FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-05-2006, 09:01 PM   #221
Iasion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's odd -

When the existance of Jesus is brought up, Christian apologists frequently jump to the subject of evolution (often along with abiogenesis and the Big Bang, 3 subjects they usually can't tell apart.)

As if evolution and Jesus' existance had something in common.


Iasion
 
Old 06-05-2006, 09:05 PM   #222
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one allegiance
I can't for the life of me believe this. You people are ILLOGICALLY looking at the evidence just b/c it could show something that you don't like.
Nonsense. We've examined the evidence. It doesn't support the claims you are making.

Quote:
Sauron even admitted he knew of the council of nicea, constantine both who happened to be NOT biblical.
But neither one is extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Did you miss the point where I also told you that Nicaea and Constantine both came 300 years afterwards?

Quote:
You people say you want extra biblical evidence yet you ignore everything that is posted.
Pointing out that some group of religious people held a conference is not proof for the claims of that religion.

Quote:
The council of nicea wouldn't have happened if Jesus wasn't a person.
Nonsense. Lots of conferences have been held about non-historical people.

Quote:
B.C A.D? what about that.
What about it? Some European monk centuries afterwards decided to divide time according to his religion. It does not prove that Christ existed.

When you look at history, like Constantine and the Niceen Creed then you have to actually LOOK at it, b/c stuff like that happened.
[/quote]
But none of is extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Christ.

Quote:
The title of the thread is what was so intriguing, b/c I had never heard of someone not admitting that he DID exist, it is quite uncommon.
No, it's just unknown to you -- but as we've seen, your exposure to the material on this topic is pretty shallow.

Quote:
Look, if you guys look this stuff up, or look at the previous site's I posted (I think on page 5 or 6) and still don't budge on your position, then I'm done. It is a lost cause.
The previous sites you posted also didn't hold up -- I thought we already discussed that, and you admitted it. Are you changing your mind now?
Sauron is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 09:14 PM   #223
Iasion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greetings,

Quote:
Originally Posted by one allegiance
Sure you can give me all the gospel accounts you want. But the four in the bible are accurate and were all written within 55 AD...closet to jesus and his death. But, if your going to pull gospels out that aren't in the bible then that would mean that they are all written after 300AD
Nonsense.

Here are the commonly accepted dates, from Peter Kirby :

50-90 Signs Gospel
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
90-120 Gospel of John
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
130-170 Gospel of Judas
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
140-180 Gospel of Truth
180-250 Gospel of Philip


Note the big four are NOT dated to 55CE.

Note many OTHER Gospels from around the same period as the canonical 4.

Note these other Gospels are NOT all from after 300CE.


Iasion
 
Old 06-05-2006, 09:16 PM   #224
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

The bible is a testament to God and Jesus, sure it takes faith.
To be more precise: some people make that claim about the bible.

Quote:
These men in the bible were living and oral tradition was passed down.
Not necessarily true. There is no evidence for Noah, Moses, etc. Writing down oral tradition doesn't prove that the oral tradition is *correct*.

Quote:
I think if God can put stars in space larger than the orbit of Pluto, He can handle inspiring men to write a book as a witness,
The problem is that you are assuming your conclusion. I hope you know what that means. Until you prove that God created stars, you can hardly use God as part of your argument.

Quote:
or a testament to His will for mankind. It is up to you to accept it, or reject it by drawing up a long drawn out process for the origins of humanity with little or no evidence to support your theory and preach it by faith as fact.
The origins of humanity are explained by human evolution.

Quote:
Here is some archaeological evidence of Jericho.
Which does not hold up when actual archaeologists look at it. How surprising.
Sauron is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 09:20 PM   #225
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
It is common knowledge that man descended from one common ancestor or woman, that would be Noahs wife, or Lucy to you.
It is not "common knowledge", nor is it scientifically accurate.

Quote:
I'll place my faith in the bible and not the whims of man, thanks. From what I can tell I don't see sound science in evolution.
But you're ignorant of science and evolution, so you're hardly in a position to tell what is sound, or what is not sound.

Quote:
Peter wrote books of the bible.
Says who?

Quote:
Now I haven't heard much more than a peep about how the old testament and the dead sea scrolls.
1. Not quite true; they have been discussed as much as you have brought them up.

2. The alleged subject is extra biblical evidence for Jesus anyhow, so in that context it isn't surprising that the OT is not a center of discussion.

Quote:
For such a fraud how did it get copied by hand for 2000 years, without the original copies left in the dead sea?
The fact that something got copied a lot does not prove it was true. In fact, it doesn't even prove that the copies are free of errors.

Quote:
How in Heavens name were they the same bible? When compared with the modern bible the dead sea scrolls found in 1948 were perfect.
Uh, wrong.

Quote:
Again I'll place my faith in the sound doctrine of the bible. It has already shown itself accurate for archeology, you all should as well.
The bible record vs. archaeology is pretty mediocre, actually.

Quote:
How many times did men try and burn the bible out of existence? Many times.
None that I am aware of. I'd ask you for some proof, but we all know that I'd be wasting my breath.
Sauron is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 09:25 PM   #226
RGD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The House of Reeds
Posts: 4,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one allegiance
Ok dude... do you see a trend here. All you did was say that I was wrong. You gave me NO evidence to the contrary and you even called me a liar when I lied about nothing. Everything that I had to say you said "so what?" If you want to even beging to refute what I have to say, you have to show me evidence CONTRARY to every event that I described, which you did not do. I knew that if I did present an argument, somebody would come along and do just this. Make blanket remarks that claim otherwise without giving evidence. I supplied my evidence, now supply your evidence that is contrary to it...otherwise you haven't even began to refute or touch my argument.
No, the point is that you did not supply evidence. We can't even discuss your 'argument' until you've made one - and you haven't, as yet.

You have offered evidence that various people at various points in the past believed that Christ was a real man/God.

That is NOT the same as evidence that Christ was a real man/God.

Evidence for a belief is NOT evidence that the belief is a correct one - that's why nobody has bothered yet, because you haven't presented anything yet.
RGD is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 09:28 PM   #227
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
Navy men, and sea captains have told other guys that the way the Ark was built was the most sea worthy vessel they have ever seen.
Uh, wrong.

Quote:
The only way for water to enter the ship was through the roof,
Or through the bottom and sides, when it foundered due to its excessive size.

Quote:
it would actually have to yawn how many degrees to allow water to enter? 80 degrees or more. With all the weight in the bottom that was one sea worthy vessel. 300 cubits.
Except no such ark ever existed.

Quote:
There have been findings of wood on Mt. Ararat.
Probably because there are trees there.
Sauron is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 09:28 PM   #228
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one allegiance
Are you done..? Ok now that you are done acting like a child.
If you call asking for an answer to a question acting like a child.
Quote:
If romans did use tombs, why wouldn't they put people who died in them?
Because they were convicted criminals. It was part of their punishment.
Quote:
What, were they going to leave the people who were crucified up there?
Yes, in fact they did.
Quote:
I don't understand why being crucified would be any different. They died, and when they died they were put in tombs...Jesus requested a tomb before even been put to death
No, actually they weren't. It is better to learn about something before making assertions about it; makes you look less ignorant.
Quote:
As for the rest in this thread, I'm only going to respond to those who KNOW that Jesus was a real person, b/c no historian denies that. That isn't the debate here.
Actually many historians dispute it, and it is certainly up for debate.
TomboyMom is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 09:33 PM   #229
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one allegiance
What is it with you people and wanting to take on historical facts.
Got this funny hangup on the truth.
Quote:
The Bible is very very historically accurate. Just b/c you can say that it isn't, maybe b/c it goes against your belief, doesn't change the fact that it is accurate. Everybody looks at the same evidence, its just funny how much people feel the need to discredit the bible.
one: This is an assertion. We don't know you. Here on IIDB you have to provide evidence in support of your assertions; we don't accept them on blind faith. If you want to show that the bible is historically accurate, provide some evidence. 2 warnings though: (1) It's a bit broad. Try narrowing it down a little. (2) The last person who tried ran away without coming up with a shred of evidence in support of the assertion that history validates biblical claims.
TomboyMom is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 09:36 PM   #230
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one allegiance
That Jesus was a real person? If thats the case maybe you should read a little bit more on that site about the people who STUDY Jesus's life for a living.
one: Most scholars do accept that there was a man by this name, who bears only a sketchy resemblance to Christ. However, they do not come to this conclusion because of non-biblical historical references to him, because they are few, paltry, vague and forged.
TomboyMom is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:04 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.