Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible. - Page 7

dafydd · 24th December 2012, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

According to the Gospel of Mark, the only evidence of a resurrection is the empty tomb.

According to the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus first appeared to two unnamed apostles as they were walking to Emmaus, then to the 11 surviving disciples in Jerusalem.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" after an angel had appeared to them at the tomb. Then he appeared to the 11 surviving disciples in Galilee - not Jerusalem.

According to the Gospel of John, the risen Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene in the garden Outside the tomb. Then he appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem. Later, he appeared to them at the "sea" of Galilee.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:5 - , the risen Christ first appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the 12 (Judas, too?), then to over 500 brethren, then to James, then to "all the apostles," then to Paul.

So, here we have five accounts, none of which agree. Were these witnesses at a trial, their conflicting testimony would be virtually useless.

As to Luke, your "first-class historian," he doesn't even claim to be an eyewitness (Lk. 1:1 - 4).

So, DOC, did Jesus appear to nobody - as Mak has it, first to two women, first to Mary Magdalene alone, first to two guys on the road to Emmaus, or first to Cephas? These can't all be true at the same time.

Did he specifically tell his disciples not to leave Jerusalem, as Luke has it, or did he tell them to specifically leave jerusalem to meet him in Galilee, as Matthew has it? It has to be one or another. They both can't be true.

And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels.

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

That is your statement not mine, read the last sentence of my quote.

Presumably you mean this nonsense:

Originally Posted by DOC

This is not proof but it is some historical and logical evidence of a miracle resurrection.

It appears beyond doubt that you are totally unable to accept that there is no historical evidence of any miracle ever occurring.

None, DOC. Not one iota.

Your claim that there is logical evidence for such an event is too ludicrous to even bother with, other than using such a claim to press home the complete absence of anything even resembling logic in the endless and pathetic apologetics with which you've been spamming this Forum for years.

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Lowpro

...People wrote fiction then as much as they wrote fiction now...

Besides "your" belief that the New Testament was written as fiction name some 1st century Judea fiction.

DOC, no matter how much you want to pretend that you haven't already failed dismally with this particularly vapid argument numerous times, the evidence of your past failures isn't going to disappear.

viz.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

DOC: You challenged posters on this thread to find a single work of fiction written in Judea from 1,000 BCE (or B.C., if you prefer) to the time of Jesus. A number of us have responded quite specifically. You have not really responded to these posts. Ignoring for the moment Job and Jonah, which I see as homiletic fiction...

Your opinion is noted . . .

You wield this phrase as though it's a magic wand that makes your opponents' arguments disappear just as you seem to believe, despite years of evidence to the contrary, that if you ignore a question for long enough it will similarly cease to exist.

As usual, you are quite wrong.

Here, for instance, is a non-disappearing post from September 2010 that's still awaiting your response:

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

This is another example of you trying to transplant your non-fiction reading, modern Christian ideology into Biblical Judea.

Some Ancient Jewish Novels:

Greek Esther
Susanna, Bel, and the Serpent
Tobit
Judith
The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso...51428/toc.html

As usual, way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of your chosen topic DOC. D'oh

GB

So you can set your opinion about Jonah aside for a minute and deal with the above works instead.

And remember that you have to eliminate all of them with actual evidence rather than handwaving if you hope to make your claim stand.

Or perhaps you'd rather just cut to the chase and explain why it is that fiction existed everywhere in the ancient world except for the one little Roman province where the books of the Bible were written.

Originally Posted by DOC

. . . but the historical figure Jesus . . .

Hasn't been shown to exist. Not by you, not by Ehrman and most certainly not by The World's Greatest Historian™.

You can't use a hypothetical figure as the proponent of a hypothesis.

Well you can, and I have no doubt that your opinion will be noted, but only as a joke.

Originally Posted by DOC

. . . implies he didn't think it was fiction when He talks of Jonah.

Your imaginary friend relates a story written by his imaginary friend about living for three days and nights inside a whale and you're arguing that this is non-fiction?

Do you have any idea at all how utterly ridiculous this is? Any?

Anyway, talking about the alleged Jesus talking about the alleged Jonah talking about the alleged three days and three nights in the alleged whale has reminded me of that story's relationship to the other yarn about the alleged Jesus' sojourn of three days and three nights in the alleged tomb while the alleged zombies were preparing for their street carnival thingy on Sunday afternoon.

Any progress on explaining that yet, DOC? It is Wednesday, after all.

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by John Jones

Not this broken record again!

Give it a rest!

As long as people keep saying things like there is no "evidence" of miracles, like was done in this thread, I have the right to respond.

You have not just a right, but a responsibilty to ensure that such responses contain the actual evidence that you claim to exist.

That you feel compelled to use scare quotes around the word evidence itself is ample indication of the non-likelihood of such a thing ever happening.

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I had to make a double take on the date. Youa re still trotting that dumb story about luke being a first class historien ?

It's only dumb if you think the person who made the statement---archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging in biblical lands---is dumb.

No, it's dumb because Sir Ramsay was demonstrably driven by faith rather than by reason to make statements like the one he did about Sir Luke.

As US Founding Father, author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat Benjamin Franklin said:

Maybe you think Ben Franklin is dumb too, do you DOC?

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Rincewind

...And I agree with you - it makes no sense at all for Christianity to exist without a resurrection...big print added

Then one has to wonder why it does indeed exist (and is the largest religion in the world) if there was no resurrection . . .

No, one doesn't have to wonder any such thing. It's nonsense based on two millenia of institutionalised propaganda conducted by megalomaniacal fiends with a psychopathic interest in exerting power over those whom they subjugated in the name of salvation from horrors that they themselves invented and bolstered in many, many cases by the most abominable systems of punishment ever devised by man.

Originally Posted by DOC

. . . especially when believing it in the 1st century could have got you crucified, beheaded, or covered with wax then impaled on a post and set on fire---not exactly a list of perks.

People in any age are completely free to believe whatever they will. Perhaps these punishments were meted out for something more than simple belief.

Maybe it was for annoying people to distraction with their endless, babbling proselytising.

Seems legit.

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by dafydd

None of the alleged witnesses wrote anything down, the gospels were not written until later.

How do you know they didn't write anything down. We have no signature of Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in the world at one time. Does that mean he never wrote his name?

No.

Originally Posted by DOC

ETA

Also we have no contemporary writings in existence concerning Alexander the Great, the man who conquered much of the world, including Jerusalem, except for one offhand remark in a letter, and one inscription. Does that mean no one else at the time of Alexander wrote anything down concerning him.

No.

And now a question for you:

How many miracles have been reliably attributed to Julius Cæsar and Alexander the Great?

DOC · 24th December 2012, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels.

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by ddt

Bingo!

Really, DOC, don't you get tired of rehashing the same old tired, debunked arguments...

As long as people keep putting up Bible evidence threads, I have the right to keep putting up evidence.

And yet you never do. It's ~~almost~~ exactly as though you don't have any.

Originally Posted by DOC

If you disagree with my evidence then point out why?

Been there, done that.

Originally Posted by DOC

If you don't like my posts then block me, it's very simple.

Please highlight the portion of ddt's post that mentions a dislike of your posts.

Originally Posted by DOC

Believe it or not there are new people to Randi that have never heard some of this material, and they might be able to offer more information or a different viewpoint.

Slowvehicle · 24th December 2012, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

Start with TimCallahan's post #240...

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different.

Too similar in style and wording for them not have been copied, either from each other or from a common source.

Too different to have been eye witness accounts.

You've had this explained to you scores of times and it still escapes you?

Originally Posted by DOC

As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained.

The complete lack of anything even remotely resembling logic in everything you've ever posted is probably a big pointer to how this situation has come about.

Originally Posted by DOC

Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it.

Originally Posted by DOC

Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

Inventing your own, non-existent contradictions won't serve to distract us from your abject failure to address the ones that do exist.

Originally Posted by DOC

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions.

Of course they did. Lying for Jesus is hardly a new phenomenon.

Originally Posted by DOC

They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

They didn't count on us learning to think for ourselves. Pretty arrogant, weren't they?

Originally Posted by DOC

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama . . .

<bizarro analogy snip>

Akhenaten · 24th December 2012, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by dafydd

Not that again. That must be the twentieth time that you have rehearsed that broken argument...

And this must be the 20th bible evidence thread. If you're tired of biblical evidence then you should stay out of evidence threads or block me.

Apart from the fact that nobody could possibly be tired of that which does not exist, dafydd's post is simply pointing out the endlessly repetetive nature of your failure to present a cogent argument.

You're going to have to start actually reading what people post rather than inventing your own versions of it if you ever hope to correct the situation.

Mudcat · 25th December 2012, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Then one has to wonder why it does indeed exist (and is the largest religion in the world) if there was no resurrection, especially when believing it in the 1st century could have got you crucified, beheaded, or covered with wax then impaled on a post and set on fire---not exactly a list of perks.

People forsake their family, friends, spouses, the country they were born in for the sake of what they believe in. People do all kinds of reckless things onto themselves and/or others for what they believe in.

But that does not make their beliefs to be true.

StankApe · 25th December 2012, 01:36 AM

No kidding, people have bet their entire life savings on sporting events .... people aren't rational critters (well not all the time, and some rarely)

pakeha · 25th December 2012, 04:01 AM

Hey, DOC's back!
What a nice Yule surprise.

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually Jesus' empty tomb shortly after his death as reported by gospel writer Luke (who has been called a first-class historian by Sir William M. Ramsay) is some evidence of a miracle resurrection. It is not proof but it is some historical evidence that a miracle took place. ...

And he's brought sir Ramsey!
Remember sir Ramsey, of the slavegirl Paula fame?

Originally Posted by DOC

When a person like Luke, who has been called a first class historian by a famous archaeologist, writes something as fact, that is historical evidence.

Of course it is, DOC, of course it is.

Originally Posted by DOC

...

Also we have no contemporary writings in existence concerning Alexander the Great, the man who conquered much of the world, including Jerusalem, except for one offhand remark in a letter, and one inscription. ...

And Alexander the Great, too!
We ARE in goodly company.

DOC, is Thomas Jefferson on the way?

dafydd · 25th December 2012, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed.

Aepervius · 25th December 2012, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

It's only dumb if you think the person who made the statement---archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging in biblical lands---is dumb.

i don't think he was dumb, i think 1) (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) that by 1906 he was missing a lot of things we learned in the mean time and (ETA) as pointed out by other driven by faith not fact 2) people which use a 100 year old info unquestionning without realizing they are outdated *are* dumb.

So yeah. That old dumb story about luke being an historien.

catsmate1 · 25th December 2012, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Source?

Dealt with in the previous thread you spammed with your recycled crap about Ramsay. Like the other lie you often repeat, that he was an atheist converted by the "evidence" he found.

Now about some evidence for your empty tomb claim? From something other than the holey babble.

TimCallahan · 25th December 2012, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different.

Here is a great graphic showing the material shared among the Synoptic Gospels. If you scroll down a bit you will fin another, simpler graphic of the first hypothesis of the relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels. According to this view, Matthew was the first of the three, and Mark was based on Matthew. Finally, Luke was based on both Matthew and Mark. So, who was the author of this hypothesis? Was it an atheist? A skeptic? Perhaps a Gnostic Christian trying to discredit the canonical gospels? In fact, it was none of these. Rather, it was an orthodox Christian, St. Augustine. He came up with this hypothesis in the fifth century.

Of course, I'm not complaining. I'm merely pointing things out to you.

[quote=DOC;8870087]As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.[QUOTE/]

The contradictions I've pointed out to you are gross contradictions that cannot be harmonized, For example, either the women who met the angel at the tomb were so terrified that they ran away and told nobody of their encounter (Mark) or they told the disciples (Matthew). Either Jesus expressly gave the message he would meet the disciples in Galilee, and did so (Matthew) or he expressly told them not to leave Jerusalem (Luke). Either the risen Christ appeared to nobody (Mark), first appeared to women (Matthew and John) or did not appear to any of the women (Luke, 1 Corinthians).

[quote=DOC;8870087]And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.[QUOTE/]

I suspect they were under pressure to make what were essentially political compromises between various groups that each supported one gospel or the other.

Originally Posted by DOC

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

Of course, the contradictions I've pointed out to you are far greater than your example. Also, they weren't written by eyewitnesses.

TimCallahan · 25th December 2012, 02:27 PM

DOC: Another problem with the veracity of the gospels is that they vary greatly from history. For example, according to Mt. 2:16 Herod the Great had all the male children two years of age and younger put to death, not only in Bethlehem, but in the regions surrounding the town, in an effort to kill the child destined, by the word of the Magi, to be king. Yet, Josephus, who speaks of Herod the Great and his evils in great detail, says nothing of this incident. This isn't something Josephus would have left out, and, had it happened, it's virtually impossible that it could have happened without his knowing of it.

Consider also Palm Sunday. What do we have to accept as true to accept this as a historical event? We have to believe that Jesus entered Jerusalem, hailed by crowds as a king, with the people crying "Hosannah!," meaning "Save us!" or, by extension, "Free us!" Yet, the Romans supposedly did nothing. However, we know from history that the Romans dealt harshly with putative messiahs, and that Pontius Pilatus was noted, not for his mercy or indecision, but rather for meting out gratuitous, excessive violence when his power was challenged.

DOC · 26th December 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed.

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

Resume · 26th December 2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

Of these, how many were a contemporary source? Not including the biblical ones of course.

If you keep hitching your intellectual wagon to the likes of Geisler, Turek and Strobel (with a nod to Ehrman when convenient) you will continue to have it upended in as many threads as you care to open.

Slowvehicle · 26th December 2012, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

When do you intend to address the disharmony of the gospels TimCallahan raised in post #240?

DOC · 26th December 2012, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

...That old dumb story about {gospel writer} luke being an historien.

You've got to admit the guy has a thing for detail. Scroll down this link a little ways until you get to a list of the 84 facts of Gospel writer Luke. For that matter so did gospel writer John, scroll down further until you get to the 59 facts of John.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Be-an-Atheist

Resume · 26th December 2012, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You've got to admit the guy has a thing for detail. Scroll down this link until you get to the 84 facts of Gospel writer Luke. For that matter so did gospel writer John, scroll down further until you get to the 59 facts of John.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Be-an-Atheist

Lot's of historical details in lots of fiction. You understand that, right?

Akhenaten · 26th December 2012, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by dafydd

You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed.

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

It seems likely that dafydd has read the other threads in which your pathetic attempts to demonstrate the historical accuracy of these alleged sources have been completely shredded every single one of the scores of times you've made them.

Originally Posted by DOC

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

Likewise, anyone who has read the utter demolition of the fifth rate apologetics in that book (which you yourself haven't even read) which took place in TTTWND would have no hesitation in disagreeing with Ehrman.

DOC · 26th December 2012, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

When do you intend to address the disharmony of the gospels TimCallahan raised in post #240?

You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web. If you can't, let me know and I'll look when I get the time. There are as you probably noticed other posts directed toward me.

Akhenaten · 26th December 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Aepervius

...That old dumb story about luke being an historien.

You've got to admit the guy has a thing for detail.

So did J.R.R.Tolkien.

Originally Posted by DOC

Scroll down this link until you get to the 84 facts of Gospel writer Luke. For that matter so did gospel writer John, scroll down further until you get to the 59 facts of John.

There are no facts to be found at that URL.

Resume · 26th December 2012, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web.

Bible apologia isn't necessarily logical. The whole inevitable faith dealeo ****s that up.

Slowvehicle · 26th December 2012, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web. If you can't, let me know and I'll look when I get the time. There are as you probably noticed other posts directed toward me.

I am not the one who said:

"Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained." (quoting you)

I have a logical explanation for the differences among the gospels--even about such pivotal things as the birth of, or the death of, the supposed messiah. You said you could provide a "logical explanation" for "alleged contradictions in the NT". I am curious to see the hand-waving, special pleading, interpolations, redactions, and secondary/tertiary sources you would present as a "logical explanation".

Akhenaten · 26th December 2012, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web.

I've already searched the entire web and all I found were the same logic-challenged evasions, muddle-headed obfuscations and outright lies that you've been posting here for years.

Originally Posted by DOC

If you can't, let me know and I'll look when I get the time.

But it's Wednesday! Answers day!

Stick to the scenario, DOC.

Originally Posted by DOC

There are as you probably noticed other posts directed toward me.

The most noticeable thing is that you aren't answering any of them.

dafydd · 26th December 2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

I am prepared to believe that there was an itinerant preacher called Jesus. There was no divine superman called Jesus who came back to life. No evidence at all for that theory. Is that simple enough?

Janadele · 26th December 2012, 07:44 AM

Why is it that so many non believers occupy their time trying to prove there is no God? Why bother?

True believers know, they have the knowledge within, and do not need to prove anything.

Matthew Chapter 16 :
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The Lord has said “My sheep know my voice” ....
Mosiah 6:10–13.
John 10:1–15.
John 21:15–17.
Isaiah 40:10–11.
The true sheep know His voice. The true Shepherd knows and owns His sheep and He calls them.

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-a...sheep+know+%22

dafydd · 26th December 2012, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Why is it that so many non believers occupy their time trying to prove there is no God? Why bother?

I don't occupy my time trying to prove that there are no gods, I just point out to believers who turn up here the irrationality of their belief.

Resume · 26th December 2012, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

The Lord has said “My sheep know my voice” ....

The true sheep know His voice. The true Shepherd knows and owns His sheep and He calls them.

I did not know that to be sheepish was one of humankind's more ennobling virtues.

Akhenaten · 26th December 2012, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Why is it that so many non believers occupy their time trying to prove there is no God? Why bother?

Asking for evidence of the historical accuracy of a book that millions of people claim contains the word of the all-powerful creator of the Universe is not "trying to prove there is no God".

It's a search for truth, and the inability of believers to furnish the aforementioned evidence tells us that we're probably closer to finding it than they are.

Originally Posted by Janadele

True believers know, they have the knowledge within, and do not need to prove anything.

No, True Believers™ have belief.

Knowledge is a whole 'nother thing.

Originally Posted by Janadele

<preaching>

The true sheep know His voice. The true Shepherd knows and owns His sheep and He calls them.

Indeed.

TimCallahan · 26th December 2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

Concerning the hilited area: Now that you've made this assertion, back it up with specific facts, citations or links. In other words, you need to tell us who these nine sources are, so we can judge whether they were contemporaries with Jesus, near contemporaries or later writers.

As to Bart Ehrman and the historicity of Jesus, it's one thing to say that Jesus existed, quite another to say he walked on water, cast out demons, cured leper etc. or rose from the dead.

TimCallahan · 26th December 2012, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

Concerning the hilited area: Now that you've made this assertion, back it up with specific facts, citations or links. In other words, you need to tell us who these nine sources are, so we can judge whether they were contemporaries with Jesus, near contemporaries or later writers.

As to Bart Ehrman and the historicity of Jesus, it's one thing to say that Jesus existed, quite another to say he walked on water, cast out demons, cured leper etc. or rose from the dead.

Rincewind · 26th December 2012, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

Of these, how many were a contemporary source? Not including the biblical ones of course.

If you keep hitching your intellectual wagon to the likes of Geisler, Turek and Strobel (with a nod to Ehrman when convenient) you will continue to have it upended in as many threads as you care to open.

Most of the sources are probably DOC's JREF threads....

And most of them have been around long enough to be considered contemporary...

Rincewind · 26th December 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels.

Ah - Synoptic...

Now has a new meaning - "Mostly dissimilar"?

24th December 2012, 05:29 PM	#241
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by TimCallahan According to the Gospel of Mark, the only evidence of a resurrection is the empty tomb. According to the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus first appeared to two unnamed apostles as they were walking to Emmaus, then to the 11 surviving disciples in Jerusalem. According to the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" after an angel had appeared to them at the tomb. Then he appeared to the 11 surviving disciples in Galilee - not Jerusalem. According to the Gospel of John, the risen Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene in the garden Outside the tomb. Then he appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem. Later, he appeared to them at the "sea" of Galilee. According to 1 Corinthians 15:5 - , the risen Christ first appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the 12 (Judas, too?), then to over 500 brethren, then to James, then to "all the apostles," then to Paul. So, here we have five accounts, none of which agree. Were these witnesses at a trial, their conflicting testimony would be virtually useless. As to Luke, your "first-class historian," he doesn't even claim to be an eyewitness (Lk. 1:1 - 4). So, DOC, did Jesus appear to nobody - as Mak has it, first to two women, first to Mary Magdalene alone, first to two guys on the road to Emmaus, or first to Cephas? These can't all be true at the same time. Did he specifically tell his disciples not to leave Jerusalem, as Luke has it, or did he tell them to specifically leave jerusalem to meet him in Galilee, as Matthew has it? It has to be one or another. They both can't be true. And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

24th December 2012, 09:45 PM	#242
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC That is your statement not mine, read the last sentence of my quote. Presumably you mean this nonsense: Originally Posted by DOC This is not proof but it is some historical and logical evidence of a miracle resurrection. It appears beyond doubt that you are totally unable to accept that there is no historical evidence of any miracle ever occurring. None, DOC. Not one iota. Your claim that there is logical evidence for such an event is too ludicrous to even bother with, other than using such a claim to press home the complete absence of anything even resembling logic in the endless and pathetic apologetics with which you've been spamming this Forum for years.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

24th December 2012, 09:56 PM	#243
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Lowpro ...People wrote fiction then as much as they wrote fiction now... Besides "your" belief that the New Testament was written as fiction name some 1st century Judea fiction. DOC, no matter how much you want to pretend that you haven't already failed dismally with this particularly vapid argument numerous times, the evidence of your past failures isn't going to disappear. viz. Originally Posted by Akhenaten Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by TimCallahan DOC: You challenged posters on this thread to find a single work of fiction written in Judea from 1,000 BCE (or B.C., if you prefer) to the time of Jesus. A number of us have responded quite specifically. You have not really responded to these posts. Ignoring for the moment Job and Jonah, which I see as homiletic fiction... Your opinion is noted . . . You wield this phrase as though it's a magic wand that makes your opponents' arguments disappear just as you seem to believe, despite years of evidence to the contrary, that if you ignore a question for long enough it will similarly cease to exist. As usual, you are quite wrong. Here, for instance, is a non-disappearing post from September 2010 that's still awaiting your response: Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard This is another example of you trying to transplant your non-fiction reading, modern Christian ideology into Biblical Judea. Some Ancient Jewish Novels: Greek Esther Susanna, Bel, and the Serpent Tobit Judith The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso...51428/toc.html As usual, way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of your chosen topic DOC. D'oh GB So you can set your opinion about Jonah aside for a minute and deal with the above works instead. And remember that you have to eliminate all of them with actual evidence rather than handwaving if you hope to make your claim stand. Or perhaps you'd rather just cut to the chase and explain why it is that fiction existed everywhere in the ancient world except for the one little Roman province where the books of the Bible were written. Originally Posted by DOC . . . but the historical figure Jesus . . . Hasn't been shown to exist. Not by you, not by Ehrman and most certainly not by The World's Greatest Historian™. You can't use a hypothetical figure as the proponent of a hypothesis. Well you can, and I have no doubt that your opinion will be noted, but only as a joke. Originally Posted by DOC . . . implies he didn't think it was fiction when He talks of Jonah. Your imaginary friend relates a story written by his imaginary friend about living for three days and nights inside a whale and you're arguing that this is non-fiction? Do you have any idea at all how utterly ridiculous this is? Any? Anyway, talking about the alleged Jesus talking about the alleged Jonah talking about the alleged three days and three nights in the alleged whale has reminded me of that story's relationship to the other yarn about the alleged Jesus' sojourn of three days and three nights in the alleged tomb while the alleged zombies were preparing for their street carnival thingy on Sunday afternoon. Any progress on explaining that yet, DOC? It is Wednesday, after all.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

24th December 2012, 10:03 PM	#244
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by John Jones Not this broken record again! Give it a rest! As long as people keep saying things like there is no "evidence" of miracles, like was done in this thread, I have the right to respond. You have not just a right, but a responsibilty to ensure that such responses contain the actual evidence that you claim to exist. That you feel compelled to use scare quotes around the word evidence itself is ample indication of the non-likelihood of such a thing ever happening.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

24th December 2012, 10:16 PM	#245
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Aepervius I had to make a double take on the date. Youa re still trotting that dumb story about luke being a first class historien ? It's only dumb if you think the person who made the statement---archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging in biblical lands---is dumb. No, it's dumb because Sir Ramsay was demonstrably driven by faith rather than by reason to make statements like the one he did about Sir Luke. As US Founding Father, author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat Benjamin Franklin said: Maybe you think Ben Franklin is dumb too, do you DOC?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

24th December 2012, 10:43 PM	#246
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Rincewind ...And I agree with you - it makes no sense at all for Christianity to exist without a resurrection...big print added Then one has to wonder why it does indeed exist (and is the largest religion in the world) if there was no resurrection . . . No, one doesn't have to wonder any such thing. It's nonsense based on two millenia of institutionalised propaganda conducted by megalomaniacal fiends with a psychopathic interest in exerting power over those whom they subjugated in the name of salvation from horrors that they themselves invented and bolstered in many, many cases by the most abominable systems of punishment ever devised by man. Originally Posted by DOC . . . especially when believing it in the 1st century could have got you crucified, beheaded, or covered with wax then impaled on a post and set on fire---not exactly a list of perks. People in any age are completely free to believe whatever they will. Perhaps these punishments were meted out for something more than simple belief. Maybe it was for annoying people to distraction with their endless, babbling proselytising. Seems legit.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

24th December 2012, 10:51 PM	#247
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by dafydd None of the alleged witnesses wrote anything down, the gospels were not written until later. How do you know they didn't write anything down. We have no signature of Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in the world at one time. Does that mean he never wrote his name? No. Originally Posted by DOC ETA Also we have no contemporary writings in existence concerning Alexander the Great, the man who conquered much of the world, including Jerusalem, except for one offhand remark in a letter, and one inscription. Does that mean no one else at the time of Alexander wrote anything down concerning him. No. And now a question for you: How many miracles have been reliably attributed to Julius Cæsar and Alexander the Great?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

24th December 2012, 11:00 PM	#248
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by dafydd And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels. Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained. And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions. If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Last edited by DOC; 24th December 2012 at 11:03 PM. Reason: edit last paragraph

24th December 2012, 11:05 PM	#249
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by ddt Bingo! Really, DOC, don't you get tired of rehashing the same old tired, debunked arguments... As long as people keep putting up Bible evidence threads, I have the right to keep putting up evidence. And yet you never do. It's ~~almost~~ exactly as though you don't have any. Originally Posted by DOC If you disagree with my evidence then point out why? Been there, done that. Originally Posted by DOC If you don't like my posts then block me, it's very simple. Please highlight the portion of ddt's post that mentions a dislike of your posts. Originally Posted by DOC Believe it or not there are new people to Randi that have never heard some of this material, and they might be able to offer more information or a different viewpoint.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 24th December 2012 at 11:54 PM. Reason: typo

24th December 2012, 11:18 PM	#250
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 11,008	Originally Posted by DOC Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained. And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions. If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him. Start with TimCallahan's post #240...
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "And it's a non-falsifiable ideodowsed omphalic onanism, to boot; just the sort of thing that merits the label 'evidently,' evidently."-turingtest, Donn, and, well...modesty forbids. Last edited by Slowvehicle; 24th December 2012 at 11:19 PM.

24th December 2012, 11:39 PM	#251
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. Too similar in style and wording for them not have been copied, either from each other or from a common source. Too different to have been eye witness accounts. You've had this explained to you scores of times and it still escapes you? Originally Posted by DOC As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. The complete lack of anything even remotely resembling logic in everything you've ever posted is probably a big pointer to how this situation has come about. Originally Posted by DOC Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Originally Posted by DOC Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained. Inventing your own, non-existent contradictions won't serve to distract us from your abject failure to address the ones that do exist. Originally Posted by DOC And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. Of course they did. Lying for Jesus is hardly a new phenomenon. Originally Posted by DOC They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions. They didn't count on us learning to think for ourselves. Pretty arrogant, weren't they? Originally Posted by DOC If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama . . . <bizarro analogy snip>
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Akhenaten; 24th December 2012 at 11:41 PM.

24th December 2012, 11:48 PM	#252
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by dafydd Not that again. That must be the twentieth time that you have rehearsed that broken argument... And this must be the 20th bible evidence thread. If you're tired of biblical evidence then you should stay out of evidence threads or block me. Apart from the fact that nobody could possibly be tired of that which does not exist, dafydd's post is simply pointing out the endlessly repetetive nature of your failure to present a cogent argument. You're going to have to start actually reading what people post rather than inventing your own versions of it if you ever hope to correct the situation.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

25th December 2012, 12:51 AM	#253
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,726	Originally Posted by DOC Then one has to wonder why it does indeed exist (and is the largest religion in the world) if there was no resurrection, especially when believing it in the 1st century could have got you crucified, beheaded, or covered with wax then impaled on a post and set on fire---not exactly a list of perks. People forsake their family, friends, spouses, the country they were born in for the sake of what they believe in. People do all kinds of reckless things onto themselves and/or others for what they believe in. But that does not make their beliefs to be true.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

25th December 2012, 01:36 AM	#254
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,628	No kidding, people have bet their entire life savings on sporting events .... people aren't rational critters (well not all the time, and some rarely)
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,628

25th December 2012, 04:01 AM	#255
pakeha Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 12,333	Hey, DOC's back! What a nice Yule surprise. Originally Posted by DOC Actually Jesus' empty tomb shortly after his death as reported by gospel writer Luke (who has been called a first-class historian by Sir William M. Ramsay) is some evidence of a miracle resurrection. It is not proof but it is some historical evidence that a miracle took place. ... And he's brought sir Ramsey! Remember sir Ramsey, of the slavegirl Paula fame? Originally Posted by DOC When a person like Luke, who has been called a first class historian by a famous archaeologist, writes something as fact, that is historical evidence. Of course it is, DOC, of course it is. Originally Posted by DOC ... Also we have no contemporary writings in existence concerning Alexander the Great, the man who conquered much of the world, including Jerusalem, except for one offhand remark in a letter, and one inscription. ... And Alexander the Great, too! We ARE in goodly company. DOC, is Thomas Jefferson on the way?
	Last edited by pakeha; 25th December 2012 at 05:25 AM. Reason: tidying up

25th December 2012, 05:21 AM	#256
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by DOC If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him. You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

25th December 2012, 05:27 AM	#257
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 9,879	Originally Posted by DOC It's only dumb if you think the person who made the statement---archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging in biblical lands---is dumb. i don't think he was dumb, i think 1) (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) that by 1906 he was missing a lot of things we learned in the mean time and (ETA) as pointed out by other driven by faith not fact 2) people which use a 100 year old info unquestionning without realizing they are outdated are dumb. So yeah. That old dumb story about luke being an historien.
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 9,879	Last edited by Aepervius; 25th December 2012 at 05:31 AM.

25th December 2012, 09:17 AM	#258
catsmate1 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 12,132	Originally Posted by DOC Source? Dealt with in the previous thread you spammed with your recycled crap about Ramsay. Like the other lie you often repeat, that he was an atheist converted by the "evidence" he found. Now about some evidence for your empty tomb claim? From something other than the holey babble.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

25th December 2012, 12:59 PM	#259
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,293	Originally Posted by DOC Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. Here is a great graphic showing the material shared among the Synoptic Gospels. If you scroll down a bit you will fin another, simpler graphic of the first hypothesis of the relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels. According to this view, Matthew was the first of the three, and Mark was based on Matthew. Finally, Luke was based on both Matthew and Mark. So, who was the author of this hypothesis? Was it an atheist? A skeptic? Perhaps a Gnostic Christian trying to discredit the canonical gospels? In fact, it was none of these. Rather, it was an orthodox Christian, St. Augustine. He came up with this hypothesis in the fifth century. Of course, I'm not complaining. I'm merely pointing things out to you. [quote=DOC;8870087]As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.[QUOTE/] The contradictions I've pointed out to you are gross contradictions that cannot be harmonized, For example, either the women who met the angel at the tomb were so terrified that they ran away and told nobody of their encounter (Mark) or they told the disciples (Matthew). Either Jesus expressly gave the message he would meet the disciples in Galilee, and did so (Matthew) or he expressly told them not to leave Jerusalem (Luke). Either the risen Christ appeared to nobody (Mark), first appeared to women (Matthew and John) or did not appear to any of the women (Luke, 1 Corinthians). [quote=DOC;8870087]And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.[QUOTE/] I suspect they were under pressure to make what were essentially political compromises between various groups that each supported one gospel or the other. Originally Posted by DOC If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him. Of course, the contradictions I've pointed out to you are far greater than your example. Also, they weren't written by eyewitnesses.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,293	Last edited by TimCallahan; 25th December 2012 at 01:14 PM.

25th December 2012, 02:27 PM	#260
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,293	DOC: Another problem with the veracity of the gospels is that they vary greatly from history. For example, according to Mt. 2:16 Herod the Great had all the male children two years of age and younger put to death, not only in Bethlehem, but in the regions surrounding the town, in an effort to kill the child destined, by the word of the Magi, to be king. Yet, Josephus, who speaks of Herod the Great and his evils in great detail, says nothing of this incident. This isn't something Josephus would have left out, and, had it happened, it's virtually impossible that it could have happened without his knowing of it. Consider also Palm Sunday. What do we have to accept as true to accept this as a historical event? We have to believe that Jesus entered Jerusalem, hailed by crowds as a king, with the people crying "Hosannah!," meaning "Save us!" or, by extension, "Free us!" Yet, the Romans supposedly did nothing. However, we know from history that the Romans dealt harshly with putative messiahs, and that Pontius Pilatus was noted, not for his mercy or indecision, but rather for meting out gratuitous, excessive violence when his power was challenged.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,293

26th December 2012, 05:59 AM	#261
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by dafydd You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed. So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus). And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Last edited by DOC; 26th December 2012 at 06:00 AM.

26th December 2012, 06:05 AM	#262
Resume Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 11,227	Originally Posted by DOC So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus). Of these, how many were a contemporary source? Not including the biblical ones of course. If you keep hitching your intellectual wagon to the likes of Geisler, Turek and Strobel (with a nod to Ehrman when convenient) you will continue to have it upended in as many threads as you care to open.

26th December 2012, 06:10 AM	#263
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 11,008	Originally Posted by DOC So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus). And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book. When do you intend to address the disharmony of the gospels TimCallahan raised in post #240?
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "And it's a non-falsifiable ideodowsed omphalic onanism, to boot; just the sort of thing that merits the label 'evidently,' evidently."-turingtest, Donn, and, well...modesty forbids.

26th December 2012, 06:14 AM	#264
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by Aepervius ...That old dumb story about {gospel writer} luke being an historien. You've got to admit the guy has a thing for detail. Scroll down this link a little ways until you get to a list of the 84 facts of Gospel writer Luke. For that matter so did gospel writer John, scroll down further until you get to the 59 facts of John. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Be-an-Atheist
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Last edited by DOC; 26th December 2012 at 06:37 AM.

26th December 2012, 06:18 AM	#265
Resume Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 11,227	Originally Posted by DOC You've got to admit the guy has a thing for detail. Scroll down this link until you get to the 84 facts of Gospel writer Luke. For that matter so did gospel writer John, scroll down further until you get to the 59 facts of John. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Be-an-Atheist Lot's of historical details in lots of fiction. You understand that, right?

26th December 2012, 06:19 AM	#266
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by dafydd You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed. So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus). It seems likely that dafydd has read the other threads in which your pathetic attempts to demonstrate the historical accuracy of these alleged sources have been completely shredded every single one of the scores of times you've made them. Originally Posted by DOC And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book. Likewise, anyone who has read the utter demolition of the fifth rate apologetics in that book (which you yourself haven't even read) which took place in TTTWND would have no hesitation in disagreeing with Ehrman.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

26th December 2012, 06:21 AM	#267
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle When do you intend to address the disharmony of the gospels TimCallahan raised in post #240? You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web. If you can't, let me know and I'll look when I get the time. There are as you probably noticed other posts directed toward me.
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,933

26th December 2012, 06:24 AM	#268
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC Originally Posted by Aepervius ...That old dumb story about luke being an historien. You've got to admit the guy has a thing for detail. So did J.R.R.Tolkien. Originally Posted by DOC Scroll down this link until you get to the 84 facts of Gospel writer Luke. For that matter so did gospel writer John, scroll down further until you get to the 59 facts of John. There are no facts to be found at that URL.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

26th December 2012, 06:29 AM	#269
Resume Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 11,227	Originally Posted by DOC You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web. Bible apologia isn't necessarily logical. The whole inevitable faith dealeo ****s that up.

26th December 2012, 06:32 AM	#270
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 11,008	Originally Posted by DOC You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web. If you can't, let me know and I'll look when I get the time. There are as you probably noticed other posts directed toward me. I am not the one who said: "Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained." (quoting you) I have a logical explanation for the differences among the gospels--even about such pivotal things as the birth of, or the death of, the supposed messiah. You said you could provide a "logical explanation" for "alleged contradictions in the NT". I am curious to see the hand-waving, special pleading, interpolations, redactions, and secondary/tertiary sources you would present as a "logical explanation".
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "And it's a non-falsifiable ideodowsed omphalic onanism, to boot; just the sort of thing that merits the label 'evidently,' evidently."-turingtest, Donn, and, well...modesty forbids.

26th December 2012, 06:33 AM	#271
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 29,580	Originally Posted by DOC You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web. I've already searched the entire web and all I found were the same logic-challenged evasions, muddle-headed obfuscations and outright lies that you've been posting here for years. Originally Posted by DOC If you can't, let me know and I'll look when I get the time. But it's Wednesday! Answers day! Stick to the scenario, DOC. Originally Posted by DOC There are as you probably noticed other posts directed toward me. The most noticeable thing is that you aren't answering any of them.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

26th December 2012, 06:42 AM	#272
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by DOC So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus). And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book. I am prepared to believe that there was an itinerant preacher called Jesus. There was no divine superman called Jesus who came back to life. No evidence at all for that theory. Is that simple enough?
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

26th December 2012, 07:44 AM	#273
Janadele Banned Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 2,515	Why is it that so many non believers occupy their time trying to prove there is no God? Why bother? True believers know, they have the knowledge within, and do not need to prove anything. Matthew Chapter 16 : 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. The Lord has said “My sheep know my voice” .... Mosiah 6:10–13. John 10:1–15. John 21:15–17. Isaiah 40:10–11. The true sheep know His voice. The true Shepherd knows and owns His sheep and He calls them. http://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-a...sheep+know+%22
Janadele Banned Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 2,515

26th December 2012, 07:53 AM	#274
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Janadele Why is it that so many non believers occupy their time trying to prove there is no God? Why bother? I don't occupy my time trying to prove that there are no gods, I just point out to believers who turn up here the irrationality of their belief.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

26th December 2012, 07:59 AM	#275
Resume Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 11,227	Originally Posted by Janadele The Lord has said “My sheep know my voice” .... The true sheep know His voice. The true Shepherd knows and owns His sheep and He calls them. I did not know that to be sheepish was one of humankind's more ennobling virtues.