@h311inac311

You’re still (deliberately, I think) missing the point about Moby Dick. I mentioned it to refute one particular point you made, that the  number of copies of a manuscript has some bearing on the truth or falsity of what’s contained in that manuscript. It doesn’t matter if the author claims it to be true or if there are people who believe it to be true. 

Think about the converse of your argument: if there was only a single but complete copy of the Gospel of Luke, would you be less likely to believe it to be true? What you’re doing with your point about copies is setting up a scale of veracity based on a single - and rather silly - criterion.

Let me try another example. Consider Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ‘History of The Kings of Britain’. Monmouth claimed it to be true. It was considered to be a valuable historical source for nearly half a millennium. There are hundreds of manuscripts of it dating from during or shortly after Geoffrey’s lifetime. And yet it contains such nonsense as the Trojans found Britain, wizards, dragons, legendary kings, etc.

Boru

(May 18, 2024 at 7:11 am)h311inac311 Wrote: The issue I have with comparing the Gospels to Moby Dick is that Herman Melvil never even once made the claim that his story was true. Nor is there any significant number of people alive today who think that Captain Ahab was a real person. If you're going to make a comparison I think it should be more Apples to Apples in order for it to be effective. 

Let's imagine that I wanted to create a version of Abraham Lincoln who raised people from the dead and fought vampires. If I tried to spread Lincolnism today, beyond taking advantage of a small handful of lonely and imaginative people, how well would Lincolnism stand up to criticism? Would if my Lincolnites were being persecuted or killed for their faith? How many of them do you think would be willing to die for something that can so easily be proven false? 

In 200 A.D. denying that Jesus performed miracles was almost impossible. There were simply too many eye-witness accounts that had been passed down by parents to their grand children (and on to their grand children as well). The Jews had every reason to want to dis-credit Jesus, but they couldn't assert that the miracles weren't real so they just had to call him a sorcerer and leave it at that.
If Jesus performed no miracles then why did so many people believe in him? And why were so many people convinced that he was able to cast out demons? How did his word spread across Rome, Greece and even Israel when it was being met with so much resistance? Why were so many people willing to die for the idea that their life had been touched by the Holy spirit? 

Why were there so many people willing to face death or imprisonment for their faith? How much more opposition could a believer of any story encounter? How much opposition would prove that, at the very least, their beliefs were sincerely held?

For a guy who was hanged on a cross and bled out in front of thousands of jeering spectators (gods aren't supposed to bleed you know). For a guy whom many believed to be a god the crusifixion would represent the defeat of said god, would Thor allow himself to be sacrificed by his own people? What about Zeus? No one was expecting the son of God to allow something like this to happen. Every rational person was thinking at that time, "If Jesus is more than just a sorcerer, then why wouldn't he come down from that cross? Why not summon an army of angels? Why not use a miracle in front of all these witnesses to prevent yourself from experiencing any more pain, or humiliation?"

  Who among us would be willing to face that amount of pain and humiliation if we had the power to simply snap our fingers and become Superman?

         For the skeptic, the crucifixion would mark the ultimate cap-stone to Jesus legacy. He lived, people say he performed a few miracles, and then he died by the people he was trying to save. In the end he was proven to be a fraud, he was proven not to be the son of God. And so an execution, that would've ended any other cult leader's career; somehow managed to be the most talked about miracle in history; the empty tomb.


Why did the disciples go from being depressed, after Christ's crucifixion, and giving up on spreading the gospel to being willing to risk their lives for Jesus?
What explains Paul's conversion from a man who wanted to kill Christians to a man who was willing to die for the testimony of Christ?

"Would you believe that a christian life was a good life, if there were no christ?"  Well if it were proven that Christ couldn't do miracles then I would probably try to keep the morals but I would retreat to Daoism. I like Lao Tsu's teaching a lot so it's my second favorite religion.

Your desperate need for validation from atheists is cringe worthy.

(May 18, 2024 at 7:11 am)h311inac311 Wrote: The issue I have with comparing the Gospels to Moby Dick is that Herman Melvil never even once made the claim that his story was true. Nor is there any significant number of people alive today who think that Captain Ahab was a real person. If you're going to make a comparison I think it should be more Apples to Apples in order for it to be effective. 

Let's imagine that I wanted to create a version of Abraham Lincoln who raised people from the dead and fought vampires. If I tried to spread Lincolnism today, beyond taking advantage of a small handful of lonely and imaginative people, how well would Lincolnism stand up to criticism? Would if my Lincolnites were being persecuted or killed for their faith? How many of them do you think would be willing to die for something that can so easily be proven false? 

In 200 A.D. denying that Jesus performed miracles was almost impossible. There were simply too many eye-witness accounts that had been passed down by parents to their grand children (and on to their grand children as well). The Jews had every reason to want to dis-credit Jesus, but they couldn't assert that the miracles weren't real so they just had to call him a sorcerer and leave it at that.
If Jesus performed no miracles then why did so many people believe in him? And why were so many people convinced that he was able to cast out demons? How did his word spread across Rome, Greece and even Israel when it was being met with so much resistance? Why were so many people willing to die for the idea that their life had been touched by the Holy spirit? 

Why were there so many people willing to face death or imprisonment for their faith? How much more opposition could a believer of any story encounter? How much opposition would prove that, at the very least, their beliefs were sincerely held?

For a guy who was hanged on a cross and bled out in front of thousands of jeering spectators (gods aren't supposed to bleed you know). For a guy whom many believed to be a god the crusifixion would represent the defeat of said god, would Thor allow himself to be sacrificed by his own people? What about Zeus? No one was expecting the son of God to allow something like this to happen. Every rational person was thinking at that time, "If Jesus is more than just a sorcerer, then why wouldn't he come down from that cross? Why not summon an army of angels? Why not use a miracle in front of all these witnesses to prevent yourself from experiencing any more pain, or humiliation?"

  Who among us would be willing to face that amount of pain and humiliation if we had the power to simply snap our fingers and become Superman?

         For the skeptic, the crucifixion would mark the ultimate cap-stone to Jesus legacy. He lived, people say he performed a few miracles, and then he died by the people he was trying to save. In the end he was proven to be a fraud, he was proven not to be the son of God. And so an execution, that would've ended any other cult leader's career; somehow managed to be the most talked about miracle in history; the empty tomb.


Why did the disciples go from being depressed, after Christ's crucifixion, and giving up on spreading the gospel to being willing to risk their lives for Jesus?
What explains Paul's conversion from a man who wanted to kill Christians to a man who was willing to die for the testimony of Christ?

"Would you believe that a christian life was a good life, if there were no christ?"  Well if it were proven that Christ couldn't do miracles then I would probably try to keep the morals but I would retreat to Daoism. I like Lao Tsu's teaching a lot so it's my second favorite religion.

There we go, it doesn't matter at all.  It's not on the basis of your belief in christ that you think a christian life is a good one.  You'd live the way you live even if there were no christ.   I get that, I'd live the way I live even if there were.

You can extend that observation to alot of things.  People would die for christ, even if there were no christ.  You probably don't extend this inference to, say, islam.  Why do you think they would "die for a lie"?  

At any rate, the stories of roman persecution are largely fabrication written by later chistians to justify a pogrom that they were engaged in.  In mere reality, rome was a truly multicultural society - and christianity was invited into the fold even as it damned and denigrated the people and culture it sought to replace. Think about that for a minute.  It wasn't until christians inserted themselves into the squabbles of the roman nobility and who should be king that they managed to get themselves afoul of the competing families.  It all ended well though, as above, when they captured the state through said families they executed any dissenters.  

Odin hung himself on the world tree pierced with a spear in order to gain the secrets of magic - and all of the norse gods die in the end fighting side by side with us.  Sedanta got whacked protecting one damned cow. Prometheus got the business for helping out out with fire.  Quetzalcoatl threw himself into the sun for us - that's what all the human sacrifice was about, trying to match his sacrifice and keep the world from ending.  Our gods and heroes tend to be helpers.  IDK if a lincoln cult would work...but it would have much better evidence than the jesus cult...and people do believe alot of strange things so why not.  Christianity was a small handful of lonely and imaginative people once, too.

Ultimately, though, none of this matters to the historical jesus, who performed no miracles and did die.  The god in the flesh who rose from the dead isn't history - it's religion.

(May 18, 2024 at 7:13 am)h311inac311 Wrote:

(May 17, 2024 at 4:59 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: It never had to. It's upon those making the claim that witches exist to prove their claim. This is called the burden of proof, and you're attempting to shift it elsewhere. Bad form.

Well Ravenshire Foxaer said, "where history SHOWS they were just ordinary women." If witches have been SHOWN to be ordinary women by history then I would expect Foxaer to have at least one example.

You're still asking for support of a claim in opposition to a claim you have no interest in supporting, only asserting. Whether anyone can show that many women were falsely accused of witchcraft over throughout history has no bearing whatsoever on whether you can support your claim that there are witches.

Honestly, It's not my claim, and not my fight, but if you're truly interested in the history of alleged witchcraft claims, there are tons of examples readily available. Google is you're friend, but only if you can pull yourself out of the circle jerk of willful ignorance.

(May 18, 2024 at 7:11 am)h311inac311 Wrote: The issue I have with comparing the Gospels to Moby Dick is that Herman Melvil never even once made the claim that his story was true. Nor is there any significant number of people alive today who think that Captain Ahab was a real person. If you're going to make a comparison I think it should be more Apples to Apples in order for it to be effective. 

Let's imagine that I wanted to create a version of Abraham Lincoln who raised people from the dead and fought vampires. If I tried to spread Lincolnism today, beyond taking advantage of a small handful of lonely and imaginative people, how well would Lincolnism stand up to criticism? Would if my Lincolnites were being persecuted or killed for their faith? How many of them do you think would be willing to die for something that can so easily be proven false? 

In 200 A.D. denying that Jesus performed miracles was almost impossible. There were simply too many eye-witness accounts that had been passed down by parents to their grand children (and on to their grand children as well). The Jews had every reason to want to dis-credit Jesus, but they couldn't assert that the miracles weren't real so they just had to call him a sorcerer and leave it at that.
If Jesus performed no miracles then why did so many people believe in him? And why were so many people convinced that he was able to cast out demons? How did his word spread across Rome, Greece and even Israel when it was being met with so much resistance? Why were so many people willing to die for the idea that their life had been touched by the Holy spirit? 

Why were there so many people willing to face death or imprisonment for their faith? How much more opposition could a believer of any story encounter? How much opposition would prove that, at the very least, their beliefs were sincerely held?

For a guy who was hanged on a cross and bled out in front of thousands of jeering spectators (gods aren't supposed to bleed you know). For a guy whom many believed to be a god the crusifixion would represent the defeat of said god, would Thor allow himself to be sacrificed by his own people? What about Zeus? No one was expecting the son of God to allow something like this to happen. Every rational person was thinking at that time, "If Jesus is more than just a sorcerer, then why wouldn't he come down from that cross? Why not summon an army of angels? Why not use a miracle in front of all these witnesses to prevent yourself from experiencing any more pain, or humiliation?"

  Who among us would be willing to face that amount of pain and humiliation if we had the power to simply snap our fingers and become Superman?

         For the skeptic, the crucifixion would mark the ultimate cap-stone to Jesus legacy. He lived, people say he performed a few miracles, and then he died by the people he was trying to save. In the end he was proven to be a fraud, he was proven not to be the son of God. And so an execution, that would've ended any other cult leader's career; somehow managed to be the most talked about miracle in history; the empty tomb.


Why did the disciples go from being depressed, after Christ's crucifixion, and giving up on spreading the gospel to being willing to risk their lives for Jesus?
What explains Paul's conversion from a man who wanted to kill Christians to a man who was willing to die for the testimony of Christ?

"Would you believe that a christian life was a good life, if there were no christ?"  Well if it were proven that Christ couldn't do miracles then I would probably try to keep the morals but I would retreat to Daoism. I like Lao Tsu's teaching a lot so it's my second favorite religion.

Check me here guys:

The authors made truth claims...

New religions can't be started...

Eyewitness testimony of miracles...

They wouldn't die for a lie...

The crucifiction was special and unique...

I think I got a "Bad Christer Argument Bingo" winner here. And all from just one post.

(May 16, 2024 at 5:15 pm)h311inac311 Wrote:

(May 16, 2024 at 4:24 pm)Foxaèr Wrote: My measure for what is historical is the ordinary, the natural. For a faith that is unnatural will see witches where history shows they were just ordinary women.

When did history prove that witches aren't real.

Does yahweh have to grant majik powers to witches or is that out of yahwehs control?

(May 18, 2024 at 7:27 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @h311inac311

You’re still (deliberately, I think) missing the point about Moby Dick. I mentioned it to refute one particular point you made, that the  number of copies of a manuscript has some bearing on the truth or falsity of what’s contained in that manuscript. It doesn’t matter if the author claims it to be true or if there are people who believe it to be true. 

Think about the converse of your argument: if there was only a single but complete copy of the Gospel of Luke, would you be less likely to believe it to be true? What you’re doing with your point about copies is setting up a scale of veracity based on a single - and rather silly - criterion.

Let me try another example. Consider Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ‘History of The Kings of Britain’. Monmouth claimed it to be true. It was considered to be a valuable historical source for nearly half a millennium. There are hundreds of manuscripts of it dating from during or shortly after Geoffrey’s lifetime. And yet it contains such nonsense as the Trojans found Britain, wizards, dragons, legendary kings, etc.

Boru

You're saying old Geoff was a Prophet??

Meh. The weirdest bit is that Moby Dick was absolutely and without a doubt based on real events in the authors own time with vast economic implications - but, apparently, that's not good enough...and at the same time, too much. The jesus story, less established and more fanciful, is both true and just right, somehow. It's not fair to compare the one to the other, even though Moby Dick would be a profitable comparison to christers and their own white whale.


Ooookay, then?

(May 18, 2024 at 7:27 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @h311inac311

You’re still (deliberately, I think) missing the point about Moby Dick. I mentioned it to refute one particular point you made, that the  number of copies of a manuscript has some bearing on the truth or falsity of what’s contained in that manuscript. It doesn’t matter if the author claims it to be true or if there are people who believe it to be true. 

Think about the converse of your argument: if there was only a single but complete copy of the Gospel of Luke, would you be less likely to believe it to be true? What you’re doing with your point about copies is setting up a scale of veracity based on a single - and rather silly - criterion.

Let me try another example. Consider Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ‘History of The Kings of Britain’. Monmouth claimed it to be true. It was considered to be a valuable historical source for nearly half a millennium. There are hundreds of manuscripts of it dating from during or shortly after Geoffrey’s lifetime. And yet it contains such nonsense as the Trojans found Britain, wizards, dragons, legendary kings, etc.

Boru

     What I'm getting at is that multiple copies can be compared one to another to ensure that they haven't been tampered with. Simply put, if we have 100 copies of Mark then it is basically impossible for any one person to be able to alter the Gospel of Mark. The edits can be compared against the other copies. People will make mistakes, language will change, even people with good intentions will add to the scriptures (as they did with the story of the woman caught in adutery) but ultimately the vast majority of these copies agree far more than they disagree. The mistakes can be made known by comparing them to the majority of the other texts that are available. 

                  I knew at least one of you would want to pull the "Gospels have been corrupted" card. So I was trying to get ahead of that claim.

      No, I'm not setting up a scale of veracity based on one single and important criterion. I'm pointing something out that's very important to know. The Gospels haven't been tampered with. We know that as a historical fact because of the many different copies of the original which are still available today. It is one point in favor of the Gospel, can a Mighty Temple be built on a single pillar? I'm just here to make sure that you guys know that the first pillar is there and that it is made of stone. 


 How do you know that Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of The Kings of Britain' is wrong?

(May 18, 2024 at 11:15 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There we go, it doesn't matter at all.  It's not on the basis of your belief in christ that you think a christian life is a good one.  You'd live the way you live even if there were no christ.   I get that, I'd live the way I live even if there were.  

You can extend that observation to alot of things.  People would die for christ, even if there were no christ.  You probably don't extend this inference to, say, islam.  Why do you think they would "die for a lie"?  

At any rate, the stories of roman persecution are largely fabrication written by later chistians to justify a pogrom that they were engaged in.  In mere reality, rome was a truly multicultural society - and christianity was invited into the fold even as it damned and denigrated the people and culture it sought to replace.  Think about that for a minute.  It wasn't until christians inserted themselves into the squabbles of the roman nobility and who should be king that they managed to get themselves afoul of the competing families.  It all ended well though, as above, when they captured the state through said families they executed any dissenters.  

Odin hung himself on the world tree pierced with a spear in order to gain the secrets of magic - and all of the norse gods die in the end fighting side by side with us.  Sedanta got whacked protecting one damned cow.  Prometheus got the business for helping out out with fire.  Quetzalcoatl threw himself into the sun for us - that's what all the human sacrifice was about, trying to match his sacrifice and keep the world from ending.  Our gods and heroes tend to be helpers.  IDK if a lincoln cult would work...but it would have much better evidence than the jesus cult...and people do believe alot of strange things so why not.  Christianity was a small handful of lonely and imaginative people once, too.

Ultimately, though, none of this matters to the historical jesus, who performed no miracles and did die.  The god in the flesh who rose from the dead isn't history - it's religion.

     The point I was making is that Jesus' crucifixion should've been the end of his ministry. Even the disciples themselves were discouraged by it. They returned to their day jobs because from every angle it appeared as though their messiah was a fraud. That's how most people of that time would've interpreted Jesus' death. Gods don't bleed, how could someone who claimed to be the son of God be overcome by his enemies? If Jesus really was crucified then not only would the disciples have given up on him, so would everyone else. He would've gone down in history as a false messiah.

The reason why Muslims sacrifice their own lives for Allah is because their beliefs are sincere. 

     The fact that most of the early apostles proved that they were willing to die for their faith does add something to the veracity of their claims. Will people die for something that they know to be a lie? Some of these apostles claimed to have traveled with Christ and watched him as he performed miracles. And for some reason all of these witnesses, when isolated, when facing certain death; were still willing to testify to the end that Jesus is the Truth. Even if denying him meant saving their own skin. How many other religions can say that about their earliest proponents?

Of course you are always free to say, "but that doesn't mean that its true." With regards to ancient history you will always have that luxury. All I'm pointing out is that there is plenty of good evidence to support the message of the Gospel.

You claim that Jesus did not rise again, what do you base that on?