Bede

Oh do grow up, SingleDad. If you are going to take everything as a personal attack on your integrity then I really can't be bothered.

Anyway, you said "It is entirely possible that the gospel writers considered, (as do some modern advocates) that the truth of their faith justified some (shall we say) "interpretation" of the facts. It's also possible that they were intentionally outright frauds." which as far as I'm concerned is making the point that they were liars. Yes, you say 'could have' or 'might have' but you are, I believe, indulging in a bit of well poisoning yourself. Suggesting they were outright frauds without a shred of evidence is saying you think they are liars.

If a lawyer says "Might I suggest that you are lying and you did in fact murder your husband and hide the evidence" he means "You killed him, didn't you, and then tried to cover it up." I interpreted your lying point the same way.

Yours not really interested in speaking to you until you start to behave like a grown up.

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bede:

Anyway, you said "It is entirely possible that the gospel writers considered, (as do some modern advocates) that the truth of their faith justified some (shall we say) "interpretation" of the facts. It's also possible that they were intentionally outright frauds." which as far as I'm concerned is making the point that they were liars. {snipped} Suggesting they were outright frauds without a shred of evidence is saying you think they are liars.

Bede


MacDonald has pretty much demonstrated that Mark's stories are fictional, which means that since Mt, Lk and Jn borrowed them, it means that they are all fictional. As in deliberately made up, like Frodo, Kosh, or Styphon. The smoking gun is in MacDonald's book. So quit asking for "evidence," unless by the request you mean you want us to buy you the book. Get it off the Interlibrary loan and read.

As for lies and forgery in Christianity, a list of that would fill a whole book, like, say, _Forgery in Christianity_ by Wheless. And it goes on today. Isn't "god" in Genesis 1:1 plural in the Hebrew original?

Michael

As to fictional stuff, consider the numerous bogus relics of saints. And the lives of some of the saints. Here are two of the more spectacular cases: the life of a certain St. Catherine looks like a ripoff of the life of Hypatia (!), and the life of a certain St. Josaphat is a clear ripoff of the life of the Buddha as told by his followers.

Both Hypatia and St. Catherine were learned and scholarly women who had died rather horrible deaths.

Both the Buddha and St. Josaphat were prophesied to become religious teachers, and both of them had fathers who tried to keep that from happening by pampering them.

If Sts. Catherine and Josaphat are pure plagiarism, then why can't the Gospels be at least partially fictional?

As to Bede and Nomad getting indignant about the story of JC being considered fictional, I wonder if they are willing to consider all the other religious stories they consider fictional. I doubt that they are worshippers of the deities of Mt. Olympus or the deities of Valhalla, and I doubt that they believe that the Koran has existed eternally in Heaven.

And turtonm is right about "God" being plural in Genesis 1:1; the word is "elohim". This name for God is used in the entire 6-day creation story, but the Adam-and-Eve story revers to "YHWH Elohim", usually translated "The Lord God". This is evidence that the earliest books in the Bible had been stitched together from some other documents, with the textual seams still being apparent.

This is what I'm talking about: Anything questioning your conconclusions is construed as an attack. I'm just refuting yours and Nomad's argument that without absolute proof to the contrary, the gospels should be considered accurate. I'm saying there's no justification for that presumption, the possibility exists that they did lie.

This is a fallacy of the uncharitable interpretation.

Whatever

You beat me there! I didn't even *think* of that interpretation! All I meant was that it is invariably and knowingly translated as "god" instead of "gods" in all the major bible translations. In other words, it is a knowing, and known falsehood, but it still goes on.

M

Good lord man, where do you get this stuff?

Relax a bit and let us discuss your claims before you make such sweeping claims Michael. And before you get too excited about MacDonald "proving" anything, perhaps you would like to consult with your fellow sceptics.

From Richard Carrier's review of MacDonald's book:

"Although MacDonald's book could be used to contribute to a
mythicist's case, everything this book proves about Mark is still
compatible with there having been a real man, a teacher, even a real
'miracle worker' in a subjective sense, or a real event that inspired
belief in some kind of resurrection, and so on, which was then
suitably dressed up in allegory and symbol."

Hold on please. John BORROWED from Mark???

Demonstrate this for me please.

I can see the thread on MacDonald is going to be a hoot. Your mind is made up,t he case is closed, we can all go home.

Just hold onto your horses Michael. We will talk about MacDonald, but if this is any indication of what passes for open mindedness from you, it ought to be fun.

Take that to the discussion boards at www.jewsforjudaism.com and they will hand you your head on a platter. Ask John the Atheist about that from The Big Question.

Nomad

P.S. And as for SD, well, I think it is time to let him relax and gather his wits again. Something is eating at him bigtime, and I can't for the life of me figure it out.

It's only a discussion board SingleDad. Relax a little. No sense wrecking your health over this.


[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited February 19, 2001).]

Nomad:

Figures... you can't refute my points so you have to attack me personally. Maybe what's "eating me" is that every time I talk to you you misrepresent my statements and attack me personally, and then you act smug and superior when I'm outraged at your ill treatment. I really don't think you have any sort of self-awareness of your arrogance, self-righteousness and smug condescension of everyone who dares to disagree with you.

I've had my say. I don't want this to turn into an endless exchange of insults, so if you want to have the last word, you can say what you will without further reply from me.

[This message has been edited by SingleDad (edited February 19, 2001).]

You know, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt SD, but I am left to wonder about you. Is this how you actually see those of us who disagree with you? Your arguments are astonishingly vacuous, and I would have expected you to see this by now. Since you don't, and once again do not wish to address these issues seriously, I will go through them one more time, and show you why your behaviour is so outrageous. Perhaps this time you will actually get it.

This is not an ad hominem right?

And this?

Umm... and this is a reply to Bede's point how exactly?

You said exactly this SingleDad, and all you have to do is read your own posts. Don't play the martyr here, and I would have thought you would be more careful in your accusations of lying after your last experience.

From your post of Feb. 16, 8:27PM:

This is Layman's central fallacy. The time between the alleged event and the actual writing of the event is correlated only to the number of unintentional errors. The time difference is completely irrelevant for intentional exaggeration, mythologizing, wishful thinking, and bald-faced lying.

An argument here?

I guess not.

Another argument?

Nope again.

Huh? Even if it is plausible you reject it out of hand?

Wrong SingleDad. We are talking about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. If you cannot see that, and keep wanting to move the discussion to Jesus Christ, that is your problem. The question is DID JESUS OF NAZARETH EXIST AS A HUMAN BEING C. 30AD?

Very simple really. Now stop being so dense, and also stop with the baseless attacks.

No, I was addressing the point made by P_Brian_Bateman from his post of Feb. 15, 7:47PM in which he said:

"I think you were trying to get at the fact that there is a lot uncertainty in many historical figures (if not all), and yet we still believe in them. Well, I have stated this many times before: if I was told that I HAD to believe in a certain historical figure (say George Washington) or else I was going to hell, then you bet your ass that I would be more likely to explain my agnosticism towards a belief if he really DID exist. Why? Because when you start telling people that you HAVE to believe with absolute certainity that someone REALLY did exist, then many of us who realize the falliblitiy of historical evidence will automatically turn to our skepticism. As it is right now, no one is telling me that I HAVE to believe with absolute certainity taht George Washington existed and THAT is the reason why i am not on this board right now trying to show why the historical evidence for George Washington is fallible. This is an important point, nomad, and I hope you can understand what it is that im trying to get across."

This kind of reasoning is simply daft. I am not asking anyone to believe anything about Jesus except that he existed as a human being. Theological claims about him make no difference whatsoever to this point. If he existed, then why not just admit it?

Which proves my point exactly. If you can believe in Tutannkamen, then why not Jesus of Nazareth? Be consistent, and stop being such a smartass.

Refer to your quote again above. You said that they could be frauds. Period. The word mendacious never came up, although I do recall you saying the word liars.

Perhaps you just need to get a firmer grip on yourself before you start hurling baseless assertions about the truthfulness of others. That would certainly spare you a lot of backtracking and embarrassment later on.

Then be consistent, and say so. Tell us you don't believe any of history you cannot personally verify with near certainty. You have said yourself that you do not care about historical questions. Yet you through around the evidence like it is irrelevant to the discussion.

We are examining the historicity of one man, Jesus of Nazareth. Put up or shut up SingleDad.

And if you wrote a true story, it is still a true story. Stop with the non-sequitors as well please.

My, how you do know how to present your case SingleDad. What do you have to back it up?

Translation, NADA and non-sequitors.

The historical claims of the Gospel accounts even natural events, places and people are open to scrutiny. What evidence do you have that they made it all up? If you have nothing, then just say so, and then shut up. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

LOL! Can you back any of this up?

Good thing we have people as smart as you around to point that out eh SD? You are pathetic. Tell me that you actually believe every single Christian that has ever lived, as well as the priests themselves, are guilty of what you have just charged us with here. Then prove it.

You have called the authors of the Gospels and Epistles liars. Prove your charge.

Answer my questions and address my points, and we can skip your evasions.

Go back through the posts SD, I think you will see who started it. And as for an appropriate response...

I'd say your arrogance, crudeness and rudeness is pretty telling. Not that you would notice mind you.

If this is not what you are saying, what ARE you saying?

Of course we do SD. That is why we assign different authors to the various books of the New Testament. If you believe it was all done by one person, show us your evidence.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Jairus, Simon of Cyrene, Andrew, Philip, ect.

Of course, they are all dead, but if you only believe living witnesses, then toss out your belief in any historical figure that has been dead more than a hundred years.

Really? Is this how you treat all historical claims? Or only those in the Bible?

I have made no presumptions. I have argued that the witnesses offer a more reasonable explanation that Jesus really lived than that he is a fictional creation. You have offered us squat thus far, and I don't even know what your real complaint is yet.

You have offered nothing thus far SD, and your method of argumentation is getting very tiresome. Perhaps it impresses the natives, but I somehow doubt that.

As for what I have asserted, I have not said that the claims of the Gospels are necessarily facts, although the crucifixion and burial of Jesus are as close to historically certain as we can get. I have offered proof of that on the Was Jesus worth burying thread. I have not seen you refute that argument yet. Care to try?

Don't distort my words SD. You are being disengenous here, and I can only think that you are doing so on purpose.

I have made no such requests. But I do think that hyperscepticism about the existence of Jesus is bizarre. Thus far I have not even seen you argue against the historicity of Jesus, so what is your problem exactly?

Reread what you said SD. You said It's really no big deal in my life if Jesus (a.k.a. Joshua, Yeshua, Joseph), Hannibal or Alexander the Great turns out to be a myth.

I noted that your cavalier attitude about the historicity of Jesus is reasonable only if the claims about him are false. This is a truism of course. And you missed it. Go figure.

You missed it again SD. The ONLY thing I am asking you to accept is that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died on a cross. That's it. Can you do that much?

Then WHAT is your problem SD? Sheesh?

If your response here is serious, you certainly have gotten your nose out of joint over a whole lot of nothing. Give it a rest already, and cut back on the "LIAR" accusations. You are looking increasingly shrill and ridiculous.

And since all of them, almost to a man and woman accept that Jesus did exist, the case is closed on this question so far as you are concerned?

Cut the crap here SingleDad. None of us have made any such "move" on this thread. The question is simple and oft repeated. Did Jesus exist? If the answer is yes, or probably yes from your point of view, then that is all we care about. Period.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited February 20, 2001).]