- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 18 2009,01:54)
(Stu)Quote Tacitus, writing his independent reference was almost certainly inventing his own 'gospel' based on what christians told him. He got the detail about Pontius Pilate's official title wrong and there were no records to consult due to fires in public buildings, so he was not basing his account on anything more than the christian belief of those he consulted. (P)Let's see what you consider “evidence” –
1st statement: “…was almost certainly…” is not even an assertion. It means “I have no evidence. If you did, it would be an assertion.
(Stu)Learn some philosophy then get back to us.
Col 2:8 “Beware lest any man make a captive of you through PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Nah! Don't think so.
(P)
Quote 2nd statement: “…He got the detail about Pontius Pilate's official title wrong and there were no records to consult due to fires in public buildings…” If there were no public records due to fires in public buildings, where did you get your record?
(Stu)Are you saying there is no such thing as human memory?
If Tacitus got it wrong as you suggest, would that not argue against accurate memory?
(P)
Quote “…probably from Christian sources…” is not exactly a rebuttal.
It is a statement of probability, having no evidence to substantiate it.(Stu) It is an estimate of the relative likelihood of what happened. I gave my reasoning. Did you read it?
So you consider your own estimate (not accurate measure) of relative likelihood (Not accurate history) to be better than a revelation from God! THAT's nothing but a guess, and that guess is based on doubt, not on likelihood.
(Stu)
Quote Like the writing of the gospels and Paul, ALL this writing is from the century that followed the death of Jesus. There are no references written during his alleged three years of ministry, let alone any way to verify an event from the life of the 12-year old Jesus. (P) You mean like the seven centuries of prophecies written PRIOR TO HIS BIRTH?
(Stu) What are you talking about? There is no mention of “Jesus” before the NT.
Sure there is. From Gen 3:15 to Mal 3:1 There are many references to Messiah, under different names and designations, but proven to be Jesus Christ.
(P)
Quote As for not anything written during his three years of public ministry, how many politicians do you know that have running commentary on their life before they become public figures? (Stu) So we agree, there is nothing credible written about Jesus at the age of 12, nor anything during the time of his alleged ministry.
How does “three years of public ministry” of my statement translate to “Jesus at the age of twelve?” Why did you not respond to the question?
(P)
Quote As for the events of his life at age twelve, do you not consider the Holy Spirit to be an eyewitness? (Stu) What is a holy spirit?
If you have not read the book, what qualifies you to critique it?
(P)
Quote The writers who give the account were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write about events of HIS choosing. Of have you not read the book? (Stu) What holy spirit?
How do you consider reading books ABOUT the bible, to be factual, if you have not read THE BIBLE? Is that not just a tad unfair? That sounds to me like a jury that would listen only to the prosecution and not to the defense, prior to reaching a verdict.
(Stu)
Quote Like the writing of the gospels and Paul, ALL this writing is from the century that followed the death of Jesus. (P)Assume Jesus died on the day before his birthday [the actual date of his birth and death being uncertain] in 33 a.d. – His resurrection would then take place in the century following his death. Your point makes no sense.
(Stu) What resurrection? Your assertion makes no sense.
If your answer is supposed to be a response it simply shows you have no knowledge of scripture.
If you answer is intended to mock my post, it simply shows you have no manners.
(P)
Quote Paul was interviewed by Jesus after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, and the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the events of which they wrote. AND they had the extra blessing of inspiration to avoid error in their accounts. (Stu) Humans do not give interviews after they have died. What ascension? Those are fantasy ideas asserted by your books of historical fiction but they are not verified in any way by people who wrote about seeing them, or by any independent source that refers to such witness accounts. It only occurs as part of christian mythology and nowhere else. We do not even know who the gospel writers were. Even if we did, show me where in any of the gospels it says that the writers were eyewitnesses.
Why? So you can have more reason to mock and deride Christian beliefs? I do not intend to feed your insatiable appetite for mockery any longer.
'Bye.
Paladin
Quote Col 2:8 “Beware lest any man make a captive of you through PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Nah! Don't think so.
OK. Perhaps you might avoid commenting on the nature of evidence then, given your self-imposed ignorance.Quote If Tacitus got it wrong as you suggest, would that not argue against accurate memory?
It would be more a case of who he asked, than failing memory, surely.Quote So you consider your own estimate (not accurate measure) of relative likelihood (Not accurate history) to be better than a revelation from God! THAT's nothing but a guess, and that guess is based on doubt, not on likelihood.
What god?Stu: What are you talking about? There is no mention of “Jesus” before the NT.
Quote Sure there is. From Gen 3:15 to Mal 3:1 There are many references to Messiah, under different names and designations, but proven to be Jesus Christ.
Once again, please either read the philosophy that defines the correct usage of the word proof, or please desist from using it. My point is that it says messiah, but it does not say Jesus, or any variant on that name, nor give any biographical, geographical or temporal predictions. You could not take the fantasy messianic ‘prophecies’ and construct any predictive case for Jesus. It is all self-fulfillment after the fact.Quote How does “three years of public ministry” of my statement translate to “Jesus at the age of twelve?” Why did you not respond to the question?
You were not clear. Would you like another go?
Stu: What is a holy spirit?Quote If you have not read the book, what qualifies you to critique it?
Which book are we talking about here? One of the 66 of the canon of your mythology or all of it? If we are just talking about an historical novel here, and you are not actually suggesting that any of this is more than fictional, then I can play along with that, but you constantly break the fourth wall, as it were.What holy ghost? The fictional one in the Judeo-christian scripture or something else?
Quote How do you consider reading books ABOUT the bible, to be factual, if you have not read THE BIBLE? Is that not just a tad unfair? That sounds to me like a jury that would listen only to the prosecution and not to the defense, prior to reaching a verdict.
On what basis do you reject the existence of Zeus (if you do)? Are you familiar enough with ancient classical beliefs to make that judgement?Stu: What resurrection? Your assertion makes no sense.
Quote If your answer is supposed to be a response it simply shows you have no knowledge of scripture.
If you answer is intended to mock my post, it simply shows you have no manners.
I am serious. You simply talk about these things as if I assent to their reality. Are you serious about it being real or are you just quoting the christian fantasy story? If you intend that we consider people walking again after they have been judicially executed an historical reality you better be able to do more than just assert it. If I tried that on you I hope you would challenge me on it. Well this is my challenge to your mythology. Put up extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, or don’t make them, especially if you are going to try and use them as a basis for constructing an argument. If the assumption is not valid then neither is the argument, as you might know if you bothered with philosophy.Stu: show me where in any of the gospels it says that the writers were eyewitnesses.
Quote Why? So you can have more reason to mock and deride Christian beliefs? I do not intend to feed your insatiable appetite for mockery any longer.
OK. So we have established, unchallenged, that we do not know who the gospel writers were, that they were not eyewitnesses to Jesus, and that there is no special evidence to support resurrection of Jesus.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 18 2009,07:04)
(P)Quote Col 2:8 “Beware lest any man make a captive of you through PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Nah! Don't think so. (Stu) OK. Perhaps you might avoid commenting on the nature of evidence then, given your self-imposed ignorance.
If you will avoid commenting on the nature of evidence, given your nature-imposed ignorance.
(P)
Quote If Tacitus got it wrong as you suggest, would that not argue against accurate memory? (Stu) It would be more a case of who he asked, than failing memory, surely.
Again, guesswork and supposition translated into “probability.”
(P)
Quote So you consider your own estimate (not accurate measure) of relative likelihood (Not accurate history) to be better than a revelation from God! THAT's nothing but a guess, and that guess is based on doubt, not on likelihood. (Stu) What god?
If you are an athiest, why do you prowl the Christian discussion boards? There is no argument you can possibly win because we are a faith-oriented group of believers in scripture. While you are a doubt-oriented disclaimer of all that is scriptural.
If you are not an athiest, why do you go to so much trouble to make athiest sounds?
(Stu)
Quote What are you talking about? There is no mention of “Jesus” before the NT. (P)Sure there is. From Gen 3:15 to Mal 3:1 There are many references to Messiah, under different names and designations, but proven to be Jesus Christ.
(Stu) Once again, please either read the philosophy that defines the correct usage of the word proof, or please desist from using it. My point is that it says messiah, but it does not say Jesus, or any variant on that name, nor give any biographical, geographical or temporal predictions. You could not take the fantasy messianic ‘prophecies’ and construct any predictive case for Jesus. It is all self-fulfillment after the fact.
I don't have to “read the philosophy that defines the correct usage of the word proof.” I have developed my own philosophy about the correct usage of the word proof. And it is based on my knowledge of scripture.
Assume-
A = no God…OR
B = God is…
If A
then
Assumption #1 = Matter always existed
Assumption #2 = Energy always existed
Assumption #3 = Energy Acted on Matter, and caused all that is.If B
then
Assumption #1 God is, and his revelation about himself is to be believed.All else is revelation.
YOU begin with three unproved assumptions.
I begin with one assumption verified by a best selling book by the author.What holy ghost? The fictional one in the Judeo-christian scripture or something else?
(P)
Quote How do you consider reading books ABOUT the bible, to be factual, if you have not read THE BIBLE? Is that not just a tad unfair? That sounds to me like a jury that would listen only to the prosecution and not to the defense, prior to reaching a verdict. (Stu) On what basis do you reject the existence of Zeus (if you do)? Are you familiar enough with ancient classical beliefs to make that judgement?
Very much so. I believe in the existence of Zeus. I just do not believe in the version made up by modern men. I believe in the version referenced by the scriptures.
(Stu)
Quote show me where in any of the gospels it says that the writers were eyewitnesses. (P)Why? So you can have more reason to mock and deride Christian beliefs? I do not intend to feed your insatiable appetite for mockery any longer.
(Stu) OK. So we have established, unchallenged, that we do not know who the gospel writers were, that they were not eyewitnesses to Jesus, and that there is no special evidence to support resurrection of Jesus.
How does my impatience at your continual mockery establish your position? You have established nothing whatsoever. No witnessing testimony, no reference to the antiscriptural books you have been reading, no reference to your “higher criticism” works you have been quoting, nothing.
Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
You wanted eyewitness accounts. Now YOU produce one eyewitness who disputes it.
Paladin
Quote If you are an athiest, why do you prowl the Christian discussion boards? There is no argument you can possibly win because we are a faith-oriented group of believers in scripture. While you are a doubt-oriented disclaimer of all that is scriptural.
I realise that reality has no effect on many here, but is this your defense of the reality of your Imaginary Sky Friend? You reject reality, but your god is real. That is the kind of circular logic I have grown used to here.Quote If you are not an athiest, why do you go to so much trouble to make athiest sounds?
It is no trouble, really.Quote I don't have to “read the philosophy that defines the correct usage of the word proof.” I have developed my own philosophy about the correct usage of the word proof. And it is based on my knowledge of scripture.
Assume-
A = no God…
OR
B = God is…
If A
then
Assumption #1 = Matter always existed
Assumption #2 = Energy always existed
Assumption #3 = Energy Acted on Matter, and caused all that is.
Those are not the assumptions under which I work.Energy IS matter (Einstein).
Gravitational energy from the expansion of the universe became matter (Hawking).Quote If B
then
Assumption #1 God is, and his revelation about himself is to be believed.All else is revelation.
YOU begin with three unproved assumptions.
I begin with one assumption verified by a best selling book by the author.
I got mine down to one (Hawking). Maybe god used the Hawking mechanism to create matter and energy, or maybe there is no need for a god, it just happens. Occam’s razor, that which you invoked above, cuts the former down to just the latter.Stu: On what basis do you reject the existence of Zeus (if you do)? Are you familiar enough with ancient classical beliefs to make that judgement?
Quote Very much so. I believe in the existence of Zeus. I just do not believe in the version made up by modern men. I believe in the version referenced by the scriptures.
The question remains: do you know enough about ancient mythology to reject their notions of Zeus?Stu: OK. So we have established, unchallenged, that we do not know who the gospel writers were, that they were not eyewitnesses to Jesus, and that there is no special evidence to support resurrection of Jesus.
Quote How does my impatience at your continual mockery establish your position? You have established nothing whatsoever. No witnessing testimony, no reference to the antiscriptural books you have been reading, no reference to your “higher criticism” works you have been quoting, nothing.
There is no eyewitness to Jesus being killed then walking upright. That is the invention of other, older religions that your religion has adopted as a non-negotiable tenet. In regards to a dogma that christians have invented I do not bear the burden of proof; in regards demonstrating the point about christianity being unoriginal in its theft from other traditions, I happily accept such a burden. Do you need the references? I will find them and post them if you do, but I would not have thought any christian worth their history would need this pointed out.Quote Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
This does NOT say that Luke was an eyewitness of Jesus.Quote Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
A treatise is not an eyewitness account.Quote You wanted eyewitness accounts. Now YOU produce one eyewitness who disputes it.
Still waiting for your eyewitness account, actually.By the way, it is atheist. As in not theist.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
