Vorkosigan

C'mon. You can't be serious. Which "normal historical documents" from antiquity offer us seas parting at a human command, the sun stopping, several resurrections from the dead, talking donkeys, fig trees that wilt on command, the dead rising to converse with the living on mountains, frequent visitations from the Gods and their messengers....the Bible is a lot more like The Iliad than Thucydides or even Tacitus (no slouch in the supernatural department himself).

dongiovanni1976x

Well said :thumbs:

Ion

I follow the thread in question in the other forum.

It has interesting inputs, by the regulars there little and dongiovanni1976x, and by regulars here who joined that debate, jdlongmire, Dyogenes the Cynic, and Vorkosigan.

Also the administrator there, Mickey, is open minded welcoming the quest for the truth.

Over there, ProEvangelist didn't answer the first post by Dyogenes.

He must be caught in a web of technicalities that Vorkosigan throws at him to dismantle his religious cliches (like what doctrine means, difference between text and message, and many more interruptions and corrections in history that put ProEvangelist on the defense for the first time there).

Vorkosigan writes phenomenal posts, with knowledge of history and ancient Greek, and he is guided by truth, integrity and non exploitation.
That's an impressive competence used for the purpose of honesty and kindness...

Ion

There are three interesting posts today by Vorkosigan about alterations to the New Testament texts before the earliest version of the New Testament is available today, including a text that in one format is 8% longer than in another format.

But administrator Bud, over there, is puzzled that John was written not by a 'John' but by three sources.

Me, I am learning only...

Soul Invictus

What's this guy's handle here at IIDB - I'm curious.

Jedi Mind Trick

His name here is "CorpseNoMore."

He made about 11 posts back around 2001 or so... Why he doesn’t want to debate people here is a mystery to me since he loves debate. He starts "red meat for liberals" type of threads over there obviously inviting a debate. Whoever responds is met with a very long winded, parsed-out response from him.

Sorry that I rant...


-little John-

Ion

ProEvangelical there and CorpsNoMore here, doesn't debate here because he couldn't measure up to the opponents here, the audience is secular and the opponents at that level of topics are well-versed in the history of the Bible and ancient history and languages.

So he wants to prey over there, amongst what he hoped to be a less skeptical, more religiously indoctrinated audience.

It takes three opponents from here, on the road to the other forum for the same effect as if the debate was here, but mainly is one, Vorkosigan who is tackling a ProEvangelical overwhelmed right now.

In today's action Vorkosigan nails a point, namely that ProEvangelical is focusing on the side issue of whether historian Habermas is trustworthy or not, but is not fighting anymore his big claim of New Testament being unaltered and genuine from the beginning.

Indeed, NewEvangelical is overwhelmed by Vorkosigan about the New Testament being altered in text and by doctrine.

Jedi Mind Trick

Yes, I agree.
Pro is determined to have the last word on the Habermas quote though.
I think that one hurts him and that’s why he is fixated on it... He needs to rescue Habermas’ credibility and his own. I see this behavior as a desperate attempt at that.

Ion

ProEvangelical had the last word on Habermas today, a semantic nitpick diluting -the way he wishes- the debate about the reliability of Biblical records.

In line with the debate however, today's Vorkosigan's post on Habermas comparing his lack of competence with Dan Barton's quotes that dishonestly attribute Christianity to the Founding Fathers of U.S., and Vorkosigan's "...You're talking about a community of millions that believes in a text it knows almost nothing about...", resonate with an overriding truth though.

Vorkosigan lets ProEvangelical take his diluting swing without the worth of an answer anylonger, and further streamlines in his second post of the day on the focus:

the historical reliability of Biblical records.

Enforcing an input by Dyogenes the Cynic today about Peter not being a colleague of the author of Mark because he allegedly betrayed Jesus and fled, Vorkosigan points the historical implausibility of Jesus resurrecting but not forgiving Peter according to records.
Vorkosigan points the literary style of Mark, more preoccupied with literary chiasm than with facts, because he paralleled in Jesus the myth of Daniel.

Two other historically impausible claims are also pointed out by Vorkosigan.

Surprisingly, jdlongmire from here, admires ProEvangelical's tenacity.

I wouldn't, I would call it ProEvangelical's obstinacy.
For the reasons of preaching, with motives of promoting exploitative falsehood.

dongiovanni1976x

I completely agree little. He really admires Habermas. He really went to great lengths to not take the discussion any further until his hero was rescued in his eyes.