Sparrow

False.

Dargo

It might dissuade a lot of Scientologists but certainly not all of them. I'd note that there have been plenty of members of non-Christian religions willing to die for their faith. David Koresch (sp?) claimed to be god. Would he and most of the rest of the Camp Davidians have died for a lie?

Besides, where's the independent evidence that anyone who actually met Jesus was fed to the lions or put in a Roman prison? Bible stories and Catholic church traditions do not count as INDEPENDENT evidence. We know that modern religions often rewrite their history. Unlike Christianity, they haven't had the opportunity to destroy any embarassing records which contradict their official accounts.

seraphimkawaii

21 pages and still going? Let it go, people. As a mod said a few pages back, those looking for extra-biblical evidence aren't gonna find it here.

xaxxat

No, but we get to enjoy the apologist's pretzel logic... :devil3:

Amaleq13

No, my conclusion follows from what I've read regarding the decisions made by the early Church Fathers in differentiating between "inauthentic" and "authentic" texts. Those decisions appear to me to have been based primarily on the beliefs of the men making them rather than any rational, critical consideration of the evidence. I asked you some time ago (twice, actually) if you had any examples of them applying rational thought to a critical consideration of the evidence in order to reach their conclusions and you failed to reply (twice). You did, oddly enough, respond to the posts prior to and following my request.

For example? (Third time is a charm)

I gave you this one when I asked you to back your claim the first time and then proceded to ask for something else! :rolling:

aa5874

Gamera, how long will the hoax of the Hindu religion last?

TomboyMom

I have no opinion on the historicity of Socrates and do not care. It does not affect my life if he turns out to be a fictional character.
I do not subscribe to the theory that no one named Jesus ever existed, because I do not have enough expertise or knowledge in the field to advocate such a minority opinion. I accept the opinion of the majority of scholars in the field that there was a man of that name who lived, preached and was executed.
The evidence is not the same. At least two eye-witnesses, at least one of whom knew Socrates well, and niether of whom had any motive to fabricate, describe him in detail. Niether of them makes any extraordinary claims about him.
No one who ever saw Jesus ever wrote a word about him. All that we have is collations at several removes, recorded generations after his death. As things go, there is a strong chance that these accounts are distorted, not because of an intentional hoax, but because of the difficulty of preserving accurate oral continuity. Further, these accounts describe extraordinary events, which have never been observed in any other case, such as a person born without a father, and a dead person coming back to life. For these two reasons, the two cases are NOT equivalent.
So the question is, why are you inconsistent in your standard of evidence?

In any case, the question of what conclusion to draw is secondary, and up to each individual. The primary question is, what data is there to conclude from? Do you agree that there are no contemporary, non-forged, in any way first person or primary source accounts of Jesus, and particularly of Jesus as Christ?

TomboyMom

How would we know? That is, if it's never exposed, we wouldn't know it's a hoax, would we?
re: Jesus (not that I'm advocating the position that Christianity is a deliberate hoax, I'm not) it's all a matter of perspective. To a Christian, the Jesus story is true, and the Mormon story a hoax. Therefore, to a Christian, the Mormon "hoax" has been exposed. No Mormon would agree. No, none of us can know how many hoaxes have never been exposed.

In any case, when referring to ancient history, the problem is rarely hoaxes. The problem is just that it's hard/impossible to know or even have a justified opinion about what happened so long ago, especially without written records. That's why we're interested in finding some.

one allegiance

Completely irrelevant.

What makes that writing more credible then the gospels...something you would rather hear?

Yep.

No it isn't. Show me proof that it is evident.

ddc0708

So far the apologetics have hopped conversations from Beowulf, to Socrates, we even had some evolution, and not one of them can provide anything other proof to their claims. The whole apologetic argument from OneAllegiance, PV, and Gamera all point to skipping from argument to argument, and never really pointing out any truth or proof for their claims.


Thank you for playing who wants to go round and round in circles.


Gamera:

You said you were an atheist early on, and became a Christian. At what point did it become apparent to you that the Judea-Christian God was the answer to your life? I'm not asking for events that provoked spiritual comings... unless of course Jesus or God appeared before you. Then, in which case, I'd ask you to prove it. No, I'm asking what about the Judea-Christian religion appealed to your logic and rational nature. What proof do you have that convinced you that they both exist.



No it is relevant because he's saying why socrates doesn't belong in this thread, what is irrelevant is socrates being in this thread to begin with. The whole argument is just a moot maneuver of Gamera's to dodge an argument about proving Christ. aa5874 was just showing why he could care less about socrates to begin with and what irrelevance he has to Christ on the scale of believability.




You have no right to ask for any proof in this thread. You've been given chance after chance to show your extra biblical proof, and all you have done is retort with the same nonsense that any fool can google "Evidence of Christ" and find. You jump from point to point to point, and provide nothing logical or coherent about your arguments. How about you show some proof first before asking for it since you're the one making outrageous claims that you believe!!!!! a man rose from the dead, made water into wine, etc etc.


What makes something easier to take down? The possibility of the unkown, or having something you'd rather hear (ie a spoon fed fairytale that makes death seem not so bad).


Keep it going 21 pages of bullshit through and through. Not one good argument supporting outrageous claims, and many shifts in the topic in between...
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: