(September 19, 2014 at 2:16 am)genkaus Wrote: We're talking about the lies in there - incidental facts are irrelevant.

You haven't produced any evidence that any of the NT authors deliberately lied. You haven't even provided evidence of why they would do so.

Quote:If you are familiar with contradictions and consider the list to be of low quality then it should be easy for you to refute it. Put your money where your mouth is and then we can move on to the next list.

I don't need to refute a list which you do not even understand. All you did was google it, you have no comprehension of the arguments and cannot separate inconsistencies from contradictions. There's also no justification for duplicating the same point over and over. Make your own arguments.

Quote:Gimme a few more.

And I just told you they are few and far between. And they're about as exciting as that one.

Quote:That's the best evidence you have of their reliability - that they could be telling the truth and all of them made mistakes about the specifics? That's not much.

That's not what I said at all. What I said was that even if you had two or more people that you you know are telling the truth there will be inconsistencies between the statements they give you regarding an event, and that often they contain actual contradictions as well. That refutes your claim that inconsistencies mean that they're all liars.

Quote:Now who is accusing people of lying?

You're just making assumptions. Anyone can see that, it'll never win you an argument and nor will it give you any credibility in a debate.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:56 am)Aractus Wrote: You haven't produced any evidence that any of the NT authors deliberately lied. You haven't even provided evidence of why they would do so.

Proving actual intent is irrelevant. You've provided evidence against their credibility and their is a a clear motive.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:56 am)Aractus Wrote: I don't need to refute a list which you do not even understand. All you did was google it, you have no comprehension of the arguments and cannot separate inconsistencies from contradictions. There's also no justification for duplicating the same point over and over. Make your own arguments.

Why? Googling works just fine for me.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:56 am)Aractus Wrote: And I just told you they are few and far between. And they're about as exciting as that one.

Then what I have to go on is the list I gave.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:56 am)Aractus Wrote: That's not what I said at all. What I said was that even if you had two or more people that you you know are telling the truth there will be inconsistencies between the statements they give you regarding an event, and that often they contain actual contradictions as well. That refutes your claim that inconsistencies mean that they're all liars.

But you don't know if they are telling the truth. In fact, that is precisely the question on the table - are those writers telling the truth? What you have here are outrageous claims made by unreliable narrators with a clear motive which have lots of inconsistencies and contradictions. Its like when a murderer's family provides an alibi that they were all at the White House party at the time, but all give different accounts of food served there and have a motive to lie. Concluding that they are lying here is based on sufficient evidence.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:56 am)Aractus Wrote: You're just making assumptions. Anyone can see that, it'll never win you an argument and nor will it give you any credibility in a debate.

What assumptions?

(September 19, 2014 at 5:52 am)genkaus Wrote:

(September 19, 2014 at 3:56 am)Aractus Wrote: You haven't produced any evidence that any of the NT authors deliberately lied. You haven't even provided evidence of why they would do so.

Proving actual intent is irrelevant. You've provided evidence against their credibility and their is a a clear motive.

Your argument makes no sense. There's general agreement that the authors of Matthew and Luke used a common written source (or sources) along with proto-Mark when making their Gospels. I can show you Greek that is letter-for-letter identical, thus has to be from a common written source (or of course one is directly copied from the other). People that "make stuff up" don't meticulously copy down records from another source.

The next most important author is of course Paul who wrote at least 8 or 9 of the NT books, and may have written 13-14. Firstly, if he was lying he would start to contradict himself. Secondly - why would he lie? He is maryterd for his faith according to early 2nd century church fathers and consistent with his reports of imprisonment. So there's no benefit in it for him to be a liar.

Quote:But you don't know if they are telling the truth. In fact, that is precisely the question on the table - are those writers telling the truth?

That's a stupid question unless you have evidence. You may as well claim that all the ancient Egyptians were liars and their writings tell us nothing about their culture.

(September 19, 2014 at 9:00 am)Aractus Wrote: Your argument makes no sense. There's general agreement that the authors of Matthew and Luke used a common written source (or sources) along with proto-Mark when making their Gospels. I can show you Greek that is letter-for-letter identical, thus has to be from a common written source (or of course one is directly copied from the other). People that "make stuff up" don't meticulously copy down records from another source.

So, there was a common written source for all three which was made up. Which would mean that the authors themselves were gullible morons and whoever wrote the source lied about it.

(September 19, 2014 at 9:00 am)Aractus Wrote: The next most important author is of course Paul who wrote at least 8 or 9 of the NT books, and may have written 13-14. Firstly, if he was lying he would start to contradict himself.

Not if he got his story straight.

(September 19, 2014 at 9:00 am)Aractus Wrote: Secondly - why would he lie?

I've told you twice already.

(September 19, 2014 at 9:00 am)Aractus Wrote: He is maryterd for his faith according to early 2nd century church fathers and consistent with his reports of imprisonment. So there's no benefit in it for him to be a liar.

That the expected benefit didn't pay off doesn't mean that wasn't the motive.

(September 19, 2014 at 9:00 am)Aractus Wrote: That's a stupid question unless you have evidence. You may as well claim that all the ancient Egyptians were liars and their writings tell us nothing about their culture.

I do claim that they were liars - their writings are full of ridiculous stuff about gods and Pharaohs being gods in human form. What it tells us about their culture is a different matter - we get that from reading between the lines and using other sources to separate fact from fiction.

(September 19, 2014 at 11:57 am)genkaus Wrote: So, there was a common written source for all three which was made up. Which would mean that the authors themselves were gullible morons and whoever wrote the source lied about it.

You have thus-far missed my point entirely. It is not helpful to be so divisive in an argument, especially when you have no evidence. Any dialogue you open with a Christian in that way can only end badly - you are in effect planning to fail. If you can't even answer my points, and listen to my argument coherently then how could you be expected to hear other points of view?

Quote:I do claim that they were liars - their writings are full of ridiculous stuff about gods and Pharaohs being gods in human form. What it tells us about their culture is a different matter - we get that from reading between the lines and using other sources to separate fact from fiction.

Right, so then when they find graves with inscriptions reading "here lies such and such" they're lying?

You have very little appreciation of history and how historical records are considered.

I don't believe the Exodus ever occurred - I believe that is a myth. I don't believe that it's a deliberate "lie" I believe that the Israelites beliefs were written down into the Pentateuch (almost everyone believes this FYI including Jews and Christians). That doesn't have any bearing on the historicity of other writings though, whether those writings are included in the 49 writings (66 "books") of the Bible or elsewhere.

Also, you have been unable to back up any of your claims with evidence. This is the problem with your position - you take an extreme view that not even sceptical scholars take, that all the authors are inherently liars, this polarises you from the discussion even away from the sceptics who would prefer to have you on their side, all the while you cannot back up your view with any evidence other than facts that Christians already know about such as there being numerous minor textual inconsistencies.

Here's an example for you:

At that time Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, “an altar of uncut stones, upon which no man has wielded an iron tool.” And they offered on it burnt offerings to the Lord and sacrificed peace offerings. And there, in the presence of the people of Israel, he wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written. And all Israel, sojourner as well as native born, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, half of them in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded at the first, to bless the people of Israel. And afterwards he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them. (Joshua 8:30-35).

That alter was discovered at Mt. Ebal and has been partially excavated in the 1980's (after being searched for for hundreds of years) by Dr. Adam Zertal, an Israeli archaeologist and a sceptic who originally believed the OT was only full of myths. There was plaster recovered with Hebrew lettering, bones consistent with animal sacrifices and the alter itself was consistent with the description given in the Talmud.

That still does not prove it belong to Joshua, or they made the alter after the book was written.

It was identified by a sceptical non-religious highly respected archaeologist as being the alter described in Joshua 8 - what more could you possibly ask for?

Yes, I would agree that it certainly doesn't mean that all the events recorded in Joshua are completely factual, but it does prove that it is at least in part based on an actual historicity.

(September 20, 2014 at 7:28 am)Aractus Wrote: You have thus-far missed my point entirely. It is not helpful to be so divisive in an argument, especially when you have no evidence. Any dialogue you open with a Christian in that way can only end badly - you are in effect planning to fail. If you can't even answer my points, and listen to my argument coherently then how could you be expected to hear other points of view?

But I did answer all your points - which is why you are left with nothing. It is not only helpful to be divisive here - it is necessary. I'm divisive about what constitutes valid evidence and what doesn't - and I'll not compromise that principle and allow you to sneak in any invalid evidence.

Your position - in a nutshell - is to say that you admit the unreliability of evidence but you'd still rely on it to establish the validity the story and that's a valid position to take. It isn't.

(September 20, 2014 at 7:28 am)Aractus Wrote: Right, so then when they find graves with inscriptions reading "here lies such and such" they're lying?

When they find graves saying "Here lies Imhotep, son of goddess Isis and god Ra, a god in mortal form and a death curse be upon him that disturbs his peace" - then yes, the inscription is a lie.

Why, do you believe it?

(September 20, 2014 at 7:28 am)Aractus Wrote: You have very little appreciation of history and how historical records are considered.

Not true - I've great appreciation for liars and lies they tell.

(September 20, 2014 at 7:28 am)Aractus Wrote: I don't believe the Exodus ever occurred - I believe that is a myth. I don't believe that it's a deliberate "lie" I believe that the Israelites beliefs were written down into the Pentateuch (almost everyone believes this FYI including Jews and Christians).

And why would the fact that its not a deliberate lie make it any more reliable?

(September 20, 2014 at 7:28 am)Aractus Wrote: That doesn't have any bearing on the historicity of other writings though, whether those writings are included in the 49 writings (66 "books") of the Bible or elsewhere.

Since the events recorded in the earlier books have a direct bearing on the events recorded in the latter one, the established factual inaccuracy of the former does call the historicity of the latter into question.

Example:
1. People living in 3000 BC had developed advanced technologies like spaceships and inter-stellar travel - these technologies were later lost due to fall of civilization.
2. A band of wanderers in 400 AD found the remains of the lost technology and used it to fly off earth and explore other worlds.

Now, if you accept that 1. is incorrect, then the historicity of 2. is automatically called into question.

(September 20, 2014 at 7:28 am)Aractus Wrote: Also, you have been unable to back up any of your claims with evidence.

The only 'claims' I made were that there were lies and contradictions in the bible. You accepted the first and I provided evidence for the second.

(September 20, 2014 at 7:28 am)Aractus Wrote: This is the problem with your position - you take an extreme view that not even sceptical scholars take, that all the authors are inherently liars, this polarises you from the discussion even away from the sceptics who would prefer to have you on their side, all the while you cannot back up your view with any evidence other than facts that Christians already know about such as there being numerous minor textual inconsistencies.

Textual inconsistencies, lies, unreliable witnesses and gross violations of natural laws - that's a lot to go on for now.

---

(September 20, 2014 at 10:51 am)Aractus Wrote: At that time Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, “an altar of uncut stones, upon which no man has wielded an iron tool.” And they offered on it burnt offerings to the Lord and sacrificed peace offerings. And there, in the presence of the people of Israel, he wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written. And all Israel, sojourner as well as native born, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, half of them in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded at the first, to bless the people of Israel. And afterwards he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them. (Joshua 8:30-35).

That alter was discovered at Mt. Ebal and has been partially excavated in the 1980's (after being searched for for hundreds of years) by Dr. Adam Zertal, an Israeli archaeologist and a sceptic who originally believed the OT was only full of myths. There was plaster recovered with Hebrew lettering, bones consistent with animal sacrifices and the alter itself was consistent with the description given in the Talmud.

Archeologists have also found remains of Troy - clearly, that is evidence of historicity of Homer's Illiad and the direct involvement of Zeus in earthly battles.

To the OP:

If they are loving and respectful, then they should be treated with consideration. Otherwise, perhaps a baseball bat?