(March 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)ronedee Wrote: LOL! Do I even need to finish the statement?

Fuck finishing your statement. Why don't you try to craft a cogent argument?

(March 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm)ronedee Wrote: Talk about not making any sense! According to who? 2.3 Billion verses.....?

Oh, you're talking about the number of believers, not written accounts? As if the number of people who get fooled into believing something has any impact on whether it's true?

Yawn

(March 13, 2015 at 2:37 pm)robvalue Wrote: I wonder how many jesuses you could impale with one nail?

About 8 by my reckoning.

(March 13, 2015 at 1:18 pm)ronedee Wrote:

(March 13, 2015 at 10:30 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I could not make any sense out of that post.

LOL! You mean you don't have a good comeback?

To what?

---

(March 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm)ronedee Wrote:

(March 13, 2015 at 10:38 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: Sticking doggedly to irrational positions is not a model to be honored. See the Church's intransigence in admitting they fucked up about Galileo and didn't cop to their error until, oh about 400 years later. But they stood their ground!

Jim Jones and company stood their ground too, as did the Nazis.

As do atheists? In search of "nothing". That should be the motto.

The universe is WIDE OPEN for possibility... uh... except for God!

Including God. The universe just has to come out with the evidence.

---

(March 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)ronedee Wrote: And do you EVER hear us (Christians) talk like there is "no" God? No. "We stand our ground!"

Not being able to entertain hypotheticals is a sign of a stunted mind, not integrity. It's nothing of which to be proud.

(March 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)ronedee Wrote: If you were true to your sport, you wouldn't entertain the thought of God, or Jesus! "For the sake of argument" is hypocritical...and annoying!

It's necessary to entertain a proposition in order to critically analyze it. To dismiss it thoughtlessly is to filter it from due consideration, effectively by covering one's eyes and ears.

(March 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)ronedee Wrote: We are to defend something that you don't believe in to begin with?

If you haven't considered the arguments in favor of something, you can't really say you understand what it is that you're rejecting.

(March 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)ronedee Wrote: If we sighted that article, and it were an positive account? LOL! Do I even need to finish the statement?

Are yoiu off your meds? Why did you feel the need to come out of the gate ranting?

(February 27, 2015 at 3:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: We have no record of anything that was written about Jesus by eyewitnesses or other contemporaries during the time he would have lived, or for decades thereafter.

This my first time to view this thread and I'm not going to read all 600 posts, but this shows that it's all based on a false assumption. We do have writings by eyewitnesses in the new testament from (of course) contemporaries; and not just one. Where do you get the proof for your statement Mini?

(March 13, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Lek Wrote: This my first time to view this thread and I'm not going to read all 600 posts, but this shows that it's all based on a false assumption. We do have writings by eyewitnesses in the new testament from (of course) contemporaries; and not just one. Where do you get the proof for your statement Mini?

Um, no, you don't. The new testament writers are anonymous, you can't say that they were eyewitnesses because you literally don't know who they were. All other references to this stuff comes long after the relevant parts had already taken place.

(March 13, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Um, no, you don't. The new testament writers are anonymous, you can't say that they were eyewitnesses because you literally don't know who they were. All other references to this stuff comes long after the relevant parts had already taken place.

Peter wasn't anonymous, and the writer of John called himself "the disciple Jesus loved".

(March 13, 2015 at 6:55 pm)Lek Wrote: Peter wasn't anonymous, and the writer of John called himself "the disciple Jesus loved".

None of them ever name themselves in the gospels, nor do they claim to have met Jesus within them. The epigraphs of the gospels were added later according to church tradition and not due to the writers actually being named that. As for the epistles, the scholarly consensus is that they were written by two different authors, neither of them Peter. You can't argue with the facts, here; a little knowledge of biblical history puts the falsity to these intuitive ideas that the names on the gospels belonged to the writers.

So why do I know this, and you don't?

(March 13, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Lek Wrote: We do have writings by eyewitnesses in the new testament from (of course) contemporaries; and not just one. Where do you get the proof for your statement Mini?

Where do you get the eyewitness from? Because the author says so?

We're talking about 40 years after the event and that's taking it generous. Do you know what life expectancy was back then in that particular region? Do you think one of the apostles travelled all the way to Greece or Rome to tell their tale? By all accounts these weren't educated or wealthy people.

No, the authors did what all the historians did in their times. They collected tales and made up their own story out of everything they were told. That's how it was done in these days. It's not like today, where a journalist goes through the check and recheck process or a historian, who's critical about his sources.

And before you ask, same goes for Roman or Greek secular authors.

(March 13, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote: None of them ever name themselves in the gospels, nor do they claim to have met Jesus within them. The epigraphs of the gospels were added later according to church tradition and not due to the writers actually being named that. As for the epistles, the scholarly consensus is that they were written by two different authors, neither of them Peter. You can't argue with the facts, here; a little knowledge of biblical history puts the falsity to these intuitive ideas that the names on the gospels belonged to the writers.

So why do I know this, and you don't?

You're calling things "facts" that you don't know are facts, about the writers and the dates of the writings. You are right about the naming of the gospels after the fact, but the church didn't just pull names out of the hat. It was after extensive study and investigation, and they lived about 2,000 years closer to the time of the writings that we do. I'd might be able to agree with you about 2 Peter, but not 1 Peter. There is not a consensus, but a split opinion from modern scholars. I'll still go with the early church.

---

(March 13, 2015 at 7:58 pm)abaris Wrote: We're talking about 40 years after the event and that's taking it generous. Do you know what life expectancy was back then in that particular region? Do you think one of the apostles travelled all the way to Greece or Rome to tell their tale? By all accounts these weren't educated or wealthy people.

Here we go again, calling something a "fact" that is not a fact. There is no consensus on the dates of the writings of the books of the new testament. Yes, I do think that more than one of the apostles traveled to Greece or Rome, and farther, to write and evangelize. Tradition says that Peter died in Rome.

Quote:No, the authors did what all the historians did in their times. They collected tales and made up their own story out of everything they were told. That's how it was done in these days. It's not like today, where a journalist goes through the check and recheck process or a historian, who's critical about his sources.

And before you ask, same goes for Roman or Greek secular authors.

And if what they were told was the truth?