If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

Reasonable criticism and critique.  Sure! I think that Christianity has certainly been and should be investigated.   However; double standards and hyper-skepticism no.

Also, I wouldn't recommend your approach described either.

Diddums. You’re not in a position, either here or real life, to dictate to people how you think your beliefs should be viewed and criticised, or indeed carve out what you think is ‘reasonable’. Not unless you want to live a society entirely comprised of you. If that’s floats your boat, then feel free to set sail.

Also, hyper skepticism.    

I think that I'm in an excellent position to decide what I think is reasonable.   As to what atheists find reasonable, I find it incredibly inconsistent.  Which is how I judge it by.  Call me crazy, but I look at how people reason in other situations, and think that the same logic should follow, unless you can justify why not.

Also wouldn't the same apply to you?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well hey, if you think you’re in an excellent position, good for you. Inconsistency on one position doesn’t invalidate by default a position on any myriad of other subjects, btw. Not everyone can be 100% right 100% of the time.

Won’t stop anyone criticising your beliefs, though. And if anyone wants to try and stop that here, good luck to them.

[RoadRunner79]

Well hey, if you think you’re in an excellent position, good for you. Inconsistency on one position doesn’t invalidate by default a position on any myriad of other subjects, btw. Not everyone can be 100% right 100% of the time.

Won’t stop anyone criticising your beliefs, though. And if anyone wants to try and stop that here, good luck to them.

I'm fine with people criticizing, scrutinizeing or discussing my beliefs or what I claim.   I don't often entertain jumping around subjects however for things that I didn't say.  It's often just a tactic of sophism and to disrupt conversation.   

I'll ask why, and I expect atheists to avoid the claim, or deny having made one at all.   I like it that way.   Don't think that the claims of atheists are not subject to scrutiny either.  Many atheists seem to have divorced themselves from religion at a young age, and their thinking often reflects that.  When they describe the God they don't believe in, I find that I don't believe in that God either.   So knock yourself out.

[Jehanne]

I don't think that the Gospels or Paul constitute "evidence".  I've asked you about this before, as to why I should accept the Gospel of Matthew but not the Gospel of Peter?

I've answered before.   I think that we both agree, that it was written late.  It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church.  Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles.  If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.  

Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?

---

The Gospel of Peter was likely written "late", but then, again, so was Matthew:

Early Christian Writings

Neither are serious historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

[Minimalist]

I don't think that the Gospels or Paul constitute "evidence".  I've asked you about this before, as to why I should accept the Gospel of Matthew but not the Gospel of Peter?

I've answered before.   I think that we both agree, that it was written late.  It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church.  Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles.  If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.  

Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?

---

Once again, asshole, testimony must be cross-examined.  In case you missed it, a lying, drunken, scumbag is now on the supreme court because the testimony of the accuser was not cross-examined and neither was his.

Produce your fucking witnesses and let's have at them!  Your silly-assed "paul" contradicts himself so much that a first year law student with  D average could rip him a new asshole on the stand.

If you think that historians demand/expect  to personally cross-examine witnesses from 2000 years ago; then you are more delusional than I thought.  This would also mean that you discount most of history.   I notice that when you are trying to make a case against Christianity, that you hold different standards though.  Why is that?

Also Dr. Ford was cross examined (although I think they handled her with kid gloves) by the senate; so was Judge Kavenaugh.

You can't be fucking serious.  I get it.   You want one more fascist on the supreme court but let's not pretend the so-called FBI investigation was anything other than a joke to placate that useless sack of shit, Flake.

I suggest you read some real history - not your bible bullshit.  You will see that historians are always looking for ways to confirm or deny ancient sources.  Let's see how stupid you really are.

Do you "believe" Herodotus when he said that 2 million Persians invaded Greece?

Do you "believe" your bible when it claims that 185,000 Assyrians were sent to attack a town the size of "Jerusalem?"

Do you "believe" Caesar when he claims the Gauls sent a quarter of a million reinforcements to rescue Vercingetorix at Alesia?

Do you "believe" Herodotus when he claims that Babylon had 100 gates?

Do you "believe" Plutarch when he writes a biography of "Romulus?"

And so on.

I'm sure of the list you will insist upon only #2 because it comes from your stupid, fucking, bible.  But 8th century Jerusalem was a shitty little town of something under 10,000 people.  Those Assyrians would have died of thirst in that dreary desert shithole long before any plague could get them.

[RoadRunner79]

I've answered before.   I think that we both agree, that it was written late.  It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church.  Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles.  If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.  

Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?

---

The Gospel of Peter was likely written "late", but then, again, so was Matthew:

Early Christian Writings

Neither are serious historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Why do you think that it was written late?  What is your evidence or reasons?   A few of the NT documents did have some dispute over whether they should be included; but, I don't think that Matthew was one of them.  It seems that the early Church believed that it was Matthew the very same disciple who founded some of those Churches.  We also see the same accounts quoted early in the Church, and being used for teaching.   

https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-int...nd-outline

---

---

I've answered before.   I think that we both agree, that it was written late.  It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church.  Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles.  If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.  

Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?

---

If you think that historians demand/expect  to personally cross-examine witnesses from 2000 years ago; then you are more delusional than I thought.  This would also mean that you discount most of history.   I notice that when you are trying to make a case against Christianity, that you hold different standards though.  Why is that?

Also Dr. Ford was cross examined (although I think they handled her with kid gloves) by the senate; so was Judge Kavenaugh.

You can't be fucking serious.  I get it.   You want one more fascist on the supreme court but let's not pretend the so-called FBI investigation was anything other than a joke to placate that useless sack of shit, Flake.

I suggest you read some real history - not your bible bullshit.  You will see that historians are always looking for ways to confirm or deny ancient sources.  Let's see how stupid you really are.

Do you "believe" Herodotus when he said that 2 million Persians invaded Greece?

Do you "believe" your bible when it claims that 185,000 Assyrians were sent to attack a town the size of "Jerusalem?"

Do you "believe" Caesar when he claims the Gauls sent a quarter of a million reinforcements to rescue Vercingetorix at Alesia?

Do you "believe" Herodotus when he claims that Babylon had 100 gates?

Do you "believe" Plutarch when he writes a biography of "Romulus?"

And so on.

I'm sure of the list you will insist upon only #2 because it comes from your stupid, fucking, bible.  But 8th century Jerusalem was a shitty little town of something under 10,000 people.  Those Assyrians would have died of thirst in that dreary desert shithole long before any plague could get them.

---

If you want to discuss history and your reasons (either for your clams or in regards to OP) and feel you can do so like a civil adult... feel free. But these 20 questions routines never seem to go anywhere and are tiring. It's up to you, to make your point, not me. Unless your point is that testimony is not evidence; which I think you already lost by referencing Kavenaugh.

[Minimalist]

I'm sure you find them tiring.  In addition to threatening.  I simply want you to admit that you put your bible bullshit on a pedestal.

Ancient history is full of nonsense.  Read Pliny's Natural History for an example.

You simply choose to accept what suits your pre-determined beliefs.  You are a cherry picker.  Like every other religitard in the world.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm sure you find them tiring.  In addition to threatening.  I simply want you to admit that you put your bible bullshit on a pedestal.

Ancient history is full of nonsense.  Read Pliny's Natural History for an example.

You simply choose to accept what suits your pre-determined beliefs.  You are a cherry picker.  Like every other religitard in the world.

LOL   Nope... I've been through this before (probably with you); and we never seem to get to your point, and just keep hopping to one thing from another.  So I'm not going to do a bunch of research for you, if you can't state what you are arguing about directly (and like a civil adult).  I don't find it threatening, because I'm not inconsistent like you seem to be.  And I'm not going to do a bunch of research for you to hop about to something else.   You need to narrow your scope, and make your point clearer; if you want to have a discussion.  Otherwise, my answer is that I don't know; and I'm skeptical.  Make your case.

[Jehanne]

The Gospel of Peter was likely written "late", but then, again, so was Matthew:

Early Christian Writings

Neither are serious historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Why do you think that it was written late?  What is your evidence or reasons?   A few of the NT documents did have some dispute over whether they should be included; but, I don't think that Matthew was one of them.  It seems that the early Church believed that it was Matthew the very same disciple who founded some of those Churches.  We also see the same accounts quoted early in the Church, and being used for teaching.   

https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-int...nd-outline

---

The opinions that you are giving go against the broad scholarly consensus:

The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century.[23][Notes 1] This makes it a work of the second generation of Christians, for whom the defining event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in AD 70 in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–73); from this point on, what had begun with Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish messianic movement became an increasingly Gentile phenomenon evolving in time into a separate religion.[24] The Christian community to which Matthew belonged, like many 1st-century Christians, was still part of the larger Jewish community: hence the designation Jewish Christian to describe them.[25] The relationship of Matthew to this wider world of Judaism remains a subject of study and contention, the principal question being to what extent, if any, Matthew's community had cut itself off from its Jewish roots.[26] Certainly there was conflict between Matthew's group and other Jewish groups, and it is generally agreed that the root of the conflict was the Matthew community's belief in Jesus as the Messiah and authoritative interpreter of the law, as one risen from the dead and uniquely endowed with divine authority.[27]

The author of Matthew wrote for a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria (Antioch, the largest city in Roman Syria and the third-largest in the empire, is often mentioned).[28] Unlike Mark, Matthew never bothers to explain Jewish customs, since his intended audience was a Jewish one; unlike Luke, who traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews; of his three presumed sources only "M", the material from his own community, refers to a "church" (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order; and the content of "M" suggests that this community was strict in keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in "righteousness" (adherence to Jewish law).[29] Writing from within a Jewish-Christian community growing increasingly distant from other Jews and becoming increasingly Gentile in its membership and outlook, Matthew put down in his gospel his vision "of an assembly or church in which both Jew and Gentile would flourish together".

Wikipedia -- Gosepl of Matthew, Setting and Date

Now, your "rebuttal" will be, "Why do scholars feel this way? What are the reasons that they are giving for this view?" But, yours is still a minority viewpoint.

[RoadRunner79]

Why do you think that it was written late?  What is your evidence or reasons?   A few of the NT documents did have some dispute over whether they should be included; but, I don't think that Matthew was one of them.  It seems that the early Church believed that it was Matthew the very same disciple who founded some of those Churches.  We also see the same accounts quoted early in the Church, and being used for teaching.   

https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-int...nd-outline

---

The opinions that you are giving go against the broad scholarly consensus:

The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century.[23][Notes 1] This makes it a work of the second generation of Christians, for whom the defining event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in AD 70 in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–73); from this point on, what had begun with Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish messianic movement became an increasingly Gentile phenomenon evolving in time into a separate religion.[24] The Christian community to which Matthew belonged, like many 1st-century Christians, was still part of the larger Jewish community: hence the designation Jewish Christian to describe them.[25] The relationship of Matthew to this wider world of Judaism remains a subject of study and contention, the principal question being to what extent, if any, Matthew's community had cut itself off from its Jewish roots.[26] Certainly there was conflict between Matthew's group and other Jewish groups, and it is generally agreed that the root of the conflict was the Matthew community's belief in Jesus as the Messiah and authoritative interpreter of the law, as one risen from the dead and uniquely endowed with divine authority.[27]

The author of Matthew wrote for a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria (Antioch, the largest city in Roman Syria and the third-largest in the empire, is often mentioned).[28] Unlike Mark, Matthew never bothers to explain Jewish customs, since his intended audience was a Jewish one; unlike Luke, who traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews; of his three presumed sources only "M", the material from his own community, refers to a "church" (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order; and the content of "M" suggests that this community was strict in keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in "righteousness" (adherence to Jewish law).[29] Writing from within a Jewish-Christian community growing increasingly distant from other Jews and becoming increasingly Gentile in its membership and outlook, Matthew put down in his gospel his vision "of an assembly or church in which both Jew and Gentile would flourish together".

Wikipedia -- Gosepl of Matthew, Setting and Date

Now, your "rebuttal" will be, "Why do scholars feel this way? What are the reasons that they are giving for this view?" But, yours is still a minority viewpoint.

Yep... and Wallace has been quoted as saying that pretty much the main reason for late dating is because of the prophecy of the destruction of the temple. Just curious if there was anything else substantial you where aware of, that didn’t beg the question.

Also, I don’t feel any problem rejecting an appeal to authority, if reason for the claim can’t be given.