(November 25, 2014 at 7:46 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm going to ask you again for your source for this claim. Who asked what question of which historians to determine that "the vast majority" of them accept the historicity of Christ?

Link up, or shut up.

I already provided that info...if you can't keep up with the thread, either try harder, or tough shit.

(November 25, 2014 at 7:46 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: In other words, you're not just scientifically illiterate, you're historically uneducated as well.

Science haven't been able to prove abiogenesis...fact....and the vast majority of all historians believe in the historical Jesus...fact.

Do a google search and educate yourself on both history, and the incompotence of science in certain areas.

(November 25, 2014 at 7:46 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: There's a methodology to historical investigation that you clearly are unacquainted with.

Well, apparently you are too...since you are apparently ignorant of the historical concensus regarding Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me these dumb ass questions.

Navigate through the pages and look at my references, or do your own research, and come back and rejoin the conversation when your knowledge level increases.

(November 26, 2014 at 10:08 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I don't think WLC is stupid or dishonest... he's just deeply indoctrinated with dogma.

Certainly not the kind of person you could ever rely upon to supply any kind of truth. I've said it before, but I could probably stand to remind H_M about WLC's "self authenticating witness of the holy spirit."

When asked if he would admit his religion was wrong if he could travel back in time and confirm that Jesus never rose from the grave, when asked, essentially, if he would admit his religion was wrong when he could confirm that his religion was wrong, what do you think Craig's answer was? The rational one would be "yes"; when you see that something is wrong, you admit that it's wrong.

Craig said no. Even if he knew his religion was wrong, he would still think it was right. He has a "self authenticating witness of the holy spirit," basically, he's a presuppositionalist. He feels that it's right, and so therefore it is regardless of the material facts.

This is why I trust WLC even less than I trust H_M's conclusions about the man's debate prowess. It's actually extremely telling that he keeps linking out to WLC, a man even more dishonest, and upfront about it, than H_M himself.

(November 26, 2014 at 11:55 am)Esquilax Wrote: When asked if he would admit his religion was wrong if he could travel back in time and confirm that Jesus never rose from the grave, when asked, essentially, if he would admit his religion was wrong when he could confirm that his religion was wrong, what do you think Craig's answer was? The rational one would be "yes"; when you see that something is wrong, you admit that it's wrong.

Craig said no. Even if he knew his religion was wrong, he would still think it was right.

I know you're itching for it, so why not just post the youtube video where that happened?

(November 26, 2014 at 11:51 am)His_Majesty Wrote: I already provided that info...if you can't keep up with the thread, either try harder, or tough shit.

No, you didn't. You linked to one entry in a wikipedia bibliography, the information in which consisted of title, author, publisher, and ISBN. There was no indication that the book containted a study, and there was no information that I had asked for.

Stating that you satisfied my request is dishonest on your part. But it's cool, I've already figured out that you're a liar. I'm just elucidating it for anyone else reading this thread.

Thanks for providing, in this reply, one more example of your dishonesty.

(November 26, 2014 at 11:51 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Science haven't been able to prove abiogenesis...fact....and the vast majority of all historians believe in the historical Jesus...fact.

Until you demonstrate that "fact" with a study of histroains, this is argumentum ex culo and nothing more.

(November 26, 2014 at 11:51 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Do a google search and educate yourself on both history, and the incompotence of science in certain areas.

Except, that isn't the topic here, now is it? The topic is, you are going to demonstrate Christ's existence.

You're failing miserably, and desperately tossing out any critique, real or imagined, you can think of in order to smokescreen your utter inability to deliver the goods.

Rather than admit that your faith is Jesus is faith, you're driven to cloak it in academic respectability.

I used to be surprised at how many believers are absolutely ashamed to admit that their beliefs are faith, but no more.

From the perspective of a nonbeliever, there are only two reasons for you to gussy up your faith in the trappings of science: you either wish to convince me, or you wish to convince yourself.

And if you wish to convince me, your dishonesty is going to torpedo that effort.

(November 26, 2014 at 11:51 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, apparently you are too...since you are apparently ignorant of the historical concensus regarding Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me these dumb ass questions.

That's not methodolgy. That is data. Data which you have proved reticent to provide. Hell, if I had something as rock-solid as you claim to have, I'd be beating your face in with my numbers.

The fact that you're hiding these numbers means that either they don't support your claim, or you just pulled your claim out of thin air. Which is it?

(November 26, 2014 at 11:51 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Navigate through the pages and look at my references, or do your own research, and come back and rejoin the conversation when your knowledge level increases.

No. You've asserted that you can demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. In pursuing that intent, you've asserted that the "vast majority" of historians regard his existence as historical. I have asked you for supporting data.

In line with my above assessment of your motives, since you've clearly ceased trying to convince me, I'm left to conclude that you're trying to convince yourself; and that leads ineluctably to the conclusion that your faith is so weak that you must look for any "support" you can find, no matter how flawed it is.

You know your faith is weak when you must lie to yourself in order to buttress it.

(November 26, 2014 at 12:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(November 26, 2014 at 11:55 am)Esquilax Wrote: When asked if he would admit his religion was wrong if he could travel back in time and confirm that Jesus never rose from the grave, when asked, essentially, if he would admit his religion was wrong when he could confirm that his religion was wrong, what do you think Craig's answer was? The rational one would be "yes"; when you see that something is wrong, you admit that it's wrong.

Craig said no. Even if he knew his religion was wrong, he would still think it was right.

I know you're itching for it, so why not just post the youtube video where that happened?

Actually, I think it was something he wrote about in one of his books. But here he is, confirming it in writing on his own website. And here's a podcast where he dresses up his base presuppositionalism with quotes from Plantinga. Here he is, saying this:

Quote:But I think you can see that the issue isn’t what it would take to get me to abandon my faith, but are there circumstances under which I would be rationally obliged to abandon my faith? And the answer to that latter question seems to me to be, No. The witness of the Holy Spirit is what Alvin Plantinga calls an intrinsic defeater of the defeaters brought against Christian belief. The warrant it brings to Christian faith will always exceed the warrant brought against Christian faith by various objections. So Christian faith is unfalsifiable for the person who attends to the witness of the Holy Spirit, not in the sense that are no conditions we can imagine under which Christianity would be false but in the sense that such a person will always have sufficient warrant to continue in Christian faith, even in the face of objections he can’t answer.

Gross.

And just for fun, here's WLC being directly asked "doesn't this crap beg the question?"

His answer was essentially "No, it's not begging the question, because I know it's correct."

The man is a liar and a conman, and the fact that H_M promotes him so much indicates that he's either a dupe, or the same.

(November 26, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

---

(November 26, 2014 at 12:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I know you're itching for it, so why not just post the youtube video where that happened?

Actually, I think it was something he wrote about in one of his books. But here he is, confirming it in writing on his own website. And here's a podcast where he dresses up his base presuppositionalism with quotes from Plantinga. Here he is, saying this:

Quote:But I think you can see that the issue isn’t what it would take to get me to abandon my faith, but are there circumstances under which I would be rationally obliged to abandon my faith? And the answer to that latter question seems to me to be, No. The witness of the Holy Spirit is what Alvin Plantinga calls an intrinsic defeater of the defeaters brought against Christian belief. The warrant it brings to Christian faith will always exceed the warrant brought against Christian faith by various objections. So Christian faith is unfalsifiable for the person who attends to the witness of the Holy Spirit, not in the sense that are no conditions we can imagine under which Christianity would be false but in the sense that such a person will always have sufficient warrant to continue in Christian faith, even in the face of objections he can’t answer.

Gross.

And just for fun, here's WLC being directly asked "doesn't this crap beg the question?"

His answer was essentially "No, it's not begging the question, because I know it's correct."

The man is a liar and a conman, and the fact that H_M promotes him so much indicates that he's either a dupe, or the same.

---

I found something similar, here: http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_cra..._craig.htm

Quote:In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.

H_M,

You proposed that the majority of non-Christian historians believe there is a historical Jesus. You, after much badgering came up with five names and no citations. I pointed out that with one possible exception all of their academic training is theological not historical and that several of them are Christians. And for all your large caps, that remains the case.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote: And guess what, Jenny, old Johnny body doesn't believe in the Resurrection. Dr. Craig gives a vivid picture of Crossan's version of a "resurrection"...after all, they debated the topic of the "Real Jesus", which you can see for yourself...here is Craig's assessment of Crossan's views.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw9jvJp_nAo

---

Interesting you should post Craig's assessment of Crossan rather than Crossan himself. Crossan does not believe in Jesus embodied the his corpse after death or that it happened as outlined in the Gospels. But he does believe in the resurrection. https://earliestchristianity.wordpress.c...valuation/http://ionofhope.wordpress.com/2012/04/0...c-crossan/----So no, he's not an atheist and is by his own account a Christian.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 11:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: E.P Sanders is another guy with a degree in divinity. "Sanders identifies himself as a "liberal, modern, secularized Protestant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Sanders He does not identify himself as an atheist.

Good stuff, Jenny. My bad.

Yes, if you are going to claims things and be believed, better read them first.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Just replace E.P Sanders with Michael Grant...and go ahead and do your research on him,

WOW and admission you're wrong. Congratulations.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 11:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: It's not clear whether he thinks Jesus is historical or not:

Richard Wightman Fox, professor of history, the University of Southern California, writing in Slate (April 2006) said, "Ultimately Tabor leaves the reader confused about whether he thinks the Jesus dynasty is a historical fact or merely an intriguing conjecture" and that "Tabor seems stuck in an endless loop, squinting across the sands of time as much as the terrain of Galilee and Judea, holding out for some imagined "real" contact with the historical Jesus"

Its funny you mention that, because in this link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-d-ta...00409.html , which is an article authored by James himself, he states:

"Paul never met Jesus. The chronological facts are undisputed. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor or prefect of Judea, in April, A.D. 30. As best we can determine it was not until seven years after Jesus' death, around A.D. 37, that Paul reports his initial apparition of "Christ," whom he identifies with Jesus raised from the dead."

You have to read the article in context. He is listing the events as found in the Bible.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 11:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tabor It's not clear whether he would call himself a Christian.

Well, it certainly isn't clear on whether he is a Christian, but it is clear that he believes in the historical Jesus. As far as him being a Christian is concerned, I have two sources which state that is he is Christian skeptic...

Precisely. A Christian.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 11:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: There isn't a man educated as a historian on your list. One of them may not believe in a historical Jesus, and another couple remain Christian.

Bullshit. There was only one person on there that can be listed as a Christian, which was my bad...and that was E.P Sanders...and he was replaced by someone that is an atheist and still believes in the historicity of Jesus....

But he is a Christian. Read before you post. E.P. Sanders is your addition now, not on your earlier list.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote: None of the sources on the list are Christians...and I challenge you to name one person on the list that is a Christian.

Saunders and Crossan are Christian, though you wouldn't get along well with their theology. So that's two. You may have found a substitute for Saunders, but he is a Christian that was on your list. Tabor is a possible third.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Second, all accounts that I've seen show James Tabor as a skeptic, but still believes in the historicity of Jesus.

Skeptic does not equal atheist. It's very hard to determine what Tabor believes.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Third, look at the wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus where it states that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus, and you can feel free to check their citations.

And that has what to do with your proposition that there are numerous non-Christian historians who believe in the historicity of Jesus? Your list was supposed to be of non-Christians.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Third, I already posted the video where Bart Ehrman also confirms this majority view from historians regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Again has nothing to do with whether there are many non-Christian historians who believe in the historicity of Jesus.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:16 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Fourth, everyone on the list is a historian in some capacity...whether it is a new testament historian, historian on the origins of Christianity, whatever...all men are leading figures on the topic at hand...and none of them are Christians, and they still believe in the historicity of Jesus.

Theologian and historian are rather different disciplines and often at odds with each other as one requires faith and the other does not. Most of the men on your list are actually historians. But none of them with the possible exception of Tabor has any formal historical education. They all come out of Divinity school.

Note: I agree that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus. But the vast majority of biblical historians are Christian and unlike historians of other areas they tend to be theologians and literary people by training. You've had a hard time coming up with five historians who aren't Christian but do believe in a historical Jesus. In fact, you haven't managed it quite yet.

Grant, Erhman, Ludmann, and possibly Tabor. You're two short even after adding Grant.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, but I don't see any definition of extraordinary that resolves to just "some guy who was never involved in the event in question said something that some other guys, who he never sees fit to identify, might have believed about it."

Then apparently it isn't extraordinary to you.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: I notice also that you've chosen to cover for your baseless dismissal with vague deflection; did you really think that would work? That I wouldn't remind you, and everyone else, of your total failure to address the point I made?

Point? What you said was like a broken pencil, it had no point.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: We know that life exists, and that things that are not alive also exist. We do not have any indication, despite the best efforts of chumps like you, of the existence of magical designers of life.

We dont have any indication as to how inanimate matter can begin to live, and how inanimate matter can begin to think, despite the wishful thinking of chumps like you

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: We also have never observed life being created from nothing with magic, which means that no matter your objections, both naturalistic and supernatural means of life-creation have the same level of direct observation.

Well I will put it to you this way, pimp: We appeal to what we think is the best explanation to explain the effect...and I believe that intelligent design is the best explanation to explain the origin of life, consciousness, and species.

Now, you feel differently...but that is your illogical problem, not mines.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: However, since we can readily determine that the things required for natural life exist

Ok, so what are the "things" required for consciousness? You can't say the brain, because there are plenty dead people out there with a brain with no consciousness. So how do you get consciousness?

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: and we cannot do the same for supernatural things of any kind, probabilistically it is more likely that natural things were involved, than supernatural.

I want demonstrable evidence, not bs theories. We can theorize anything, I theorize that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". That is my theory, and you obviously don't buy it, and neither do I buy yours. The fact of the matter is, abiogenesis has never been observed, so there are no good reasons to think that it happened, unless you need an alternative besides intelligent design, which is obviously the case here.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: That was easy.

Think so? It would have been even more easy to just say "Naturedidit".

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, you believe exactly the same shit that you keep making fun of us for believing in. Thank you, you hypocritical ass.

SMH. I was talking about LIFE THAT BEGAN, dummy..obviously Christians don't believe that our God began!!!

Whewwww weeeee.

(November 26, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Do I really have to go this simple? If you believe god didn't come from anything alive, then you believe that nothing living was involved in his existence, which is another way of saying you believe god came from non-life. You might be tempted to respond by saying god is eternal, that he always existed, but that's just a semantic trick to avoid the issue. If he didn't come from anything living, then he violates the rules you're trying to mock us for not following.

Yet, I've spent my entire time in the other thread arguing for the existence of a first cause??

Dude, just stop talking to me lol. The more I talk to you, the dumber I get. I am the kind of Christian that you are used to running hurdles around...I can make a case for my faith, defend it, and also attack yours. I can point out logical fallacies, too, which you definitely are aware of.

So please, just stop. You aren't going to get away with that nonsensical crap that you may have ran on someone else.

Sorry, I tried to read that last post but all I got was a bunch of diarrhea in word form.

(November 26, 2014 at 3:11 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I believe that intelligent design is the best explanation to explain the origin of life, consciousness, and species.

That's because you've been programmed to think as much, and have lacked the courage to question your premises.

The saddest thing of all about religions, to me, is the number of intelligent minds they snuff out with their brainwashing, to the extent that folks like you must lie to yourself about your premises in order to retain your belief.

It's fucking sad. You could have actually contributed to the betterment of men, yet you're satisfied with trumpeting his flawed nature, even as you worship the alleged creator of that nature.

It's kind of like crack cocaine, but with the stamp of social approval.