(May 24, 2016 at 9:54 am)Jehanne Wrote: Unlike the Gospels, good historical sources from antiquity are NOT anonymous.

The gospel accounts were not anonymous. The Gospel according to John explicitly states that it was written by the Beloved Disciple, an eyewitness to Jesus who was present at the crucifixion. The pagan Celsus believed the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses even though he thought they were lying.

(May 24, 2016 at 9:54 am)Jehanne Wrote: …people write diaries with the intent that someone, someday, will read that diary!! … Just because someone was an eyewitness to an event does NOT automatically make their account true.

The Gospel accounts were not diaries. Diaries are written for personal reasons to one’s self. The Gospel accounts were written to be read publicly and openly preserve a community tradition. Fabrications and inaccuracies would be quickly exposed.

(May 24, 2016 at 9:54 am)Jehanne Wrote: The author of the Gospel of Luke is not a trustworthy source. For starters, historians do not know who he was…

You mean other than he was the gentile (Col 4:4) that wrote the Gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles, Saint Paul’s sidekick (Phil 24), and a doctor (Col 4:14)?

(May 24, 2016 at 9:54 am)Jehanne Wrote: … [we don't know] when he wrote his Gospel…

Being a contemporary of Saint Paul kinda narrows it down. What do you expect a notarized form in a postmarked envelope?

(May 24, 2016 at 9:54 am)Jehanne Wrote: … the author of Luke gets some of his historical facts wrong, blatant errors;

Fortunately William Ramsay corrected the record.

(May 24, 2016 at 9:54 am)Jehanne Wrote: … his portrayal of Jesus is fundamentally different from the Jesus portrayed in Mark, Matthew and John.

I prefer complimentary.

(May 24, 2016 at 4:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I prefer complimentary.

Is that also how you excuse the endings of all of those stories being so different from each other?

(May 24, 2016 at 5:57 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(May 24, 2016 at 4:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I prefer complimentary.

Is that also how you excuse the endings of all of those stories being so different from each other?

If one person says Redbeard wears a silly hat and another says he has a beard there is no contradiction. Both are true and together provide a fuller picture of Redbeard.

Clearly, Chad is not literary inclined and probably never had any coaching toward critically thinking in relation to what he read.

Quote:If one person says Redbeard wears a silly hat and another says he has a beard there is no contradiction. Both are true and together provide a fuller picture of Redbeard.

And if one person says Redbeard's last words were "Oh-oh...I shouldn't have entered the tiger cage" and another person says that Redbeard's last words were "FUUUUUCCCKKKK, IT'S A TIGER!" one of them is wrong.

Which is the problem your fucking bible faces.

(May 24, 2016 at 12:55 am)Irrational Wrote:

(May 24, 2016 at 12:47 am)Godschild Wrote: Mass delusion doesn't work that way.

GC

Why not? I've seen it happen before me. Ever lived in a remote village full of superstitious people? All it takes in this case is for one or two villagers to be excited about having witnessed some divine revelation, and everyone starts believing that they did.

 That's not a world wide belief and many come to know Jesus without others doing the same. So again world wide delusions are not possible. 

GC

(May 24, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Godschild Wrote:  That's not a world wide belief and many come to know Jesus without others doing the same. So again world wide delusions are not possible. 

GC

The biblical world was not the whole wide world either.

Everything that took place in the bible took place in one very small area of the world.

Think of that.

I mean it, try to think for once in your life.

(May 24, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 24, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Godschild Wrote:  That's not a world wide belief and many come to know Jesus without others doing the same. So again world wide delusions are not possible. 

GC

The biblical world was not the whole wide world either.

Everything that took place in the bible took place in one very small area of the world.

Think of that.

I mean it, try to think for once in your life.

 You need to stay out of the simple things you do not understand, his original post to me was about all Christians.

 GC

(May 24, 2016 at 8:39 pm)Godschild Wrote:  You need to stay out of the simple things you do not understand, his original post to me was about all Christians.

 GC

Oh, I finally touched a nerve.

(May 24, 2016 at 2:45 am)Maelstrom Wrote: I feel that I need to break this down a bit, for the theists.

The theist states, "We have died for that in which we believe" (Proper grammar is obviously provided by the atheist)

First and foremost, what the theist believes cannot be evidenced as truth in any way.  

It is due to the fact that the theist relies on faith.

Faith is not evidence, except in the warped mind of the theist.  That is why they are theists.  That is why they ignore logic.

At this point is should be evident that belief itself is not evidence of anything unless it can be supported by something stronger than faith.

 We are told in the NT that our faith can and will become knowledge of God, so you see we have a knowledge unknown to you, a greater knowledge.

GC