(October 24, 2013 at 6:58 pm)futilethewinds Wrote:

(October 24, 2013 at 5:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Everyone knows that Nessie is a male... -.-'
I hope, for your sake, that was a typo!

Nessie is clearly a feminine name.

Nessie is an affectionate name... It takes after the loch's own name.
"Our little Nessie is all grown up".

We gotta derail this thread a bit better

The first three respondants (LastPoet, Faith No More, Captain Colostomy) can be summed up in this one line:

(October 24, 2013 at 7:50 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: The bible is shit for evidence, BTW.

If that's the case, you would believe that anything written in antiquity is "shit for evidence"?

(October 24, 2013 at 7:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: But isn't it the strangest thing that all the time that Jesus was wandering around performing miracles not one person thought to write any of it down.

In fact people probably did write it down and it didn't survive, and on that no it's not unexpected at all that we don't find writings from the period in which Christ's ministry actually took place.

(October 24, 2013 at 8:05 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: A guy named Yeshua (which should actually translate as Joshua by the way) lived around the time of 0-30 CE and was crucified by the Romans for blasphemy and heresy. So what? This is almost certainly true. Who cares? The following no more proves he was god or the son of god than the existence of any other crucified man/woman/child did around the same time (they liked to do that, both crucifying and killing people for heresy).

Also, the earliest of the gospel was almost certainly Mark and could have been written no earlier than 70CE because of its inclusion of the burning of the temple (which burned in 70CE), so this:

Isn't it fun when people who don't know anything try to use facts?

1. "should actually translate as Joshua" - is this your interpretation of the Greek New Testament texts?
2. What temple burned in 70 AD? The King of Babylon burned the First Temple in 586 BC, and the Second Temple didn't burn...
3. The only possible dates that the Gospel of Luke could have been originally written is 59-61AD. If it was written in 61 AD this would give enough time for him to write Acts before his death in 62 AD.

In the book of acts, Luke talks both about James and Paul repeatedly. According to Josephus, James is martyred in 62 AD. As I've already told you, early sources indicate Paul is martyred c. 64-67 AD. The book of Acts ends in the present, and never mentions either the death of Paul or James - but he does mention the death of other saints, so we would expect him to have mentioned their deaths if they had occurred. So Luke had to have written his Gospel some nine years before the prophecy comes to pass, and there is near unanimous agreement that his gospel was written after the gospels of Matthew and Mark, thus meaning all three synoptic gospels were written with the prophecy of the Siege of Jerusalem prior to 62 AD.

Matthew, Luke and John all mention Caiaphas as the High Priest who orders that Jesus is to be killed. He is mentioned repeatedly in John. His ossuary was excavated in 1990. While we're on the subject, James' was also excavated (sometime prior to 2002). And there's an abundance more archaeological evidence that corroborates the Biblical accounts.

(October 24, 2013 at 10:35 pm)Polaris Wrote: As a Christian, I find it immeasurably less time consuming and requires no effort to go after their secular knowledge than waste my time talking about religion.

As opposed to convincing us that what you believe about god is true?

Many theists seem more interested in trying to raise doubt about the lack of existence of god than trying to prove he's there. I don't need convincing that I might be wrong, or that there's a lot I don't know, or that I can't prove god isn't hiding in some undetectable closet dimension. We can take those as a given, and then skip right to the part where you provide a compelling case for god.

(October 25, 2013 at 5:36 am)Aractus Wrote: If that's the case, you would believe that anything written in antiquity is "shit for evidence"?

You aren't the first person to raise this contention, but the answer is pretty simple: not many writings from antiquity make the sort of supernatural claims that the bible does. The comparison isn't remotely accurate; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and aside from the bible itself, there's very little to confirm it, and nothing to confirm the magic claims.

(October 24, 2013 at 9:41 am)whateverist Wrote: First of all thank you for the scholarship. I'm not a bible-phile but even I can appreciate the concise, even manner in which you've written this. I lack the background knowledge to form an informed opinion of whether you are completely correct. But I'm at least inclined to allow there was a man named Jesus who was crucified, if only to meet your politeness with my own.

I appreciate your honesty, and it's rare to see that on this site.

(October 24, 2013 at 9:41 am)whateverist Wrote: But what the significance of this event may be is another matter. Even if there are characters in the bible who did in fact exist, there is no reason I can see to believe this Jesus died for anyone's sins or that he was resurrected. All of that does seem the stuff of legends and one which arises all over the world.

Well resurrection remains the only explanation that makes sense. If there were a bunch of people claiming that Jesus had risen, and he had not, and they were increasing in number, and the Christian movement had spread throughout the entire Roman empire - why didn't the Roman authorities pull the body out of the grave and then put it up on display? That would have immediately proven to everyone that he had not risen.

If it was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by his disciples, well they all died (as in they were martyred for it), who would be willing to die for a hoax?

(October 25, 2013 at 5:44 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 5:36 am)Aractus Wrote: If that's the case, you would believe that anything written in antiquity is "shit for evidence"?

You aren't the first person to raise this contention, but the answer is pretty simple: not many writings from antiquity make the sort of supernatural claims that the bible does. The comparison isn't remotely accurate; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and aside from the bible itself, there's very little to confirm it, and nothing to confirm the magic claims.

I remember someone writing about that way back in this thread...
https://atheistforums.org/thread-21611-p...#pid530748

(October 25, 2013 at 5:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: I remember someone writing about that way back in this thread...
https://atheistforums.org/thread-21611-p...#pid530748

Yeah, but we both know that asking for claims to be altered depending on the counterclaims we make is too much.

You said it better, anyway.

(October 25, 2013 at 5:54 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 5:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: I remember someone writing about that way back in this thread...
https://atheistforums.org/thread-21611-p...#pid530748

Yeah, but we both know that asking for claims to be altered depending on the counterclaims we make is too much.

You said it better, anyway.

I tried a new twist... got ignored...

hmmm.. come to think of it, being ignored by the theists may mean they can't argue with it...

(October 25, 2013 at 5:36 am)Aractus Wrote: The first three respondants (LastPoet, Faith No More, Captain Colostomy) can be summed up in this one line:

(October 24, 2013 at 7:50 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: The bible is shit for evidence, BTW.

If that's the case, you would believe that anything written in antiquity is "shit for evidence"?

(October 24, 2013 at 7:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: But isn't it the strangest thing that all the time that Jesus was wandering around performing miracles not one person thought to write any of it down.

In fact people probably did write it down and it didn't survive, and on that no it's not unexpected at all that we don't find writings from the period in which Christ's ministry actually took place.

"Probably" won't cut it lad. His supposed ministry was witnessed by thousands. And yet nothing survived, not even official Roman records.

Until you have some actual evidence, saying "probably" doesn't mean a damn thing.

(October 25, 2013 at 6:00 am)pocaracas Wrote: hmmm.. come to think of it, being ignored by the theists may mean they can't argue with it...

I don't think there's any "may" about it.