Johnny Skeptic

That is correct. Arnoldo frequently and conveniently gets off topic when he know that he is in trouble, even though he has criticized skeptics when they get off topic, but only when he believes that he has the advantage. He seldom provides evidence for anything at these forums. He knows that he will not get anywhere claiming that Jesus performed miracles.

As far as this thread is concerned, the Bible falsely teaches that the earth is flat.

archaeologist

Completely apples and oranges. Your OP was talking about written history NOT actual events. Clearly you cannot even support your points with honest examples.

Clearly i made the correct decision to not accept your invitation to debate.

The reality is, you have to humble yourselves before God, He does not have to do it to you. Your demands for evidence will not be met because of the hardness of your hearts.

Make do with what is already here.

Katastrophikus

Wow. Is that the sum total of the argument? You are going to come in here, to people who have earnestly and honestly analysed, searched, read and studied the bible and its implications, to people who have struggled with belief and doubt their entire lives, to people who are open minded enough to discuss evidence and debate, and tell them: "you're wrong because I know you are" without so much as at least pretending to discuss evidence? And then say that it's their own fault?

Wow.

PhilosopherJay

Hi archaeologist,

Beautifully spoken. If you were on stage in a church, I am sure that this would be the point where the audience would burst out in applause. The devout do love to hear their tried and true cliches. "Nothing is impossible with God," "Dreams can come true," "The Good Die Young," "Don't You Step on My Blue Suede Shoes" (wait, that's Elvis, sorry, skip that).

Where is this reality you speak of? Has it ever existed outside the constructed fantasy world of religion?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Johnny Skeptic

No, I never ignored that at all. Well of course anyone who writes anything is at liberty to write anything that they want to write, including Eusebius, who apparently told some lies because he believed that the ends justify the means.

But that does not refute what I said in the opening post. My major point in the opening post was that accurate secular history, such as mention of a real person or place, do not automatically verify supernatural claims. Mixing accurate secular claims with myths is not uncommon in ancient literature.

You have no evidence that the majority of skeptic historians, or the majority of skeptics in general, are dishonest, but there is lots of evidence of dishonest Christians of the past and present. A week does not go by in the U.S. without a lot of evidence of dishonesty by Christian pastors, politicians, and laymen. There is a lot of evidence of non-Christians from the past and present who were honest and loving, and made important contributions to society. My word, Christians conquered the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property. The victors often warred among themselves for the spoils of victory.

Did you know that in the U.S., Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do, and that in Denmark, heterosexuals have a much higher divorce rate than homosexuals do?

According to you, Christians who are not inerrantists are not Christians. What I mean by inerrancy is the claim that God inspired and preserved the originals. You have not provided any evidence that God inspired and preserved the originals, and there is a lot of evidence that God did not inspire and preserve the originals.

Are you suggesting that people should believe that Nebuchadnezzar ate grass with cows just because Nebuchadnezzar existed?

Are you aware that the only way that a global flood could have occured would have been if some of the laws of physics had been temporarily altered, including the law of gravity? If fossils and sediments are mixed with water, they have to settle in certain ways unless the law of gravity is temporarily altered. A lot of evidence that that if the law of gravity was not temporarily altered, a global flood did not occur. You can claim that God temporarily altered the law of gravity if you wish, but that claim is based entirely upon faith, and it would mean that God needlessly caused a lot of doubt and confusion by temporarily altering the law of gravity. If faith is all that matters, then one worldview is as good as another.

sdelsolray

This seems to be archeologist's entire MO.

andrewcriddle

Is this correct ? There is multiple attestation that Alexander solved the challenge of the Gordian knot. (A number of historians believe that the version in which Alexander unties the knot by a trick is original and having him actually cut the knot is a later embellishment, but this seems a slightly technical point.)

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Wikipedia says "While sources from antiquity agree that Alexander was confronted with the challenge of the Knot, the means by which he solved it are disputed. Plutarch disputes the vulgate claim that Alexander sliced the knot with his sword, and relates that according to Aristobulus, Alexander pulled the knot out of its pole pin, exposing the two ends of the cord and allowing him to untie the Knot without having to cut through it. Some classical scholars regard this as more plausible than the popular account."

For purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter what happened regarding Alexander since, as I said in the opening post, "mixing facts and myths is nothing new in ancient literature." As you know, I could easily find other examples. If as a side issue you wish to say that I did not provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt about Alexander, I agree with you.

mountainman

Only if they valued academic scholarship. The new testament was not authored and preserved by people who were Greek language academics since it is composed in "common greek".

It is alternatively possible that the new testament writings were authored by people for whom academic assessment was of secondary importance. Of primary importance were unbelievable stories and myths such as might inspire common people, and not scholarlry academics. The claims within the new testament which relate to the academic assessment of "Historical Truth" were never given a chance to be skeptically examined by the academic greeks, who were forcibly converted to the "plain and simple religion of the Christians" [Ammianus M.] by the will of the imperial sword.

archaeologist

it also doesn't disprove it either. One must consider th esource, his bias, unbeliefs or beliefs, his research habits and so much more. My point was, and it does refute yours, that even secular writers, writing on the same event did not produce carbon copy works (wait, isn't that on eo fth ecomplaints against the gospel writers??).

They highlighted different aspects of the civil war which were important to them.

I am tired of your mantra already. You use it as a catch-all escape route. Someone refues you and you go hide behind it saying 'evidence, you don't have any evidence...' Well neither do you for your OP, in fact all you were doing was preaching.

So? Such does not make divorce correct or homosexuality normal <edit>

Its in the Bible a book you reject. One cannot present evidence when the other conveniently rejects what is presented without pause.

<edit>

I have yet to see and experience what you have desribed takes place on tis forum.

<edit>

You are given evidence--you reject them; you are given texts, you reject them,; you are given common sense and good points, you reject them. After a while there is no reason to give you aything more--<edit>

Ask Joseph Smith--He did it.