Robert Tulip wrote:No Flann, you don’t get it.
Naturalistic presuppositions, which inform the coherence of all modern knowledge, cannot be proved, but are assumed a priori, as necessary conditions of experience. We cannot prove the universe exists but we assume it as an axiom that makes elegant sense.

Science assumes the universe exists and that matter/energy obeys consistent coherent laws of physics.

Anyone who suggests events that conflict with observed and corroborated universal laws of physics is indeed guilty of absurdity, despite your bizarre statement to the contrary. As Hume argued, it is far more likely that you are wrong or deceptive than that any alleged miracles actually occurred.

Hi Robert. Of course Christian theists recognize that God has established laws and regularities in nature which are the norm. God is not bound by his own laws though.
The philosophical question is how can you justify the existence of universal, abstract (non material) laws of logic or nature on philosophical naturalistic materialism?
Bear in mind too that in relation to the resurrection of Jesus there is the enigma of the empty tomb and the multiple and various post resurrection appearances to various individuals and groups.
http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/15.htm

Ok, let me try it this way;
This thread is about how certain specific claims are made regarding Christianity.
Those claims are that Jesus was/is a myth.
1) The video I posted shows that mythicists claim that Jesus was really the Christians co-opting the Egyptian god Horus
2) The video I posted shows claims that both Horus and Jesus were born on December 25.
3) The video I posted shows claims that Horus was baptized by Anup the Batptizer.
4) The video I posted shows claims that Jesus was based on Mithras.
5) The video I posted demonstrated that the above claims, and many others about Jesus being a myth, are NOT TRUE

There was a response directing me to a page which supposedly refuted my contention. In response I pointed out that there was:
1) no mention of December 25th on the page,
2) no mention of Anup the Baptizer, or Anup anything for that matter on the page,
3) no mention of Mithras on the page.
I stopped there as the point I was, and am, making is that when one is discussing something, the participants must keep the discussion within the confines of the material and not interject extraneous material as a principle subject of the post. Failure to do that results in 'blowing up' the discussion and creates a chaotic situation.

stahrwe wrote:5) The video I posted demonstrated that the above claims, and many others about Jesus being a myth, are NOT TRUE

So you're relying on a video that lampoons the mythicist position and that demonstrates to you that Jesus was not a myth? That's the same kind of circular logic that God is real because it says so in this book.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim absolutely that Jesus was a myth. The argument is that Jesus could have been a myth. We're sort of splitting hairs between Jesus was a myth or was an obscure man on which the Christian myth was later grafted. The problem is that you and Flann believe that Jesus was a god and for that there is only the Bible to fall back on. There's that same circular logic.

The video is not a very good starting point for a substantive conversation. It actually sets a tone of ridicule and superficiality as does the title of this thread. The video is also not a reliable summary of the mythicist position, it's a strawman. If that's as far as you want to delve into an issue, that's fine. But let's cut the crap.

geo wrote:

stahrwe wrote:5) The video I posted demonstrated that the above claims, and many others about Jesus being a myth, are NOT TRUE

So you're relying on a video that lampoons the mythicist position and that demonstrates to you that Jesus was not a myth? That's the same kind of circular logic that God is real because it says so in this book.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim absolutely that Jesus was a myth. The argument is that Jesus could have been a myth. We're sort of splitting hairs between Jesus was a myth or was an obscure man on which the Christian myth was later grafted. The problem is that you and Flann believe that Jesus was a god and for that there is only the Bible to fall back on. There's that same circular logic.

The video is not a very good starting point for a substantive conversation. It actually sets a tone of ridicule and superficiality as does the title of this thread. The video is also not a reliable summary of the mythicist position, it's a strawman. If that's as far as you want to delve into an issue, that's fine. But let's cut the crap.

Incorrect, my contention is that the mythicist claims mentioned in the video are clearly not supported by the mythicists, and further, those claims (Horus and Jesus born on December 25th, Horus baptized by Anup, etc.) are clearly, and demonstrably not correct. There is no circular logic in my posts on this thread. I am demonstrating that the mythicists are not telling the truth.

Geo, you seem keen to have a serious discussion of the Horus-Mithras-.../Jesus connection based on Zeitgeist, et al. While it seems unfair that the only satire that is tolerated by many of the BT community is satire at the expense of Christians, I am amenable to a serious, in-depth investigation of the subject matter. There may even be a book in it. Would you like to collaborate?

geo wrote:I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim absolutely that Jesus was a myth. The argument is that Jesus could have been a myth. We're sort of splitting hairs between Jesus was a myth or was an obscure man on which the Christian myth was later grafted. The problem is that you and Flann believe that Jesus was a god and for that there is only the Bible to fall back on. There's that same circular logic.

Hi Geo. We've been through lots of arguments on previous threads about how the myth thesis is untenable for a wide variety of reasons. Genre, Historical attestation etc.
The obscure man on which Christian myth was later grafted doesn't work either. Even Ehrman recognizes in his "How Jesus became God" book that belief in the divinity of Jesus was very early and not a later legendary development and this is a mainstream scholarly view even among many liberals.

Of course I do rely on the Bible as a revelation from God. At the same time there is plenty of evidence for it's divine origin in the many detailed historically fulfilled prophecies found in it. I know the liberal arguments and their standard tactic of attempting post dating these.

But they cannot do this in many cases such as with Isaiah,Daniel and Jeremiah which plainy predate Christ's coming. Where they do attempt postdating prophecies their arguments fail and I spent some time for example showing the problems with dating Acts and therefore Luke after A.D. 70. Likewise I showed the failure of liberal scholars arguments on the book of Daniel in attempting to date this to the Maccabean period. In fact even if they do this the book still clearly predates Christ so it's just a way of trying to postdate other prophecies in Daniel relating to the four empires, by them.
The thing is that in believing the gospels and trusting in Christ believers do come to have a living relationship with God. I know some people say this is subjective but it is a reality for many.
Likewise God does hear and answer prayer. I gave the example of Hudson Taylor's life a long time ago and the many remarkable answers to prayer he recounts in his autobiography. This was just an example of this.
I find neither astrotheology or Carrier's sub lunar crucifixion and hallucinations theory at all credible but symptomatic of the kind of absurdities that arise when people look for alternatives to the obvious and plain explanations actually given in the N.T.
The argument that miracles must by definition mean that this must be fiction is ultimately grounded in a belief system founded on philosophical naturalism as a worldview.
It seems you hold to this worldview. Everyone is free to believe what they want for better or worse. I do think that when absurd theories are presented as purported explanations for the origins and history of Christianity they are validly subject to legitimate critical scrutiny.
While satire may not be argument it seems that certain theories are almost begging to be satirised. At the same time I don't question that these may be sincerely held views and don't question the intelligence of Robert and other mythicists who hold to these ideas. It does baffle me I must say that they do, but that's the way things are.

Flann wrote:It does baffle me I must say that they do, but that's the way things are.

yeah and robin hood was a guy with a bow and arrow

“Christianity was neither original nor unique, but that the roots of much of the Judeo/ Christian tradition lay in the prevailing Kamite (ancient Egyptian) culture of the region. We are faced with the inescapable realisation that if Jesus had been able to read the documents of old Egypt, he would have been amazed to find his own biography already substantially written some four or five thousand years previously.”
― Gerald Massey

Academics, meanwhile, have combed the historical record for evidence of a real Robin Hood. English legal records suggest that, as early as the 13th century, “Robehod,” “Rabunhod” and other variations had become common epithets for criminals. But what had inspired these nicknames: a fictional tale, an infamous bandit or an amalgam of both? The first literary references to Robin Hood appear in a series of 14th- and 15th-century ballads about a violent yeoman who lived in Sherwood Forest with his men and frequently clashed with the Sheriff of Nottingham.

a violent yeoman who lived in Sherwood Forest with his men and frequently clashed with the Sheriff of Nottingham.

and so it is to this day...

How Ya Goin' Sherriff

Hello youkrst, long time no see. So glad to see you posting amongst this pair of cuckoos in stahrwe and flann. They drive me bananas!!

A cuckoo is a bird that lays eggs in other birds nests under false pretenses.

Both stahrwe and flann post here on the false pretense of being rational when in fact they are totally crazy.

They are both kookoo cuckoos.

It is like the Mad Hatters Tea Party in this thread. Stah constantly maintains black and blue swear on the bible that he did not say what is plain before us in the thread, while flann has this weird vendetta against science, suggesting the method of use of evidence is totally bizarre. They should share some lead with the hatter to improve their vision.

Robert Tulip wrote: It is like the Mad Hatters Tea Party in this thread. Stah constantly maintains black and blue swear on the bible that he did not say what is plain before us in the thread, while flann has this weird vendetta against science, suggesting the method of use of evidence is totally bizarre. They should share some lead with the hatter to improve their vision.

I don't have a vendetta against science. While this is not the subject of this thread, in fact Christian theists appeal to natural phenomena such as the existence of complex interacting biological codes as evidence for a transcendent mind behind the natural order.

Likewise I've appealed to Pasteur's discovery of life only coming from pre-existent life as an argument against the original spontaneous generation of life by random chemical means as ruling out a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.
I linked Prof James Tour's talk on the subject to highlight the sheer complexity of the required chemical processes and the stupendous difficulties any such random naturalistic processes would have to surmount.
I have argued against neo-Darwinism but have given reasons for this on the relevant threads. I accept this theory is the currently accepted majority view among biologists but question the theory nonetheless.
This is not the subject of this thread but I don't have a vendetta against science. On the contrary, I appeal to scientific evidence even when disputing with the neo-Darwinian theory.