Merged: Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't have time right now for your long Greek language analysis post and "your" personal translation. And I assume your saying Luke got it wrong because of what Josephus wrote 90 years after the fact. Let me ask you this, do you believe Josephus was right when he said Moses lived in Egypt and was a general there. If you believe he got it wrong then you are basing your belief that Luke got it wrong based on Josephus, whom you believe got some other history wrong.

There's something missing here...

Ah! Logical Cohesiveness!


GB

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Interestingly enough, the Golden Rule existed at least 500 years before Jesus' time. The saying was attributed to the alleged Confucius long before it was attributed to the alleged Jesus.

Another interesting point which will resonate with many on this thread, the alleged Confucius had the same ambiguous stance regarding slavery as the alleged Jesus.


GB

Confucious? What a Johnny-come-lately!

"Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do."

- The Eloquent Peasant (Middle Kingdom (at least earlier than 1650 BCE))

[pakeha]

DOC, always predictable.

Originally Posted by DOC

I assume you don't believe in the importance of historical evidence.

Sorry, but there was no video of the resurrection or the miracles.

Of course we believe in the importance of historical evidence.
Care to show us some?

Originally Posted by DOC

Sorry, but after 2500 posts in this thread Part 1, and other personal activities, I can' t get to everyone. If you must know, private message me with the question and I'll respond as time permits.

That's hardly the reply my question deserved, DOC.
Or, indeed, any of the questions you've been asked.

Originally Posted by DOC

What kind of historical evidence do you want for a resurrection or miracles, a notarized statement from Julius Caesar. That would be difficult though, since we do not even possess one of his signatures.

We've got over 5000 manuscripts of the NT compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato's work and 20 manuscripts for Tacitus' work.

Obviously we don't have any signatures for Julius Caesar, DOC, and you know why.
Those 5,000 'manuscripts' claim has been shredded time and time again, DOC.
Why trot it out now?

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't have time right now for your long Greek language analysis post and "your" personal translation. And I assume your saying Luke got it wrong because of what Josephus wrote 90 years after the fact. Let me ask you this, do you believe Josephus was right when he said Moses lived in Egypt and was a general there. If you believe he got it wrong then you are basing your belief that Luke got it wrong based on Josephus, whom you believe got some other history wrong.

GB answered this rather amusing defense of Josephus, DOC.
We'll be interested in your reply.
It'll pass the time while we await phelix' promised official Roman sources for the truthfulness of the NT writers.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

What convinces you that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul? The two often contradict in theology, and when Luke gives descriptions of what Paul is doing, this often contradicts Paul's own views.

All will be revealed in the fullness of time, for as we know:

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually there is nothing in the NT that seems like a contradiction that can't be explained.

linky

We expect to be seeing that explanation about the thirty-twelfth of Decembuary, twenty neverty.

About the same time your evidence is due in, I believe.

Originally Posted by phelix

For instance, Paul thinks that circumcision is pointless, maybe even that it is bad (Galatians) while Luke tells us that Paul circumcised Timothy.

Well . . .

Originally Posted by DOC

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

linky

Not much point disputing it, as embarrassing details go, that one is definitely a winner.

Originally Posted by phelix

As for the meeting with the apostles, why didn't Paul mention this? He speaks only of a brief stay at Peter's house, and a quick chat with James (which he reports nothing from). Why would Paul play down an alleged meeting, in a letter to people who questioned his status as an apostle anyway?

You're not suggesting that one of the NT writers wasn't telling the truth about something are you?

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by DOC

Sorry, but after 2500 posts in this thread Part 1, and other personal activities, I can' t get to everyone. If you must know, private message me with the question and I'll respond as time permits.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=167
Here's the post with my question.
And since it's pertinent to the OP, I do hope you'll find the time to answer it on thread you started.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

And I could quite easily reference any number of sources to confirm that King's Cross station in London is a very real place and that the Ford Anglia is a very real car.

Would this add weight to the 'Harry Potter is a true story and magic is real' argument?

There's even photographic evidence of Platform 9 3/4.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by carlitos

phelix,

If you have a point, could you please make it concisely? Do you have evidence for the truth of the New Testament? If not, perhaps you could contribute your thoughts to another topic here?

Originally Posted by phelix

which bit in the new testament?

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

The juicy bits.

Originally Posted by phelix

I've had a think, but nothing seems to fit the bill, sorry

Have another think. Maybe you could try these for starters:

Originally Posted by The Don

• Immaculate conception - or was she just knocked up
  
  
• Performing miracles - or was stuff just exaggerated and/or made up
  
  
• Son of God - or just (one of many, many people) claiming to be the Messiah
  
  
• Rising from the dead - or just a made up story

Or you could just keep posting endless Walls o' Waffle™ about inconsequential trivia.

It's your already-tenuous credibility that's at, so choose carefully.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

There's even photographic evidence of Platform 9 3/4.

Ford Anglias too! Joanne Rowling is way ahead of Sir Luke in the truthiness stakes, it seems.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Originally Posted by The Don

I suppose it comes down to what claim is being made.

If I claim that there's a banjo-playing pink unicorn at number 72 then I'm going to require more evidence.

In the case of the New Testament we have a set of core claims that run counter to out current understanding of the universe and which can be explained by more mundane means:

• Immaculate conception - or what she just knocked up
• Performing miracles - or was stuff just exagerated and/or made up
• Son of God - or just (one of man, many people) claiming to be the Messiah
• Rising from the dead - or just a made up story

True, but then they were religious believers, so this is not all that unexpected. If a creepily devout, potentially psychopathic, religious person today said "I've seen Jesus. He comes to my living room. Sometimes I bring slugs in from the garden, kill them, and he brings them back to life. He is the master of all nature. Tonight I'm going to kill my cat and watch as he demonstrates the majesty of God. Come back to my house. It's number 72"
Then, despite the avalanche of known incorrect claims, you would likely still put some weight on 72 being correct, though you might not want to visit so much any more. If you rang the police, and they asked for the house number, you wouldn't say "I don't know". You'd either say "72" or "she said 72" indicating you think there's some evidential worth there.

You don't really think that nattering on like this about the hypothetical part of the question and completely ignoring the part that deals with the actual claims made in the New Testament is going to pass unnoticed, do you?

We've been weasel watching here for years and we can spot 'em a mile off, you know.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Lothian

and according to Sir William Ramsay no historical evidence of the resurrection or the miracles. Can we trust Sir William on historical evidence?

Originally Posted by DOC

What kind of historical evidence do you want for a resurrection or miracles, a notarized statement from Julius Caesar. That would be difficult though, since we do not even possess one of his signatures.

Doc, it is not about what anyone wants; this is about what exists.

You said historical evidence is important. I don't think anyone would disagree with you on this fact.

Sir William said there was no historical evidence for any of the miracles.

My question is simple. Was he an inept historian, or can we trust his judgement on this?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Well I can't connect to the previous page for some reason but Phelix asked how do you know Luke was a traveling partner of Paul.

Plenty of traps for new players. Once you have a few posts under your belt you'll find it becomes easier to figure out.

Originally Posted by DOC

From Scott Grady's article "Introduction to the book of Acts"

"During the account of Paul's missionary journeys, the author occasionally changes his style from that of a third person observer to a first person participant.

Spidey sense not tingling yet?

Originally Posted by DOC

In Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; and 27:1-28:16, the author speaks of "we" and "us" in relationship to Paul's travels. The language implies the author himself traveled with Paul. These "we" sections include the time when Paul was imprisoned at Rome...

See below *

Originally Posted by DOC

... In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul says, "Only Luke is with me," making him the most likely person to have written Luke-Acts."


http://www.christianlibrary.org/auth...cott/Acts0.htm

Once again the bible declares itself to be true. How can we possibly have any doubts?

Originally Posted by DOC

Acts 16: 9-11

And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.


Act 16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.


Act 16:11 ¶ Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next [day] to Neapolis;

*

"Axel," replied the Professor with perfect coolness, "our situation is almost desperate; but there are some chances of deliverance, and it is these that I am considering. If at every instant we may perish, so at every instant we may be saved. Let us then be prepared to seize upon the smallest advantage."

Journey to the Center of the Earth is a true story!!!

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

<snip>

That being said, I am fine conceding the origins of the rib part of Genesis to be from the Enki story. You have a habit of aggressively defending unimportant parts of scholarship though, which is peculiar. Also I found the guy who came up with the penis bone theory. His name is Ziony Zevit, if you're particularly interested in it

And this is evidence for the NT's truthiness, is it?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Yes, there just wasn't anything Juicy I could think of from the NT. Corinth is perhaps the best it gets and that's pretty bland.

Walking on water is juicy enough. And fish sammiches to go for 5000 people would be super-juicy. What have you got to tell us about those stories?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Sometimes, yes. Other times, less so. When Paul writes that his main man Timothy has helped him out with writing the letter, is he fibbing in order to get us to believe in Jesus? Possibly, but it's a strange way of going about it. When the synoptics write that John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan, are they all lying to make the narrative fit with Christian theology? Maybe, but it's not exactly a very persuasive lie.

You do realise that these are exactly the questions that most of us have been asking for years, don't you?

Your and DOC's ideas about what is or isn't strange and/or persuasive don't help anywhere near as much as some evidence would.

Got any?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

But see, revelation, is what most biblical scholars refer to as "insane".

You don't have to be any kind of scholar at all to realise that Revelation is insane, but it's part of the New Testament.

I, for one, have been looking forward for ages to getting around to examining the evidence for its truthiness, and now that you're here to help him out I hope DOC will be able to get to it sooner rather than later.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

Juicy bits of the New Testament. I think this is perfectly understandable, and that there is absolutely no need for you to play dumb.

No, I just really didn't get why you said "you don't really believe that do you?"
There isn't really any juiciness in the NT. The closest we get to juiciness that might be historically verifiable is the deviancy in Corinth, and that's a) a bit dull, and b) based in part on contemporary rumour.

Edit: If you meant juiciness as in "parts of the NT that Christians find important" then no, there is none full stop. Even without study of a set of sources, you can say that they will not contain sufficient evidence for claims that defy science.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

...... And fish sammiches to go for 5000 people would be super-juicy......

Fish is SO hard to cook - 30 seconds too far and it's dry as hell. Regardless of how the ingredients were sourced, cooking juicy fish sammiches for 5,000 is a miracle

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

I assume you don't believe in the importance of historical evidence.

What the Sheol do you think we've been trying to get you to provide all this time?

How's it coming?

Originally Posted by DOC

Sorry, but there was no video of the resurrection or the miracles.

Something in between a video and nothing at all would be good. Like, you know, everyone else in history that matters.

Including Julius "No Sig" Cæsar.

What have you got?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

Juicy bits of the New Testament. I think this is perfectly understandable, and that there is absolutely no need for you to play dumb.

No, I just really didn't get why you said "you don't really believe that do you?"
There isn't really any juiciness in the NT. The closest we get to juiciness that might be historically verifiable is the deviancy in Corinth, and that's a) a bit dull, and b) based in part on contemporary rumour.

Did you miss the bit where Lord Emsworth said "there is absolutely no need for you to play dumb."?

Originally Posted by phelix

Edit: If you meant juiciness as in "parts of the NT that Christians find important" then no, there is none full stop. Even without study of a set of sources, you can say that they will not contain sufficient evidence for claims that defy science.

Brillo!

Only 510+ pages and almost 21000 and you've figured out the thread topic.

Should be a cruise from here on in.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

No, I just really didn't get why you said "you don't really believe that do you?"
There isn't really any juiciness in the NT. The closest we get to juiciness that might be historically verifiable is the deviancy in Corinth, and that's a) a bit dull, and b) based in part on contemporary rumour.

Edit: If you meant juiciness as in "parts of the NT that Christians find important" then no, there is none full stop. Even without study of a set of sources, you can say that they will not contain sufficient evidence for claims that defy science.

The Juiciest bit is Revelation. That's my favourite. No more Mr Nice Guy, Namby Pamby, Sissy, turn the other cheek Jesus. The Fig Tree episode and the brief Zombie Saints Uprising should have been a clue where this was all leading.

OT God returns with a vengeance. He get's all OT on our asses. He makes Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Kings look like a picnic in the park (if by picnic you mean killing and eating children).

He ain't jus' comin' back with Bears or Eagles or Parents to Eat the Kids and their Eyeballs. No, NT Revelation God takes OT to a whole new level. Yippee Kiyay ************!!! We're talkin' full on Demon and Zombie Apocalypse, reanimated corpses, Demon locusts with lady hair and a mouthful of Sharp teeth, Lakes of Fire, the 4 Demon Horsemen (sounds an awful lot like Ringwraiths )...

Well, anyway, that's what I call juicy

Don't give me that Exegesis crap. Fundies are much more straightforward. They don't pretend that God is nice (justify, yeah, pretend, no). They really know how to believe this stuff.

And, in a way, they're more right than you Phelix, because they see all this Demon God stuff in the Bible and don't try to pretend it's not there. Or parse Jesus' sayings to get the full drift of their Book of Compilations. And they're more right because they DON'T NEED evidence for an "Historical Jesus." They take it all on Faith.

That's the problem with wishy washy Christians (and Jesus Loving alleged Atheists) these days, trying to prove some bits are true and some bits aren't, looking for evidence that isn't there.

Just admit that there is no evidence and take it on faith. You don't have to be a Moon-bat Fundy to take it on faith. Believe whatever bits you like best about the Bible, just don't pretend that belief / supposition / likely / probably = evidence.

GB

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by phelix

The strong assertions that this is the origin is definitely not warranted, and also you straw-man the assumptions required for the penis bone explanation. It doesn't require expert biology or skeletal classification for someone to say "hey, how come they have a bone there and we don't?"

There is no strawman. You even say the assumption that they'd know such difference in this reply.

The whole ancient world shows no real knowledge of biology at all, so it's a good reason to doubt such an origin. We're talking the same ancient people who didn't even bother counting teeth -- Aristotle not only thought women have less teeth than men, but he was quoted all the way into the middle ages -- and who believed that for example bees are born out of dead bulls, or lots of other nonsense. You'd think they'd actually go "darling, come here and say aaah" and count the teeth to check that hypothesis, but they didn't. Or you'd think someone would actually check if a decomposing bull turns into bees, but again they don't. There is very little interest shown in such things until very late Greco-Roman times and places. It's much more believable that they'd start from some pun than that they'd start from even knowing what bones they have at all.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

That's the problem with wishy washy Christians (and Jesus Loving alleged Atheists) these days, trying to prove some bits are true and some bits aren't, looking for evidence that isn't there.

If you ignore all the bits about religion and so on, what we have is a series of texts which are alleged to have been written in the first two centuries of the first millennium and which allegedly describe the early days of the Christian church (and as a consequence life in the Middle East in that time).

Again, ignoring all the religious buts, there may be some useful or interesting information in there which could subsequently be corroborated from other sources.

Clearly, given the amount of fabrication in there, it's not a great source of information.


It's like someone found a Superman comic strip at some point in the future. I hope they would quickly work out that it was fiction. If they didn't know about newspapers, the Daily Planet could give them a (poor quality) lead they could then attempt to validate from other fiction and non-fiction sources. Of course they'd also waste an enormous amount of time attempting to locate the remains of the large conurbation of Metropolis.

So from my perspective

• The New Testament cannot be used as a source all by itself
• Parts of the New Testament cannot be used to validate other parts of the New Testament
• There may be useful information about life in the Middle East at that time contained in the New Testament
• The New Testament should not be considered any more reliable than any other fictional source
• Given its extreme partiality, it should be considered less relaible than the average fictional source in those areas pertaining to the life of Jesus or the early Church

I'm sorry if that makes me a Jesus Loving alleged Atheist in your eyes.

[nvidiot]

GB, can I just ask why you keep asking if phelix is an atheist? Seems pretty irrelevant to the (bad) arguments he's made. Did he claim atheism somewhere and I missed it?

And @ phelix: playing dumb about the nature of the topic is a little disingenuous don't you think? The debate (read:intellectual asswhoopin') here is precisely about the extraordinary claims in the NT, not the mundane ones.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by The Don

If you ignore all the bits about religion and so on, what we have is a series of texts which are alleged to have been written in the first two centuries of the first millennium and which allegedly describe the early days of the Christian church (and as a consequence life in the Middle East in that time).

Again, ignoring all the religious buts, there may be some useful or interesting information in there which could subsequently be corroborated from other sources.

Clearly, given the amount of fabrication in there, it's not a great source of information.


It's like someone found a Superman comic strip at some point in the future. I hope they would quickly work out that it was fiction. If they didn't know about newspapers, the Daily Planet could give them a (poor quality) lead they could then attempt to validate from other fiction and non-fiction sources. Of course they'd also waste an enormous amount of time attempting to locate the remains of the large conurbation of Metropolis.

So from my perspective

• The New Testament cannot be used as a source all by itself
• Parts of the New Testament cannot be used to validate other parts of the New Testament
• There may be useful information about life in the Middle East at that time contained in the New Testament
• The New Testament should not be considered any more reliable than any other fictional source
• Given its extreme partiality, it should be considered less relaible than the average fictional source in those areas pertaining to the life of Jesus or the early Church

I'm sorry if that makes me a Jesus Loving alleged Atheist in your eyes.

No! That was meant for Phelix.

What you just said is completely different from what Phelix is saying. Phelix thinks that there is actual evidence for the existence of Jesus.

You are looking at the texts with a keen eye, and seeing beyond the codswallop to get an insight into the worldviews and ways of life of bronze and Iron Age peoples that the texts convey.

That's what I do! And that's one of the reasons I love Mythology and Religion and spend a great deal of my life on it. It's a great way to explore the Psycho-Sociological relationships of humans and their cultures--from Art to Political / Economy.


GB

[HansMustermann]

@phelix:
Since it seems we're not on the same page, let's clear things up a bit: the "told the truth" part that's debated is about the important parts. You know, the parts about Jebus-onna-stick. Not about such details as whether the river Jordan existed or whether Porcius Festus was a governor of Judaea.

I'll even happily concede that some more such minor details may be right. But, frankly, who cares? That's not really what this thread was ever about, nor really that interesting for the topic of the NT. And even for geeking out about history, they'd be more interesting if they weren't mixed up with DOC's taking Revelation seriously and whatnot, i.e., in a separate thread.

So, really, the the important parts and the topic of the thread are the bits about Jebus. Did he exist? What did he preach? Was he nailed? Did he resurrect? Was there actually an eclipse on a full moon? That kinda stuff.

So could you please get to the point and address those, rather than arguing whether some irrelevant detail in the background is right?

[amb]

Originally Posted by DOC

And that addition would be quite valuable considering Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. And we know Paul had a 14 day meeting with Peter and other apostles as reported in Acts by Luke. That would be like an author who was writing about the Civil War being the traveliing companion of someone who had a two week meeting with Robert E. Lee. Do you think that author might have picked up some useful information from his traveling companion.

There is not a scrap of evidence that whoever wrote the gospel called Luke was the travelling companion of Paul. The writers of all the gospels were anonymous. Names were give them decades later by christian apologists.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

No! That was meant for Phelix.

What you just said is completely different from what Phelix is saying. Phelix thinks that there is actual evidence for the existence of Jesus.

GB

Okay

Trouble is, I can't really understand what phelix was attempting to do which is why I attempted to summarise what I thought phelix's argument was a day (and about a gajillion pages) ago.

phelix appears to discard accounts of miracles and the extreme claims of the Bible and claims that it is a good source for the administrative details of the early Church. Of course this could just be the old fashioned thin end argument so that if the Bible is very reliable about large scale geographic elements (Jerusalem, Egypt, Rome and the places that "Paul" wrote to exist) and phelix gets a concession that it may be reliable about some other mundane elements then we can somehow make the huge leap to claiming that it's pretty reliable about everything in there.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

GB, can I just ask why you keep asking if phelix is an atheist? Seems pretty irrelevant to the (bad) arguments he's made. Did he claim atheism somewhere and I missed it?

And @ phelix: playing dumb about the nature of the topic is a little disingenuous don't you think? The debate (read:intellectual asswhoopin') here is precisely about the extraordinary claims in the NT, not the mundane ones.

Yes! Phelix says he doesn't believe in the Magical God Stuff, but he thinks there is evidence for an Historical Jesus. (correct me if I'm wrong Phelix).

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...ostcount=19895

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...ostcount=19898

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...ostcount=19921


GB

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by The Don

Okay

Trouble is, I can't really understand what phelix was attempting to do which is why I attempted to summarise what I thought phelix's argument was a day (and about a gajillion pages) ago.

phelix appears to discard accounts of miracles and the extreme claims of the Bible and claims that it is a good source for the administrative details of the early Church. Of course this could just be the old fashioned thin end argument so that if the Bible is very reliable about large scale geographic elements (Jerusalem, Egypt, Rome and the places that "Paul" wrote to exist) and phelix gets a concession that it may be reliable about some other mundane elements then we can somehow make the huge leap to claiming that it's pretty reliable about everything in there.

Yes! To return to your Superman comic artifact analogy: It seems to me that Phelix is looking for the Historical Clark Kent based on the fact that we know newspapers existed in the 20th century and that there was a country called USA and that Kansas existed. But he's having a little trouble locating Smallville and Metropolis, and placing them in Kansas to boot.

It's actually incredibly remarkable how the comic book superhero analogy is a perfect fit for the Bible. Which is why I often use the Spiderman analogy.

GB

[nvidiot]

Sorry GB but I don't see an explicit claim of atheism. Any chance you could highlight the relevant parts? I don't want to be a douche or anything but I don't think he's ever actually claimed that he was one.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

Sorry GB but I don't see an explicit claim of atheism. Any chance you could highlight the relevant parts? I don't want to be a douche or anything but I don't think he's ever actually claimed that he was one.

The quote function isn't available for part 1 of this thread, so this'll have to do for now:

Quote:

Wow. And to think it annoys me when people say atheists are dogmatic...

Quote:

Now. Virgin Birth:
detailed in two gospels
defies science
probably didn't happen

In this post, Phelix seems to be saying that he has a problem with "dogmatic" Atheism," but not Atheism in and of itself.

Quote:

Whyso? Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism was happy to use the idea of dogmatic atheism in this blog post: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10632
And he quotes someone equally ok with the term commenting on this very subject.

I personally am rather uncomfortable with it. Certainly, there is never an appeal to higher authority, which most dogma would rely upon, but when atheists dismiss the historical pursuit in favour of attacking Christianity as much as possible, it can be difficult to avoid the feeling that you are confronting dogmatism.

What he has been trying to do since joining this thread is to paint demanding hard evidence for the existence of Jesus as "dogmatic atheism." Which is, of course, a Straw Man.

This is to distinguish himself as being moderate atheist.

But due to his insistence that DOC's OP arguments are sound in terms of looking for an Historical Jesus, and that Exegesis is perfectly acceptable as evidence, it is hard for me to accept that he really is an atheist.

Though he could be a recovering Christian who just can't give up the idea that Jesus was an historical person, even if he has given up the "God Stuff."

When I was a lot younger, I was really into the search for an historical King Arthur. As it turns out, there is actually some evidence that the legend may be based on one of several real life candidates for which there is physical evidence, but the Arthuriologists just can't agree with each other about which one might have been the basis for the legend.

Pesonally, I have come to the conclusion that Arthur was based on pre-Christian Celtic Myths and Legends, updated to the end of Roman / beginning of the Saxon Era (for which there are the several likely candidates mentioned), and updated again to the beginning of the Norman era (which is entirely fictional). After that, everyone just started writing their own favourite versions.

ETA: Also, we can just ask Phelix how he self-identifies!

GB

[nvidiot]

Mmm thank GB. The first quote isn't as convincing as the second, but I see what you're suggesting strongly in the second quote best.

It is rather carefully worded though, don't you admit? Lots of association but no declarations.

I mean it is really irrelevant anyway, the arguments stand or fold on their merits not who makes them. I thought you may have been trying to poison the well a bit there, but now I'm just more confusorated about the theistic opinions of said poster.

And of course there would be the rather deliberately simple option of asking phenix. But this would of course be a logical thing to do. And we are in that thread after all.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

ETA: Also, we can just ask Phelix how he self-identifies!

GB

Unless his/her opinion has changed since september last year.

Originally Posted by phelix

So, so much. Fairies, magic, conspiracies, the works. I liked to feel like I had some sort of hidden truth that everybody else was blind to. I was always kinda atheist though, and when I became a teenager and realised I had to hold my opinions violently in order to be a man, started thinking about the arguments for my atheism. When I applied these arguments to everything else I believed in, most of them fell down.
Thing is, I still don't believe in psychiatric medication, and still don't believe shakespeare wrote all of his plays, if any of them, and because of my history of believing woo, I am very suspicious of my contemporary beliefs like those.

[nvidiot]

Dah-naaaaaah!

Thank you Lothian.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

What kind of historical evidence do you want for a resurrection or miracles, a notarized statement from Julius Caesar. That would be difficult though, since we do not even possess one of his signatures.

'course we do. It's on all the money.

Where have you been?

Originally Posted by DOC

We've got over 5000 manuscripts of the NT compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato's work and 20 manuscripts for Tacitus' work.

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung was published in 4 Chinese editions, 8 Chinese minority languages in 8 versions, one Braille edition, 37 foreign language versions and a bilingual Chinese-English version (total 38 foreign versions), with a total printing of 1,055,498,000 copies.

There are 25 known copies of the Dunlap broadside.


Are the thoughts of Chaiman Mao more valid than the US Declaration of Independence, DOC?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by John Jones

I wish we were back in the other thread.

Let's follow these dudes . . .

They seem to be heading that way.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't have time right now for your long Greek language analysis post and "your" personal translation. And I assume your saying Luke got it wrong because of what Josephus wrote 90 years after the fact.

You don't have time? You have time to post various other bits and pieces of drivel but no time to answer posts that strike directly at the heart of your claims?

Horse feathers, DOC. It seems that your intellectual cowardice is still finding new depths to plumb, even after all this time.

Originally Posted by DOC

Let me ask you this, do you believe Josephus was right when he said Moses lived in Egypt and was a general there.

Let me tell you this:

NO!

Originally Posted by DOC

If you believe he got it wrong then you are basing your belief that Luke got it wrong based on Josephus, whom you believe got some other history wrong.

You seem to think you know an awful lot about what ddt believes DOC. Given that it would be the only thing you've ever got right, what do you think the chances are?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't have time right now for your long Greek language analysis post and "your" personal translation.

That's a shame, becuase that "Long Greek Language Analysis Post" actually represents a strong bit of evidence against the argument you attempted to make regarding the census.

here it is again.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...55#post7275155

IF you are unable to logically address this argument, we are left with the simple conclusion: Luke made up the Jesus Birth story.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by joobz

That's a shame, becuase that "Long Greek Language Analysis Post" actually represents a strong bit of evidence against the argument you attempted to make regarding the census.

here it is again.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...55#post7275155

IF you are unable to logically address this argument, we are left with the simple conclusion: Luke made up the Jesus Birth story.

Agreed, it demonstrates Doc’s ‘explanation’ is wrong. This is a prime example of Doc’s dishonesty.

He claims he has never seen a contradiction or error in the bible which can not be logically explained.

We have an example here. It has been flagged up numerous times. Doc’s response is that he does not have the time to look into it.

Which book talked about “foolish people ....without understanding; which have eyes, and see not”?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Which book talked about “foolish people ....without understanding; which have eyes, and see not”?

ooh! ooh!



Pick me!