Debate with a Christian

[fr0d0]

The only counter argument you need for the claim that the gospels are true, and therefore Jesus, is "that's stupid."

I know you think that's an argument

[Esquilax]

The only counter argument you need for the claim that the gospels are true, and therefore Jesus, is "that's stupid."

I know you think that's an argument

No, I don't: I do think it's an appropriate response to someone saying that the evidence for the bible's claims can be found within the bible. Circular reasoning is stupid, and I don't apologize for saying so, especially when it's backed by such pearls of wisdom as "the existence of Jesus Christ is axiomatic."

Is this how it's going to be from now on, incidentally? You dishonestly ignoring the majority of my posts so long as there's a single insult or piece of rough language therein for you to focus on instead, and pretend that it invalidates every other thing I have to say?

[fr0d0]

Are you following this thread esq?

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

No esq. It just amuses me how you criticise people for resorting to insult yet following that the past couple of days you seem to be doing exactly that. I'm glad you find it irritating to have that pointed out

[Esquilax]

Are you following this thread esq?

I submit to you that "Jesus existed" is a far cry from the claim that Disc is attempting to prove here, which is "the gospels represent an accurate description of the life of Jesus." Not only hasn't he addressed that, I have trouble believing that he even could, not in the way he's simply asserting he can. He hasn't even presented any evidence beyond the gospels, as far as I've seen.

No esq. It just amuses me how you criticise people for resorting to insult yet following that the past couple of days you seem to be doing exactly that. I'm glad you find it irritating to have that pointed out

Ah, yet again you've missed the point; I criticize people for exclusively insulting people. I don't really mind an insult embedded in an actual argument, which is what is present in my previous posts here, and elsewhere, wherever you've bitched me out for insulting people.

In fact, the only pure insult I've used in recent memory was to Huggy in the slavery thread, in response to a post from him that was nothing but magnifying the text size of an error I'd made. My only straight up insult was in response to nothing more than "nyah, nyah!"

[pocaracas]

Curious...
It jumps.

Of that particular collection of books, I know enough to dismiss it as mostly fiction, yes.
I mean, really...
- bringing dead people back to life?
- Producing multiples of bread and fish without extra flour nor actual fishing?
- Healing an incurable (at the time) disease?
- Walking on water?
- A person lashed, nailed to a pole and stabbed... somehow survives?

Does this belong in the History or fiction aisle?

Fact is often stranger than fiction.

You know, I marvel at all of you here. I say this because all I hear is show me proof, give me evidence blah blah blah ad nauseaum.....

And then you have accounts of a series of events that could only be done by God and you dismiss it as fiction!!!!!!

Tales of extraordinary feats are not evidence that said extraordinary feats really happened... no matter how ancient the text is...
Or else, I could present you with a minotaur you could battle in a special labyrinth. If you could vanquish that minotaur, you'll gain riches beyond your wildest dreams!

What do you want man? Seriously, man to man, all kidding aside, why even ask for evidence if you have already determined in your heart you will not accept it?

What do I want?
What would constitute evidence of those extraordinary events, if a tale of them will not do and video recording was unavailable?.... nothing, I guess.

But I also guess the same entity would be able to provide humanity with other such extraordinary events throughout time, not just at one particular instance in time...
As it stands, it looks mighty suspicious... almost like the tale was made up around that time.
Which seems more believable?
- Made up story about magical powers.
- Magic exists for real.

Do you think I have not seen this before? People asking for evidence they have already determined a priori cannot exist? Then to later have people speak with me privately about why they really did'nt believe in Christ?

Evidence could exist, if it was real... but it seems it does not exist... I thus see no reason to believe in the seemingly made-up tale.
And I can't understand what makes someone believe it is true.

[fr0d0]

Are you following this thread esq?

I submit to you that "Jesus existed" is a far cry from the claim that Disc is attempting to prove here, which is "the gospels represent an accurate description of the life of Jesus." Not only hasn't he addressed that, I have trouble believing that he even could, not in the way he's simply asserting he can. He hasn't even presented any evidence beyond the gospels, as far as I've seen.

Disc is simply presenting a subject for debate. Your suspicions are irrelevant. Your illogical suggestion that biblical evidence isn't evidence of anything is because it's circular is truly clutching at straws.

"That's stupid" is a valid argument in your opinion. I'm glad to have had that corroborated.

Now can you just let people who actually have something worthwhile to say continue?

[Esquilax]

Disc is simply presenting a subject for debate. Your suspicions are irrelevant. Your illogical suggestion that biblical evidence isn't evidence of anything is because it's circular is truly clutching at straws.

Clutching at straws? "Biblical evidence" basically boils down to the claim that the events depicted in a book can be confirmed by the events depicted in the book. It is circular if it isn't bolstered by independent sources that don't have a bias toward selling the accuracy of the original book, and so far Disc hasn't even attempted to show any of that.

And frankly, the fact that you'd need more than the bible to confirm that biblical evidence even is evidence says a lot about how solid it is as an independent line of evidence.

"That's stupid" is a valid argument in your opinion. I'm glad to have had that corroborated.

I specifically said it wasn't, so you're just fucking lying, now.

Now can you just let people who actually have something worthwhile to say continue?

The fact that you count yourself in that group says wonders as to just how deluded you are.

[Mudhammam]

Lol @ Fr0d0.
Discipulus cites the Bible as "evidence"...for the Bible.
I answer all points made and state what's wrong with this approach.
Discipulus ignores all my points.
Fr0d0 declares Discipulus winner.
This is how debates usually go in the minds of Christians/Muslims/Mormons/fill-in-crazy-cult-here.

[discipulus]

Lol @ Fr0d0.
Discipulus cites the Bible as "evidence"...for the Bible.
I answer all points made and state what's wrong with this approach.
Discipulus ignores all my points.
Fr0d0 declares Discipulus winner.
This is how debates usually go in the minds of Christians/Muslims/Mormons/fill-in-crazy-cult-here.

Where did I site the Bible as evidence for the Bible?

You are quite adept at strawmanning. Maybe you should take more time to actually read what I have written instead of trying to wedge it together and fasion it into a scarecrow of straw.

[Mudhammam]

Lol @ Fr0d0.
Discipulus cites the Bible as "evidence"...for the Bible.
I answer all points made and state what's wrong with this approach.
Discipulus ignores all my points.
Fr0d0 declares Discipulus winner.
This is how debates usually go in the minds of Christians/Muslims/Mormons/fill-in-crazy-cult-here.

Where did I site the Bible as evidence for the Bible?

You are quite adept at strawmanning. Maybe you should take more time to actually read what I have written instead of trying to wedge it together and fasion it into a scarecrow of straw.

You pretty much said the Gospels validate the Gospels. Actually, as far as I can tell, that's all you've really had to say thus far.