Freethought & Rationalism Archive

one allegiance · 06-04-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

No one was there, it’s a work of fiction. A work of fiction with such piss poor editing that it places Jesus dancing at a party and looking at all the kingdoms of a flat world at the same time.

In your opinion. By the way do you still deny Jesus existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

This order nonsense is only you grasping at straws. We are talking about mutually exclusive stories.

I'm not grasping for anything. I'm reading all texts in ALL parts of the bible, not just the one's you pick out. When you do that you can logically point out what happened, rather then making absurd conclusions and becoming irate over them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

Don’t you dare talk about rudeness when you are in the middle of trying to bullshit people

haha see how mad your getting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

No evidence, EXCEPT for the book of Matthew

Which you have been willingly quoting throughout this thread. Do you notice that a different chapter is started. The word "then" doesn't necessarily mean he went right away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

Sure it’s evidence. It’s evidence that you don’t know what it says and that you are making it up as you go along

Ok..you have your presupposition I have mine...I'm done debating this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

You continually insult the intelligence of the Atheists on this board, myself included. You are being treated very well, all things considered.

If anyone was offended I apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

Except that you aren’t quoting what it says. You are making shit up about what is in the bible and what isn’t.

You read text. You analyze text. What else do you want?

Sauron · 06-04-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

I like your third premise..it pretty much somes up your thoughts. I'll say it again I AM NOT GOING AGAINST ANY OTHER SCHOLAR.

Apparently you are - you just don't know it, because you haven't read enough on the subject to know what you're talking about. Don't believe me? Your own source, Wikipedia, has this to say:

The historicity of Jesus (i.e., his existence as an actual historical figure), is accepted as a theological axiom by three world religions, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'�* Faith, based on their respective scriptures. Nevertheless, there are no extant contemporaneous documents that make mention of Jesus. The earliest known sources are Christian writings - the New Testament - which, according to modern historians, were written several decades after he is said to have died. All three religions refer to him as the Messiah, although each has a different view of what role the Messiah played. secular historians and followers of most other world religions (including Judaism) tend to regard him as an ordinary human, and some dispute whether he ever existed.

Many scholars see the Biblical narratives of Jesus' life as theological or mythologized accounts of a historical figure's life, aimed at winning new converts rather than at being a neutral historical record. The difficulty of distinguishing which parts of Jesus' life may be historical and which may be unhistorical is one of the main obstacles for Biblical historians. Even accurate accounts of events in Jesus' life may have changed in subtle ways during re-tellings. Others may have been exaggerated on purpose, and some may even have been totally invented, possibly reinterpreted from older stories.

I put the important parts in red, to make sure you saw them.

Quote:

This is all mainstream biblical and atheists scholars.

No, it isn't.

Sauron · 06-04-2006, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

yeah that is what I was saying. Just b/c he wasn't metioned doing something in one gospel doesn't mean he actually didn't do it. Further, why are you quoting the bible to me...it holds no relevance to you.

He is quoting it to show everyone that you can't even repeat what it says accurately. The natural conclusion is that you are trying to convince us of something that you can't even accurately describe yourself.

It's kind of like earlier, when you quoted from Wik on the historicity of Christ, but Wiki actually contradicted you.

Which is similar to what you just did, by listing the website of that well-known fraud, Ron Wyatt. You followed that up with a reference to tentmaker.org. Guess what? Tentmaker.org helped expose Ron Wyatt's fraud - which you might have known, if you had actually read the sources you were citing to us:

Quote:

Summary and Conclusion: Is the Durupinar Site Noah's Ark?

The Durupinar site is an intriguing phenomenon that was discovered in 1959 by a Turkish army captain. It lies within the ancient Urartu territory, as one would expect of Noah's ark, and it is even roughly the same length as one would expect the ark to be.

On the other hand, the Durupinar site is not the width of the ark as specified by the biblical account, nor does it fit the Bible's description of the ark's resting place--as one of the higher elevations in its region. In addition, Wyatt s characterization of the small difference of the carbon content within and without the formation is proof only of his lack of geological training, as is his attempt to rewrite all geological understanding to explain why his "pre-flood" wood has no growth rings. His reports of the results of his subsurface radar have been disputed, even by sympathetic scientists who have attempted them.

In short, Wyatt's "train-load" of evidence falls far short of his claims. He does not even show his readers the train, much less, the train-load of evidence. The Durupinar site is undoubtedly a natural formation. Noah's ark has yet to be found.

Guidelines for Evaluating Claims

The Institute of Archaeology at Andrews University regularly receives letters from those who make claims of discoveries. For example, during the last few years several individuals have claimed they know exactly where the ark of the covenant is located - all proposing different places f Yet, all are positive as to its whereabouts. Sometimes these individuals claim that they have been divinely lead in their discoveries, and occasionally, they even warn us that if we fail to help it may lead to God's disapproval. The following guidelines are useful in evaluating claims of discovery.

See the Evidence Before You Believe

Reliable sources provide the evidence before they ask you to believe. Wyatt says that he has discovered the building techniques of the pyramids, but "it will be published in our forthcoming book" (p. 31). He has discovered the location of ancient "Succoth," but he gives no evidence (p. 31). He has discovered chariot parts from pharaoh's army, but "the details, photographs and analysis are included in our forthcoming book" (p. 32). He has discovered the burial crypts of giants, but "the facts and photographs of this discovery will appear in our forthcoming book" (p. 33) . He has discovered the location of the ark of the covenant, but "it will be necessary for you to wait for the details and photographs of most of our discoveries" (p. 34). He has discovered the real Mount Sinai but ha gives his readers no evidence to substantiate his claims. As I write this article it has been five years since Wyatt has published these words, "We are presently finishing the full-sized book on Noah's Ark, complete with all the details of the search and final verification." Where is that book?

I am especially suspicious of what I call, "the dog ate it evidence." Many would be "discoverers" would show the evidence, BUT the government stole it or the film didn't develop right or they lost it, and so forth. In Wyatt's case, he would have the evidence of pharaoh's chariots, and the location of the ark of the covenant, but he got a sunburn and had to catch his plane (p. 33, 62) . Always sea the evidence before believing any claim(s) .

Check the Evidence with Someone Not Involved

Wyatt admits that he has been criticized for his research methods, and I know why. Researchers are put-off by those who make claims that are ridiculous. For example, Wyatt writes, "However, the years of studying every piece of ancient history and archaeologically-related research had brought me to the brink of several other startling discoveries" (p. 30., emphasis mine) . I know of no professional that would claim he/she had studied every piece of information in his/her discipline.

As an archaeologist, after reading Wyatt's claims for himself and seeing his elementary and obvious archaeological errors (e.q., Habiru, p. 32 and Joseph and the Step Pyramid, p. 54), it is difficult to take seriously his major claims. Harold Coffin's response after reading Wyatt's book was, "Naturally I have no problem with the discovery of Noah's ark, but the multitude of inaccuracies and errors certainly turns one off who has some information."9 In short, consult with those who can evaluate the knowledge of the discoverer and his/her claims.

Do not Worry about a "Coverup" Conspiracy

Every would-be discoverer would show the evidence, but there is a big "coverup." Usually, it's the scholars that are fearful that if the discovery were known, it would "disprove their atheistic theories." For a long time ark searchers were able to blame the Russian government who was afraid that Noah's ark would be found. Human nature is such that if Noah's ark (or the Ten Commandments or the ark of the covenant) is found by an atheist he/she will want the credit for finding it.

Finding of Noah's ark will not change anyone's mind about the Bible, or make them become Christians. Jesus, himself, said if people reject the message of the Bible they will not listen, even if a cadaver came to life (Luke 16:31).

Sincerity Is Not "Proof"

Most of those who make claims of discovery seem sincere, so sincere that they are willing to break laws or endanger the safety of their friends or families. Wyatt sees the laws of Saudi Arabia are of little importance compared to his mission. He just breaks their laws (p. 44). What he considers badges of honor ("jailed as a spy, shot at by terrorists, beaten, robbed and persecuted"--see the back cover of his book), appear t,o be evidences of poor judgment. When you are analyzing a report, remind yourself that sincerity can never replace reliable evidence. One can be sincerely wrong.

Can God Be Wrong?

Most of those who claim to have found "amazing discoveries" seldom do it alone. They claim to be "agents of God." Sometimes they have discovered secret codes in the writings of Ellen White or the Bible or at other times God has openly spoken to them. Wyatt tells his readers that the Lord elected him as an act of mercy (p. 90), that he prayed for an earthquake that occurred after his prayer (p. 7), that his words and body are sometimes involuntari1y controlled by God's power (p. 33-34), that the way he made many of his discoveries was by being "impressed" by God (p. 42), that his "discovery" of the building techniques of the pyramids came from a dream (p. 53-54). Much of his book is designed to convince the reader of Wyatt's unique relationship with God.10

I believe in the gift of prophecy, but I never accept the claims of those who profess that power before I evaluate their evidence. I accept or reject their claims because of the evidence provided and then I know if they really are God's messengers (2 Timothy 4:3).

You need to learn more about research than how to operate Google. You actually have to read what your sources are saying, to make sure they don't contradict each other.

one allegiance · 06-04-2006, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Apparently you are - you just don't know it, because you haven't read enough on the subject to know what you're talking about. Don't believe me? Your own source, Wikipedia, has this to say:

The historicity of Jesus (i.e., his existence as an actual historical figure), is accepted as a theological axiom by three world religions, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'�* Faith, based on their respective scriptures. Nevertheless, there are no extant contemporaneous documents that make mention of Jesus. The earliest known sources are Christian writings - the New Testament - which, according to modern historians, were written several decades after he is said to have died. All three religions refer to him as the Messiah, although each has a different view of what role the Messiah played. secular historians and followers of most other world religions (including Judaism) tend to regard him as an ordinary human, and some dispute whether he ever existed.

Many scholars see the Biblical narratives of Jesus' life as theological or mythologized accounts of a historical figure's life, aimed at winning new converts rather than at being a neutral historical record. The difficulty of distinguishing which parts of Jesus' life may be historical and which may be unhistorical is one of the main obstacles for Biblical historians. Even accurate accounts of events in Jesus' life may have changed in subtle ways during re-tellings. Others may have been exaggerated on purpose, and some may even have been totally invented, possibly reinterpreted from older stories.

I put the important parts in red, to make sure you saw them.

This doesn't cease to amaze me. The only dispute was over Jesus's DIVINITY. Have you heard of the Council of Nicea. Have you heard of the Niceen creed. Have you heard of B.C. and A.D. Have you thought about where the word Christians comes from. These aren't coincidences. The council of nicaea is on of the biggest supports. They KNEW he was a real person. Constantine KNEW he was real. The council just had to basically found christianity. It also proves that the people who followed Jesus were real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Again, research the Council of Nicea, please so you and everyone else will stop making absurd claims. You will find the same thing that I do, I promise. Constantine, the council..they were all real, and you have to recognize what they did and not discredit something just because it doesn't accompany your view.

one allegiance · 06-04-2006, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

He is quoting it to show everyone that you can't even repeat what it says accurately. The natural conclusion is that you are trying to convince us of something that you can't even accurately describe yourself.

It's kind of like earlier, when you quoted from Wik on the historicity of Christ, but Wiki actually contradicted you.

Which is similar to what you just did, by listing the website of that well-known fraud, Ron Wyatt. You followed that up with a reference to tentmaker.org. Guess what? Tentmaker.org helped expose Ron Wyatt's fraud - which you might have known, if you had actually read the sources you were citing to us:

You need to learn more about research than how to operate Google. You actually have to read what your sources are saying, to make sure they don't contradict each other.

Yeah, I gave a bad reference..many have already pointed that out. Get over it.

Sauron · 06-04-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

This doesn't cease to amaze me. The only dispute was over Jesus's DIVINITY.

Incorrect. If you would slow down and read the quote, it actually tells you that some scholars doubt the historicity of Christ.

What's more, several posters have already said that they believe a man named Jesus lived, but that he was not at all like the one described in the four gospels.

Quote:

Have you heard of the Council of Nicea. Have you heard of the Niceen creed. Have you heard of B.C. and A.D. Have you thought about where the word Christians comes from.

Yes, I've heard of all of it. None of it helps establish your claims, however.

Quote:

These aren't coincidences. The council of nicaea is on of the biggest supports. They KNEW he was a real person. Constantine KNEW he was real.

Not really. The Council of Nicaea was 300 years after Christ. Ditto for Constantine. Neither one could testify to someone being real if that person allegedly lived 300 years earlier. Can you testify that someone who lived in the year 1706 was a real person or not?

AGain: I wish christians would think these claims through first before posting them.

Quote:

The council just had to basically found christianity.

Uh, no. They institutuionalized a religion and tried to settle arguments among different sects. Big difference.

Quote:

It also proves that the people who followed Jesus were real.

Many religions have real *followers*. That doesn't prove that the spiritual focus of the religion was real, however.

Sauron · 06-04-2006, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

Yeah, I gave a bad reference..many have already pointed that out. Get over it.

But you continue to do it. And instead of accepting your mistake humbly, you get all huffy and keep telling others to "go read something".

Apparently you need to follow your own advice.

Sauron · 06-04-2006, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

Maybe the sites I posted weren't sufficient

That's an understatement. The sites you posted didn't even address the question on the table.

Quote:

but it still doesn't cancel the fact that the flood COULD have happened.

No, it couldn't have.

Quote:

There is no evidence that can disprove it. All you have is "uniformity". With that you are really begging the question, b/c there is NO real way to scientifically prove it...you can just make assumptions.

Wrong again. Wander over to the Creation/Evolution folder and read the Flood resources there. Then when you are ready to debate this again, come back. Or better yet, open a Flood thread in Creation/Evolution - if you really think you can defend this position, I mean. :rolling:

Quote:

The burden of proof isn't just on me, as many of you seem to think,

Yes, it is. The burden is always on the person making the affirmative claim. And in this discussion, that would be you, <edit>

Dr Rick · 06-04-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

By the way do you still deny Jesus existence.

This thread, titled Extra Biblical Evidence For Jesus is now 6 pages long, and yet there hasn't been any extra-biblical evidence presented that Jesus existed.

Quote:

I'm done debating this.

Done? You haven't even started. Debates are supposed to have arguments supported by facts.

Quote:

You read text. You analyze text. What else do you want?

A coherent argument, please.

Sauron · 06-05-2006, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

Did the Jews get rescued from Egypt? Is that why they celebrate the Passover? When Moses parted the Red Sea. I mean come on, just because they celebrate it ever year, does that mean it really happened?

Yes, and we celebrate Christmas every year. That must prove that Santa Claus with his eight reindeer actually make the trip, right?

Quote:

By faith we Christians do things, and speaking of which it takes more faith to believe in what you do. Life arising out of primordial soup.

It isn't that hard to understand it, providing that you have a basis in the relevant science. Or, providing that you are willing to learn the science needed. I doubt you qualify on either count.

Quote:

Remember the mocked Noah for 125 years,

Except that:

1. there is zero evidence that Noah existed; and

2. zero evidence of any such flood - of course, if you disagree, you can take the same challenge I gave to one allegiance: wander over to our Creation/Evolution forum and read up on the subject. Then when you feel like your courage is strong enough, open a thread over there and try to defend it.

Quote:

It is extra biblical that Pilate washed his hands of the deed.

Is it? List the extra-biblical source.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.