Yeah...as far as "making a case" goes, all he's doing is yelling at the walls of an echo chamber... if that's what he considers "winning" then he can have the fucking championship.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You're missing the point. You see the longer people wait to describe an event, the more likely they are to misremember it.

Bullshit.

1. I remember watching a documentary on the JFK assasination, and in the documentary, there was a host of witnesses of that day...and there was even a young fella (at the time) on there that testified to what he saw, since he was at the hospital when the vehicle that JFK was shot in pulled up, and he said he remember seeing pieces of brain matter inside the vehicle. This was over 50 years ago, and guess what, he remembered it.

2. Some of the survivors of the Jonestown mass suicide are still living today and have testified in documentaries on what it was like living in Jonestown...and this was over 30 years ago.

3. In 1994, I went on a trip to Seattle to spend Christmas with my uncle...and I remember the trip very vividly. That was over 20 years ago.

The conclusion is, yeah, as you said, you are less likely to remember certain things the longer time pass since the event...but you don't forget significant things...like seeing brain matter inside the car that someone was shot in...like what it was like living in Jonestown...and trips that are near and dear to your heart...you dont' forget the significant stuff...and you certainly wouldn't forget a Resurrection.

With the exception of your trip to Seattle, all of those are events that were reported contemporaneously. IF those events had not been discussed at the time and now, years later one or two guys started talking about it, it would lend much credence would we give to the events? Not much if we're bright.

And the fact that people have vivid memories about the past does not make those memories anywhere near as accurate as they were at the time. If you think they are, you just aren't thinking.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But more importantly the bigger and more public an event, the greater the chance that someone will write about it sooner rather than later.

The average person living at that time and in that region could not read or write, Jenny...which is why the word had spread based on word of mouth, and it continued to spread from there. The most damning defeater of your "someone would have written it down" is the fact that Christianity spread like a wildfire DESPITE no one writing it down at that particular time...it still spread, regardless, and now it is the world's largest religion by numbers of followers based no one "writing it down" when you felt they should have written it down.

And there was considerable literacy. Probably about 1 to 2 percent. Given the phenomenon described, you'd expect some writing at the time. The events described in the Gospels are huge. Philo of Alexandria(13-20BC-54AD) was there and writing about the Jews. But he didn't mention Jesus in The age of Pilate or any of his other books. But he was there. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

Quote:So if you went back in time and you witnessed Jesus performing all of his miracles, (since you are currently living in a day where there is camcorders, audio recorders, televisions, social media, etc)...if you went back in time and after seeing Jesus perform miracles, noticing no one is writing stuff down yell out "Could someone please write this stuff down???"

Now you are being ever more childish. The question is not whether someone like a newspaper reporter would follow Jesus around writing down what he said (this is why if he did exist we can be quite certain that the Gospels don't accurately record what he said). The question is why no historian, letter writer of note, temple scribe, new and educated convert, or anyone else even mentioned his existence in writing for 20 years.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Therefore, if no one records a major event contemporaneously, chances are much higher it didn't happen.

Or chances could be that it did happen, just no one wrote it down.

It could indeed be that no one wrote it down. But, unless someone did, chances are much higher it didn't.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Thus the "truth value" of the writing is highly dependent on when it was written.

As long as it was written during the time of the eyewitnesses, thats all that matters.

Again, that's foolish. It matters very much. Particularly when it isn't even written down by those eyewitnesses, just by folks who might have discussed it with them.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Uh huh, he knew it 20 years later, second hand.

No, he WROTE it down 20 years later...big difference, Jenny. He received shortly after the cross, which mean that the belief in the Resurrection itself is early.

And then waited 20 years to write it down? That's a big problem. Mormonism for example is pretty unbelievable as is, but imagine who much more unbelievable if Smith waited twenty years to write down what was in the golden tablets.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: He predates the gospels, so Gospels have nothing to do with what Paul would write if he had actual knowledge as opposed to supernatural revelation.

If he is predating the Gospels, and in his narratives he is talking about a Resurrected Jesus...don't you find it odd that we have a guy talking about a Resurrected Jesus well before the Gospels, which are BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus, is talking about a Resurrected Jesus???

The Jesus in Paul is decidedly unfleshly and ethereal, so no I don't.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Claims of miraculous knowledge hurt rather than bolster the veracity of Paul.

He said that Jesus appeared to him post-mortem...now whether or not you believe it was a spirtiual vision, or an actually physical appearance is irrelevant...the point is, he made the claim...so either he was hallucinating, lying, or telling the truth.

Sorry, a man talking after death is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. It can hardly be taken for evidence of the resurrected man's life if the "witness" never knew the man when he was alive.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: We really don't know which Paul he met with (Pickup's post above).

Bullshit. He said he only met with Peter, not NONE OF THE OTHER APOSTLES ...so obviously he is talking about Peter, apostle of Jesus (Gal 1:18-24)..and unless you can point out a different apostle that was named PETER, then you are obviously moving the goal posts...Pickup's post will not be able to save you, dear...dodging clear and apparent implications only proves to me that I am winning.

Read his post.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And more importantly, he never mentions any of those hypothetical discussions of the life of Jesus.

Then I guess we are to conclude that he met Peter and they didn't discuss Jesus at all...in 15 days.

(December 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The study of theology does not prepare one to analyze the veracity of historic documents. That's it. It would be very odd if the only people studying Jefferson were political philosophers. But that is essentially the position we are in with regard to the Bible up until recently. Recently, there have been questions.

They are all historians in some fashion, Jenny.

It's the after a fashion part that loses it for you.

Seriously. Everything you have to say about evidence, flies in the face of the way historians weigh evidence in ALL other cases. Why should Jesus be different?

I found a certificate for him.




I wouldn't have thought anyone could beat drippy out for the award but this one nipped right before the finish line and still has a month to stretch his lead.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm)robvalue Wrote: Indoctrination is a sad thing to behold. Adults forever stuck in the mindset of a child who needs to be constantly told what to do by an authority figure. Needing things to be very simple and black and white to avoid having to think very hard about reality, or how to be a decent person.

Genetic fallacy...explaining how a person was BROUGHT to belief system has no barren on the truth value of the belief itself.

I once said "keep the fallacies coming"...and I see you people do not disappoint.

I once said "keep the self-righteous condescending Pharoh-avatared twats coming" and so far the universe has only produced one. Disappointed.

Quote: has no barren on the truth value of the belief itself.

Don't you mean "bearing," asshole?

(December 2, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Genetic fallacy...explaining how a person was BROUGHT to belief system has no barren on the truth value of the belief itself.

I once said "keep the fallacies coming"...and I see you people do not disappoint.

You have been awarded

(December 2, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm)robvalue Wrote: Indoctrination is a sad thing to behold. Adults forever stuck in the mindset of a child who needs to be constantly told what to do by an authority figure. Needing things to be very simple and black and white to avoid having to think very hard about reality, or how to be a decent person.

Genetic fallacy...explaining how a person was BROUGHT to belief system has no barren on the truth value of the belief itself.

I once said "keep the fallacies coming"...and I see you people do not disappoint.

Bullshit spouting...Repeating the same crap over and over, making stuff up and ignoring facts as presented.

I once said, "I guarantee the bullshit will continue to be spouted" ... and I see you do not disappoint.

Except when it comes to keeping to the rules of formal debate, that is).

(December 2, 2014 at 5:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: has no barren on the truth value of the belief itself.

Don't you mean "bearing," asshole?

Of course he does. But "barren" in the same sentence as "the truth value of the [Christian] belief" is the closest to correct he has come yet.