(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hearsay! Luke never says he saw Jesus. All we have is hearsay from what others supposedly told him. If that is your standard, then you've set the bar pretty low.

Quote:Basic reading comprehension. You’ll notice I said that Luke says people saw Jesus.

And you'll notice this is the very definition of hearsay.

Quote:Many historians who never saw Nero still claim he existed and I will take their word for it. It is you who changes the height of the bar depending upon which historical figure we are talking about.

I'm hardly changing the height of the bar. Nero is mentioned in historical accounts of the period. He is mentioned in historical documents of the period. Is your godboy mentioned in ANYTHING written at the time he was supposedly alive? No? Didn't think so. My bar remains unchanged.

Quote:Not to mention your amazing inconsistency. Here you don’t believe in what Creationists claim apparently because they a in the minority and the great majority of scientists don’t believe in creation.

Uh... no. I don't dismiss the claims of creationist twerps because they're in the minority. I dismiss them because they have no credible evidence to support their claims.

Quote:However, then you turn around and give credence to an argument (Jesus was a myth) that the overwhelming majority of historians disagree with.

So what? There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person. Just like there is no evidence that Noah's flood actually occurred. I am highly skeptical of claims when there is no evidence to support those claims. My position is very consistent.

Quote:Even DickDawk, who would like nothing more than for Jesus to be a myth, admits in his book the God Delusion that Jesus “probably existed.”

Yes, he believes Jesus "probably existed". Again, so what? "Probably" leaves a lot of room for doubt. In fact, "probably" would not get a conviction in a court of law.

Quote:If you applied your same silly standards to other ancient historical figures you would have to say that none of them existed either.

I've answered this moronic argument several times already.

Quote:What? No names are ever given? The apostles all witnessed miracles and their names are given

Gee... that's impressive.

Quote:(James being mentioned by the historian Josephus).

Which means absolutely nothing.

Quote:Lazarus was raised from the dead and his name is given.

Okay... did ANYONE ELSE witness this miraculous event?

Quote: this proves nothing. People have died for their beliefs throughout history. That doesn't make their beliefs real.

Quote:I disagree, if the person truly knows the belief is a forgery (as the disciples would have if it were one) they are almost never willing to die for it.

And perhaps they genuinely believed. Just like the assholes who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 genuinely believed they would be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise after they died committing their heinous deed. Doesn't mean either one of them are right.

Quote: Josephus was born AFTER Jesus supposedly died. Anything he writes (or supposedly wrote, the passages where he mentions Jesus are widely thought to be forgeries inserted at a later date) about Jesus is, at best, hearsay.

Quote:Actually the mentions of Jesus by Josephus are accepted as valid by the vast majority of historians such as Dr. James Hannam who is a professor of history at Cambridge University.

"The vast majority of historians"? <citation needed>

In any case, it doesn't matter! Josephus was not alive at the time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. Therefore, he could not possibly have been an eyewitness. At best, anything from his hand is hearsay.

Quote:It’s just the cranks in the very small Jesus Myth crowd that do not accept these accounts.

Because they are (at best) hearsay! Show me something written by an historian who lived in or near Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly lived where the author talks about this man. There were plenty! Philo Judaeus, Seneca and Pliny the Elder all fill the bill. But not one of them mentions Jesus anywhere. Hmmmmm.... I wonder why....

Quote: Josephus was very much alive during the time that James, brother of Jesus, would have been starting portions of the early church.

And this does nothing as far as demonstrating that Jesus actually lived.

Quote:Your argument is pretty silly, by your same logic you’d have to say that no historian today could say that Henry VIII was ever real because that historian was born after Henry VIII was born.

Any historian writing about Henry VIII today would reference a primary source for his material. That would be a source who was an eyewitness to the period. I'll say it again.... ya got anything like that for your godboy?

Quote:Well as I pointed out, that manuscript is a copy of the original,

And as I pointed out, we don't have the original to compare it to. So how do we know how accurate of a copy it is?

Quote:so it is safe to say the original could have very well been written within the same decade as Jesus’ death.

It doesn't matter when the original was written if we don't know what the original said. And we also don't know who wrote the original!

Quote:Well just like today, it is very easy actually to tell if something is a copy or the original because the copier indicates this on the manuscript.

So this proves it's a copy. And your point is....?

Quote:As for any changes, they would have been easy to spot once this manuscript was cross checked with other manuscripts found in other regions.

And this proves.... what? Maybe the copy was used to produce other manuscripts. This would mean all subsequent copies could be cross-checked, but it doesn't mean the first copy has errors or embellishments.

Quote:It’s a good thing scripture was copied and spread around so quickly, so altering of it would have been impossible.

What are you talking about? The Bible is altered TODAY! How many different versions of the Bible are out there? And they don't all match each other!

Quote: I just love when Creationists play this game! "There's no evidence that Jesus was a real person? Well, you can't prove (fill in the name of an historical figure from antiquity) was a real person! NYAAH! NYAAH! NYAAH!"

Actually, it's rather easy to prove Nero was a real person. He is mentioned in historical accounts of the time and his name appears in historical records of the period. The Colossus of Nero was even made in his image during his lifetime. Ya got anything like that for your godboy?

Quote:No sources huh? Oh well these historians of the day, were they Roman? If they were then I am sorry, you cannot use those because I cannot use the letters from the apostles since these could be biased sources.

This is not an issue of "biased sources". It's an issue of knowing who the sources were. For the most part, no one knows who wrote the letters from the apostles. And the ones where authorship is known do not mention an Earthly Jesus. Plus, these writings were composed decades after Jesus supposedly lived. Can't say the same for Roman historians.

Quote:As for the artwork, how do you know they were depicting a real person with this artwork and not a legendary hero?

Google "Colossus of Nero" and find out for yourself. This argument is just stupid.

Quote:I am sorry, you are going to have to do better.

No, you're the one who has to do better.

Quote: Logically? My Logic 101 professor would have failed you for exhibiting this type of "logic".

Quote:My history professor would have failed you for belonging to the “Jesus Myth” crank club.

Nice rebuttal. Has nothing to do with what I said.

Quote: What an incredible steaming pile of crap! So the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs all knew about your deity prior to the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors? How can you spew idiocy like this and expect to be taken seriously?

Quote:Look up the word “Suppress”, and maybe it will clear this up for you a bit.

Nice deflection. You still haven't addressed the question of how people living in the Americas prior to 1492 could have possibly known about a deity worshiped by Europeans.

Quote: Ordering people to stone someone to death shows he's a "just god"? Was he also being "just" when he said you can own slaves?

Quote:Where did he say you can own slaves?

I guess you don't know your Bible very well.

"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover, you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves." Leviticus 25:44-46

Quote:Using your atheistic worldview, why would slavery in Bible times be morally wrong since you seem to assume this point?

Because slavery causes immense harm. It is wrong today, it was wrong then. It's ALWAYS wrong. Do you believe slavery is not wrong? After all, your deity in the sky endorses it. And there's no commandment prohibiting it. But there is a commandment that prohibits saying "Goddammit!". Which is worse? Imagine all the suffering that could have been prevented if your deity had included a commandment saying "Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow man".

Quote:Except Jesus and the devil didn't have a radio.

What makes you think a fallen Angel and the Son of God would need one?

I see my point sailed over your head. Not surprised.

Quote: NOWHERE in the Bible does it say he was shown all the kingdoms "supernaturally"! It doesn't say they were conjured up before him, or that the kingdoms appeared on the clouds, or that the devil gave him a pair of amazing glasses that allowed Jesus to see all the kingdoms of the world. The way the passage is written leaves only one possible interpretation. He was taken to the top of a high mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the world. AN IMPOSSIBILITY!

Quote:What are you talking about? It’s obviously a supernatural event because you can’t see all the kingdoms of the world from a single mountain top.

No, it is NOT "obviously a supernatural event". But, of course, you have to run with this crappola because you need some way to explain something that can't be explained. However, you are right that you can't see all the world's kingdoms from a mountaintop.

Quote:It never says that when Jesus healed the blind that it was a supernatural event, but I know it was because you can’t naturally rub mud on someone’s eyes and have them be healed.

By definition, healing someone with a touch of the hand is a miracle. There is no miracle involved in showing something to someone from the top of a mountain. This passage only makes sense if you believe the world is flat. Otherwise, why would you have to take someone to a mountaintop to show them the world's kingdoms? Why not do it in a valley? Or inside a house?

Quote: Hmmmm... I noticed you didn't try to refute my response to your "Mt. St. Helens proves the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood" bullshit. Maybe you've learned the difference between water quickly creating a canyon in volcanic ash and water very slowly creating a canyon in solid rock?

Quote:Oh no, I just thought that was a bit of a dead horse. The Little Grand Canyon did not actually cut through ash, but rather sediment that had been laid down a few days earlier (600 feet worth).

Yeah, sediment that was composed of ash.

Quote:This is exactly what we believed happened at the Grand Canyon, the receding waters cut through thousands of feet of sediment laid down by the flood.

Except the "sediment" at the Grand Canyon was solid rock! This is far different than cutting a channel through ash and mud.

Quote:To form a canyon you need either a lot of water in a very short period of time or a little water in a long period of time. Unfortunately for your side of the aisle we have never scientifically observed the latter to take place, though we have observed the former.

(Sigh) We don't have to directly observe a canyon being formed to know how it was formed. You just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your moronic holy book. Open your eyes and join the real world.

I believe that's the record for most hide tags used in a post.

(February 15, 2011 at 6:58 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I believe that's the record for most hide tags used in a post.

And breathtakingly stooopid arguments?

(February 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: And you'll notice this is the very definition of hearsay.

Quote:That’s irrelevant.

Glad to see you think it's irrelevant whether or not something crucial to your case is hearsay.

Quote:This is history we are talking about here, not a court case.

Yes, and whether or not something is truly "history" depends on first hand accounts and/or tangible evidence, NOT hearsay.

Quote:When a historian records the existence of a historical figure it is generally accept whether or not that historian physically saw the person or not, especially in those days.

When the historian lived at the time of the historical figure.

Quote:Most people believed Caesar existed despite they themselves never seeing him.

Back to the silliness vis-a-vis the existence of known historical figures, I see.

Quote: I'm hardly changing the height of the bar. Nero is mentioned in historical accounts of the period. He is mentioned in historical documents of the period. Is your godboy mentioned in ANYTHING written at the time he was supposedly alive? No? Didn't think so. My bar remains unchanged.

Quote:Actually the gospel of Luke is believed to have been written shortly after Christ’s death. So I guess you were just wrong on this one.

And this proves....? Luke never claims to have met an Earthly Jesus. He was not an eyewitness.

Fail.

Quote: So what? There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person. Just like there is no evidence that Noah's flood actually occurred. I am highly skeptical of claims when there is no evidence to support those claims. My position is very consistent.

Quote:Name me three Ph.D. historians who believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I bet you can’t even name one because it’s a crackpot position to hold.

You probably don't even see the trap you just fell into. I point out how your position of a 6,000 year old Earth has no support in the scientific community and you dismiss it as an appeal to consensus. Now, you call my notion of a mythological Jesus "a crackpot position" because the majority of Ph.D. historians believe Jesus to have been a real person. How is this not an appeal to consensus? As you so loudly pointed out, consensus does not make for facts!

Quote: Yes, he believes Jesus "probably existed". Again, so what? "Probably" leaves a lot of room for doubt. In fact, "probably" would not get a conviction in a court of law.

Quote:We are not talking about a court of law,

True. But I would say that the minimum standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" should apply when researching history as well as determining guilt in a courtroom. Saying "probably" is little more than an educated guess. In fact, saying "probably" only means it's more likely than not. Which is 51%. Would you bet your life savings on a probability of 51%?

Quote:we are talking about history dingle-berry.

Nice job of slipping in an insult.

Quote: Okay... did ANYONE ELSE witness this miraculous event?

Quote:Yup, Lazarus’ family and Jesus’ disciples were all there.

Great! So, did Lazarus's family write about this miraculous event anywhere? Or is it just claimed by the author of John that they were there? Because I could make an outrageous claim and say "so-and-so witnessed it, too!"

Quote:How could they genuinely believe it if they made it up? The Muslims on 9/11 did not make up Islam, they just fell for it.

Kind of like how you've fallen for Christianity?

Quote: And this does nothing as far as demonstrating that Jesus actually lived.

Quote:Oh yeah, so James was starting a church that followed the teachings of his imaginary brother Jesus, riiiiiigggghhht.

There was a man who walked on water, was born of a virgin, healed people with a touch of his hand and rose up from the dead. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhht.

Quote: Any historian writing about Henry VIII today would reference a primary source for his material. That would be a source who was an eyewitness to the period. I'll say it again.... ya got anything like that for your godboy?

Quote:Yup, Mark, Matthew, and John.

BZZZZTTTT!!

Sorry, incorrect. We don't know who wrote these accounts. The names "Mark", "Matthew" and "John" were attached to these writings by the early church. Also, the earliest of these writings dates to around 70 CE. About four decades after Jesus supposedly died. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts as none of the unknown authors claim to have met an Earthly Jesus.

Nice try, but we do have some lovely parting gifts!

Quote: And as I pointed out, we don't have the original to compare it to. So how do we know how accurate of a copy it is?

Quote:Because hundreds of copies separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles all agree on what the original said Scooter.

How can you say "they all agree on what the original said" when WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL?

Quote: So this proves it's a copy. And your point is....?

Quote:Well you asked how we know it is a copy, so I told you scooter, try and keep up.

Yes, we know it's a copy. This does nothing to prove it's an accurate copy of the original. Looks like you need to keep up.

Quote: What are you talking about? The Bible is altered TODAY! How many different versions of the Bible are out there? And they don't all match each other!

Quote:Yet they all affirm the essentials truths of the Christian faith, funny how that works.

Again with the deflections.

Quote: Nice deflection. You still haven't addressed the question of how people living in the Americas prior to 1492 could have possibly known about a deity worshiped by Europeans.

Quote:Did you not read the passage? It says that Creation professes His existence.

So people living in the Americas prior to Columbus "knew" of your specific deity because of "creation"?

Yeah, makes sense to me.

Quote: "And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover, you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves." Leviticus 25:44-46

Quote:I do read my Bible, just wanted you to do some work for once. Well you should be well aware that the slaves in ancient Israel were not equivalent to the slaves taken by the Europeans out of Africa.

And here we go with the horseshit that it was a "kinder, gentler slavery". What kind of "loving" god would EVER say that it's okay to keep your fellow human beings in chains?

Quote:The slaves in bible days were more like servants and were often a means of getting out of poverty and having a safe place to live and food to eat.

And here's the bullshit claiming that slaves back then were actually indentured servants. Try reading the passage I quoted again. It always cracks me up when believers justify slavery to defend their holy book.

Quote:History matters, but you don’t even believe Jesus was a real person, so I am not surprised you were ignorant to this historical fact.

And this "historical fact" does not relate to the passage I quoted.

Quote:You didn’t really answer the question, why would causing harm to others be wrong?

I didn't say causing harm to others is wrong. I said we should act to minimize harm. Not the same thing.

Quote:Actually taking the Lord’s name in vein does not have anything to do with “Godd***it”, but you would not know that because you don’t’ even think Jesus existed.

Actually, if you lived in a religious community say around 1600 and said, "Goddammit!" you would have been found guilty of blasphemy for using god's name in vain. This is why people would say something like "Gotdang!" or "Goshdarn!". But I wouldn't expect you to know any of this.

Quote: No, it is NOT "obviously a supernatural event". But, of course, you have to run with this crappola because you need some way to explain something that can't be explained.

Quote:I forgot who I was dealing with here, yes you are right it might not be obvious to someone like you, but to most people it is.

Yes, keep running with the rationalization that "it's obviously a supernatural event!" Never mind what the passage ACTUALLY SAYS.

Quote:Otherwise, why would you have to take someone to a mountaintop to show them the world's kingdoms? Why not do it in a valley? Or inside a house?

Quote:Where in the passage does it say he had to go up there? It just says he went up there.

Yes. It says he went up there and was shown all the kingdoms of the world. Pretty straightforward if you ask me.

Quote:When I go in the other room to answer the phone it does not mean I had to go in the other room to do this, just means I did it.

Yeah, great analogy....

I love it when creationists want to take the Bible literally for all manner of nonsensical garbage. But when you show them something that is clearly impossible they say, "No, that's not what it really means!'

Quote: Yeah, sediment that was composed of ash.

Quote:Wrong again, sedimentary soil, not ash.

Soil, ash, it makes no difference.

Quote: Except the "sediment" at the Grand Canyon was solid rock! This is far different than cutting a channel through ash and mud.

Quote:Actually numerous lines of evidence such as the Kaibab upheaval suggest the Grand Canyon was carved before it solidified to rock.

<citation needed>

Quote: Sigh) We don't have to directly observe a canyon being formed to know how it was formed. You just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your moronic holy book. Open your eyes and join the real world.

Quote:By all means, keep believing in unobserved events by blind faith.

I'm guessing you don't even see the irony in this statement.

And knowing how a canyon formed has nothing to do with "blind faith". There is geologic evidence that indicates what formed the canyon. But I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Quote:God’s word says it is my eyes which have been opened; it is you who are steal suppressing the truth in your heart. I’ll take his word over yours.

Keep following the "word" of ancient goatherders. I'm sure it will get you far.

Quote:I’ll leave you with some quotes from actual historians on Jesus and just how silly the Jesus Myth crowd is.

Appealing to consensus again? Tsk, tsk....

I see Waldorf salad has run off crying again.

Must be too, too hard trying to reconcile ASC with E=mc2.

(February 23, 2011 at 8:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I see Waldorf salad has run off crying again.

Must be too, too hard trying to reconcile ASC with E=mc2.

Nah, Waldorf is like having diarrhea. Just when you think it's gone, it comes back again.