Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:13 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 246 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Likes the book better than the movie


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 841
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 470 times in 359 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
No, he does not see this. And he isn't going to see it no matter how often it is explained to him. He refuses to entertain the notion that maybe--just maybe--the story recounted in the gospels (as confused, contradictory and hodge-podge as it is) may not really have happened. The evidence presented to support the idea that the story is a fiction will not be examined any deeper than it takes to rail against it without sounding completely clueless. There is no attempt to understand it and when you want to know why he thinks that way, you get some apologist link because he can't explain it himself due to his lack of any true understanding of what he's railing against and he hopes this fellow can. We call that a smokescreen.

He lacks a rational thought in his head and so is able with a straight face to tell you that atheistic and ahistorical perspectives of Jesus and god are crazy and too fantastic to be believed while he indulges himself in what he thinks is a perfectly sane idea that the creator of the universe was born on earth as his own son so he could be murdered, rise from the dead and somehow in so doing pay for everyone's sins.

The more you try to engage him to think rationally for a moment, he descends into madness with OT prophecy in the NT which is so ridiculous that it disproves itself and is not worth arguing. It's all to baffle you with bullshit because you will NEVER get a straight answer out of him. It's against his very nature. So I quit talking to him. All debating him does is encourage him to continue his lunacy. Maybe he's a nice guy IRL but underneath it all, you see how utterly confused he is. But don't try to help him sort it out. Your efforts are not appreciated.



Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:52 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Where is the kingdom Flann?



Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:01 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Interbane wrote:
First of all, you keep referring to what is written in the text as if it was testimony written at the precise moment things happened, without any embellishment or storytelling after the fact. We've been over this. We are going in circles, you're right.

You can't support the chain of custody, so stop appealing to the documents. You have to support the documents before you appeal to them.


You are misrepresenting what I've said throughout this thread in relation to the history of early Christianity and about what was written when.
Ancient historians,N.T.scholars and textual critics don't see a "chain of custody" problem and believe a history of early Christianity can be determined by scholarly methods. That's a big subject, but you're no expert on it.

There is a dividing line in scholarship between those who are philosophical naturalists and those who are conservative Christian scholars,yet they do agree on many historical facts.

Interbane wrote:
As if my explanation is more fantastical than believing a person came back from the dead. The ridiculous things you have right under your nose, Flann.


You're a philosophical naturalist Interbane. Like I said previously,Craig Keener has written a book on miracles in the present time. So I don't know how you can be so sure there are not miraculous events in answer to prayer.

I've given many reasons why Christianity is credible, and if God does exist then of course he could have raised Jesus from the dead.
It's been instructive and educational hearing and examining the arguments of the new atheist critics and those who claim reason and science as their foundations, in their rejection of theism and Christianity.

There's Dawkins who follows Krausse who says; "nothing isn't nothing anymore in science." I've even heard it said that "nothing is unstable!"
And Krausse like a fairground magician, pulls rabbits out of a hat while trying to conceal something up his sleeve.

They pour scorn on philosophy while propagating their own philosophy of reductionist materialism and scientism.

If nothing for origins is a problem,you can turn to the fantastical hypotheses of the string theorists who postulate an infinite number of other universes, where everything however absurd,is not only possible but guaranteed.

These Alice in Wonderland worlds are taken as real possibilities. One journalist described one of their conventions,as being like attending a party where everyone was high on hashish.

Then there's Sam Harris who says morality can be derived from scientific facts. This is nonsense of course as morality's source is not found in physics.
We shouldn't rely on gene splicers,rabbit cloners or those who experiment on real human embryos to determine the ethics of their actions. Science doesn't decide the ethics of Mengele's barbaric human experiments.

In reality Harris offers his personal favourite philosophy of ethics,which is reheated utilitarianism.

And then he tells us we don't actually make real moral choices anyway. No,we don't make free choices at all, and it's all an illusion which he can see in action by looking at brains with neuroscientists.

Everything is predetermined biochemically,and environmentally and it's just the luck of the draw that Sam Harris wasn't born Saddam Hussein.
Daniel Dennett thinks Darwinism is the great explanatory key to all things. The universal disinfectant of erroneous thought.

Dan thinks we have more freedom than Sam, except for those people infected with parasitic viruses of the mind which remain stubbornly immune to his universal disinfectant.

The real heretics are those who question the great doctrine of Darwin. If you think there might be a problem with a land based raccoon like creature gradually morphing into a whale,then you have a problem.
It could have been some other ancestral creature and it just depends where you look, but Darwin himself could easily imagine a "race of bears" morphing into an aquatic giant.

And then somewhere along the line of evolution consciousness "emerged" Just where the unconcious living things became conscious ones they don't say,or how it got there.

We know of course that abiogenesis doesn't happen and life comes from life. So we get a singularity against all known laws of physics or maybe aliens seeded life on earth.

The origin of the universe entails another singularity not consonant with the known laws of physics.

And yet this universe contains realities that are not reducible to physics. These include thoughts,dreams,imagined things,laws of nature and of logic and the informational content of genes which is not reducible to matter or energy.

Richard Carrier rushes in to refute fine tuning for life armed with Bayes theorem,and gets torn to shreds by cosmologist Luke Barnes on all counts.
Has anyone ever abused probability as much as Carrier? Probably not.

And so we find the advocates of reason and science attacking belief in God and Christianity,while utterly blind to the sheer nonsense of their own ideas.

These are the masters who see beneath the surface illusions under our noses and tell us all about it in their popular books.

Of course you will complain about my arguments from ignorance but as Ant shrewdly observed, you think your ignorance trumps mine.
It's more inference to the best explanation.

Thus says 'science and reason'.
Nature only looks designed,time doesn't really have a direction(ask Carrier),we don't make real choices and even our sense of self is just "a bunch of tricks in the brain".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZsFTjW7mvs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl3wx8DGLjc



Vanity of vanities,says the preacher, vanity of vanities!



Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:26 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Flann, where is the kingdom?

where does Jesus say it is?



Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:56 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
youkrst wrote:
Flann, where is the kingdom?

where does Jesus say it is?


It's wherever the rule and authority of God is manifested. So Jesus said;"But if I drive out demons by the finger of God,then the kingdom of God has come upon you." Luke 11-20

It could be in human lives and relationships that are in obedience to God. In a word it's wherever God rules.



Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:09 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
well i thought the obvious answer was

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

ahhhhh, so that's where the kingdom is. :-D



Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:38 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
youkrst wrote:
well i thought the obvious answer was

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

ahhhhh, so that's where the kingdom is. :-D


It's hard to say whether within you or among you is the best reading there. Take the guy he casts a demon out of. He's controlled by it but then God's power is exerted and he's free from that control, or rule if you like.

I know you don't believe in these beings. The problem I find is that those who take the gnostic view think that it means that they themselves somehow become gods, and then reckon they can pass judgement on Christ's teachings and select or reject what suits them.
Gnostic Bishop does this to an entertainingly absurd level. I would have thought that if it really was the kingdom of Christ his words would be obeyed.

He asked; "Why do you call me Lord,Lord and not do as I say." I can't say I do this consistently myself, but that's the general idea.
So in the end the gnostic interpretation is "I'm god and I do whatever I think is good or bad in my own eyes."

Obviously I understand that you interpret things mythically. I think it's mistaken, and I wouldn't say it's all literal because not everything is literal, but I think that the straightforward common sense meaning is true.

There are parables and use of metaphors but overall I take an historical view which includes the miraculous.



Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:13 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5833
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2289
Thanked: 2218 times in 1676 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Flann 5 wrote:
Ancient historians,N.T.scholars and textual critics don't see a "chain of custody" problem and believe a history of early Christianity can be determined by scholarly methods. That's a big subject, but you're no expert on it....Vanity of vanities,says the preacher, vanity of vanities!


The bare faced impudence of such comments is a sight to behold. The absence of evidence regarding a chain of transmission for the New Testament makes its claims entirely unreliable. And indeed, when those claims are examined without confessional motives, they point inexorably and consistently to the invention of Jesus Christ as pure myth, and the assertions of historicity as pure parable, and if not parable then fraud.

Vain assertions that critics don't see a problem are another example of the neologism I presented recently, nethereal.

The Bible is so far short of chain of custody requirements for admissible evidence in a court of law or even historical claim that such assertions are entirely laughable, a great example of why apologetic rationalisation is broadly viewed as intellectually bankrupt. Those who don't see a problem are deliberately not looking.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:40 pm
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
In accordance with the following verses in the New Testament and after the example of the great man of God known as brother bob...

Quote:
…4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?


I have decided to hand Flann over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh :lol:



Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:51 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Flann wrote:
Ancient historians,N.T.scholars and textual critics don't see a "chain of custody" problem and believe a history of early Christianity can be determined by scholarly methods. That's a big subject, but you're no expert on it.


Meanwhile, other ancient historians and textual critics do see a chain of custody problem. My my, who do we believe? As I said before, appealing to other people's conclusions is meaningless. For every yay there's a nay. Show me the reasoning, not the conclusion.

Flann wrote:
You're a philosophical naturalist Interbane. Like I said previously,Craig Keener has written a book on miracles in the present time. So I don't know how you can be so sure there are not miraculous events in answer to prayer.


I think the reason we go in circles is because you don't understand my replies. Or perhaps you don't remember them.

As I've said often before, I'm not "sure". There are many events that I'd label miraculous. But if you are trying to tell me that they are supernatural miracles, the onus is on you. Induction is on my side. Our investigations, whenever resolved, are unanimously naturalistic. Nothing more has ever been shown. And as I explained in the thread on the supernatural, it isn't even possible to show anything more.

Flann wrote:
I've given many reasons why Christianity is credible, and if God does exist then of course he could have raised Jesus from the dead.


Your reasons are all snakes eating their own tails. You appeal to the texts to prove many of your points, without supporting the texts. You appeal to the conclusions of scholars to support the texts, without ever showing what that support actually is. You believe the scholars you agree with are right, and the scholars you don't agree with are wrong.

Why should I believe you Flann? The reasoning doesn't hold up.

Quote:
There's Dawkins who follows Krausse who says; "nothing isn't nothing anymore in science." I've even heard it said that "nothing is unstable!"
And Krausse like a fairground magician, pulls rabbits out of a hat while trying to conceal something up his sleeve.


And even if they are dead wrong, that does not make you right. That's a classic argument from ignorance, which I've also repeated many times.

Quote:
Of course you will complain about my arguments from ignorance but as Ant shrewdly observed, you think your ignorance trumps mine.
It's more inference to the best explanation.


I'm not complaining. The arguments truly are arguments from ignorance. Blaming me won't make it otherwise.

To infer the best explanation, you need positive evidence in favor of the chosen explanation. Your arguments above do not fit. Casting doubt on existing explanations does not count as positive evidence in favor of a different explanation. It's what's known as an argument from ignorance, and is a fallacy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
youkrst
Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:45 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Image



The following user would like to thank youkrst for this post:
Robert Tulip
Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:45 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Interbane wrote:
Flann wrote:
Ancient historians,N.T.scholars and textual critics don't see a "chain of custody" problem and believe a history of early Christianity can be determined by scholarly methods. That's a big subject, but you're no expert on it.




Meanwhile, other ancient historians and textual critics do see a chain of custody problem. My my, who do we believe? As I said before, appealing to other people's conclusions is meaningless. For every yay there's a nay. Show me the reasoning, not the conclusion.

Who are these ancient historians and textual critics, Interbane? Bart Ehrman is one. Ehrman wouldn't dispute that Paul wrote first Corinthians for example, but tries to rationalize the early belief in the resurrection as found in Paul's accounts of the various post death appearances.

Liberal scholars wouldn't dispute that N.T. books were recognized as authentic by early Christian churches. They dispute the authorship of some books like the gospels.

Their naturalistic presuppositions preclude them from, for example, accepting John's gospel's account as being of an eyewitness to miraculous healings, and the death and subsequent resurrection appearances of Christ.

So they claim they can't be by the authors attested by the titles and reject the testimony of those close to these authors.

Robert cries conspiracy but Constantine wasn't til much later and the 2nd century Christian writers quote from these gospels as of already recognized texts in the churches.

Interbane wrote:
I think the reason we go in circles is because you don't understand my replies. Or perhaps you don't remember them.

As I've said often before, I'm not "sure". There are many events that I'd label miraculous. But if you are trying to tell me that they are supernatural miracles, the onus is on you. Induction is on my side. Our investigations, whenever resolved, are unanimously naturalistic. Nothing more has ever been shown. And as I explained in the thread on the supernatural, it isn't even possible to show anything more.


And what about those unresolved ones? You seem to believe in naturalistic miracles. How do you distinguish between a naturalistic miracle and the usual natural course of events?
A miracle is contrary to the natural course of events surely.

Craig Keener's accounts are interesting and the point is the frequent link between specific prayer to God and sudden healing.
These cannot be explained psychosomatically in the majority of cases.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYBnJF2P_WQ Miracle reports in the gospels and today.

Interbane wrote:
Flann wrote:
I've given many reasons why Christianity is credible, and if God does exist then of course he could have raised Jesus from the dead.




Your reasons are all snakes eating their own tails. You appeal to the texts to prove many of your points, without supporting the texts. You appeal to the conclusions of scholars to support the texts, without ever showing what that support actually is. You believe the scholars you agree with are right, and the scholars you don't agree with are wrong.

Why should I believe you Flann? The reasoning doesn't hold up.


You don't have to believe me Interbane. If you want to study the arguments for or against the reliability of the N.T. documents you can do that.

Here's a pdf of N.T. scholar F.F.Bruce's book on the subject; The New Testament documents are they Reliable? It's not the most recent book on the subject but the arguments haven't really changed much,and it's freely available.

www.ncbible.info/MoodRes/Transmission/N ... -Bruce.pdf

I think I have shown on other threads that the dating of O.T. books by liberal scholars has bad foundations in the outdated and untenable 19th century speculations of sceptical German scholars.

They just can't accept the whole idea of genuine prophecy. So as I said if they approached these texts in an unbiased way examining the internal and external supports for dating and authorship,the weight of the evidence is against them.

And you never did explain why the authorities didn't just produce the dead body of Jesus to counter the resurrection preaching,or why no one would have checked the tomb themselves, since it was in Jerusalem?

Or how they came to believe he had risen from the dead and that they had seen him physically alive. individually,in groups and on separate occasions.



Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:50 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Flann wrote:
They just can't accept the whole idea of genuine prophecy.


yeah, what's wrong with them?!?! :x

Flann wrote:
And you never did explain why the authorities didn't just produce the dead body of Jesus to counter the resurrection preaching,or why no one would have checked the tomb themselves, since it was in Jerusalem?

Or how they came to believe he had risen from the dead and that they had seen him physically alive. individually,in groups and on separate occasions.



yeah, i mean it's written in a book, what's wrong with these unbelievers, it's like they want evidence from outside the book, crazy hey!

i have the same problem with people when i try to tell them about baby krishna, who rocks by the way :-D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHPKXvhnz-A



Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:11 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Likes the book better than the movie


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 841
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 470 times in 359 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
More proof the gospels were written by the men they are named for:

Matthew, Mark and Luke all recount the Transfiguration. This incredible (literally incredible, it seems) event where Jesus went up on a mountain and shone with a brilliant light and then Elijah and Moses appear alongside him and then a bright cloud appears and from it issues the voice of god. The witnesses were Peter, John and James. But strangely, John doesn't recount it! Some say he mentions it in 1:14 but it's so offhand and general that he must not have been that impressed by it. The only way John could have not mentioned the Transfiguration when the other witnesses say he was there is if the account purportedly written by John was not written by him.



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
youkrst
Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:17 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ
Flann wrote:
Their naturalistic presuppositions preclude them from, for example, accepting John's gospel's account as being of an eyewitness to miraculous healings, and the death and subsequent resurrection appearances of Christ.


It's not a presupposition. It's a conclusion. We conclude that the most we can know is the natural world. We've been over this, in the thread on the supernatural.

What this means is that if there is a claim that something is not natural, then extraordinary evidence is required. What the bible provides us with is extraordinarily shabby.

Quote:
So they claim they can't be by the authors attested by the titles and reject the testimony of those close to these authors.


Who are you to say they're wrong?
Quote:
And what about those unresolved ones? You seem to believe in naturalistic miracles. How do you distinguish between a naturalistic miracle and the usual natural course of events?
A miracle is contrary to the natural course of events surely.


The unresolved ones have always existed, all throughout time. Aurora borealis, lightning, clouds, stars, the moon, etc. These have all been unresolved at one point, and have all turned out to be naturalistic. Yet they were previously considered supernatural. You're simply in denial if you don't see the pattern.

Regarding naturalistic miracles, it's simply a matter of the rarity of the associated events. It is a subjective classification. Your grandpa dies and you use his lotto ticket numbers for the first time and they win the jackpot, then you use that money to save your son's life - it's an extraordinary series of events. It's a miracle. It's a miracle because of how rare the combination of events is. But this most certainly does not mean it's supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about it.

Quote:
Craig Keener's accounts are interesting and the point is the frequent link between specific prayer to God and sudden healing.
These cannot be explained psychosomatically in the majority of cases.


Of course there's a frequent link. The key is comparing that frequency with the frequency of all the other combinations of events. How often to people pray, yet there is NO sudden healing? How often is there sudden healing, but no initial prayer?

How do you conclude that there is statistical significance over and above the other combinations? Well, you perform an experiment and control the variables. That's been done, and prayer has no effect. In fact, it had a slightly negative effect.

Quote:
You don't have to believe me Interbane. If you want to study the arguments for or against the reliability of the N.T. documents you can do that.


I did, and it's a joke. First of all, it's amazing you think that all the witnesses held the accounts of their witness in their heads for 40 some years. Where did they memorize it from? So they witnessed it, and it stuck in their memory as good as the monks that use endless repetition to memorize things? That simply isn't how the human mind works. Even if they had a video camera recording the events, they'd have to watch the recordings for endless hours to commit it reliably enough to memory to last for even a single year.

But you expect me to believe they saw something once, memorized it, then spat it back out 40 years later?

Second, in the link you provided, there is absolutely nothing conclusive about dating. It's all about what "probably happened", and what "the majority of scholars in this country believe".

This is freaking light years removed from what I'm looking for Flann. First of all, if the events were written down on the exact day they happened, you STILL couldn't rule out embellishment or fabrication. You CAN'T rule it out. It's impossible. Think about it. How could you rule it out? By saying that people in that time died for their beliefs? You already know why that doesn't work. So how?

But the events weren't written down on the day they happened. And the chain of custody went through countless hands, without checks and balances against alterations for a long time. Bleh :slap:

Quote:
And you never did explain why the authorities didn't just produce the dead body of Jesus to counter the resurrection preaching,or why no one would have checked the tomb themselves, since it was in Jerusalem?


What makes you think there was a dead body? Because the bible tells you so? Hold up cowboy, you can't support the bible at the same time you use it to support itself. This is circular. It's a snake eating it's tail.

Quote:
Or how they came to believe he had risen from the dead and that they had seen him physically alive. individually,in groups and on separate occasions.


What makes you think people saw him physically alive? Because the bible said that's what happened?

You can't support a thing with itself before it's supported. Please tell me this is getting through to you.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
youkrst
Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:00 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 246 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank