Bait

Sorry folks if my last post seemed a little "out of the blue"...it was in response to Amazon's response to me. I'm not used to how your forum works yet.
Ron v.

isaac42

No, if the references are not genuine, then the author didn't mention Jesus. I find the arguments against the Testmonium Flavianum very compelling. If you do not, I think we can disagree on that point. I agree that Josephus mentioned James, the brother of Jesus, but I'm not convinced that the Jesus mentioned is necessarily an historical character. As James and John were the "Sons of Thunder", James (the same, or different?) might have been a "brother of Jesus". "Might have" doesn't make it so, of course, and Jesus might have been an historical person, and had a brother named James.

I see no reason to believe that Chrestus was Christus, and the existence of Christians no more implies the existence of Christ than the existence of Muslims implies the existence of Allah, or the existence of Hindi implies the existence of Brahma or Ganesh.

The passage said to 'not name Jesus, but couldn't be about anyone else' could, in my mind, easily be about Paul.

So, I agree that the list is not wholly accurate, and to quote it as if it were is misleading. Also, we are working from an argument from silence here. the real question, I think, is, should we expect early first century writers to have mentioned Jesus? If he was anything like the Gospels portray him, I think the answer is clearly in the affirmative. Yet, even allowing for a few possible exceptions, nothing of his extraordinary actions are mentioned, while others of far less historical import are mentioned. This says to me that, even if there was a historical Jesus, he wasn't all that important to his contemporaries.

Isaac

Bait

Hello Kosh, pleasure to meet you.

[quote]Originally posted by Kosh:
<strong>
Again, no real evidence so far, except that in
DNA research, there is evidence that all WOMEN, came from one
common WOMAN. Hmmmmmmm.
Naw...I'm not hunting, not even trying to convert anyone. I'm just looking for a little fun, and perhaps dispell some reverse prejudice while I'm at it.
Bests,
Ron v.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Ron v. ]</p>

isaac42

Hi, Ron. Welcome to the Lion's den!

Personally, I'll gladly concede that David could have slain Goliath pretty much as described.

Why not put it into the Bible + column Because "could have" is quite different from "did". Even if it did happen, what would it mean? The a boy, presumable younger than 13, the age at which modern Jews "become a man", killed a big guy that everyone else was afraid of. So what? He did it from a distance. Had he missed, he could easily have run away. Not so terribly brave in my estimation,and quite unworthy of the adulation heaped upon the legendary David. Was it a miracle ("When David slew Goliath, yes! That was a miracle!" Fiddler on the Roof)? I don't see how.

You ask, why throw out all of it if some is shown to be unreliable? Easy. First, from the inerrantist POV. The inerrantist considers the Bible to be inerrant. It follows that, if any single bit is shown to be false, it cannot be inerrant. Personally, I find the inerrantist position to be completely untenable, but it is intellectually honest on its face.

For a more liberal Christian, it's only slightly more complicated. If any can be shown to be false or otherwise in error, it calls the whole thing into question. Not that the rest of it is necessarily wrong, but it cannot be assumed to be correct. So, each story, each prophecy, each proverb and parable must be evaluated on its own merits. IMO, most of it fails.

Isaac

jess

lpetrich:

ok, this is going to be lame...

I got that info from my husband (PhD candidate in archaeology), who got it from a colleage of his main professor, who is (the colleague) one of the leading bioscientists in Italy who has been researching how far back it goes...

He can't remember the dude's name. He will ask his professor when he gets back into town, ok?

Wow. I guess that is news, eh?

diana

Ron,

Good to have you. Please click the "my profile" link and check your private messages. Thanks.

d

Pantera

Oops - just discovered I missed a reference. Peregrinus, the hero of Lucian's play, becomes the greatest leader of the Christians "next after that other, to be sure, whom they (the Christians) still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world".

Paul died in Rome by all accounts, and as a Roman citizen would not have been crucified.



I more or less agree with this.

I still think Remsburg's list sucks though. It's a bad way of even making the point that Jesus wasn't too famous in his lifetime, IMO. As an argument against there being an actual figure under the myths, it's hopeless.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

diana

Hey, Ron.

Actually, I think the myth that gets the most derision, by far, is the one about Noah and the boat. But please...just search the archives and you'll overdose on that one. If you have any questions or angles that haven't been addressed, then ask.

About David and the Giant:

The bible says:

Or, from the NRSV:
The reason I find your defense of the story laughable is because it contradicts what the scripture clearly says. To wit: David "slew" Goliath twice.

The time divisions make it clear that Goliath was dead from the stone "sinking into his forehead"--before David got within reach of his sword. One of the "slayings" of Goliath is a goof (i.e., uninspired, since God wouldn't make a mistake like that).

In light of the obvious scriptural reading, I see no merit in a discussion of pressure points. This is why I gave the original argument a . The bible is quite clear on what (didn't) happen; speculation as to what pressure point David hit with the stone to "knock out" Goliath so he could kill him with his own sword is one of the silliest arguments I've heard yet.

Besides...have you looked into what kind of velocity a slingshot stone large enough to fly a decent distance would have to have to "sink into someone's forehead"? Unless you have gunpowder behind it, I really don't think a human arm with a slingshot could pack that kind of wallop.

For kicks and giggles, note also that Saul suddenly didn't know who David was or whose son he was at the end of that chapter, although in Chapter 16, Saul had explicitly sent for him, loved him greatly, had him become his armor-bearer and play the harp for him. Contradiction.

You have bigger problems than a dead giant, I'm afraid.

d

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Kosh

The only thing in the Bible that the DNA evidence co-oborates is
that all women are descended from a single woman. This is self
evident, due to the way we reproduce. However, it doesn't lend
any credence to the Genesis creation myth (stolen from the Babylonians
and Sumerians). The theory of evolution also dictates that all
members of a population must have descended from a "first". I could
just as easily claim that the Genesis account is evidence of evolution.
It woudln't have been too difficult for people of the times to theorize that
there might have been a common ancestor.

However, the Bible claims that Genesis occurred some 6000 years ago, whereas
the Mitochondrial DNA clearly traces the common ancestor back to what,
200,000 years? You can't have it both ways.

Here are some links to apologetics articles in the Sec Web lib:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/index.shtml</a>

I know that I will, that's how I work.

This particular incident (David/Goliath) is one that could certainly
have happened. If it did, then it could have been nothing more than
a fight between David and Goliath, where Goliath was a feared warrior,
and may have even been rather large. I can't grant you that he was really
a "giant", as no scientific evidence has ever been produced to verify that
claim. It is more likely that the tale "grew" over time to be a, ehem, "tall
tale" in which the physical stature of Goliath was exagerated to make David's
feat seem more fantastic. This is a fairly common thing in human story telling.

However, simply because he hit him in the head with a rock (something I don't
think that unlikely, a good bump to the head will knock out most people, is
no justification for deducing that God had a hand in it. There is no justification
for claiming a natural incident was caused by God, unless you have an agenda in
doing so.

Ocams Razor my friend, Ocams Razor.

Here you are incorrect. The burden of proof is on the one making the
extraordinary claims. Or as your very own Xian Apologist Josh McDowell
is fond of saying "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence".
We do not have to prove something is wrong to disbelieve your claims.
If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. PERIOD. That's standard
scientific methodology. The burden of proof is relaxed for claims that
are not extraordinary, for obvious reasons. If I claim I saw a cat crossing
the road, and had no ulterior motives to make it up, there is no reason to
question my claim.

If you can't accept this, then there's really no point in any of us
continuing to discuss things with you. You only take that stance because
you are biased towards believing in Chrisianity. You stand in the center
of a bunch of claims which you have chose to believe, and demand that you
must be moved from the center. This is not reality. It is dogma.

BTW, second hand testimony is not accepted in the courts. It's called "hearsay".
Nor is it accepted here as evidence. Ie, you can't just say "Because the bible
says so" and expect us to accept that as evidence.

Simply because a story contains elements of truth and reality,
does not make the entire story true. Just look at hollywood. Movies
are often set in real places with real people as the subject. That
doesn't make the entire movie "true".

Here my list of untrue parts of the bible:

Genesis: Scientific study has shown that the earth is 4 billion years
old, that the geologic evidence contradicts the flood story,
that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years,
that our physical design indicates evolution, rather than some kind
of intelligent design.

So there was never any Garden of Eden, and no "fall of man"

Exodus: From what I've read, all biblical scholars now concede that the exodus
as portrayed in the bible never happened. There has been ZERO evidence
(and they have looked very hard) of a large population living in the
desert for 40 years. There is no egyption proof that the Israelites were
slaves as they claim, and there is even a good argument that Moses was
actually Pharoah Akhenaten after he was purged from trying to force
mono-theism on the Egyptians.

Gospels: Too many problems here to go into detail. THey weren't written till many
years after the fact, don't REALLY agree with each other that well (The
Synoptic Problem), are inconsistent, yada yada yada. Plus, Jesus indicates
he believed in the Flood (see above). You'd think God himself would know
the truth! BTW- no fall or "orginal sin", no need for atonement!

So to me it doesn' really matter about the peripheral stuff. The major pillars have
already been knocked out, and the building is gonna fall anyway. The Bible is clearly
not the litearl word of God, was not dictated, or even "inspired" by him. And once
we show that some parts of false,there is no way to tell which other parts are true
or false. Yes, I'm afraid we must throw the baby out with the bath water. Why? Becuause
the Bible purports to tell people how to live their lives, and it falsely claims to
be "what God wants". Too bad it's just people trying to do that.

Let's get some things straight here. From Logic, we know that you can't prove
a negative. I can't prove something doesn't exist. For that reason, I am an
AGNOSTIC. I must sit on the fence and believe that there has been no evidence
to prove to me that God exists. IMHO, to be an ATHEIST (firmly believe that
no God exists) is a logical phallacy. Beside, athiests don't care if you believe
them. They have no agenda. No collection plates to fill on Sunday. They're NOT
ORGANIZED!

A miracle would have to be something that is not possible in the natural
world. Timing does not a miracle make.

BTW - I thought you were claiming it was a miracle, and I hadn't read the
story in a long time. My bad.

If a natural event (hitting someone on the head with a rock sling) happens
just when needed, then you have a coincidence. Or you have a skillfull fighter.
You need cause? David decided to take him on, and slung the rock. No need
to invoke miracles. This is a common tendency of Xians. They want to see God
in everything. My wifes half-sister was giving credit to God for her speeding ticket
last week. She's also one of the most moronic people I know.

See above.

Yes. that's the point. Intuition is not scientific methodology. Neiher
are feelings.

You'll have to forgive us if we're skeptical of that claim... ;-)

OK, just re-reading was is obviously my biggiest
post ever, and I don't see one thing in it that
hasn't been covered before here. If nothing else,
this place has taught be to argue better!

Bait

Hi Diana,
My, you are good aren't you? :-)

&gt;The reason I find your defense of the story laughable is because it contradicts what the scripture clearly says. To wit: David "slew" Goliath twice.

Ok, taking the verses literally, you got me on that (so far)...I'll have to go to the "original" script to see what it really says. My suspection is that the same phrase describing "knocking out" and killing are close...or the script is talking about the stone killing him (he was dying, but not dead yet?), and the sword used as a finishing touch. Stretches I admit until I can see the story in Hebrew. On face value there appears a conflict, but are we not getting into semantics just a bit? The author may have been just describing how it appeared. Or it could have been a mis-translation.

&gt;The time divisions make it clear that Goliath was dead from the stone "sinking into his forehead"--before David got within reach of his sword. One of the "slayings" of Goliath is a goof (i.e., uninspired, since God wouldn't make a mistake like that).

Perhaps God didn't make that mistake, perhaps it was made by a man transcribing or translating text. Just because a translation may be off one word or two, doesn't mean the "story", the historical account is uninspired, and not from God. Your focusing so much on a leaf, your missing the forest.

&gt;In light of the obvious scriptural reading, I see no merit in a discussion of pressure points. This is why I gave the original argument a . The bible is quite clear on what (didn't) happen; speculation as to what pressure point David hit with the stone to "knock out" Goliath so he could kill him with his own sword is one of the silliest arguments I've heard yet.

I don't understand why it is silly. True, the translations MAY be in error. Because the original document is INSPIRED by God, doesn't mean all writings copying it, translating it, or commenting on it, could not have a goof. The fact remains that an injury from the stone as described could knock someone out or kill him - medical fact. The sword definately could kill him, and cut off his head - also medical fact. Medically (scientifically) the event could have happened. I can think of a dozen explanations as to the author stating killing him twice, even if the translations are correct. For one, the stone may have "obviously" appeared to the witness to have killed him , but he moved (appearing alive, post mortem movements) just before David used the sword, for two, people have revived after being technically dead. Your saying the whole story is untrue just because of a possible error in a translation(s), or because the author was describing an event as it appeared to him is even sillier, isn't it? You used as evidence TWO different translations, that did not have the exact same wording...so which is right? BOTH are translations, made by humans (who are prone to error).


&gt;Besides...have you looked into what kind of velocity a slingshot stone large enough to fly a decent distance would have to have to "sink into someone's forehead"? Unless you have gunpowder behind it, I really don't think a human arm with a slingshot could pack that kind of wallop.

Actually yes I have (as I noted in a previous post). Gunpowder is not needed at close range, a sling of that type packs a pretty hard wallop...and that was from someone (me) not skilled at all with it. My "trainer" (who was trying to get me into the sport)killed a rabbit with one at about 50 ft. distance - no problem (left a hole in the poor critters head).

For kicks and giggles, note also that Saul suddenly didn't know who David was or whose son he was at the end of that chapter, although in Chapter 16, Saul had explicitly sent for him, loved him greatly, had him become his armor-bearer and play the harp for him. Contradiction.

Is it? Admittedly,I'll have to go read that one to see what exactly it says, but as I recall, was not Saul a bit on the looney side around that time period? Memory lapse is not at all unbelievable if so (my 92 year old granny with alzheimers does that ALL the tme)...but I'm saying this without going and researching...so don't blast. But as I recall, David played the harp for him to sooth him, because he was nuts, and the harp brought him back to sanity. So if Saul did not recognize David, I don't see much of a stretch (at first blush only)

&gt;You have bigger problems than a dead giant, I'm afraid.

Of course I do...that's why I'm here. :-)

Bests,
Ron v.