(August 19, 2009 at 9:09 pm)Rokcet Scientist Wrote:

(July 17, 2009 at 5:14 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: How do I go about getting ex-communicated from that bunch of [expletive deleted]'s they call Catholics?

Kyu

Yeah, that's a tough one!
How about mooning Benedict?
That oughta cost brownie points, dunnit?
But then again, he'd probably promote you to head altar boy...

I technically can be excommunicated, it's a goal of mine.

---

(August 19, 2009 at 7:04 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Sure, many scholars believe it, but there are also some who don't. Anyway, none of this is central, since scholarly consensus is also that there were much earlier written records (Q in some form) and a historical Jesus; the current orthodoxy is two-source hypothesis. Regardless, the discussion has gone off track; apparently you thought I were arguing that if Jesus existed, then his divinity is automatically verified. Not so. I was only arguing for a historical Jesus.

Yeah but believing there could have been earlier records like Q is useless without substantial evidence. You can't really speculate on writings that you don't have.

(August 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm)chatpilot Wrote: "Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE. "

And that's exactly what I've been dealing with all along. There's nothing new in the article you linked to, and it exactly resonates with what I've already said - namely that late dates are accepted only because people believe there are prophesies in the first Gospel (though amazingly, far from all scholars agree which exact events in the first century it does prophesy; some have suggested that it prophesies events as late as in the second century, and thus postponed it's dating until the mid second century, only proving my point that vague predictions happen all the time, and are easily explained as coincidences or reasonable anticipations, before it's necesary to believe in prophecies), which is not even necessary to presuppose, and then of course, on top of that presupposition, the additional presupposition that prophesies are not possible is needed before we can infer a late date. That is not historical evidence, but philosophical presuppositions. Those dates are accepted by many scholars on grounds which are simply insufficient.

---

(August 19, 2009 at 10:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Then how about some evidence that does not boil down to, effectively, one believer lying and another swearing to it?

There is more evidence than that. The mainstream scholarly view (if you do want to follow "scientific consensus") is that there is, and that there is sufficient reason and material in favour of the fact that the historical Jesus existed, even if most scholars disagree on a variety of other things (such as exact datings, exact source hypotheses, etc), this is the one most universally attested fact in all New Testament history studies. This is the shared mainstream position (mythical Jesus is not; I've seen it classified as an "ideologically driven revisionist project" by scholars who were certainly not in favour of an orthodox Christian interpretation). What is important are really the grounds on which it is accepted, but I have already dealt with that; I am not going to repeat the reasons why scholars think so; I have made sufficient posts and even linked to external resources if anyone is interested in further studies.

JP I notice how selective you are in answering specific post,but every time I bring up the Q document you ignore my refutations although I think that I have made valid points on the matter.As to the existence of Jesus Christ there is no evidence outside of the gospels that point to the existence of a literal Jesus.In fact as I have stated in other posts his so called earthly life is only captured in biographical form in the synoptic gospels and some of the apocryphal books.All these writers were believers in a literal Christ so I believe that that alone disqualifies them as witnesses since their testimony is swayed by their own personal convictions.Not to mention that none of them had ever met or walked with this fictional Christ.The entire N.T. is based on second and third person accounts and it could even be possibly further removed.

There is also that matter that Jesus Christ is not even a proper name but a title.
The name Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Joshua" (which is why you find Him occasionally referred to as Yeshua by people of Jewish background who have become Christians).

The Hebrew word Joshua means 'Jehovah is salvation', hence the meaning of Jesus name savior.

Christ="anointed one" or "messiah"

No one knows where he was crucified or where the actual tomb is located and all the locations that are currently used for tourists are symbolic.There is literally not a shred of valid unbiased evidence available to confirm the existence of Jesus Christ.And if he did exist I don't think he was named Jesus Christ in the first place.

(August 20, 2009 at 8:55 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: I technically can be excommunicated, it's a goal of mine.

How?

I've a good mind to write to the Pope and tell him how I want to burn the Vatican and every other rat-infested Catholic scum church to the ground.

Kyu

Quote:The mainstream scholarly view (if you do want to follow "scientific consensus") is that there is,

But WHAT is it? I've heard the same bullshit response a thousand times and whenever I ask WHAT evidence that so-called "mainstream scholarly view" is based upon I get nothing but silence.

Don't feel bad. Even Bart Ehrman, who has destroyed the credibility of the gospels holds to this same bullshit but never says what evidence he is relying on. So, if you can't answer, you won't be the first.

Hmmm.....


The silence is deafening.

(August 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But WHAT is it? I've heard the same bullshit response a thousand times and whenever I ask WHAT evidence that so-called "mainstream scholarly view" is based upon I get nothing but silence.

I have already pointed to many reasons why there is sufficient evidence to establish the historical existence of Jesus. As to the rest, I'm not going to continue a discussion ad nauseam, when it's clear that our difference is that I rely on what is generally accepted by historians as historical evidence, while you are a special pleader with your own special demands that I, or any professional and responsible historian couldn't care less about.

(August 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm)chatpilot Wrote: JP I notice how selective you are in answering specific post,but every time I bring up the Q document you ignore my refutations although I think that I have made valid points on the matter.As to the existence of Jesus Christ there is no evidence outside of the gospels that point to the existence of a literal Jesus.In fact as I have stated in other posts his so called earthly life is only captured in biographical form in the synoptic gospels and some of the apocryphal books.All these writers were believers in a literal Christ so I believe that that alone disqualifies them as witnesses since their testimony is swayed by their own personal convictions.Not to mention that none of them had ever met or walked with this fictional Christ.The entire N.T. is based on second and third person accounts and it could even be possibly further removed.

They are not "disqualified" for that, and certainly not according to the scholarly view since it is that the Gospels are a record of much earlier traditions and source material; this being generally accepted, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You have done nothing to disprove it, for your statement that we don't have earliest source material available is completely obvious for anyone but an illiterate or ignorant; if we did, scholars wouldn't need to reconstruct it through textual criticism. That does not mean the earlier source material doesn't exist, and in any case, doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. In either case, you have also failed to address my demonstration that a late date for the first Gospel is proposed on largely presuppositional grounds, and than earlier date is historically defensible sheerly from the historical evidence at hand, thus positing it within the lifetime of Jesus contemporaries and -in any case- the first Gospel especially, is historical evidence for Jesus existence, and generally considered as such.

(August 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm)chatpilot Wrote: There is also that matter that Jesus Christ is not even a proper name but a title.
The name Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Joshua" (which is why you find Him occasionally referred to as Yeshua by people of Jewish background who have become Christians).

The Hebrew word Joshua means 'Jehovah is salvation', hence the meaning of Jesus name savior.

Christ="anointed one" or "messiah"

I know Christ is a title. The arguments you are making are non-arguments. Stop pretending that they support your case.

(August 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm)chatpilot Wrote: No one knows where he was crucified or where the actual tomb is located and all the locations that are currently used for tourists are symbolic.There is literally not a shred of valid unbiased evidence available to confirm the existence of Jesus Christ.And if he did exist I don't think he was named Jesus Christ in the first place.

There are archaeological reconstructions which give us a great deal of insight into the geographical locations, and together with other disciplines also verify (as I have already mentioned) the historical reliability of the Gospels, indicating their contemporary source with time and location of Jesus life.

Quoting myself:

(August 18, 2009 at 3:06 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: What you have also completely ignored is that the New Testament (and the Old alike) contains historically verifiable data about real events and real locations in which the events it speaks of take place, and the timespace that they do. It demonstrates contemporary knowledge of the time and place in history in which it posites Jesus life which at the very least proves that the writers had access to a source of this knowledge which was contemporary with Jesus' existence. A review and verification of this contemporary and verifiable historical knowledge has been made by numerous mainstream scholars, in many different disciplines relevant to historical inquiry. I have recently read a great book in my own language on this topic, but there are also ones available in English, such as The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by C. Blomberg.

I will point to some additional resources here. Except for The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by C. Blomberg, there is also Is The New Testament Reliable? by Paul Barnett.

Relevant to the mentioned archeaological reconstruction and archaeological vericity of the New Testament reliability is Jesus and Archaeology, by James H. Charlesworth.

On the historicy of Jesus and his historical reconstruction, the most comprehensive single resource you can find is probably Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide by Gerd Theissen.

JP as I suspected all those authors and so called historians and scholars just happen to be Christian.I took the time to google them and honestly I would not waste a moment reading any of those books since they are biased by their preconceived ideas based on their faiths. Blomberg received his MA at Trinity Evangelical in my opinion Christian universities are not even appropriate places to study the scriptures. James Charlesworth is also a Christian and Paul Barnett is a bishop from Australia and Gerd Theissen is a German ordained minister. All of their studies and books combined are just as useless as the N.T. gospels for studying the historicity of Jesus or the historical reliability of the gospels.

Since your reply was a pathetic list of Christian biased authors I will give you a list of Authors as well that can equally refute all of the trash these so called scholars put out.
1.Gospel Fictions by: Randel Helms
2.Jesus in history and myth by: R. Joseph Hoffmann and Gerald A Larue
3.The Orthodox corruption of scripture by: Bart Erhman
4.Jesus interrupted by: Bart Erhman

hell I could do this all day.And don't forget you are the one proposing that your religious founder and beliefs are true and stating them as facts just like any good Christian would do.But the onus to prove these assertions is not on the atheists but on you the believer.

(August 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: [As for your claim that] you were once an atheist, it was pointless [...] done purely to 'score points' and in some way 'prove' you have now chosen a superior path.

First, it was not pointless. Minimalist identified himself as an atheist who is an ex-Christian, so Jon identified himself as a Christian who is an ex-atheist. Jon was in other words saying to him, "So what?" And it was rather spot on. Second, when Minimalist identified himself as a former "xtian" who rejected those "fairy tales" with unabashed prejudicial language, was it done to 'score points' and in some way 'prove' he has now chosen a superior path? Your criticism of Jon applies also to Minimalist. Nay, it applies even more so to Minimalist because the contemptuous tone in his remarks tells us that he sees his atheism as a superior path—while not a fucking thing in Jon's post supports your wild speculation.

(August 12, 2009 at 3:50 am)theVOID Wrote: The law of non-contradiction is testable.

Is it? All right, describe the test.

(August 12, 2009 at 7:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The law of non-contradiction says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time, so the way to falsify this would be to find something that could be both true and false at the same time.

That is not exactly correct, Adrian. It states that (using your language) "something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect," the latter part being fundamentally important because something can be true in one respect and simultaneously false in a different respect.

(August 12, 2009 at 7:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote: [The law of non-contradiction] is descriptive, not prescriptive.

And this also is false. Look at the language used to express the proposition, Adrian: "something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect." Descriptives are expressed by "is/is not" statements (what is given a posteriori), while prescriptives or normatives are expressed by "can/cannot" statements (what is given a priori).

(August 12, 2009 at 9:11 pm)Dotard Wrote: Your God is outside science, logic, observation, testability—you name it, your God "transcends" it.

God is by definition outside scientific observation and testability. Science conducts inquiries about the physical world; it is categorically the wrong tool for inquiries about non-empirical subjects, such as God, mathematics, values, logic, existence and so on. And God is not outside logic. Someone who argues for such a thing should never stop punching themselves in the face.

(August 13, 2009 at 2:36 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: That is what the TAG does: it compares a Christian to an atheist worldview and concludes that Christianity is more likely to be true.

Incorrect, sorry. The TAG does not argue for the likelihood or probability of the Christian worldview. The TAG argues that the presuppositions of the Christian worldview and what can be inferred from them is the ONLY source of the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility, or making sense, of human experience. Any other worldview, when internally examined under its own terms, falls apart at some point, by being inconsistent (intrinsically or extrinsically), incoherent, inadequate, etc. The suggestion that the TAG argues for the "more likely" truth of Christianity confuses it with evidentialist apologetics.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:19 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Could you perhaps clarifiy the difference between an infinite amount of time, and outside of time?

The answer is contained within your question itself: "an infinite amount of time" is a temporal sum, requiring the dimension of temporality.

By the way, on the matter of complexity: When we say that God is not complex, we mean only that he is not composed of parts. Even a standard dictionary tells you that is what complex means: composed of interconnected parts; composite; arrangement of parts; etc. That is the meaning of "complex" we are using. To say that God is simple is not to say that he is easy to comprehend; divine simplicity is merely the antithesis or opposite of complexity. It is the statement that the attributes of God are neither individuated from each other nor separate from his essence; i.e., the being of God is identical to the attributes of God.

(August 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm)Darwinian Wrote: ... the very nature of existence requires a temporal dimension.

Interesting statement of faith. Or do you have evidence for this?

(August 21, 2009 at 5:17 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(August 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm)Darwinian Wrote: ... the very nature of existence requires a temporal dimension.

Interesting statement of faith. Or do you have evidence for this?

No, just logic. Existence requires something to have existed, exist or to exist in the future. Without time there is no temporal dimension to place it at.