Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible. - Page 26

Rincewind · 30th January 2013, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

So then you believe if something is not recorded in history, it couldn't possibly have happened.

ETA And I don't believe Jesus was recorded as saying anything as he was being whipped and forced to carry his cross on the way to the crucifixion spot. (brought to the slaughter as Isaiah states)

DOC,

The first part of your reply bears no relevance to my post. I was comparing two Bible quotes, which you apparently don't believe are history.

John doesn't support your belief about a tight-lipped Jesus, though. As in the quote you supplied.

Shall we call an ambulance? - you seem to have shot yourself in the foot....

Akhenaten · 30th January 2013, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Rincewind

DOC,

Isaiah mentions that there was no reply twice.

From your quote here, Pilate asks a question, and gets no reply. Ok, so now we're 1 for 1.

Then Pilate asks a second question, and this time it's answered! So - 1 for 2, therefore, using your "evidence", this prophecy fails.

Next!

So then you believe if something is not recorded in history, it couldn't possibly have happened.

ETA And I don't believe Jesus was recorded as saying anything as he was being whipped and forced to carry his cross on the way to the crucifixion spot. (brought to the slaughter as Isaiah states)

You were the one who provided the quote from John with the bolded bits that you claimed were evidence that Jesus was silent.

No matter how much you twist and turn, there's no way for you to plausibly deny that that very same passage contains a quote of the words he apparently did speak:

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Reality Check

...That man was silent durring his opression and affliction
Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
Jesus did not keep his mouth closed.

JOHN 19:7-11 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

It beggars belief that you would try to use the above passage to demonstrate that Jesus was silent and when your error is pointed out claim that the prophecy was actually talking about his silence at some other time.

And that that silence is, in fact, not noted - it is simply a lack of evidence that he said anything.

This is easily the most intellectually bankrupt argument you've ever attempted.

It's like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar and not just denying that you were stealing cookies but trying to get away with claiming that the jar doesn't even exist.

A four-year-old could come up with something more convincing.

Akhenaten · 30th January 2013, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You have your opinion and "Young's literal Translation" has his. People can believe whoever they want.

Does it bother you that nobody at all believes you?

If so, what do you plan to do about it?

If not, why are you here?

zooterkin · 30th January 2013, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Which post are you talking about that said I read most of the book or is this another invisible ad hom?

Perhaps he was misled by your own words. Could you clarify? When you said:

Originally Posted by DOC

And AK, if I didn't read a good portion of Bart Ehrman's latest book I'd be willing to bet you would have spent the next 5 years not knowing he said "Jesus certainly existed" and said "there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ".

Originally Posted by DOC

I have read a good portion of the book. I've said that before.

what exactly did you mean by "a good portion"?

I realise that accusing you of reading most of a book is an outrageous slur.

RoboTimbo · 30th January 2013, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

People can believe whoever they want.

You've made this hilariously obvious.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Can you really not see this?

Only the invisible parts, apparently.

DOC · 30th January 2013, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

The bible says miracles happened. Fulfilled prophecy can be considered a miracle. So if we can give evidence for fulfilled prophecies in the bible that would be evidence that some miracles happened in the bible.

Many people believe Isaiah Chapter 53 prophesied of Jesus:

Isaiah Chapter 53

[SNIP]
10 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;

11 he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

12 and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

[SNIP]

Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak:

Luke 23:9 Then (Herod) questioned (Jesus) in many words; but (Jesus) answered him nothing.

Matthew 27: 12 And when (Jesus) was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Mark 15 3-5 And the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed.

Edited by kmortis:

Redacted for brevity. The first time was left alone as it was borderline Rule 6 compliant. This time you could have snipped it down.

Slowvehicle · 30th January 2013, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Which post are you talking about that said I read most of the book or is this another invisible ad hom?

1. There is no such thing as an "invisible ad hom" What do you think the term means?

2. Do you deny that you said, in one post, that you had read "most" of Did Jesus Exist?, and in another, different post, that you had read "about 30%"? I will be more than glad to "bring the link", but not until you commit.

Did you:
A. read all of Did Jesus Exist?
B. read "most of" Did Jesus Exist?
C. read "30%" of Did Jesus Exist?
D. read some other, as yet not identified, portion of Did Jesus Exist?
E. not really read Did Jesus Exist? at all, other than quote-mining the dust jacket and multiple on-line reviews

I await your answer with interest.

Akhenaten · 30th January 2013, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak:

<fairytale>

No, DOC, that is untrue.

The claim, supported by the evidence of a passage that you quoted yourself, was that Jesus spoke at least once and therefore the prophecy fails.

ETA: What a meaningless prophecy/fulfillment pair this is turning out to be. The only way for the prophecy to be considered unfulfilled according to your ad hoc rules would be for Jesus to babble non-stop from the moment of his arrest. As soon as he stops talking for more than the time it takes to draw a breath you'll be all, like, "Aha! Silence! The prophecy is fulfilled!"

DOC · 30th January 2013, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

Do you deny that you said, in one post, that you had read "most" of Did Jesus Exist?, and in another, different post, that you had read "about 30%"? I will be more than glad to "bring the link", but not until you commit.

This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.

Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE.

The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.

RoboTimbo · 30th January 2013, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed"

Don't you remember reading, "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence"?

So you agree with Ehrman?

Slowvehicle · 30th January 2013, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---

With all due respect, that is one of the things you have said about how much of Did Jesus Exist? you have read.

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with.

I'll overlook the visible argument ad hominem (with just a suggestion of poisoning the well), and say that I would not ever claim support from an author based on "skimming" a book. One of the reasons this is an issue is that you claim that Ehrman supports your opinion about Jesus...and you missed, in your "skimming", what Ehrman actually says. Just as you missed Ehrman's treatment od the "messianic" "prophecies" in Isaiah.

Originally Posted by DOC

In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.

Again, if I were going to claim that an author supports my opinion, I would not stoop to doing so based on "skimming" the Table of Contents of one book...

Originally Posted by DOC

Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE.

You have made this claim before, and the problems with it have been pointed out to you. Most specifically, you ignore the Ehrman's actual position about the existence of Jesus.

You really ought to consider reading Did Jesus Exist?. It isn't a very long book--re-reading it took me little more than a two-hour flight this weekend.

Originally Posted by DOC

The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.

Two things, DOC:
-What is Ehrman's final word about the existence of Jesus, as a historical figure? In other words, what "important information" does Ehrman actually offer? (hint: it's in the book)
-What is your actual answer to my question of how much of Did Jesus Exist? you, personally, have read?

DOC · 30th January 2013, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Don't you remember reading, "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence"?

So you agree with Ehrman?

No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.

Akhenaten · 30th January 2013, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---

That's not all you wrote though, now is it?

For example, didn't you also write this?

Originally Posted by DOC

Believe me, I read a good portion of the book.

Are you sure you want to continue with this?

Slowvehicle · 30th January 2013, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.

Had you read the book, you would recognize Ehrman's central argument. You have been provided the citation several times--if you did not bother to read it then, why would you bother to read it now?

Seriously--consider actually reading Did Jesus Exist?, if for no other reason that to avoid the continued error of claiming that Ehrman supports your opinions about Jesus...

ETA: Out of curiosity, what good would the exact citation do you, as you do not "have access to" a copy of Did Jesus Exist?, and have stated that you do not need to read it?

carlitos · 30th January 2013, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.

Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE.

The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.

So*, you surfed some apologist websites, and found some online quotes from the book, and copy / pasted them here. Thanks for confirming.

(Posting under "Rule of So," so my point stands)

zooterkin · 30th January 2013, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.

Why don't you tell us which page it's on? You've had since last June to find it.

Originally Posted by Agatha

It's true, I wear it with pride.

The kindle version of the book has 4 reviews on amazon.co.uk (and no, I'm not going to spend £8.49 to see if I agree with the reviewers who give it an average of 3.2/5)

The most highlighted phrase in the book by kindle users is "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence."

Are you still trumpeting the book as a "win" for your particular brand of Christianity, DOC?

Resume · 30th January 2013, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour . . .

Now this bible you claim to believe . . . also skimmed?

RoboTimbo · 30th January 2013, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.

LOL. I'll let you work out which book. It's in chapter 1. How can you claim to have read 30% if you didn't read chapter 1?

Rincewind · 30th January 2013, 11:10 AM

I note you wrote this:

"I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ"

Did you ever tell us what these solid reasons are?

Thank you.

ddt · 30th January 2013, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

You have your opinion and "Young's literal Translation" has his. People can believe whoever they want.

That's the most you can say, because you don't have a clue about how languages work and differ. I bet you don't even know a single language beyond your own - strike that, you haven't even shown proper command of English here.

This is what Robert Young wrote in the preface to his "Literal Translation":

Quote:

If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.

In other words: he translated verb forms in the original in precisely the same tense in English, and in precisely the same mood (that is, described with the necessary auxiliary verbs in English), without regard for the different needs - like the sequence of tenses - in the source and target languages. Anyone with some exposure to foreign languages knows that such an approach is moronic, and doesn't yield a meaningful translation.

Reality Check · 30th January 2013, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

JOHN 19:7-11 7 ...

This is an amazing bit of ignorance from you, DOC

!
John 18:36

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

JOHN 19:7-11 7

The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Matthew 26:39

And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."

Matthew 27:46

"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Jesus spoke and thus is not the silent, ugly man who lived 500 years before Jesus as the actual text of Isaiah 53 states

!

DOC, you ignored the other point that this song is about a "Suffering Servant" that existed in the past, i.e. 500 years before Jesus existed.

Isaiah 53

Quote:

The fourth of the "servant songs" begins at Isaiah 52:13, continuing through 53:12 where it continues the discussion of the suffering servant. There is also a rather clear identification for the "servant" within this song. In the context of its surrounding verses, Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 54, one can deduce that the song refers to the Nation of Israel, rather not to an individual.

We have to wonder abut the Chrsitians selecting to split the verse up so that the past tense that makes it obvious that it does not refer to Jesus is separated from the evaluation of the Servant by the "many nations, kings".

ddt · 30th January 2013, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by eight bits

I wouldn't think so, surely not until Jesus had ascended. As long as he was on Earth, presumably he could have undone any death. Isn't the negotiable, contingent, reversible and worst-case temporary character of bodily death pretty much what that religion is about?

Good point, but to what extent? AFAIK, normal humans are not supposed to resurrect from death, except all at once at the End Times when Jesus is going to judge them all.

But I'd like to raise another point. Acts is, in fact, the sequel to Luke's gospel. Luke never mentions anything about Judas after his betrayal: no remorse, no throwing the 30 pieces into the temple like Matthew does. He only comes back to Judas' fate in this Acts 1:16-20 passage. Where does it say when Judas actually died? It could as well have been after Ascension in Luke's version.

Originally Posted by eight bits

Anyway, even if we accept that Peter is first in the pecking order, it doesn't follow that he has any power not specifically delegated to him. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, acknowledge the primacy of Peter and his successors (like Ben16), but deny their supremacy.

So who has? Nobody has specifically been given such power by Jesus. But the description in Acts of this choosing a new Twelfth disciple doesn't preclude that they were at the time an anarcho-syndicalist commune and Peter happened to be the executive officer of the week.

Or, Peter is simply tabling a motion to appoint a new disciple and the motion apparently carries.

Originally Posted by eight bits

It really is an eye-opener, isn't it? There must have been some crisis when people realized that Jesus wasn't coming back any time soon, when the last of the earliest leaders died. The party line needed updating; throwing Peter under the bus was one way to do it. Or so it seems.

In this context, it's apt that DOC has decided to dig up that quote about "this generation shall not pass".

But I don't see how this passage solves the problem that Jesus did not come back during their lifetime - because he didn't come back. Moreover, I don't see how it helps that the author pretends to be John the disciple (or more precisely, "the disciple Jesus loves")?

Reality Check · 30th January 2013, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak:

Regarding the bolded part:

10 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
11 he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
12 and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

This is a statement that the servant did not open their mouth when they were "oppressed and afflicted" and when they were "led like a lamb to the slaughter".

Jesus opened his mouth when he was "oppressed and afflicted" and was "led like a lamb to the slaughter" as you quoted yourself and as stated in several verses:

John 18:36
John 19:7-11 7
Matthew 26:39
Matthew 27:46

Several skeptics have pointed the simple fact that the servant in Isaiah did not open his mouth while the New testament states that Jesus did open his mouth. Thus Jesus is not the servant.

From Jewish Isaiah 53, a couple of evaluations of the song w.r.t Jesus being the servant (PDFs):
ISAIAH 53 PART 1- PDF by Rabbi Moshe Shulman.
The “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 by Penina Taylor.
The latter is a verse by verse analysis that shows that Jesus could not be the servant, e.g. Isaiah 53:10 explicitly states that the servant will see his physical offspring (not figurative children - these are 2 different words in Hebrew). Jesus had no children.
ETA the conclusion is worth quoting:

Quote:

Isaiah 52 speaks about the suffering of the Jewish people throughout history and their ultimate redemption.
Isaiah 54 speaks about the suffering of the Jewish people throughout history and their ultimate redemption.
As it turns out, Isaiah 53 is the same story. The Jewish people are despised, rejected, and persecuted. Then, they are exalted, redeemed, lifted up. Since this is a theme that runs consistently throughout the book of Isaiah, especially chapters 40 through the end, there is no reason to believe that chapter 53 has suddenly shifted gears and is talking about something entirely different. The conclusion is clear: the servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel.

carlitos · 30th January 2013, 03:52 PM

As I don't have the heart to go to the other thread or threads, wasn't "pierced" for his transgressions another problem in translation from the Greek that was sort of retro-fitted?

Akuma Tennou · 30th January 2013, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak: <snip>

I'm not sure about this, if someone can confirm it, but I think the repetition in Isaiah about the silence is a poetic way of saying never. The whole OT is filled with such repetitions emphases, like the double-donkey-lulz. So the problem is not that jesus talked once but that he talked at all.

Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou

It should have been enough. Maybe he only read 30% of the bolded part. Reading 30% of a ToC = reading most of a book. I think I'm getting the DOC's logic thing.

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

We have a support group. If you find yourself understanding more of it than you're comfortable with, drop me a PM.

D'oh, I'm coming at once!

Krikkiter · 30th January 2013, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.

Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE.

The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.

Based on the above post and previous posts, I have serious doubts as to whether you ever actually fully read anything let alone the texts that you quote.

Now, you might not think that's a problem in itself - maybe it's just a side issue for you that detracts from your argument? In which case this might help:

"Don't read a history book as if you were reading a novel for light pleasure reading."

http://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/

DOC · 31st January 2013, 02:03 AM

deleted

DOC · 31st January 2013, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

...no research that can be done, no experimental simulation or replication that can be designed to show how any 'god' could be demonstrated to exist, much less to have the ability to create without being created.

Searching for testable answers leads to discoveries. Accepting superstitious assertions leads nowhere...

Well, the Book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler/Turek doesn't accept superstitious assertions, it uses stone cold logic in their evidence for God. Here is a quote from page pg. 65.

"...we use induction to investigate God the same way we use it to investigate other things we can’t see— by observing their effects. For example, we can’t observe gravity directly; we can only observe its effects. Likewise we can’t observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. For those effects we make a rational inference to the existence of a cause."

In chapter 3 of the book the authors go into depth using science to give evidence for God.

Akuma Tennou · 31st January 2013, 02:35 AM

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a goalpost!

Recovering Agnostic · 31st January 2013, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Well, the Book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler/Turek doesn't accept superstitious assertion, it uses stone cold logic in their evidence for God. Here is a quote from page pg. 65.

"...we use induction to investigate God the same way we use it to investigate other things we can’t see— by observing their effects. For example, we can’t observe gravity directly; we can only observe its effects. Likewise we can’t observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. For those effects we make a rational inference to the existence of a cause."

In chapter 3 of the book the authors go into depth using science to give evidence for God.

Orly?

How do they tell the difference between "This happens because of natural laws" and "This happens because God"? Doesn't the methodology you describe just lead to Intelligent Falling?

biomorph · 31st January 2013, 02:39 AM

Quote:

When you can create a living cell out of non-living chemicals, your Nobel prize will be waiting. It's odd that brilliant scientific minds can't do it but non-intelligent random chance supposedly did it (at least according to the unproven scientific theory).

I'm not surprised you deleted this, as you probably are aware that this assumes it will never happen.

Seeing as the likes of Craig Venter are so close as to render your "never" as in meaning "in the foreseeable future", you know you'll get called on it.

DOC · 31st January 2013, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by biomorph

I'm not surprised you deleted this, as you probably are aware that this assumes it will never happen.

Seeing as the likes of Craig Venter are so close as to render your "never" as in meaning "in the foreseeable future", you know you'll get called on it.

I hear that a lot on the news, things like scientists estimate a cure is five years away, and that's the last I hear of it.

DOC · 31st January 2013, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a goalpost!

Actually if scientific evidence leads to rational belief in God that would be evidence that supports the bible because the bible asserts the existence of God and thus it is related to the topic.

Akuma Tennou · 31st January 2013, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually if scientific evidence leads to rational belief in God that would be evidence that supports the bible because the bible asserts the existence of God and thus it is related to the topic.

I could not care less of this now. The goalposts were exactly set on John 19:11 that you yourself pasted here. Did you read it?

biomorph · 31st January 2013, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

I hear that a lot on the news, things like scientists estimate a cure is five years away, and that's the last I hear of it.

Yes I know, it does seem that way, however someones "5 year" guesstimate is IMO just that, however progress does happen and research marches on regardless of these estimates.

Timescales are not that relevant when the "never happen" argument turns up.

Look at all the great things that have been discovered that took years to sort out, many before these things were found out would have said "never" too, and maybe even died before the dicovery was made prossbly...

However you did (rightly IMO) delete your comment, so I'm guessing here you know you were on dodgy ground.

I'm not critising you for it, I think it shows some honesty and doubt that what you posted is perhaps in your mind, arguable.

DOC · 31st January 2013, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by biomorph

However you did (rightly IMO) delete your comment, so I'm guessing here you know you were on dodgy ground.

I'm not critising you for it, I think it shows some honesty and doubt that what you posted is perhaps in your mind, arguable.

Actually that is not the reason I deleted it. I'll be glad to put it back if you want.

Akhenaten · 31st January 2013, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

In chapter 3 of the book the authors go into depth using science to give evidence for God.

I'm looking forward to you presenting it.

DOC · 31st January 2013, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

How do they tell the difference between "This happens because of natural laws" and "This happens because God"? Doesn't the methodology you describe just lead to Intelligent Falling?

Not if only the supernatural can explain a phenomenon.

Akhenaten · 31st January 2013, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually that is not the reason I deleted it. I'll be glad to put it back if you want.

I'd rather see your explanation for the three-days-and-three-nights problem please.

Especially if it's one that doesn't claim that Saturday starts at sunset on Friday.

Akhenaten · 31st January 2013, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Not if only the supernatural can explain a phenomenon.

If only the supernatural can explain something then it's not a phenomenon at all - it's a fantasy.

30th January 2013, 05:59 AM	#1002
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,640	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Rincewind DOC, Isaiah mentions that there was no reply twice. From your quote here, Pilate asks a question, and gets no reply. Ok, so now we're 1 for 1. Then Pilate asks a second question, and this time it's answered! So - 1 for 2, therefore, using your "evidence", this prophecy fails. Next! So then you believe if something is not recorded in history, it couldn't possibly have happened. ETA And I don't believe Jesus was recorded as saying anything as he was being whipped and forced to carry his cross on the way to the crucifixion spot. (brought to the slaughter as Isaiah states) You were the one who provided the quote from John with the bolded bits that you claimed were evidence that Jesus was silent. No matter how much you twist and turn, there's no way for you to plausibly deny that that very same passage contains a quote of the words he apparently did speak: Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Reality Check ...That man was silent durring his opression and affliction Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." Jesus did not keep his mouth closed. JOHN 19:7-11 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” It beggars belief that you would try to use the above passage to demonstrate that Jesus was silent and when your error is pointed out claim that the prophecy was actually talking about his silence at some other time. And that that silence is, in fact, not noted - it is simply a lack of evidence that he said anything. This is easily the most intellectually bankrupt argument you've ever attempted. It's like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar and not just denying that you were stealing cookies but trying to get away with claiming that the jar doesn't even exist. A four-year-old could come up with something more convincing.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

30th January 2013, 06:07 AM	#1003
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,640	Originally Posted by DOC You have your opinion and "Young's literal Translation" has his. People can believe whoever they want. Does it bother you that nobody at all believes you? If so, what do you plan to do about it? If not, why are you here?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

30th January 2013, 06:19 AM	#1004
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 37,738	Originally Posted by DOC Which post are you talking about that said I read most of the book or is this another invisible ad hom? Perhaps he was misled by your own words. Could you clarify? When you said: Originally Posted by DOC And AK, if I didn't read a good portion of Bart Ehrman's latest book I'd be willing to bet you would have spent the next 5 years not knowing he said "Jesus certainly existed" and said "there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ". Originally Posted by DOC I have read a good portion of the book. I've said that before. what exactly did you mean by "a good portion"? I realise that accusing you of reading most of a book is an outrageous slur.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by zooterkin; 30th January 2013 at 06:20 AM.

30th January 2013, 07:16 AM	#1007
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by DOC Which post are you talking about that said I read most of the book or is this another invisible ad hom? 1. There is no such thing as an "invisible ad hom" What do you think the term means? 2. Do you deny that you said, in one post, that you had read "most" of Did Jesus Exist?, and in another, different post, that you had read "about 30%"? I will be more than glad to "bring the link", but not until you commit. Did you: A. read all of Did Jesus Exist? B. read "most of" Did Jesus Exist? C. read "30%" of Did Jesus Exist? D. read some other, as yet not identified, portion of Did Jesus Exist? E. not really read Did Jesus Exist? at all, other than quote-mining the dust jacket and multiple on-line reviews I await your answer with interest.
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze Last edited by Slowvehicle; 30th January 2013 at 07:29 AM.

30th January 2013, 07:32 AM	#1008
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,640	Originally Posted by DOC Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak: <fairytale> No, DOC, that is untrue. The claim, supported by the evidence of a passage that you quoted yourself, was that Jesus spoke at least once and therefore the prophecy fails. ETA: What a meaningless prophecy/fulfillment pair this is turning out to be. The only way for the prophecy to be considered unfulfilled according to your ad hoc rules would be for Jesus to babble non-stop from the moment of his arrest. As soon as he stops talking for more than the time it takes to draw a breath you'll be all, like, "Aha! Silence! The prophecy is fulfilled!"
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 30th January 2013 at 07:44 AM.

30th January 2013, 05:32 AM	#1001
Rincewind Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK Posts: 7,456	Originally Posted by DOC So then you believe if something is not recorded in history, it couldn't possibly have happened. ETA And I don't believe Jesus was recorded as saying anything as he was being whipped and forced to carry his cross on the way to the crucifixion spot. (brought to the slaughter as Isaiah states) DOC, The first part of your reply bears no relevance to my post. I was comparing two Bible quotes, which you apparently don't believe are history. John doesn't support your belief about a tight-lipped Jesus, though. As in the quote you supplied. Shall we call an ambulance? - you seem to have shot yourself in the foot....

30th January 2013, 07:09 AM	#1005
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rachel, KS Posts: 27,600	Originally Posted by DOC People can believe whoever they want. You've made this hilariously obvious. Originally Posted by Akhenaten Can you really not see this? Only the invisible parts, apparently.

30th January 2013, 07:56 AM	#1009
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle Do you deny that you said, in one post, that you had read "most" of Did Jesus Exist?, and in another, different post, that you had read "about 30%"? I will be more than glad to "bring the link", but not until you commit. This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said; "I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed." --- I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about. Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE. The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Last edited by DOC; 30th January 2013 at 08:00 AM.

30th January 2013, 08:07 AM	#1010
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rachel, KS Posts: 27,600	Originally Posted by DOC I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" Don't you remember reading, "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence"? So you agree with Ehrman?

30th January 2013, 08:14 AM	#1011
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by DOC This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said; "I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed." --- With all due respect, that is one of the things you have said about how much of Did Jesus Exist? you have read. Originally Posted by DOC I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. I'll overlook the visible argument ad hominem (with just a suggestion of poisoning the well), and say that I would not ever claim support from an author based on "skimming" a book. One of the reasons this is an issue is that you claim that Ehrman supports your opinion about Jesus...and you missed, in your "skimming", what Ehrman actually says. Just as you missed Ehrman's treatment od the "messianic" "prophecies" in Isaiah. Originally Posted by DOC In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about. Again, if I were going to claim that an author supports my opinion, I would not stoop to doing so based on "skimming" the Table of Contents of one book... Originally Posted by DOC Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE. You have made this claim before, and the problems with it have been pointed out to you. Most specifically, you ignore the Ehrman's actual position about the existence of Jesus. You really ought to consider reading Did Jesus Exist?. It isn't a very long book--re-reading it took me little more than a two-hour flight this weekend. Originally Posted by DOC The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth. Two things, DOC: -What is Ehrman's final word about the existence of Jesus, as a historical figure? In other words, what "important information" does Ehrman actually offer? (hint: it's in the book) -What is your actual answer to my question of how much of Did Jesus Exist? you, personally, have read?
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze Last edited by Slowvehicle; 30th January 2013 at 08:15 AM. Reason: Fixed formatting issues

30th January 2013, 08:14 AM	#1012
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo Don't you remember reading, "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence"? So you agree with Ehrman? No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933

30th January 2013, 08:17 AM	#1013
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,640	Originally Posted by DOC This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said; "I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed." --- That's not all you wrote though, now is it? For example, didn't you also write this? Originally Posted by DOC Believe me, I read a good portion of the book. Are you sure you want to continue with this?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

30th January 2013, 08:20 AM	#1014
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by DOC No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine. Had you read the book, you would recognize Ehrman's central argument. You have been provided the citation several times--if you did not bother to read it then, why would you bother to read it now? Seriously--consider actually reading Did Jesus Exist?, if for no other reason that to avoid the continued error of claiming that Ehrman supports your opinions about Jesus... ETA: Out of curiosity, what good would the exact citation do you, as you do not "have access to" a copy of Did Jesus Exist?, and have stated that you do not need to read it?
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze Last edited by Slowvehicle; 30th January 2013 at 08:22 AM.

30th January 2013, 08:21 AM	#1015
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 17,415	Originally Posted by DOC This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said; "I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed." --- I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about. Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE. The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth. So*, you surfed some apologist websites, and found some online quotes from the book, and copy / pasted them here. Thanks for confirming. (Posting under "Rule of So," so my point stands)

30th January 2013, 08:26 AM	#1016
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 37,738	Originally Posted by DOC No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine. Why don't you tell us which page it's on? You've had since last June to find it. Originally Posted by Agatha It's true, I wear it with pride. The kindle version of the book has 4 reviews on amazon.co.uk (and no, I'm not going to spend £8.49 to see if I agree with the reviewers who give it an average of 3.2/5) The most highlighted phrase in the book by kindle users is "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence." Are you still trumpeting the book as a "win" for your particular brand of Christianity, DOC?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

30th January 2013, 08:26 AM	#1017
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 15,351	Originally Posted by DOC I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour . . . Now this bible you claim to believe . . . also skimmed?

30th January 2013, 08:32 AM	#1018
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rachel, KS Posts: 27,600	Originally Posted by DOC No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine. LOL. I'll let you work out which book. It's in chapter 1. How can you claim to have read 30% if you didn't read chapter 1?

30th January 2013, 11:10 AM	#1019
Rincewind Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK Posts: 7,456	I note you wrote this: "I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ" Did you ever tell us what these solid reasons are? Thank you.

30th January 2013, 02:19 PM	#1020
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 16,852	Originally Posted by DOC You have your opinion and "Young's literal Translation" has his. People can believe whoever they want. That's the most you can say, because you don't have a clue about how languages work and differ. I bet you don't even know a single language beyond your own - strike that, you haven't even shown proper command of English here. This is what Robert Young wrote in the preface to his "Literal Translation": Quote: If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. In other words: he translated verb forms in the original in precisely the same tense in English, and in precisely the same mood (that is, described with the necessary auxiliary verbs in English), without regard for the different needs - like the sequence of tenses - in the source and target languages. Anyone with some exposure to foreign languages knows that such an approach is moronic, and doesn't yield a meaningful translation.
	__________________ Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa" "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

30th January 2013, 02:36 PM	#1021
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,697	Originally Posted by DOC JOHN 19:7-11 7 ... This is an amazing bit of ignorance from you, DOC ! John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." JOHN 19:7-11 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” Matthew 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." Matthew 27:46 "About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus spoke and thus is not the silent, ugly man who lived 500 years before Jesus as the actual text of Isaiah 53 states ! DOC, you ignored the other point that this song is about a "Suffering Servant" that existed in the past, i.e. 500 years before Jesus existed. Isaiah 53 Quote: The fourth of the "servant songs" begins at Isaiah 52:13, continuing through 53:12 where it continues the discussion of the suffering servant. There is also a rather clear identification for the "servant" within this song. In the context of its surrounding verses, Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 54, one can deduce that the song refers to the Nation of Israel, rather not to an individual. We have to wonder abut the Chrsitians selecting to split the verse up so that the past tense that makes it obvious that it does not refer to Jesus is separated from the evaluation of the Servant by the "many nations, kings".
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 30th January 2013 at 03:00 PM.

30th January 2013, 03:17 PM	#1022
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 16,852	Originally Posted by eight bits I wouldn't think so, surely not until Jesus had ascended. As long as he was on Earth, presumably he could have undone any death. Isn't the negotiable, contingent, reversible and worst-case temporary character of bodily death pretty much what that religion is about? Good point, but to what extent? AFAIK, normal humans are not supposed to resurrect from death, except all at once at the End Times when Jesus is going to judge them all. But I'd like to raise another point. Acts is, in fact, the sequel to Luke's gospel. Luke never mentions anything about Judas after his betrayal: no remorse, no throwing the 30 pieces into the temple like Matthew does. He only comes back to Judas' fate in this Acts 1:16-20 passage. Where does it say when Judas actually died? It could as well have been after Ascension in Luke's version. Originally Posted by eight bits Anyway, even if we accept that Peter is first in the pecking order, it doesn't follow that he has any power not specifically delegated to him. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, acknowledge the primacy of Peter and his successors (like Ben16), but deny their supremacy. So who has? Nobody has specifically been given such power by Jesus. But the description in Acts of this choosing a new Twelfth disciple doesn't preclude that they were at the time an anarcho-syndicalist commune and Peter happened to be the executive officer of the week. Or, Peter is simply tabling a motion to appoint a new disciple and the motion apparently carries. Originally Posted by eight bits It really is an eye-opener, isn't it? There must have been some crisis when people realized that Jesus wasn't coming back any time soon, when the last of the earliest leaders died. The party line needed updating; throwing Peter under the bus was one way to do it. Or so it seems. In this context, it's apt that DOC has decided to dig up that quote about "this generation shall not pass". But I don't see how this passage solves the problem that Jesus did not come back during their lifetime - because he didn't come back. Moreover, I don't see how it helps that the author pretends to be John the disciple (or more precisely, "the disciple Jesus loves")?
	__________________ Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa" "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

30th January 2013, 03:23 PM	#1023
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,697	Originally Posted by DOC Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak: Regarding the bolded part: 10 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; 11 he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, 12 and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. This is a statement that the servant did not open their mouth when they were "oppressed and afflicted" and when they were "led like a lamb to the slaughter". Jesus opened his mouth when he was "oppressed and afflicted" and was "led like a lamb to the slaughter" as you quoted yourself and as stated in several verses: John 18:36 John 19:7-11 7 Matthew 26:39 Matthew 27:46 Several skeptics have pointed the simple fact that the servant in Isaiah did not open his mouth while the New testament states that Jesus did open his mouth. Thus Jesus is not the servant. From Jewish Isaiah 53, a couple of evaluations of the song w.r.t Jesus being the servant (PDFs): ISAIAH 53 PART 1- PDF by Rabbi Moshe Shulman. The “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 by Penina Taylor. The latter is a verse by verse analysis that shows that Jesus could not be the servant, e.g. Isaiah 53:10 explicitly states that the servant will see his physical offspring (not figurative children - these are 2 different words in Hebrew). Jesus had no children. ETA the conclusion is worth quoting: Quote: Isaiah 52 speaks about the suffering of the Jewish people throughout history and their ultimate redemption. Isaiah 54 speaks about the suffering of the Jewish people throughout history and their ultimate redemption. As it turns out, Isaiah 53 is the same story. The Jewish people are despised, rejected, and persecuted. Then, they are exalted, redeemed, lifted up. Since this is a theme that runs consistently throughout the book of Isaiah, especially chapters 40 through the end, there is no reason to believe that chapter 53 has suddenly shifted gears and is talking about something entirely different. The conclusion is clear: the servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 30th January 2013 at 03:33 PM.

30th January 2013, 03:52 PM	#1024
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 17,415	As I don't have the heart to go to the other thread or threads, wasn't "pierced" for his transgressions another problem in translation from the Greek that was sort of retro-fitted?

30th January 2013, 05:35 PM	#1025
Akuma Tennou Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 213	Originally Posted by DOC Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak: <snip> I'm not sure about this, if someone can confirm it, but I think the repetition in Isaiah about the silence is a poetic way of saying never. The whole OT is filled with such repetitions emphases, like the double-donkey-lulz. So the problem is not that jesus talked once but that he talked at all. Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou It should have been enough. Maybe he only read 30% of the bolded part. Reading 30% of a ToC = reading most of a book. I think I'm getting the DOC's logic thing. Originally Posted by DOC I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about. Originally Posted by Akhenaten We have a support group. If you find yourself understanding more of it than you're comfortable with, drop me a PM. D'oh, I'm coming at once!
Akuma Tennou Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 213	__________________ "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson

30th January 2013, 07:18 PM	#1026
Krikkiter Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,282	Originally Posted by DOC This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said; "I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed." --- I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about. Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE. The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth. Based on the above post and previous posts, I have serious doubts as to whether you ever actually fully read anything let alone the texts that you quote. Now, you might not think that's a problem in itself - maybe it's just a side issue for you that detracts from your argument? In which case this might help: "Don't read a history book as if you were reading a novel for light pleasure reading." http://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/
	__________________ "Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was."

31st January 2013, 02:03 AM	#1027
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	deleted
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Last edited by DOC; 31st January 2013 at 02:24 AM.

31st January 2013, 02:22 AM	#1028
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle ...no research that can be done, no experimental simulation or replication that can be designed to show how any 'god' could be demonstrated to exist, much less to have the ability to create without being created. Searching for testable answers leads to discoveries. Accepting superstitious assertions leads nowhere... Well, the Book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler/Turek doesn't accept superstitious assertions, it uses stone cold logic in their evidence for God. Here is a quote from page pg. 65. "...we use induction to investigate God the same way we use it to investigate other things we can’t see— by observing their effects. For example, we can’t observe gravity directly; we can only observe its effects. Likewise we can’t observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. For those effects we make a rational inference to the existence of a cause." In chapter 3 of the book the authors go into depth using science to give evidence for God.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Last edited by DOC; 31st January 2013 at 02:34 AM.

31st January 2013, 02:35 AM	#1029
Akuma Tennou Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 213	Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a goalpost!
Akuma Tennou Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 213	__________________ "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson

31st January 2013, 02:37 AM	#1030
Recovering Agnostic Back Pew Heckler Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 745	Originally Posted by DOC Well, the Book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler/Turek doesn't accept superstitious assertion, it uses stone cold logic in their evidence for God. Here is a quote from page pg. 65. "...we use induction to investigate God the same way we use it to investigate other things we can’t see— by observing their effects. For example, we can’t observe gravity directly; we can only observe its effects. Likewise we can’t observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. For those effects we make a rational inference to the existence of a cause." In chapter 3 of the book the authors go into depth using science to give evidence for God. Orly? How do they tell the difference between "This happens because of natural laws" and "This happens because God"? Doesn't the methodology you describe just lead to Intelligent Falling?
	__________________ My glorified brain dump, ranting space and navel fluff collection The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge - Thomas Berger

31st January 2013, 02:39 AM	#1031
biomorph Muse Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 852	Quote: When you can create a living cell out of non-living chemicals, your Nobel prize will be waiting. It's odd that brilliant scientific minds can't do it but non-intelligent random chance supposedly did it (at least according to the unproven scientific theory). I'm not surprised you deleted this, as you probably are aware that this assumes it will never happen. Seeing as the likes of Craig Venter are so close as to render your "never" as in meaning "in the foreseeable future", you know you'll get called on it.
biomorph Muse Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 852

31st January 2013, 02:51 AM	#1032
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by biomorph I'm not surprised you deleted this, as you probably are aware that this assumes it will never happen. Seeing as the likes of Craig Venter are so close as to render your "never" as in meaning "in the foreseeable future", you know you'll get called on it. I hear that a lot on the news, things like scientists estimate a cure is five years away, and that's the last I hear of it.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933

31st January 2013, 02:58 AM	#1033
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a goalpost! Actually if scientific evidence leads to rational belief in God that would be evidence that supports the bible because the bible asserts the existence of God and thus it is related to the topic.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Last edited by DOC; 31st January 2013 at 03:00 AM.

31st January 2013, 03:08 AM	#1034
Akuma Tennou Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 213	Originally Posted by DOC Actually if scientific evidence leads to rational belief in God that would be evidence that supports the bible because the bible asserts the existence of God and thus it is related to the topic. I could not care less of this now. The goalposts were exactly set on John 19:11 that you yourself pasted here. Did you read it?
Akuma Tennou Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 213	__________________ "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson

31st January 2013, 03:25 AM	#1035
biomorph Muse Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 852	Originally Posted by DOC I hear that a lot on the news, things like scientists estimate a cure is five years away, and that's the last I hear of it. Yes I know, it does seem that way, however someones "5 year" guesstimate is IMO just that, however progress does happen and research marches on regardless of these estimates. Timescales are not that relevant when the "never happen" argument turns up. Look at all the great things that have been discovered that took years to sort out, many before these things were found out would have said "never" too, and maybe even died before the dicovery was made prossbly... However you did (rightly IMO) delete your comment, so I'm guessing here you know you were on dodgy ground. I'm not critising you for it, I think it shows some honesty and doubt that what you posted is perhaps in your mind, arguable.
biomorph Muse Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 852

31st January 2013, 03:52 AM	#1036
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by biomorph However you did (rightly IMO) delete your comment, so I'm guessing here you know you were on dodgy ground. I'm not critising you for it, I think it shows some honesty and doubt that what you posted is perhaps in your mind, arguable. Actually that is not the reason I deleted it. I'll be glad to put it back if you want.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933