Debate with a Christian

[Mudhammam]

Don't get too excited. It's not worth it if it means he just returns to giving disciplus reach-arounds for his meta-debating skills.

Discipulus, while I disagree with his views, isn't a mean spirited troll. He believes what he believes, that's admirable, in its own kind of way.

But, trolls? Not sure where the motivation comes from to just say unoriginal one liners, and watch people react to them. That's probably it, they just want reactions, not inter-actions.

Not to mention, watching him attempt a debate is at least somewhat entertaining in its own sad little way.

[LastPoet]

What the fuck is this? Banhammer whack-a-mole day?

Shit, its easter comming, the crazies get all mooned by it, just like around christmas

[*Deidre*]

What the fuck is this? Banhammer whack-a-mole day?

Shit, its easter comming, the crazies get all mooned by it, just like around christmas

Honestly, I don't think some of them are Christian at all...just trolls, playin.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

What the fuck is this? Banhammer whack-a-mole day?

Shit, its easter comming, the crazies get all mooned by it, just like around christmas

Honestly, I don't think some of them are Christian at all...just trolls, playin.

Trolls be players.

[discipulus]

Meanwhile, I've pm'd an admin (rayaan) to set up a debate in the debate forum. Me and discipulus on the topic

"Are the gospels are reliable biographies of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth."

The only rules I would request are

1. No appeals to authority (eg" most scholars agree") without reference
2. After introductory statements, one point at a time please. I hate those overlong rambling posts with 15 points being argued at a time.

In order to determine where I need to begin my case, I need to ask you your views regarding certain aspects of the gospels.

This question is with regards to your view on the reliability of the textual transmission of the gospels and NT in general. This subject is what is known as bibliography. C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English Literary History -https://archive.org/details/introductiontore030300mbp , lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography. They are: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and lastly, the external evidence test.

Is it your view that the gospels as found in the latest edition (Edition 28) Of the Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland) are reliable copies of the original gospel autographs?

Yes or no? If not, then our debate needs to be on "Do the N.T. writings pass the bibliographical test used by historians?"

[*Deidre*]

Discipulus, while I disagree with his views, isn't a mean spirited troll. He believes what he believes, that's admirable, in its own kind of way.

But, trolls? Not sure where the motivation comes from to just say unoriginal one liners, and watch people react to them. That's probably it, they just want reactions, not inter-actions.

Not to mention, watching him attempt a debate is at least somewhat entertaining in its own sad little way.

Yea, but I think when you follow a religion, (I speak from experience) ...your only 'reliable source' is the Bible. And that's not an objectively reliable source. You can find historical writings about Jesus, and so on, but again, where are they getting their material from? The only reason Jesus comes into the historical fold, is a religious leader of sorts. (Meanwhile, I don't think he was pro-religion, but ...)

You can read different perspectives about who he might have been, but usually they are religious slants. Islam for example doesn't believe he was the Savior of the world. Doesn't even believe he was crucified. So...who he was, what he was, is up for religoius interpretation, and that is the only reason he even 'fits' into history. In other words, kids don't study Jesus' life in World History class. :p

[discipulus]

Not to mention, watching him attempt a debate is at least somewhat entertaining in its own sad little way.

Yea, but I think when you follow a religion, (I speak from experience) ...your only 'reliable source' is the Bible. And that's not an objectively reliable source. You can find historical writings about Jesus, and so on, but again, where are they getting their material from? The only reason Jesus comes into the historical fold, is a religious leader of sorts. (Meanwhile, I don't think he was pro-religion, but ...)

You can read different perspectives about who he might have been, but usually they are religious slants. Islam for example doesn't believe he was the Savior of the world. Doesn't even believe he was crucified. So...who he was, what he was, is up for religoius interpretation, and that is the only reason he even 'fits' into history.

What does the Encyclopedia say about Jesus Deidre?

Deidre, go here http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jesus_...le).aspx#1 and start reading. See what you find.

[Mudhammam]

Yea, but I think when you follow a religion, (I speak from experience) ...your only 'reliable source' is the Bible. And that's not an objectively reliable source. You can find historical writings about Jesus, and so on, but again, where are they getting their material from? The only reason Jesus comes into the historical fold, is a religious leader of sorts. (Meanwhile, I don't think he was pro-religion, but ...)

You can read different perspectives about who he might have been, but usually they are religious slants. Islam for example doesn't believe he was the Savior of the world. Doesn't even believe he was crucified. So...who he was, what he was, is up for religoius interpretation, and that is the only reason he even 'fits' into history.

What does the Encyclopedia say about Jesus Deidre?

Deidre, go here http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jesus_...le).aspx#1 and start reading. See what you find.

Deidre, you've been owned...twice!
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/yeti.aspx

[*Deidre*]

Yea, but I think when you follow a religion, (I speak from experience) ...your only 'reliable source' is the Bible. And that's not an objectively reliable source. You can find historical writings about Jesus, and so on, but again, where are they getting their material from? The only reason Jesus comes into the historical fold, is a religious leader of sorts. (Meanwhile, I don't think he was pro-religion, but ...)

You can read different perspectives about who he might have been, but usually they are religious slants. Islam for example doesn't believe he was the Savior of the world. Doesn't even believe he was crucified. So...who he was, what he was, is up for religoius interpretation, and that is the only reason he even 'fits' into history.

What does the Encyclopedia say about Jesus Deidre?

Deidre, go here http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jesus_...le).aspx#1 and start reading. See what you find.

I looked, and at the top of the page, we read:

Jesus (persons of the Bible)

The Bible is unfortunately the only source that breathes life to any stories of Jesus. Not trying to be flippant with you, it's just the way it is. And the motive was to breathe life into a religion, not to simply record history. You can't compare a US History book to the Bible. Noah's Ark for example...all hearsay, and most likely a fable. It doesn't share the shelves of the history book sections of book stores for a reason. The Bible is about religion, not about history.

[fr0d0]

Fr0d0, your girlfriend's been banned. :o

I'm sad