Freethought & Rationalism Archive

OldYgg · 05-31-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Please, all of you who think there's some historical basis for the Jesus of the NT- go read that site. It's a lot to read, yes, but really fascinating stuff.

I've been a mythicist since back in the eighties, and the more I study the topic, the more convinced I am that Jesus the Christ never existed, and didn't ever have a living human being at the core of any of the tales.

Nice link, but maybe it deserves its own thread for discussion about the details of his proofs that Jesus never existed.

Old Ygg

Splarnst · 06-01-2007, 08:31 AM

EDIT: double post

Splarnst · 06-01-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ksen Modified

I see no reason why I should trust what a source says or claims about Christianity when that source is in support of Christianity. I hardly see how it can be objective in its praise. :huh:

How would you respond to an atheist who said the above?

How is anyone supposed to learn anything if they absolutely refuse to listen to anyone who thinks differently?

Jobar · 06-01-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldYgg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Please, all of you who think there's some historical basis for the Jesus of the NT- go read that site. It's a lot to read, yes, but really fascinating stuff.

I've been a mythicist since back in the eighties, and the more I study the topic, the more convinced I am that Jesus the Christ never existed, and didn't ever have a living human being at the core of any of the tales.

Nice link, but maybe it deserves its own thread for discussion about the details of his proofs that Jesus never existed.

Old Ygg

They have a discussion board, too. I seldom go there, because I prefer II- but if you want to discuss historicity vs. mythicism, it's where you ought to go.

ksen · 06-01-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELECTROGOD

If Billy believes that the Bible is the "infallible word of god" then he ought to check out these links that clearly show what a utterly FALLIBLE pile of crap it really is:

http://www.members.aol.com/ckbloomfld

I haven't read this one yet. But I will.

Quote:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...istencies.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...gan/intro.html

Ok, I've read through these links and they are the same old tired arguments trotted out again and again as if they prove anything.

Did you have anything specific from those links you'd like to talk about?

Let me know and I can start a thread on it.

TomboyMom · 06-01-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I am very unclear what xians here actually believe. OK, comments on this please:

http://www.billygraham.org/StatementOfFaith.asp

Sure, I can accept all of that.

That's hilarious.

OldYgg · 06-01-2007, 11:06 AM

In terms of biblical errancy, I don't go more than the value of Pi, myself. Pi, is used as the basis for a lot of calculations. The value is not 3, as it can be calculated in the bible based on information on the measurements of a circle.

Old Ygg

ksen · 06-01-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELECTROGOD

If Billy believes that the Bible is the "infallible word of god" then he ought to check out these links that clearly show what a utterly FALLIBLE pile of crap it really is:

http://www.members.aol.com/ckbloomfld

Ok, I read this link and the first issue of his magazine. McKinsey just regurgitates the same contradictions as the other links you provided.

In his magazine he just lists out a bunch of prooftexts as if that's proof of anything. He then goes on to criticize Gleason Archer (someone I've never heard of or if I have I don't remember him) for how he reconciles some the contradictions McKinsey sees. I don't think Christianity or the Bible is dependent upon the apologetical skill of Archer. But that's just me. :huh:

ziffel · 06-01-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Trustworthy.

So you just make up new definitions of words in the English language?

Infallible does not mean trustworthy. It means without error.

The bible has errors (lots of them) and therefore is not infallible.

ksen · 06-01-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziffel

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Trustworthy.

So you just make up new definitions of words in the English language?

Infallible does not mean trustworthy. It means without error.

The bible has errors (lots of them) and therefore is not infallible.

Now you are the one making up definitions.

Infallibility with respect to theology means free from errors on faith and practice(morals).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=infallible

Inerrancy means without error and completely accurate in all details.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-01-2007, 08:31 AM	#22
Splarnst Contributor Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 13,161	EDIT: double post

06-01-2007, 11:06 AM	#27
OldYgg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,107	In terms of biblical errancy, I don't go more than the value of Pi, myself. Pi, is used as the basis for a lot of calculations. The value is not 3, as it can be calculated in the bible based on information on the measurements of a circle. Old Ygg

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.