raising from their grave on Jesus' crucifixion.

9th August 2012, 08:55 AM	#2523
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,780	Originally Posted by Fitter There were also the "Welcome to Alexandria signs all over the freaking place. You have to wonder why all the citizens of those cities didn't write documents about Alexander the Great. I have a feeling they did, though, but the documents just never survived. Sorry I had to respond twice but then people will complain I'm editing if I put it in one post.
	Last edited by DOC; 9th August 2012 at 09:00 AM.

9th August 2012, 08:59 AM	#2524
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,749	Originally Posted by DOC Maybe because I didn't say it. Which post did I say I didn't except Caesar's existence? I have a feeling it doesn't exist. Originally Posted by Akhenaten Originally Posted by DOC What documentation are you talking about, a carving of a name in a rock? Deja vu, anyone? 8 August 2010 Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja No, that is not the case. We have copies of books written by Caesar How do you know he wrote them? Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja we have the remains of buildings built upon his command with the concomitant inscriptions, we have the contemporary letters by Cicero telling us about the machinations involved during the end of the Republic, we have the physical evidence of the countries conquered by Caesar. It's pretty clear that he existed... So we have all of this but not one signature? And no bones, no ashes? Elapsed time: 2 years, 2 days. Progress made: Nil. And that's just one example. Which was re-posted twice on the last page. This blocking thing isn't working very well for you, DOC. And you misspelt "accept".
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

9th August 2012, 09:01 AM	#2525
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,749	Originally Posted by DOC Athens is named after the goddess Athena, does that mean she existed? How do you know she didn't?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

9th August 2012, 09:04 AM	#2526
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,749	Originally Posted by DOC You have to wonder why all the citizens of those cities didn't write documents about Alexander the Great. I have a feeling they did, though, but the documents just never survived. They didn't survive because Julius Cæsar burnt the Great Library down in 48 BCE. No, wait . . . That can't be right. Julius Cæsar didn't exist. My head hurts.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

9th August 2012, 09:08 AM	#2528
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,749	Originally Posted by DOC Sorry I had to respond twice but then people will complain I'm editing if I put it in one post. You don't have any idea of how the time stamps on posts work, do you DOC? Nobody is complaining about you editing posts, but they are quite entitled to point out the dishonesty of your doing so after other people have quoted them. ETA: Ninja'd
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 9th August 2012 at 09:09 AM. Reason: As indicated.

9th August 2012, 08:51 AM	#2521
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,780	Originally Posted by Fitter There were also the "Welcome to Alexandria signs all over the freaking place. Athens is named after the goddess Athena, does that mean she existed?

9th August 2012, 08:52 AM	#2522
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,610	Originally Posted by DOC Maybe because I didn't say it. Which post did I say I didn't except Caesar's existence? I have a feeling it doesn't exist. Accept. So why do you ever bring up Caesar's lack of signature then? Why do you say things about Alexander not having a signature? What is your point?

9th August 2012, 09:05 AM	#2527
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,589	Originally Posted by DOC You have to wonder why all the citizens of those cities didn't write documents about Alexander the Great. I have a feeling they did, though, but the documents just never survived. Sorry I had to respond twice but then people will complain I'm editing if I put it in one post. DOC, if you like, I can explain to you how and when to edit posts so you don't get accused of dishonesty. It's really quite easy.

9th August 2012, 09:12 AM	#2529
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,610	Originally Posted by Akhenaten They didn't survive because Julius Cæsar burnt the Great Library down in 48 BCE. No, wait . . . That can't be right. Julius Cæsar didn't exist. My head hurts. Originally Posted by Akhenaten Originally Posted by DOC Maybe because I didn't say it. Which post did I say I didn't except Caesar's existence? I have a feeling it doesn't exist. Originally Posted by Akhenaten Originally Posted by DOC What documentation are you talking about, a carving of a name in a rock? Deja vu, anyone? 8 August 2010 Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja No, that is not the case. We have copies of books written by Caesar How do you know he wrote them? Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja we have the remains of buildings built upon his command with the concomitant inscriptions, we have the contemporary letters by Cicero telling us about the machinations involved during the end of the Republic, we have the physical evidence of the countries conquered by Caesar. It's pretty clear that he existed... So we have all of this but not one signature? And no bones, no ashes? Elapsed time: 2 years, 2 days. Progress made: Nil. And that's just one example. Which was re-posted twice on the last page. This blocking thing isn't working very well for you, DOC. And you misspelt "accept". ...

9th August 2012, 09:23 AM	#2530
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,584	Originally Posted by DOC And I've already given 4 possible reasons for the lack of mentioning of the risen saints by the other gospels. yes you did. One of your reasons included the fact that the account wasn't reliable. What do you think it means that the bible would contain unreliable information? If DOC responds to this post without quoting this section, it means he is a closet liberal who voted for Obama.
	__________________ 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 Last edited by joobz; 9th August 2012 at 09:34 AM.

9th August 2012, 09:24 AM	#2531
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,780	Originally Posted by Mashuna DOC, if you like, I can explain to you how and when to edit posts so you don't get accused of dishonesty. It's really quite easy. I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked. But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future.

9th August 2012, 09:26 AM	#2532
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,780	Originally Posted by joobz yes you did. One of your reasons included the fact that the account wasn't reliable. What do you think it means that the bible would contain unreliable information? What are you talking about?

9th August 2012, 09:32 AM	#2533
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,584	Originally Posted by DOC What are you talking about? reason number 2 that you gave said: Originally Posted by DOC 2) if there was let’s say 8 saints raised and they appeared to maybe 8 or so people the word simply might not have gotten to the other writers, or if it did, they might not have been confident enough to report on the raised saints with certainty. Remember Luke has been called a great historian and great historians don’t just report on anything they hear about. to which I replied: Originally Posted by joobz You keep saying 8. This is a made up number by you. So you admit, then, that the story of the zombies could be completely false and that even Luke may have doubted the veracity of it... hmmm. and yet it is in a gospel. the full response to your post is found here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...72#post8521872
	__________________ 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

9th August 2012, 09:35 AM	#2534
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,749	Originally Posted by DOC I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked. No he's not. You just can't see what he writes. Except that you can. Originally Posted by DOC But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. And everyone else reserves the right to point out the dishonesty of doing so. Originally Posted by DOC I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. Either make time or continue to be called out for your dishonesty. Simples. Originally Posted by DOC If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. False dichotomy. Even your whining is fallacious. Originally Posted by DOC And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future. Which matters not one whit. Your dishonesty and the posts pointing it out are, as you've just pointed out, part of the record. Whose problem do you think it is that you alone are unable to view that record?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

9th August 2012, 09:35 AM	#2535
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,584	Originally Posted by DOC But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. Check my post above to see why this practice is not good. ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...63#post8523963
	__________________ 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 Last edited by joobz; 9th August 2012 at 09:37 AM.

9th August 2012, 09:38 AM	#2536
kmortis Biomechanoid Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Texas Posts: 24,794	Originally Posted by Akhenaten Originally Posted by DOC I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked. No he's not. You just can't see what he writes. Except that you can. Originally Posted by DOC But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. And everyone else reserves the right to point out the dishonesty of doing so. Originally Posted by DOC I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. Either make time or continue to be called out for your dishonesty. Simples. Originally Posted by DOC If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. False dichotomy. Even your whining is fallacious. Originally Posted by DOC And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future. Which matters not one whit. Your dishonesty and the posts pointing it out are, as you've just pointed out, part of the record. Whose problem do you think it is that you alone are unable to view that record? I have to agree with you. If it's an occasional occurance, editing a post after it's been quoted is ok, but when it becomes so common an occurance that it's nearly a trademark, one has to start wondering why the poster is either making that many mistakes or why they're trying to decieve.
	__________________ -Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm

9th August 2012, 09:38 AM	#2537
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,584	Interesting points, Akhenaten. Originally Posted by Akhenaten No he's not. You just can't see what he writes. Except that you can. And everyone else reserves the right to point out the dishonesty of doing so. Either make time or continue to be called out for your dishonesty. Simples. False dichotomy. Even your whining is fallacious. Which matters not one whit. Your dishonesty and the posts pointing it out are, as you've just pointed out, part of the record. Whose problem do you think it is that you alone are unable to view that record?
	__________________ 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

9th August 2012, 09:59 AM	#2538
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,013	Originally Posted by DOC I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked. What are you talking about?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

9th August 2012, 10:22 AM	#2539
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,240	Originally Posted by DOC Next time you say anything about me editing a post I'm going to block you for a month. And that includes responding to this post. So if you respond to this post and say anything derogatory about me you will be blocked. Originally Posted by DOC Give my accurate quote and I'll respond. Such pathetic, blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy. Why not actually answer honestly?

9th August 2012, 10:22 AM	#2540
InkBlotTest Scholar Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 78	Originally Posted by DOC Maybe because I didn't say it. Which post did I say I didn't except Caesar's existence? I have a feeling it doesn't exist. Ha ha ha ha, Oh man you’re good, no really, you’re good. Anyone who can split hairs like you do has to be a politician, are you a politician? Because you should be. Getting you to answer a question is like plaiting jelly, but that’s OK we can do it in baby steps. I accept you didn’t actually use the words that stated "Caeser didn’t exist". So let me try again. Using all the evidence that has been posted on this thread, and all the information available on the internet and in libraries, do you accept that Pontius Pilate existed – YES or NO? Please don’t damage your credability by using the “please post the evidence” get out clause – just answer a straight forward question with a straightforward answer. Go on, you know you want to - I dare you. IBT
InkBlotTest Scholar Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 78

9th August 2012, 10:41 AM	#2541
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,345	Plus ca change... Originally Posted by DOC The only times I've ever went back to correct a post was on a spelling error or maybe forgot a word or something minor, big deal. All the other times that dealt with something more important I changed before I read any other post. Believe me I've known about the time stamp on the posts for many years. Although, I do believe the "before I read any other post" bit, as he has made it clear that there are any number of posts in this forum he simply doesn't read. In spite of people telling him for years how dishonest the practice of editing without noting the edits made may be, he will not stop. It may be he simply cannot see the dishonesty. Which is telling...
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

9th August 2012, 10:53 AM	#2542
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,584	Originally Posted by Hokulele It may be he simply cannot see the dishonesty. Which is telling... I believe this. He doesn't seem to think that cherry picking quotes is dishonest. He doesn't seem to think special pleading is dishonest. He doesn't seem to think repeating wrong/refuted information is dishonest. Why would anyone expect him to view changing text as being potentially dishonest?
	__________________ 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

9th August 2012, 11:01 AM	#2543
Wolrab Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The Beautiful Finger Lakes Posts: 1,715	First Temple Priest: Well, look at that! The curtain just ripped in two from top to bottom! Second Temple Priest: Dang! That thing was made of thread six times doubled! Get Mary, any Mary will do, to sew it up. Don't say anything to anyone! Maybe no one will notice.
	__________________ "Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

9th August 2012, 11:16 AM	#2544
welshdean 2012 6Nations Grand Slam -------CHAMPIONS------- Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Spitting in Andrew Wakefields eye Posts: 1,410	Originally Posted by joobz I believe this. He doesn't seem to think that cherry picking quotes is dishonest. He doesn't seem to think special pleading is dishonest. He doesn't seem to think repeating wrong/refuted information is dishonest. Why would anyone expect him to view changing text as being potentially dishonest? Oh he knows they're dishonest, he really does. It's just that DOC sees nothing wrong in 'lieing for jeebus'. Take a look through the whole thread, I'd estimate that at least 60% of any of his posts contain a lie of some sort. He is the most dishonest poster in these fora. DOC, I've asked this at least 5 times now. Did jeebus get it wrong when he said 'as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly .... so will the son of man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth' ? Or did the writers of the NT not tell the truth? It has to be one or the other, so which is it?
	__________________ Poe's Law!!! im christian if we came from apes how come were not hairy and have a big mouth and did we end up looking like we do know and besides there isnt any serious proof of apes they showd a video saying an ape was wondering around in the forest that thing looked exactly like a costume that i had saw at a store know one ever cought an ape (spelling/punctuation by original author)

9th August 2012, 11:35 AM	#2545
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,087	Originally Posted by DOC But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future. Most people don't have a problem with corrections, DOC. Or even additions. The problem is that you make changes and deletions. Sometimes sweeping ones, which completely change the meaning of your post. And you do this after someone has quoted your post pointing out the errors. That makes it look like your trying to pretend the errors never happened. It makes you look dishonest. And you do it frequently. I'd suggest reading replies before modifying your posts, and avoiding wholesale deletions. Use the strikethough feature instead. Now, do me the favour of honestly addressing the link I provided, instead of discarding it because the reference wasn't written on paper. Because that's a dishonest way to pretend you weren't proven wrong.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

9th August 2012, 11:37 AM	#2546
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,233	Such a thread. Nothing really quite like it, is there? Originally Posted by DOC ...Therefore since there is evidence for the existence of Jesus we have some evidence for the existence of the Christian God. ... Originally Posted by DOC But an empty tomb is some evidence for a resurrection and being divine. ... Originally Posted by DOC ... historical writings do give historical evidence the earthquake was not ignored; Matthew reports the Roman centurion at the cross said "Surely this is the Son of God" after experiencing the darkness and earthquake. ... Originally Posted by DOC ...Suppose these risen saints did the likely thing. They went to any family members they might have. There is a good chance the family members of the saints were saved already, but if not, OK, now it is likely they got saved. Now that they are saved and saw a miracle they would probably inform others. That doesn’t guarantee those others they go see are going to believe them. If I see an alien out in the woods and go tell other people, there is no guarantee those people are going to believe me. ... Originally Posted by TimCallahan ...Should you visit Jerusalem today, you will be shown the upper room where the Last Supper was held, the Via Dolorosa, i.e. the path Jesus walked to Golgotha, and the Holy Sepulcher. The one thing all these places have in common is that they are entirely fictional. After being flattened twice and built over, the Jerusalem of Jesus' day is largely lost to us. Next you'll tell me Juliet's balcony in Verona is spurious, too! Originally Posted by Akhenaten ...And if you really want some chuckles, ask him where Simon the Zealot is buried. Good point! So, DOC! Where is Simon the Zealot buried?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,233	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

9th August 2012, 12:02 PM	#2547
welshdean 2012 6Nations Grand Slam -------CHAMPIONS------- Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Spitting in Andrew Wakefields eye Posts: 1,410	Originally Posted by pakeha [Snip] Good point! So, DOC! Where is Simon the Zealot buried? And how did he die? I've asked this at least 10 times before, no answer from DOC, not once. Dishonesty by omission?
	__________________ Poe's Law!!! im christian if we came from apes how come were not hairy and have a big mouth and did we end up looking like we do know and besides there isnt any serious proof of apes they showd a video saying an ape was wondering around in the forest that thing looked exactly like a costume that i had saw at a store know one ever cought an ape (spelling/punctuation by original author)

9th August 2012, 12:52 PM	#2548
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,211	DOC: Since, in the matter of the resurrected dead of Matthew appearing to "many," you have construed, "Many" o be as few as eight, let's deal with another alleged Resurrection event, in which the number is far more precise (1 Cor. 15:6, bracketed material added): Then he [the resurrected Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. died]. So, what happened to the 500+ brethren in the gospels? This is a stunning bit of evidence for the historical reality of the Resurrection. It's not something you would leave out. This would be particularly true of Luke, if, as conservative Christians assert, he was indeed a companion of Paul's on his journeys. Yet, none of the gospels mention the 500+ brethren who saw the resurrected Jesus at one time. Two reasons immediately come to mind: 1) The gospels, including Luke, make no mention of Paul's 500+ brethren because they never heard of them. The 500+ were added by a later editor and are, in fact, a forgery. If one examines 1 Cor. 15:5 - 8, one will find signs of tampering. 2) Paul actually did make the claim of the 500+, but Luke and the others did not consider the account reputable and ignored it. If the first possibility is true, then the accounts of the Resurrection were open to tampering and may not have had anything to do with what actually happened. If the second is rue, then gospel writers felt free to alter accounts and to excise material they felt was either questionable or embarrassing. So, DOC, other than the lame old excuse that some gospels writers included one thing and others included another, what's your explanation for why the gospel writers (especially Luke) excluded the 500+ brethren of 1 Corinthians 15 from heir resurrection accounts?
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,211

9th August 2012, 02:13 PM	#2549
welshdean 2012 6Nations Grand Slam -------CHAMPIONS------- Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Spitting in Andrew Wakefields eye Posts: 1,410	Originally Posted by TimCallahan DOC: Since, in the matter of the resurrected dead of Matthew appearing to "many," you have construed, "Many" o be as few as eight, let's deal with another alleged Resurrection event, in which the number is far more precise (1 Cor. 15:6, bracketed material added): Then he [the resurrected Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. died]. So, what happened to the 500+ brethren in the gospels? This is a stunning bit of evidence for the historical reality of the Resurrection. It's not something you would leave out. This would be particularly true of Luke, if, as conservative Christians assert, he was indeed a companion of Paul's on his journeys. Yet, none of the gospels mention the 500+ brethren who saw the resurrected Jesus at one time. Two reasons immediately come to mind: 1) The gospels, including Luke, make no mention of Paul's 500+ brethren because they never heard of them. The 500+ were added by a later editor and are, in fact, a forgery. If one examines 1 Cor. 15:5 - 8, one will find signs of tampering. 2) Paul actually did make the claim of the 500+, but Luke and the others did not consider the account reputable and ignored it. If the first possibility is true, then the accounts of the Resurrection were open to tampering and may not have had anything to do with what actually happened. If the second is rue, then gospel writers felt free to alter accounts and to excise material they felt was either questionable or embarrassing. So, DOC, other than the lame old excuse that some gospels writers included one thing and others included another, what's your explanation for why the gospel writers (especially Luke) excluded the 500+ brethren of 1 Corinthians 15 from heir resurrection accounts? Tim, are you having problems with your keyboard 't'? [Deleted- I'll check my facts and repost later]
	__________________ Poe's Law!!! im christian if we came from apes how come were not hairy and have a big mouth and did we end up looking like we do know and besides there isnt any serious proof of apes they showd a video saying an ape was wondering around in the forest that thing looked exactly like a costume that i had saw at a store know one ever cought an ape (spelling/punctuation by original author)

9th August 2012, 02:58 PM	#2550
sackett Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 3,654	It's like Old Home Week around here Originally Posted by DOC I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked. Originally Posted by zooterkin What are you talking about? Doc appears still to believe that when he puts someone on Ignore they're banished from the thread. He seems to regard what he calls "blocking" as a punishment if you offend him. Thus Akhnaten's continuing status as a blockee. Doc's error was explained to him, and demonstrated to be erroneous, long ago -- my god, it must have been years ago! I recall that Akhnaten asked for our sympathy "during the time of my blockage." Well, he got all the sympathy that condition deserves, and also my free advice: a heaping tablespoon of Metamucil stirred up well in 12 oz. of cool water, morning and evening. In two days, the little choochoo train will be right on time -- Oh no! I suddenly see my error, my unforgivable blunder! I didn't explain that you have to drink the awful stuff! No wonder Akhnaten is still blocked! Pharaoh, forgive me!
	__________________ Dyslexic and prond! Last edited by sackett; 9th August 2012 at 03:00 PM. Reason: Just because I can.

9th August 2012, 03:03 PM	#2551
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,087	Last time he started blocking people, we formed a DOC-Bloc'd club. As founder, I am proud to announce that we are again accepting new applicants...
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

9th August 2012, 03:37 PM	#2552
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,589	Originally Posted by DOC I did use an ETA on one of the posts Akhenaten made a big deal about with defamatory comments, which is one of the reasons he's blocked. But I reserve the right to edit the main body of my posts without worrying about who has already responded. I don't have the time to see if anybody responded before making any edits or additions. If people don't like that they can stay out of the thread. And for the record, if anyone accuses me of dishonesty or lying there is a good chance they are going to get blocked in the future. It just seems odd that you're getting so upset about being accused of dishonesty, while continuing to act in a fashion that often makes it look like you're being dishonest. Especially when it's so easy to remedy.

9th August 2012, 04:29 PM	#2553
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,971	What is your evidence that the risen saints had different personalities Originally Posted by DOC I said I wouldn't answer any question with the inaccurate term "zombie" in it so I guess I can't answer. Zombies are generally not considered to have the same personality and health the person had before death. Use the term they use in the bible (saints or holy ones) if you care about accuracy. Saints and holy ones do not rise from their grave. Zombies do. You will agree that Jesus Christ rose from his grave? So I will call them christs (small c so there is less confusion). DOC, Why did ~20,000 people in Jerusalem ignore the darkness, earthquake and christs ("zombie") horde? First asked on 17 July 2012, amended to include darkness on 9 August 2012. And DOC You assert that these risen saints are not zombies and use this as a rather pitiful excuse to avoid answering the question. What is your evidence that the risen saints had different personalities (and thus are not zombies)?
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

9th August 2012, 04:35 PM	#2554
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,971	Originally Posted by Akhenaten It doesn't seem to have worked. I can still post. I can read your post too !
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

9th August 2012, 04:53 PM	#2555
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,971	Why did ~20,000 people gnore the curtain, darkness, earthquake, and christ horde Originally Posted by DOC And I've already given 4 possible reasons for the lack of mentioning of the risen saints by the other gospels. I never saw that post - can you give a link to it? ETA: That would be a problem though since you did not understand what you replied to: Originally Posted by InkBlotTest could you tell me why no one else mentions dark sky, earthquakes and people coming back to life? Sorry to go on, but if you post a link to your source (excluding the bible) I'll be more than happy to leave you alone. (my emphasis added) InkBlotTest is asking the same question that I am asking. However I would be still interested a link to your possible reasons that the other gospels ignored dark sky, earthquakes and people coming back to life. Here is what was ignored according to Matthew: 45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people It would be interesting to find out how the ~20,000 prople in Jerusalem who included scribes, people with money to pay scribes, merchants who communicated with merchants in other cities, temple officials (who probably were literate) and Roman officials who had to report to their superiors what happened in the city. did not notice or report A darkness that lasted 3 hours. The curtain of the temple being torn in two. An earthquake. The risen saintly ("zombie") horde. Whoops - you want me to be accurate and I missed out the curtain! DOC, Why did ~20,000 people in Jerusalem ignore the curtain, darkness, earthquake and christ/saintly/holy one/zombie horde? First asked on 17 July 2012, amended to include the curtain on 10 August 2012.
	__________________ 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; 9th August 2012 at 05:03 PM.