(May 30, 2016 at 6:29 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 11:05 am)SteveII Wrote: You really can't understand the difference between examining if a series of events happened and the 27 sources that describe these events? Answer the question I asked: then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject?

I count one extremely biased source, the bible. What are the other 26? Tacitus is out, obvious forgery, so is Josephus. And everything else is at best third or fourth hand retellings of what somebody either heard or read from a few centuries later.

Are you saying the NT is one source? That makes no sense. Your Tacitus and Josephus claims are not supported by most scholars. 

Tacitus: "Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on...ical_value

Josephus: Most of the debate seems to be whether the mention of Jesus was altered to portray him in more favorable life. It seems to be the consensus that he was at least mentioned. 

(May 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 30, 2016 at 11:39 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Steve this is one of those areas where you continually fall flat on your face. You assert that those things actually happened, it is therefore up to you to prove that they did. There is no need for us to prove your assertions false, especially as is the case with miracles those assertions are about the truthfulness of extremely unfeasible events.

You would have the same problem with me asking you to prove the theory of gravity wrong as I have with your continuous efforts to get us to prove your assertions wrong.

I never asked anyone to prove my assertions false.

Yes you did. Read the portion of your post I quoted. It contains a direct question to prove miracles you assert false.

Quote:I have said over and over in this thread, exactly what you quoted above.

No you haven't. I've quoted you saying the exact opposite.

Quote:You have reasons to think the events of Jesus life did not happen...and those reasons, when examined closely, just seem to be the claim that supernatural events do not happen.

Correct. The rational explanation that miracles cannot happen because they are the result of an agent who exists outside reality is my position. Congratulations on finally getting that simple point through your thick skull.

Quote:Therefore the argument goes: supernatural events did not happen because supernatural events cannot happen. Tell me why that is not circular.

D'uh. Because what is supernatural is what exists outside nature, and nature is the sum total of reality. Therefore any claim outside nature can be safely ignored.

Quote:Your illustration of me proving theory of gravity wrong is disanalogous to a discussion on historical events. I happen to believe the events of Jesus' life are recorded accurately enough.

You happen to be wrong. The earliest version of the accepted bible wasn't created until the 4th century CE, and has gone through many changes up until at least the 20th century CE. It has been radically altered, for example the oldest version of the gospel the Markan document originally had no resurrection, the long ending with a resurrection only appearing in the 200s CE, when a preponderance of theologists were coming down as proto-orthodox, and therefore had a vested interest in showing that Yeshua was god and had resurrected bodily.

Quote:I am not typing them again, so you can look back even a page or two if you want to know what they are. Additionally, I find theories of "honest mistake" or "vast conspiracy" not having any real substance--seems like people just throwing stuff against the wall to see what might stick.

I know what you believe are arguments in favour of biblical truthfullness. Unfortunately they are at best bad arguments easily exposed as insufficient by large loopholes, special pleading, ignoring the available evidence and assuming that multiple writers are actually one person (there is significant evidence that four different people wrote all the Pauline texts in the bible, and sufficient evidence that more than one person wrote it. There is no evidence that any of the writers were actually Saul of Tarsus).

(May 30, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

Quote:Therefore the argument goes: supernatural events did not happen because supernatural events cannot happen. Tell me why that is not circular.

D'uh. Because what is supernatural is what exists outside nature, and nature is the sum total of reality. Therefore any claim outside nature can be safely ignored.

"Nature is the sum total of reality" You are asserting that nature is all there is. Why do you get to assert that? Science does not make that claim (it can't make metaphysical claims). So what reasoning do you have for saying that supernaturally caused events cannot and do not happen. Please try not to make your claim circular (they don't happen because they can't happen).

(May 30, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

Quote:Your illustration of me proving theory of gravity wrong is disanalogous to a discussion on historical events. I happen to believe the events of Jesus' life are recorded accurately enough.

You happen to be wrong. The earliest version of the accepted bible wasn't created until the 4th century CE, and has gone through many changes up until at least the 20th century CE. It has been radically altered, for example the oldest version of the gospel the Markan document originally had no resurrection, the long ending with a resurrection only appearing in the 200s CE, when a preponderance of theologists were coming down as proto-orthodox, and therefore had a vested interest in showing that Yeshua was god and had resurrected bodily.

Read this if you want to know just how far off you are. Also, have you ever looked at the approximate dates each book of the NT was written?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...0.93325.29

What do you think the abrupt ending of Mark proves? Certainly nothing that would support your argument. In the last few versus of the "uncontested" portion, it is clear that Jesus was expecting to see them again in Galilee. 

Quote:Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Some scholars believe the author of Mark included an OLDER passage on the death and resurrection into his original book that would have been familiar to the audience and therefore sometimes separated early on from the rest of the book.

(May 30, 2016 at 7:24 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 30, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: D'uh. Because what is supernatural is what exists outside nature, and nature is the sum total of reality. Therefore any claim outside nature can be safely ignored.

"Nature is the sum total of reality" You are asserting that nature is all there is. Why do you get to assert that? Science does not make that claim (it can't make metaphysical claims). So what reasoning do you have for saying that supernaturally caused events cannot and do not happen. Please try not to make your claim circular (they don't happen because they can't happen).

The only circular logic is yours, Christian.

(May 30, 2016 at 7:24 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 30, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: D'uh. Because what is supernatural is what exists outside nature, and nature is the sum total of reality. Therefore any claim outside nature can be safely ignored.

"Nature is the sum total of reality" You are asserting that nature is all there is. Why do you get to assert that? Science does not make that claim (it can't make metaphysical claims). So what reasoning do you have for saying that supernaturally caused events cannot and do not happen. Please try not to make your claim circular (they don't happen because they can't happen).

Because it is axiomatic you dunce. If we allow the existence of one being outside of reality how can we say other such beings, like Brahma, Nuggan, Sauron, Loki or Q don't also exist?

If you want your god to be able to affect nature from outside nature, then you've got to accept the reality of all other beings who have been proposed that can do the same and who have the same evidential basis (which, as we're starting from god is 0).

Steve, when you stop spouting hooey, please provide me with something of actual substance.

(May 25, 2016 at 12:08 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 11:23 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: By corroborating evidence from various different sources, the more the better.

As far as I can see you haven't examined anything other than the Bible, and it makes no difference as to whether you split it up into 27 sources to make it sound more credible my friend, it's still the Bible.

I asked for your other reliable sources please.

So in one sentence you ask for "various different sources" and in the very next sentence you say "it makes no difference as to whether you split it up into 27 sources". You win. I can't argue with that logic.

You can't possibly be that stupid.

You asked how we get to know that anything is the truth, I told you that usually we get to the the truth (or as close as we can manage) by corroborating evidence from varying different sources.

I then, being generous, asked you for just one other source than the Bible.  Just one.  Those 27 sources, constitute the Bible dickhead, so you, luckily, as I am so generous, are now being asked to find one other source please.  Just one.

Or will you avoid the challenge in a pathetic attempt at being clever?

(May 30, 2016 at 7:51 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 30, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: You happen to be wrong. The earliest version of the accepted bible wasn't created until the 4th century CE, and has gone through many changes up until at least the 20th century CE. It has been radically altered, for example the oldest version of the gospel the Markan document originally had no resurrection, the long ending with a resurrection only appearing in the 200s CE, when a preponderance of theologists were coming down as proto-orthodox, and therefore had a vested interest in showing that Yeshua was god and had resurrected bodily.

Read this if you want to know just how far off you are. Also, have you ever looked at the approximate dates each book of the NT was written?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...0.93325.29

What do you think the abrupt ending of Mark proves? Certainly nothing that would support your argument. In the last few versus of the "uncontested" portion, it is clear that Jesus was expecting to see them again in Galilee. 

Quote:Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Some scholars believe the author of Mark included an OLDER passage on the death and resurrection into his original book that would have been familiar to the audience and therefore sometimes separated early on from the rest of the book.

It shows that the bible has been significantly altered post writing, and considering that original Mark is present in the Codex Vaticanus we know that this alteration didn't become set theology until hundreds of years after christ's alleged life and death. While I'm not going to speculate on early christian theologies (hard to speculate on something with only fragmented scraps of evidence), I will say that that major change is strong evidence that current chritianity was massively altered at some stage.

Some "scholars" also believe that global warming isn't anthropogenic or that people used ride on dinosaurs. Just because you can get somebody in a cap and gown to agree with you doesn't make your assertions correct. The evidence we have shows that until at least the 200s CE Mark stopped at 16:8, if you want to claim different, provide evidence to back your claim. Anyways, appealing to biblical "scholarship" doesn't cut it for me, because like economics to much of that discipline is spent trying to fit facts to preconceived assumptions, either bt omission of inconvenient realities, or the invention of documents, or the acceptance of obvious falsehoods.

OK, I have an eye witness account here from a Muslim. You'll have to excuse the English as it's not his first language.

"I see Allah, his appearance by the big red stone is great to me and to those that around me, and he speak not in the word. In my heart I know it is God, and he show me he is true. Islam being the one true faith."

That's one. If I produce another 27 accounts from other Muslims, all describing this same event, will you believe it happened? Will it be even more true than Christianity? How do we decide which is true if they are both true but can't both be true? Are you going to suggest all 28 of them are deluded or lying?