RED DAVE

From Richbee:
How do you distinguish this claim from the claim that Elvis has been seen in public many times since his "death"? The evidence for Elvis having risen is a good deal better than for Jesus. I mean, we're dealing with eyewitnesses who are alive today.

Also, again, do you also believe in the virgin birth?

RED DAVE

Chuckling Atheist

The virgin birth is based upon pagan myths and a mistranslation of Isaiah, according to Paul N. Tobin here.

Elvis didn't do no drugs!

JoeWallack

JW:
My initial investigation reveals that a size 4 font would have been more persuasive but on further reflection maybe the use of a "3" here indicates a subtle perfection in everything you do just like Ty in Caddyshack.



Joseph

"Now I understand that you've been to Oded Golan's upstairs bathroom and Jacque Lemaire's downstairs armoire looking for Andrew's testimony "that Jesus had risen from the dead."? But you've been gone for 2/3 days and 2/3 nights and I Am starting to get a little worried that Jesus may SOON return before you answer my questions.

You seem to be the Type of person who prefers Answering questions to asking them so I'll ask you a third time (which always works in the christian Bible):

Where is Andrew's testimony "that Jesus had risen from the dead."?

Also, does St. Mark describe Andrew as an Apostle?" - JoeWallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

hallq

Richbee-

Your last post gives us another example of confused apologetic thinking. Clearly, the point about Kennedy was that just because someone claims to be an eyewitness doesn't mean he was in fact an eyewitness. Did you understand this, or do we need to put up a sign that says "In order to avoid confusing those who have difficulty with straightforward logic, we ask that posters REFRAIN FROM EMPLOYING IRONY in their posts"?

Your response in any case was nothing more than argument by assertion. Can we move beyond that level?

Edited to fix spelling, caught by CX below

jackrabbit

So is Jeebus.
You must be referring to the hardon he is sporting, which is due to rigor mortis.

Why do biblebangers always yell? Does belief in jeebus make you deaf?

CX

Um...can I still use sarcasm or is that out too? Also what is "assertation"?

jackrabbit

Well, he's trying, but he can't get liftoff. Hey, if they cross the streams, they can get rid of him entirely, like they did Gozer, and we will all be better off.

CX

Actually yelling is a technique I use all the time when I don't have a good argument. That or sticking my fingers in my ear and singing, "LA LA LA LA I can't hear you. LA LA LA LA."

P.S. "But I don't even BELIEVE in Jeebus!"

CX

I apologize for making my point too subtle. I do that. I'm an extremely subtle guy. In fact I am the most in your face subtle guy alive. I'm also very self-deprecating. I LOVE that about me. Anyway, my point, as others have already pointed out, is that just because the characters in a text claim something doesn't make it true. Even if the author of a text claims something in the context of the narrative that doesn't make it true. Pointing to examples of characters in the NT saying they are eyewitnesses to events is not evidence that the text itself actually reflects eyewitness testimony. A little bit of study (you could even do it at a good seminary if you want to stay away from secular education) shows that the vast preponderance of the evidence indicates that none of the gospel texts, nor Acts, are written by eyewitnesses or people who knew eyewitnesses. All the authorial attributions come from Ante-nicene church fathers who are mostly speculating about their particular favored texts because they needed "apostolic authority" (kind of like an "Intel Inside" logo for Xian texts) to prove that their books were better than the dozens of other gospels being widely distributed at the time.

RUmike

I didn't have time to check out the link you gave, but since Luke shows no awareness of the virgin birth being a fulfillment of Isaiah, I don't see how it can be said that the virgin birth is "based upon...a mistranslation of Isaiah" (permitting you accept the two-source hypothesis, of course).