(October 15, 2013 at 10:38 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(October 15, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Show me the bible text which states that all John the Baptists followers thought he was the Messiah

It doesn't. History does.

But you said the Messiah story was myth, you sir are backing yourself into a very tight corner. So is it myth or history, please be a more decisive person!

GC

---

(October 16, 2013 at 11:11 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Just a suggestion, but instead of stating "you can't prove it's not history" or whatever the subject might be, how about asking if your opponent actually can prove it? If nothing else it's much more reasonable, yes?

I'm not the one making the claim it's a myth, so the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim, yes?

GC

Except I'm not talking about burden of proof, I'm referring to the total dismissal of the other person's position by forestalling whatever proof may be available. Doesn't matter if that proof, or evidence, isn't what it's claimed to be, or falls short of doing what's claimed to be on the tin; simply shooting it down as nonexistent before it's even been presented is hardly conducive to a reasonable discussion - the bread and butter of a discussion forum.

Quote: A simpler explanation is they both drew upon similar urban legends.

Or that some scribe homogenized the accounts according to his own whim.

(October 16, 2013 at 11:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Except I'm not talking about burden of proof, I'm referring to the total dismissal of the other person's position by forestalling whatever proof may be available. Doesn't matter if that proof, or evidence, isn't what it's claimed to be, or falls short of doing what's claimed to be on the tin; simply shooting it down as nonexistent before it's even been presented is hardly conducive to a reasonable discussion - the bread and butter of a discussion forum.

Who is forestalling anything, DP made an addition to the scriptures that has absolutely no support at all, until he brings that support then his supposition's dismissal needs no action on our part other than to discount it.

GC

(October 16, 2013 at 11:07 pm)Godschild Wrote: There is nothing inaccurate with Matthews story,

He repeatedly lies about what the OT says. He claims two historical events which are both fanciful and unsupported by any evidence (the slaughter of infants around Jerusalem (lifted straight out of the story of Moses) and the attack of the zombie saints). He claims Jesus had a famous ministry, word of which spread to the neighboring provinces, yet nobody who lived at that time seemed to think JC was noteworthy. On what basis do you claim "nothing inaccurate"?

Quote: it doesn't contradict Luke's story.

Start with what decade Jesus was born and end with what his last words were and tell me there are no contradictions.

Quote:You are purposely avoiding what I've asked, why?

Not to the best of my knowledge. Maybe you aren't being clear with your questions.

Quote:First of all you can't prove that it's not history.

How many history books do we have that talk about zombies?

Quote:It boils down to trying to avoid the reality of the birth record.

What reality? What decade was Jesus supposedly born?

(October 16, 2013 at 11:11 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Just a suggestion, but instead of stating "you can't prove it's not history" or whatever the subject might be, how about asking if your opponent actually can prove it? If nothing else it's much more reasonable, yes?

I'm happy to take the burden of proof that something is not accurate when it contradicts itself. If a claim is self-contradictory, it is certainly false. The one time when you can prove a negative is when the positive is logically impossible. A god may exist. His god does not.

(October 16, 2013 at 7:25 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: There are tremendous contradictions between the two, which surely would have been ironed out if they knew about one another's work. A simpler explanation is they both drew upon similar urban legends.

You can't assume contradictions when that's the topic under debate.

---

(October 16, 2013 at 11:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Or that some scribe homogenized the accounts according to his own whim.

So they're contradictory, but they've been homogenized...

(October 17, 2013 at 8:12 am)John V Wrote: You can't assume contradictions when that's the topic under debate.

Oh, sorry, were you under the impression that the only problem between Matt and Luke was the issue about the house?

Let's go through the life of Jesus from start to finish. We can begin with "what decade was Jesus born in?" and finish with "what were his last words on the cross?"

(October 17, 2013 at 8:12 am)John V Wrote:

(October 16, 2013 at 7:25 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: There are tremendous contradictions between the two, which surely would have been ironed out if they knew about one another's work. A simpler explanation is they both drew upon similar urban legends.

You can't assume contradictions when that's the topic under debate.

---

(October 16, 2013 at 11:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Or that some scribe homogenized the accounts according to his own whim.

So they're contradictory, but they've been homogenized...

You are fucking stupid. Try to stay on the same page, asswipe.

(October 17, 2013 at 10:35 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Oh, sorry, were you under the impression that the only problem between Matt and Luke was the issue about the house?

Let's go through the life of Jesus from start to finish. We can begin with "what decade was Jesus born in?" and finish with "what were his last words on the cross?"

Sure. Regarding decade, you take the word of modern people with limited records over the word of people much closer in time to the actual events. I disagree. Further, the people reading the accounts would likely have rejected them if they began with a glaring timing error.