FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-04-2001, 12:10 PM   #121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jmcanany:
Which brings up a point you're all too familiar with:
your methods cannot disprove my 'naturalistic explanation'. The best you can do is say there is not "historical" textual evidence for it - -but "historical" textual evidence does not a truth or falsehood make....
</font>
I see, once again, you are refusing to answer any questions asked of you.
 
Old 04-04-2001, 12:54 PM   #122
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Umm - I did answer: you cannot disprove my theory. You cannot prove that my 'explanation' is false - it might just be what happened (given the premises of this topic, and given that I've stuck to them).
The best you can say is that you don't have textual evidence for it that meets your own idea of what 'textual evidence' is - so what?

 
Old 04-04-2001, 12:57 PM   #123
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jmcanany:
Umm - I did answer: you cannot disprove my theory. You cannot prove that my 'explanation' is false - it might just be what happened (given the premises of this topic, and given that I've stuck to them).
The best you can say is that you don't have textual evidence for it that meets your own idea of what 'textual evidence' is - so what?
</font>
I didn't ask you any questions about your theory.

Here were my questions:

Why are you so sure I know that?

What do you mean by prove? Could you give me a precise standard so I can know whether or not I "know" whether or not I can reach it?

What are my "methods?"

Since I've said that I think Meier is overly cautious, what makes you think I have forgotten him? And since you seem to have
obtained a respect for Meier, do you accept his conclusion that Jesus, his followers, and his enemies believed that he performed miracles?

If you are a Christian, why are you so intent on attacking only other Christians? Why don't you spend ANY time defending your supposed faith?

Care to try again? Or, try for the first time I should say.
 
Old 04-04-2001, 01:21 PM   #124
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

do you accept his conclusion that Jesus, his followers, and his enemies believed that he performed miracles?

I don't see how you can validly conclude that this actually was the case (based on your methods). The best you can conclude is that this is what a bunch of Texts say was the case. How do you know those Texts are Truth???

Look, Layman, plenty of texts say lots of things that you probably don't believe are truth - but they all meet your criteria (tutonm has pointed this out to you over and over again...).
How do you decide?
And don't say "by your criteria" - your ignorance of the state of the argument would be showing....

Thanks for the replies...
 
Old 04-04-2001, 01:28 PM   #125
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jmcanany:
do you accept his conclusion that Jesus, his followers, and his enemies believed that he performed miracles?

I don't see how you can validly conclude that this actually was the case (based on your methods). The best you can conclude is that this is what a bunch of Texts say was the case. How do you know those Texts are Truth???

Look, Layman, plenty of texts say lots of things that you probably don't believe are truth - but they all meet your criteria (tutonm has pointed this out to you over and over again...).
How do you decide?
And don't say "by your criteria" - your ignorance of the state of the argument would be showing....

Thanks for the replies...
</font>
Again, you fail to answer my questions.

And Turton proved no such thing. He basically admitted that his piece on Alchemy didn't even use most of the criteria I listed, and admitted that he didn't see the need to address the "independence" of his sources, which is important to the criteria of multiple attestation.

So, will you kindly address my questions?
 
Old 04-04-2001, 02:00 PM   #126
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

What do you mean by prove? Could you give me a precise standard so I can know whether or not I "know" whether or not I can reach it?

A (non-begging) argument that validly concludes that something a Text says happened actually did happen (prove that the text is True). As far as I can tell, the best your methods can conclude is that here's what a Text says - but whether it's true or not - silence....

What are my "methods?"
Inadequate to your own apologetic task.

Since I've said that I think Meier is overly cautious, what makes you think I have forgotten him?
Forgotten? No. Disagree? Yes. Meier does not advance these methods as apologetics, or even as a way of getting at the Truth - - he admits that the Christ of the quests can never be the Christ of faith....etc...
BTW
Meier is a scholar you are not - why ought anyone listen to you?
 
Old 04-04-2001, 02:22 PM   #127
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Ahhhh, yes, the pot calling the kettle black once again! Congratulations, Nomad, you continue to accuse others of what you are most guilty in charming new ways!

This is going to be so much fun! (though the spell checker is out so my lysdexia may be in full swing-my apologies prologue for you spelling purists, but some of us just aren't wired cortlcey)

So, come everyone! Let's take a trip through Nomad's delusions of grandeur and prove conclusively what a pointless, evasive annoying little gnat of a thumper he truly is, shall we?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Your continued evasiveness is getting tiresome Koy. But if this post is the one that you wish to use as an argument, so be it. From what I have read, you didn't actually present an argument however, but merely a set of unsupported assumptions.</font>
Good evening, Mr. Pot! Mr. Kettle has arranged your seating this evening...

Deny, deny, deny! Did you work in the Clinton administration?

Here's a perfect example of accusing others of what you are most guilty:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">[Y]ou didn't actually present an argument, however, but merely a set of unsupported assumptions.</font>
Now from your post to lpetrich in this thread:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I want to know what happened after Jesus died, and I want you to do it by assuming that the Resurrection is a fraud.</font>
See any similarities? So, again, I'll ask in less polite terms, What the fuck are you asking us to do?

You tell us to assume that the resurrection is a fraud and then chastise me (erroneously as I will illustrate in a minute) for making assumptions!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Try not to be this dense. Assume anything you wish, but support your assumptions.</font>
I never made any assumptions. Stating the synoptics is a collection of mythical stories, for example, is not an assumption nor assertion anymore than is stating, "Star Wars is a movie," UNLESS YOU HAVE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY?

If you do, then we have a discussion; if you don't then we have your cult indoctrination and since you do not, the extant fact remains that the synoptic tales of the resurrection myth remain exactly that, a myth.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> That is how debate is done. </font>
Yes, I'm well aware of how debate is done, Nomad. Let me give you a refresher course, however, as you are under the asinine assumption that the synoptic gospels are literal truths even though they chronicle a God who resurrects bodily from death and then ascends either bodily or spiritually into the sky!

You keep stating you want us to "assume" the resurrection is a fraud and when I point out to you that there is no need to "assume" anything of the sort since it is a myth and there exists no legitimate evidence to the contrary, you childishly accuse me of "making assumptions."

In order for any of us to "assume" fraud, there must first be the knowledge that they are not fraudulent! What is your evidence that the synoptics are literal truths?

You continuously refer to the gospels as evidence against any of our "theories," so justify the validity of their use as any form of evidence before this stupidity goes another post!

You can not tell us to assume a fraud where there is nothing other than fraud and then use the fraud to refute our arguments!

And you're questioning my understanding of debate? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Sadly, you are one of the worst offenders on the boards for hurling unsupported assertions, and things are not improving here.</font>
Yes, Mr. Pot? These drinks are from Mr. Kettle's table...He'd deliver them himself but he's vomiting too hard from hysterical laughter...

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: So, let's be clear: You want us to state what we think happened and then provide evidence to prove it, correct?

YOU: Yes.</font>
Ok, I'll do it once more.

Here are the bare bones of what I think happened:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Two thousand years or so ago an unknown writer we call "Mark" wrote a myth about a guy who had lived some forty to fifty years before Mark did (why he did this is not currently at issue, but we can certainly get into that later).

Mark used many of the wisdom sayings this person taught as a basis for his myth and made up many fantastic events this person went through in his journey from simple teacher to Godhead according to the literary formula of all myths of this nature.

A decade or so later, another unknown writer read this myth and embellished it with even more fantastic events, clarifying and redefining the first draft of the myth. We call this person either Matthew or Luke depending upon current speculation.

About ten more years pass by and another unknown writer reads the first and second draft of the myth and then adds his own embellishments. We call this person either Luke or Matthew depending upon current speculation.

These myths appeal to very ignorant, simple-minded people in the region and get told from time to time until three hundred years go by and the myths have become a powerful cult that Constantine recognizes will serve his power base perfectly.

Thus, the Christian cult is given State mandate and State authority and the cult has the authority of an Empire behind it.

Two thousand years later, idiots like you believe the myths to be documentaries.</font>
That brings us up to date. And I didn't even include the centuries of torture and murder that makes you sooooo mad, you adorable little brain-dead thumper you!

Evidence for what I think happened:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins; A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins; Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth all by Burton Mack, as well as Nag Hammadi: Codices 11, 12, 13 and The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters by Elaine Pagels; as well as basic human insight, or does that not count? </font>
Got that?

Onward:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU: (originally) I see no reason to assume from the start that the evangelists that wrote the Gospels did not actually believe the story as they told it, but it is obviously a possibility.

ME: (responding) I was just basing that on what you had said. If I am to assume fraud as you had earlier stated, then the assumption would also go toward anyone writing about that fraud, which is why I pointed out that we can't assume the story to be fraudulent without also assuming the synoptics to be fraudulent, or, at the very least, in serious question as to remove their use for purposes of eyewitness accounts, which is what you've been using to discredit other's theories.

YOU (responding):If you are going to remove the Synoptic Gospels from your discussion, that is fine. I assume you will use John and Paul then. At the same time, I do not have to accept your assumptions, and will ask you to back them up.</font>
So I'm to assume the resurrection is a fraud, but you're not going to except my assumptions...?

And, why would I use John and Paul? Unlike you, I'm not in the habit of using biased fiction as evidence, except of course as evidence against the veracity of the NT. Is that what you wanted? I can pop them in too, then, but that's really going to get off topic and I know how much you hate that.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Just want to be clear. If I am to assume fraud or that the event did not happen the way it is written in the synoptics, then both of us must necessarily assume that the synoptics are not reliable as evidence either for or against any theory I propose.

YOU:You brought up the Synoptics. From what I can see, you still do not understand the operating premise of the thread. We are to assume that the resurrection given in the Gospels did not happen. Go from there, and anything you have to offer is open to challenge, and requests for supporting evidence and arguments.</font>
First, I did.

Second, there's no need to "assume" it didn't happen since there is no proof that it did happen. Two thousand year old anonymous hearsay myths do not constitute proof, or didn't you learn that in bible indoctrination school?

Oh, wait, what's your favorite retort to this? It's evidence just not evidence that I'd accept? Right?

That one just kills me every time! I told you this would be fun!

Oh, and thanks for going through most of my post point-by-point. That's very uncharacteristic of you and makes my job much easier.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: If instead you are asking me to prove that the synoptic account of the resurrection is a fraud, well, obviously that's an entirely different matter requiring a different set of rules and regulations.

YOU: Why have you confined yourself to the Synoptics? How did you make this leap?</font>
They're where the myth started so I figured they'd be as good a place to begin as any. Why? Did you have a preferred section of fiction you wanted me to start from instead?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU: What I am looking for is your theory Koy, then let's see how it hold up.

ME: Ok, but "hold[s] up" to what? To the synoptics? To your personal whim? What standard of evidence are we using to "hold" it up to? A theory is not necessarily backed up by "concrete" evidence, remember? Oh, wait, as you display in a moment, you don't remember, my bad.

YOU (responding): It is when you post things like this that I am further left to question your seriousness on this thread Koy. Do you understand how to offer evidence to support your claims or not? From your posts on this and other threads I have drawn the conclusion that you do not know how to do this. I hope you will at least try.</font>
AHHHHHH, a perfect example of your evasion tactics, Nomad! I couldn't have found one better. I asked you what my argument would be held up to and you ignore the legitimate and necessary question in order to address a flippancy on my part. I really should remove such things as this is your repeated evasive tactic to my posts, but it is the only enjoyment I get out of these ridiculous ramblings of yours, so fuck it.

Now, without flippancy, what standard of evidence are we applying to my assumptions that I'm not supposed to make? You have been using the New Testament, which is to say, no evidence at all. A collection of anonymous hearsay myths written decades after an alleged event is not evidence in my book or any court in the land, so what reason can you give me that they are legitimate here?

Ground rules, Nomad, ground rules. That's all I've been asking you to provide. Do I assume fraud or not? Do I provide evidence and if so, to what standard? If we go by your standard, then all I have to do is provide two thousand year old unknown fictional writers of hearsay myths, right?

Well, I did. The synoptic gospels prove my argument that the resurrection story was a myth.

Now, I'll ask it once more just for fun: DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR USE OF THE GOSPELS AS A STANDARD OF VERIFIABLE "TRUTH" TO "HOLD UP" AGAINST OUR ARGUMENTS?

If you do not, then, as I pointed out several times, your posts are, at best, moot.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for what kind of evidence you are allowed to use, choose anything you wish. It will be up to me to question it, and to see if it has any holes in it.</font>
So it's your whim we're offering arguments against? Fuck off!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: So, this is why I requested specific ground rules. </font>
(I still do, by the way)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME (cont'd): For example, if you are going to use the synoptics as counter-evidence, then we have no standard as the synoptics are a mythical account of an event that did not actually happen (unless of course you have evidence which proves the validity of the synoptic myths).

YOU: And there you go again. Even if the Synoptics are myths, that does not make them untrue. </font>
What?

I'll ask that again.

What?

What does that make them? True myths?

Are you clinically insane or just happy to see me?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU (cont'd): But if you wish to present this argument, you will have to support it. How do you propose to do this?</font>
No proposal. Star Wars is a movie. Extant fact. The New Testament is a collection of myths. Extant fact. UNLESS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, all we have here are the extant facts, maam, just the extant facts.

Case...fuckin...closed.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: If you would like my theory on how the myth was created, no problem; but if you are attempting to argue that the synoptics represent verifiable and legitimate evidence in support of the bodily resurrection of a man from death, then we've got problems.

YOU: I have specifically and repeatedly stated that this thread assumes the bodily resurrection did not happen. I hope that this is clear by now, since I have no idea how to make it any clearer to you.</font>
So the assumption that none of us are supposed to make is that the bodily resurrection did not happen. Got it.

Very clear! Only one thing. Do you have any evidence that the resurrection did happen?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU: A premise must have some supports Koy, if you wish to assume that the Gospel writers were participants in a fraud, give us some evidence and arguments to look at.

ME (responding): Ok. To begin with, I offer as evidence for fraud the synoptics. Within the three gospels you can read contradictory accounts of an extraordinary event that allegedly took place some thirty to forty years prior to the chronicling of that event, from writers who give the impression that they were there and saw exactly what occurred, which is a lie.

YOU (responding): What you have done here is called an assertion Koy. Cite examples, back them up. If you are going to say that the Synoptics contradict one another, but not support that claim, I will merely say that they do not contradict one another. We are then both on the same level.</font>
The saddest thing here is that you probably actually believe that. You really want to get into biblical contradictions? Ok, let's settle it right here, then Nomad. Write down every event of the resurrection (assuming it happened now, for the sake of this experiment) in chronological order leaving nothing out from the NT.

If you can do that (leaving nothing out at all, mind you) then I will retract my statement that the synoptics are contradictory. Fair enough?

Or would you rather use this as another point of evasion by saying something childish like the burden of proof is on me? Is that it, little clubber? Shall we do the burden of proof dosey dough?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Further, the story that they relate is of a person resurrecting from death to walk amongst his friends, who then see him raised bodily into the sky.

YOU: Just because it didnít happen as described (and then only in Luke) doesnít mean that Luke didnít believe it happened. To argue fraud, you must establish that the perpetrator knew of the lie. How would you do this? </font>
HEY! TOUCHHOLE! YOU WERE THE ONE WHO INSTRUCTED US TO ASSUME THE RESURRECTION WAS A FRAUD!

I'm the one who pointed out there's no need to "assume" anything about a collection of myths, remember? Get your own story straight!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU (cont'd): Further, since the Assension is only mentioned in Luke, how does this impede on the credibility of Mark, Matthew and John?</font>
It's your myth, you tell me. I find none of it credible. Though a fifth grader could certainly point out to you that if one person wrote about a bodily ascension and the others wrote about a spiritual ascension, then that would pretty much seal the deal as far as contradictory accounts, wouldn't you agree, not to mention myths?

Now please, please, please avoid all of the this by going off into apologetics on this one, ok? We so dearly love to watch you scramble all over the place in order to avoid addressing the important issues, like the fact that there is no reliable evidence that speaks to the veracity of the NT myths to begin with! PLEEEEAAASSEEEE...

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> ME: Perhaps, then, your use of the word "fraud" is too harsh; however use of the term "myth" is certainly extant and no evidence exists to the contrary.

YOU: Myth is fine. Again, do not mistake the word myth for fraud however. The City of Troy was thought to be mythical until it was found by archeologists.</font>
Yeah. That analogy works. The City of Troy was thought to be "mythical," just like a Triune God/Man/Holy Ghost who came to Earth in flesh to save mankind by murdering himself as a sacrifice to himself is considered "mythical." Sure, those are equivalent.

From Websters: "MYTH: an unfounded or false notion; a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence." Oh, and I would addend my own definition to this just so we're clear on what I mean when I use the word "myth:" "a fictional story that did not actually happen that for some unfathomable reason ignorant poeple still believe actually happened for no good reason whatsoever."

Are we clear now?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU: If, at the same time, you want to suggest that the pre-Gospel resurrection accounts were also fraudulent, be my guest. But please support your assertions.

ME (responding): First, I have (see above).

YOU (responding): No you havenít Koy. You have asserted it.</font>
Ok, now you're just forbidden from ever using the term "assertion" again as you consistently misuse it like an annoying little child repeating "No you didn't! No you didn't! No you didn't!"

One more time: It is not an assertion to state, "Star Wars is a movie," correct? Is there any assertion involved in that statement? Answer that first and foremost and then I'll get back to your pointless evasions.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Second, why is it an assertion to point out what is extant? There is no assertion in stating "Star Wars is a movie." That is an extant fact just as stating "The Bible is a collection of ancient myths" is an extant fact.

YOU: If you cannot tell the difference between Star Wars and the Bible, then this will be a short conversation. </font>
OOH! So close, but foul-tipped into the bleachers! No runs scored, but an excellent example of evasion for evasion's sake!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU (cont'd): Do not assume facts. Prove them. </font>
So, don't assume the resurrection is a fraud the way you told us all to do?

A myth is an unfounded or false notion; a fictional story about a person or thing having an imaginary or unverifiable existence.

Hell, go ahead and remove my "fictional" addendum. A myth is an unfounded or false notion; a story about a person or thing having an imaginary or unverifiable existence.

Do you have any evidence which would contradict this definition? I mean, of course, beside the hearsay ramblings of biased two thousand year old anonymous writers (or should I say, "writer," as Mark started this bullshit)?

So, when you really look at this whole thing, all that is in question is Mark. One guy; one myth; millions of idiots. Sounds like the story behind The Dukes of Hazzard, don't it?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">On the other hand, if you are giving us your opinion, and not calling your opinion facts, then that is acceptable.</font>
How generous of you, but not so. It is an extant fact that the synoptics is a collection of myths just as it is an extant fact that Star Wars is a movie. If someone were to come along and claim, "No, it is not an extant fact! Star Wars is instead a documentary and Darth Vader actually exists in a galaxy far, far away..." then and only then would the burden of proof exist for the idiot making the claim that Star Wars is a documentary.

In this analogy Nomad, you would be the idiot.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: If you have evidence which proves that the Bible is not a collection of myths, however, then I'd be more than happy to look at it.

Or is that "off-topic?"

YOU: If you can prove to me that you are not certifiably insane, then I am happy to look at it.

Donít ask people to prove negatives Koy.</font>
Fine, snookums. I'll reword it so that even you can understand and not do your favorite little evasion dance (my mistake that you'd be intelligent enough to figure out what I was asking you to do): Since you continously use the NT as "evidence" to "hold up" against our theories/assumptions (that we're not supposed to make), kindly offer your evidence that the NT is a collection of factual, historical accounts of actual events instead of childish myths.

You repeatedly use the NT as "the truth" without ever once providing evidence for us to accept it as factual accounts of actual historical events. Do so now or resign from this post.

I can't wait for you to prove God actually exists and that he trifurcated in order to murder himself as a sacrifice to himself! This should be remarkable (though, I have a sinking feeling already that it will instead be childish claims of, "I'm not the one claiming anything, you're the one with the burden of proof, do you actually know what proof is, this is, I am, you are.....blah blah blah blah...Put up or shut up, little boy!)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: ...are you instead asking us to prove that the resurrection story is a fraud (vastly different from assuming it is a fraud and then theorizing on what actually happened to Jesus)?

YOU (responding): I am not asking you to prove anything conclusively, but I would like to see why or how you decided that the resurrection was a fraud, then we can examine how good your evidence and arguments really are.

ME (responding): Well, that's a tad contradictory, but I've provided my evidence--the synoptic gospels.

YOU (responding-finally): Now you see why I did not reply to this post. You have not offered any evidence at all, only assertions.</font>
There's that misuse of the word assertion yet again! Congratulations on the most consistently misused word since Jim Mitchell vomited "presuppositional" into our midst!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU (cont'd): The fact that you cannot tell the difference between your own opinions and facts bodes very ill for any rational discussion with you.</font>
Mr. Pot? Mr. Kettle told me to tell you to stare for eight hours into a mirror...then sit on a flower and rotate...(an oldie but a goodie )

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: As to the argument, well, since there exists no evidence to support the resurrection myth beyond two thousand year old anonymous and demonstrably specious hearsay accounts, I'd say that the evidence of extant myth is firmly in my court.

YOU: Since there is no evidence to support that Julius Caesar (Cleopatra, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, ect.) ever livedÖ.</font>

Are you seriously comparing whether or not someone lived at some point in time with whether or not someone was a Triune God who murdered himself as a sacrifice to himself and then resurrected himself?

Are you really that fuckin' thick? Say it isn't so, Nomad!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Now, donít distract the discussion again Koy, and tell us what you think happened.</font>
Yeah, it's annoying isn't it when someone asks you to clarify your posts and provide coherent ground rules for your "experiment" and support the "evidence" you are using to "hold" our arguments up to? Damned frustrating when people like me point out all of your evasions and misuse of terms and blatant re-definitions and how you state one thing and then say you never stated that and that all of this is "off-topic" when someone deconstructs your entire argument for the self-serving, circuitous crap it really is and has the audacity to pin you down to specific points instead of just letting you run willy nilly all over the place with your cult propaganda and your condescending holier-than-thou piousness as you pointlessly post the same goddamned arguments over and over and over again, never conceding when your arguments are shreded and your points destroyed...chah, baby, chah! I know. We all know how hard it is to be a brainwashed cult member who wishes they were an intellectual, but just can't get beyond the cognitive dissonance of believing in a myth for no good reason at all!

Don't worry. There's hope for you yet.

One of these days you'll wake up and go, "Holy Shit! What a pathetic waste of time my life has been! All of my arguments are just transparent circular attempts at rationalizing an untenable and irrational belief in cult propaganda! Koyaanisqatsi was right!"

And then we'll go bowling

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Or do you have any extraordinary evidence that we have not seen, which proves the validity of the synoptics and, therefore, the resurrection myth?

YOU: We have the Synoptics, the Gospel of John, the writings of Paul, and the existence of the Church itself, dating to c. 30AD in Jerusalem. I am trying to get you to tell me how these things came about. Thus far you have not told me.</font>
Wrong! First, the "Church" doesn't date to 30AD, cult propaganda "dates" it to 30AD; the synoptics, John and Paul are by no means "extraordinary evidence" (unless you are defining "extraordinary" in the common man sense of the word--as in, "Wow, what a load of horseshit!") and I told you how these things came about, Constantine mandated it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: You seem to want to have it both ways. You want us to assume a fraud and forward an alternate theory only to have you turn around and then you use the fraud as evidence against our theories?

YOU (responding): Perhaps if you reread the premise of the thread, then you would better understand what it is actually about.

ME (responding): Nope. Didn't help, but I'll get into that at the end.

YOU (responding-finally): Yeah, I saw that too. That is another reason I did not reply to this post originally.</font>
Oh, so many evasions, so little time. Now you know why you're on my special little buddy list!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Which is why I am sincerely asking you to explain what you want us to do: Prove it is a fraud so that you can deconstruct the proof utilizing the alleged eyewitness accounts, or assume it is a fraud and provide an explanation for why and how a fraud of this nature was perpetrated?

YOU (responding): We can compare any arguments and evidence you have in support of any theory you wish to put forward against that offered in support of any other theory. What I want to avoid on this thread, however, if dealing with the resurrection as being true. Assuming that the Gospels got the story wrong does not equate to the resurrection being an actual fraud. You can, however, make this argument if you wish.

ME (responding): So, you want us to assume that the story was just written down wrong and based on that assumption explain what really happened?

YOU (responding-finally): Read my reply again. I will requote it for your benefit.

We can compare any arguments and evidence you have in support of any theory you wish to put forward against that offered in support of any other theory. What I want to avoid on this thread, however, if dealing with the resurrection as being true. Assuming that the Gospels got the story wrong does not equate to the resurrection being an actual fraud. You can, however, make this argument if you wish.</font>
I will point out yet a fuckin' 'gain it was you who told us to "assume the resurrection was a fraud." I was then asking you to clarify that, wherein you posted this drivel: "Assuming that the Gospels got the story wrong does not equate to the resurrection being an actual fraud."

Make up your goddamned mind!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME (attempting clarification): If this is the case, then what evidence are we comparing our theories to? The synoptics? You repeatedly refer to them in other posts here as if they represented the truth, which doesn't make sense if we are to assume that the resurrection did not happen.

YOU: Do you always repeat your questions this many times? Use ANY evidence you wish. I will do the same. We can then compare them to see how reasonable your theory happens to be. What we will not be discussing is the possibility that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection are correct.</font>
You are clinically insane.[list=a][*]You have no evidence (especially if "we will not be discussing the possibility that the gospel accounts of the resurrection are correct" as the gospels are the only "evidence" of a resurrection myth)[*]You repeatedly use the gospel myths as evidence against everyone's theories[*]There is no evidence to support that the resurrection myth is anything other than a myth so there's no point to this drivel to begin with[*]You're a touchhole (though that's entirely my conjecture)[/list=a]

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: The only evidence that we have of the resurrection is the synoptic gospels (which is to say, no evidence at all due to their contradictions and use of symbolic imagery as well as the fact that they are biased hearsay accounts that none of them actually witnessed), so if we throw out the resurrection as something that actually occurred, we would also have to throw out the gospels which chronicle that resurrection.

YOU (evading the issue, surprise, surprise): You have used the phrase ďsynoptic gospelsĒ so often I am wondering if you know what they are. To help you out:</font>
I know what they are. I have always known what they are. You have always been the caretaker here, sir...Don't you feel it's time that you..."corrected" yourself, too, sir...?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Regardless, I think I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the synoptics offer no legitimate evidence in support of the resurrection myth as anything other than a myth, so, case closed.

YOU: You havenít offered any evidence at all Koy. That is the problem.</font>
You just keep singing that song, little clubber! It suits you.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: If you are actually then interested in my theories as to why these people created their resurrection myths, well then we have a discussion. There are many many theories as to why a cult creates their myths, number one in my book being deliberate subjugation and control. If you wish, we can discuss cult motives and strategies in another thread, as I think that would be off-topic.

YOU: When will we get to discuss your theories Koy? I am still waiting. </font>
No, you're still evading Nomad. How's that working out for you, by the way? That whole evading thing? Good?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU: Let me repost the original assumptions again for you Koy:

About 300 years after a peasant Jew lived, was crucified and was buried, the religion He founded took over the greatest, and most cosmopolitan empire in all of ancient history. The question remains, how did this extraordinary event actually happen?

ME: Well, history supposedly records that a fellow named Constantine declared the religion to be the reigning state religion and that any other religions should be subordinate to it.

YOU (responding): History ďsupposedlyĒ recordsÖ.

See why I do not take you very seriously Koy?</font>
Oh, damn. What a shame. All right, "History records that a fellow named Constantine declared the religion to be the reigning state religion and that any other religions should be subordinate to it."

Now you just go ahead and evade that with more pointless drivel, okay, you adorable little thumper you! Yes, you're a cute little thumper! Thump! Thump! THUMP, DAMN YOU, THUMP!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Military force, then, is your answer.

YOU: No. Constantine converted after Christianity had come to dominate the Empire, not before. So your answer is incorrect factually. This is why you cannot find evidence to support it.</font>
I see. "Dominate" the Empire, eh? It's a good thing I'm the only one who makes unsubstantiated assertions isn't it? Makes it all so much clearer. Tell me, if you would be so kind being the ring bearer of proof that you are, from what source of "factual" history do you derive the hyperbole, "dominate?"

I just want to be "factually" correct here.

Oh, and while you're at it, tell me what the difference is between exchanging one cult (paganism) for another (christianity) and how that makes any difference to my observation here at all about the widespread aspects of the Christian cult being a result of Roman mandate?

Was Christianity mandated by Constantine as the State sponsored cult or not? Would the mandate account for it being widespread or not? Does it make any difference whatsoever whether or not a million people or a billion people believe in one cult over another and if so then majority rules and you must therefore start worshipping cows or not?

Please. Sir. Stop the evasion and answer a poor wretch like me, Oh bastion of factual history!

On second thought, once again, fuck off.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: As to why this happened, as you know, I have my own theory in that "other thread," but this isn't so great a mystery as you continuously imply. Millions of crackpots in powerful positions have believed all kinds of idiotic crap.

YOU: Yes, I can see that from your posts. </font>
Now that's my favorite evasion so far! You brilliantly ignored my point (which devastates your position here, by the way) and got in a good backhand against me! Bravo!

Now, address the fact that what idiots believe no matter how powerful they may be has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the belief, please.

No, no, on second thought, do what you always do and come up with yet another brilliant evasion! It's much more fun to play Follow The Bouncing Point...

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Hell, even you believe that a myth is a factual event instead of a fantasy event, so go figure?

Regardless, it only proves one thing: people are idiots!

YOU: And I am taking you less and less seriously by the post Koy. If things do not improve, we will be done again.</font>
Oh, that just breaks my heart, little clubber. Your silly evasions are so entertaining and your pointless, transparent, circuitous arguments so devastatingly pathetic that I may just miss sleeping for...

I know, I know. Sarcasm is the hobgoblin of little minds...it's just so damn satisfying!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU: Now, the basic facts of the story are not supernatural, and are well enough attested to be pretty agreeable to serious historians. They are:

1) A person by the name of Jesus of Narareth was born around 4-6BC

2) His ministry lasted about 3 years c. 30AD


ME (as you point out): Koy: Do not agree. The Sayings Gospel Q does not necessarily attest to how long he "ministered" or even that he ministered. The original Jesus cult was not about divinity or trinity; it was primarily about wisdom sayings with certain layers of apocalyptic sayings layered in latter.

YOU: Q has not dates in it at all, nor do the Synoptics. We rely on Johnís gospel, and the general agreement is that Jesus taught for about 3 years.</font>
Which I granted by stating, "Fine, a guy named Jesus said some things for three years." Who gives a shit?

Regardless, you have not addressed the fact that the origins of Christianity from 30AD to the synoptics is one of a wisdom cult; not a divinity cult! Proof positive that the miracle stories deliberately created the myth based on the wisdom sayings of a man who lived long before any mythical crap was fabricated around him.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: But, for the purposes of your post, I will extend a courtesy you have never extended to mine and grant this point for the sake of your thought experiment.

YOU: I will support my assertions. I hope you will do the same.</font>
Ok. Where is the support of your assertion that the synoptics are factual accounts? You repeatedly use them as "evidence," so please provide your "support" that they are factual accounts and that the myths they chronicle actually happened.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3) He was executed by crucifixion by then Roman governor Pontius Pilote,

ME: Agreed. A man named Jesus was crucified by Pilate, which, of course, means that he was crucified by the Romans. Want to go check out my post again now or later?

YOU: I am going to pass on your thread Koy. </font>
What a shock. It still hurts though...here! It's too bad, too as my post is a free for all thought experiment just like this one only without your constant redefinitions and changing conditions and childish use of myths as factual evidence.

Oh well.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">and was buried in a grave by Joseph of Arimathea

ME (redacted to omit the fact that Jesus wasn't burried in a grave, but placed in a tomb, further destroying OT prophecy and claims of Messiahship, which Nomad just decides to elipse over): ÖAs for who owned the tomb, as far as I know we have only the synoptics to attest to this, so I can't firmly "agree" with it, but, again, since it's your post, I will grant that in the myth chronicled in the synoptics the tomb discussed was owned by a man named Joseph of Arimathea. Ok?

YOU: Alright.</font>
All right, cool...you concede the fact that Jesus did not fulfill OT prophecy and can not therefore be a messiah! Great!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">4) Within days of that event, Jesus closest friends, followers and even some of His family members were saying that the tomb was empty and that Jesus was alive again.

ME: Do not agree. An anonymous author commonly referred to as "Mark," claimed that a resurrection of sorts had occurred some forty years after the alleged event. Then other anonymous authors (in some instances, decades later) embellished this first story, adding in claims of witnesses and contradictory details they did not see for themselves and could not attest to, too far after the event to be of any evidentiary use.

YOU: Paul was claiming the same thing Koy, and the Christian church existed long before Mark put quill to papyrus. These are known as historical facts.</font>
No, Nomad, they are not. They are revisionist historical speculation. At best there was a Jesus cult based on the Sayings Gospel Q, which had nothing to do with a Church or Jesus' divinity or proselytizing in any manner (see, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins by Burton Mack as well as Nag Hammadi: Codices 11, 12, 13 and The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters by Elaine Pagels. If you're not too frightened by these, you might also enjoy A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins by Mack as well as his thoroughly detailed, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth, but be careful, you'll actually learn something outside the influence of your cult!).

Then someone we call "Mark" wrote a radically different story about a fantastic journey of Godhood, using Jesus as his hero and the wisdom sayings attributed to him as his base.

Wait a minute...didn't I already go over this? Oh well. I know how much you thumpers appreciate repetition...

Mark started the myth of Godhood, not Jesus or the early Jesus cults and Paul was much later than the synoptics, remember? Factual history boy?

So there's my "theory."

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">They believed this against all opposition,

ME: Do not agree. Hearsay cult propaganda.

YOU: By Tacitus? He was not a Christian you know.</font>
Tacitus? You're shitting me. You're telling me that you just quoted Tacitus? I have no intention of hunting that down for verification, so I'll just ask you what possible difference would it make what Tacitus (or anybody else for that matter) had to say about idiot cult members believing "against all opposition" in a myth? As I pointed out before, idiots believe all kinds of stupid things. The opposition just shows how idiotic they truly were, but, fine, I'll grant that Tacitus believed cult members believed in their myth "against all opposition." Happy?

I amend my statement.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">and eventually (about 300 years or so) the religion that they founded swept over the Empire

ME: "Swept" over the Empire after 300 years, eh? Nice sweeping...

Addend the following phrase to the end of your statement and then I can agree: "through brutal military action and the absolute decree of their murderous dictator."

YOU: What brutal military action from 30-320AD? Donít tell me you are still clinging to your wing nut theories please.</font>
No, just chasing after your revisionism and evasive tactics. My addendum was: and eventually (about 300 years or so) the religion that they founded swept over the Empire through brutal military action and the absolute decree of their murderous dictator.

Get it now? Now I can agree.

And, by the way, you're the one who states that the chronology involved is: "after 300 years or so" the religion "swept over the Empire." So which is it? The cult "dominated" the Empire and Constantine merely acquiesced to it all, as you imply earlier, or the religion "swept" over the Empire after 300 hundred years or so?

Don't be so quick to answer. After all, you clearly felt you had to qualify your statement by including "after 300 years or so" as a parenthetical addition, which betrays your knowledge that the statement on its own would be false, so whip out that "factual" mountain of incontrivertable evidence you preside over and pony up, thumper boy!

You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around; that's what it's all about, right Nomad?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YOU: How did this happen?

ME: State mandate. This isn't rocket science.

YOU (responding): Thatís it? Thatís the best you can come up with? You explain what happened from 30AD-320AD by claiming it all happened by state mandate???</font>
No. I did not. I explained what happened after about 300 years or so per your post, when Constantine decided to change one cult for another.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Proof please.</font>
Nomad, since you are the presider over all factual evidence, I humbly offer yourself and the words you posted as proof for what I just stated.

Constantine mandated the Christian cult replace the Pagan cult as the State sponsored cult and then the games began!

As for what happened between 30AD and 70AD, when Mark is supposed to have been penned, no one knows...

A happy little book of wisdom sayings and a few apocalyptic warnings from a human teacher known as Jesus gets turned forty years later into a ridiculous myth of the Son of God arriving in flesh to be a sacrifice to his Father to illustrate his Father's love (talk about a disfunctional relationship), which grows and changes over the years into a blatant and rabid anti-Semitic screed even though it purports to chronicle the Jewish Emmanual come back to save the "chosen ones," coincidentally at the exact same time that the Romans and the Jews go to repeated war with each other and then, as the cult grows in numbers and the schism between the Jews and these new Jews who start calling themselves "Christians" grows more and more "visible" and more and more to the Roman liking, finally some three hundred years later, one of them wises up (Constantine) and sees the advantages of control and subjugation this new cult affords and sees how many idiots have been indoctrinated into it's childish tenets and how they hate the Jews and the Jews hate them and voila! State mandated anti-Semitism with a ready made list of followers! Hooray!

Now, as to the "evidence" I have to support this theory of mine? I'd say it's just as good as the evidence you have in support of yours, only mine's more recent and the anonymous writer is me, so the hearsay aspects are much easier to reconcile.

Of course, there is all that factual historical evidence that you're lording over, which fits perfectly with my theory just so long as you do the impossible and remove your cult bias and recognize that a myth is deliberately created and someone had to deliberately create it and it sure as shit wasn't the Jews!

So, by process of intelligent, mature evidentiary analysis and elimination, we have an anti-Semitic/pro Roman cult based almost entirely upon Judaism, which undermines the Jewish religion perfectly, written at the exact same time as the Romans go to war with the Jews resulting in the most powerful, openly malevolent cult the world had ever seen once Constantine gave his State mandated approval.

Yeah, you're right. My theory makes far too much sense and explains way too much about how a second testament filled with Pagan rituals and symbolism purporting to fulfill the first testament could be so radically against the teachings of the first and end up usurping the Jews in a region where military force could not.

Your take on the whole thing is much more rational. An Omniscient Fairy God King living in "Heaven" trifurcated in order to save mankind by murdering himself in the flesh as a sacrifice to himself in Heaven to show mankind how much he loves us all! Yes, that is the most likely sequence of events possible. My bad.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: So, what do we "agree" on? We agree that a guy named Jesus said some quotable wisdom platitudes and a few apocalyptic warnings.

YOU: No Koy. We donít agree on anything. You are so completely lacking in historical knowledge as to make discussion with you nearly impossible. If you will not offer any proofs, evidence or supports in your next post, then we are done.</font>
Promise? Don't get my heart all a flutter only to skimp out on the money shot, big boy!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> ME (heavily redacted so that Nomad can avoid my theory): As for how I account for the cult spreading like the virus that it is, it's very simple. If Constantine (and his ilk) didn't manufacture the Christian cult as I hypothesize in my thread and he wasn't clinically insane, then obviously he saw that the Christian cult easily and readily usurped Judaism in the region, while at the same time turned otherwise intelligent, free minded people into easily manipulated sheep.

YOU: And if this is your idea of a working theory, and you continue to offer no proofs, I will classify you with the Holocaust deniers and conspiracy nuts of the world.</font>
Considering that it makes absolutely no difference to me what you do or say or practice or preach, classify me anyway you wish, there, little clubber! If it helps you deny, deny, deny, then by all means do so, but you'll never be able to escape the simple fact that I have the truth on my side and you have nothing but fantasies. Sleep tight, little thumper, sleep tight!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I hope you will get serious after this Koy. To be honest, you still look like a loon to me. So don't make me respond to this much stupidity again please. Offer arguments, supported by evidence, or this conversation is over.

Nomad
</font>
Well, we finally agree on one thing: this pointless waste of time is definitely over.

Thanks for the diversion. Just know that any time you post your transparent cult propaganda, I'll be there!

The truth shall set you free, Nomad. You should try it some time. It's a damn sight better than what you're using.

(edited for formatting [finally; but not spelling as the post is too long for my poor comp to deal with...Hey! Just like Nomad!] - Koy)




[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited April 09, 2001).]
 
Old 04-04-2001, 02:49 PM   #128
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jmcanany:
What do you mean by prove? Could you give me a precise standard so I can know whether or not I "know" whether or not I can reach it?

A (non-begging) argument that validly concludes that something a Text says happened actually did happen (prove that the text is True). As far as I can tell, the best your methods can conclude is that here's what a Text says - but whether it's true or not - silence....

What are my "methods?"
Inadequate to your own apologetic task.

Since I've said that I think Meier is overly cautious, what makes you think I have forgotten him?
Forgotten? No. Disagree? Yes. Meier does not advance these methods as apologetics, or even as a way of getting at the Truth - - he admits that the Christ of the quests can never be the Christ of faith....etc...
BTW
Meier is a scholar you are not - why ought anyone listen to you?
</font>
You forgot these:

"If you are a Christian, why are you so intent on attacking only other Christians? Why don't you spend ANY time defending your supposed faith?"

 
Old 04-04-2001, 02:57 PM   #129
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Hello again Koy

I knew that you could not be serious on a thread, and once again you have proved me right. I must therefore consign you to the ranks of the seriously distrubed individuals and bid you adieu.

Good bye.

Nomad
 
Old 04-04-2001, 03:17 PM   #130
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I have become convinced that you do not actually understand how evidence is accumulated or evaluated jm. Thus we continue to have this problem in our discussion. You have constructed an interesting theory, but cannot provide any supporting evidence for it at all, and that has been my point from the beginning. You have continued to refuse to offer any such proofs, and I believe you will not do this.

That is unfortunate, but requires us to dismiss your theory out of hand.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jmcanany:

Nomad -
Jesus had ascended long before Paul's "vision" on the road - please give me some real evidence that the Resurrected Jesus appeared (resurrected body) to his enemies.</font>
I have already told you that so far as this thread is concerned, the resurrection did not take place jm. My acceptance that Paul believes his seeing the resurrected Jesus is based on the fact that his vision is reported in Acts, which was written by the same person that wrote Luke. Paul then preached the same gospel of Jesus crucified and risen as did the disciples and other evangelists. We have plenty of evidence for this in his letters, and you have failed consistently to address any of the evidence I have offered.

Quite frankly, you appear to be all over the map on this thread and I no longer know where you are coming from.

Do you understand that this thread is based on the assumption that the resurrection did not take place?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The best you can do from the verses in Acts is to say that Paul heard a voice and was blinded by a great light - he did not see anyone...Acts 9:7 -Saul had fallen to the ground - saw no one -heard a voice - remained on the ground thru the entire ordeal, but when he did rise was blind. Accoridng to Acts 9, the men with him saw no man, but heard a sound, according to Acts 22:9 they saw the light and heard nothing.... Other than the apparent contradiction (the sounds heard), nobody saw any 'body' - they were blinded by the light...</font>
I don't have a problem with this at all. Are you arguing that Paul had a real vision then? And also that the disciples had a real vision? If that is the case, then we can actually have a discussion here.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Your other texts do NOT logically imply such a thing. The best you can say is that he spoke to the disciples privately on this matter (and warned them not to speak of it to boot), but you cannot validy say that he never spoke about this to anyone else.</font>
Are you saying that because the Gospels do not tell us that Jesus did not talk to His enemies about His future resurrection, that this is evidence that He talked to His enemies about His future resurrection?

Now do you see why I do not think you understand what real evidence is?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The proof text is Matt 27:63 - which of course you discount for lack of attestation (btw - notice that Matthew records that Jesus spoke the word - not the disciples...). But since I incorporate it, my story hangs together well, without committing the logical fallacy you do.</font>
One more time...

Matthew 27:62-66 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.' So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first." Take a guard," Pilate answered. "Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how." So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

As a good sceptic, I am going to tell you that because Matthew is the only evangelist to mention that there was a guard at the tomb, and the story is not embarrassing to the Church, and it serves an apologetic purpose (to refute the charge then circulating that the disciples had stolen the body), that there were no guards at the tomb.

Your entire story depends on guards being at the tomb, and for Jesus' enemies to fear that He would rise again from the dead. Since you cannot offer proof of either, then your story collapses.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">enough's enough - you don't have a case at all in these issues - please move on...</font>
I am not trying to build a case jm. As the sceptic, I am asking you to offer evidence to support your story. The evidence you have offered (guards at the tomb, Jesus' enemies knowing in advance about the expectation for a resurrection, and the disciples expecting a resurrection) has been soundly refuted.

This does not mean that no naturalistic explanation exists for what happened, but your story is nothing better than pure conjecture constructed from whole cloth (something you admitted yourself from the beginning BTW).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Finally- and I've had enough of Nomad's beggings,
Do not assume facts. Prove them.</font>
As the sceptic I do not have to prove anything jm. I need only punch holes in the theories offered. Thus far it has proven to be far easier than I had expected.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Ok Nomad PROVE that Christ rose again, and that He was the Son of God.</font>
On this thread we started with the assumption that this did not happen jm, and by extension that Jesus is not the Son of God. Please refer back to my original post.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Your methods cannot "prove" anything..... even Meier attests to that .....</font>
I would agree. Again I am not looking for proof, I am looking for what probably happened, and thus far you have not offered much to support the ideas you have put forward. Quite frankly, I do not even know why you are on this thread (since you claim to be a Christian).

What are you hoping to achieve here jm?

Nomad
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.