Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RGD · 05-10-2006, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richbee

The general consensus of modern scholarship accepts the following ten details as established historical facts:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion 2,000 years ago.

2. Jesus was then placed in a tomb.

3. A few days later, the tomb was found empty.

4. Soon after, the Apostles began testifying that Jesus had risen from the dead.

5. The Apostles really believed they had seen Jesus alive again.

6. Even opponents and skeptics of Christianity at the time claimed to have seen Jesus alive again, and their lives were transformed as a consequence.

7. Almost all of the Apostles eventually died for their testimony that they had seen the resurrected Jesus.

8. In the face of brutal persecution, the movement of Christianity grew beyond all reasonable expectation.

9. The belief that Jesus was physically raised from the dead was central and foundational to Christianity from the very beginning.

10. The corpse of Jesus has never been produced.

Once again, no support, no evidence, just words.

This is NOT the consensus of modern scholarship; this is NOT a collection of facts.

Richbee, you might try to actually support your case - it would indicate a degree of intellectual integrity that seems sadly lacking in your posts at the moment.

Richbee · 05-10-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Once again, no support, no evidence, just words.

Richbee, you might try to actually support your case - it would indicate a degree of intellectual integrity that seems sadly lacking in your posts at the moment.

Come back when you have any evidence on your side?

Even better, don't come back until you KNOW what EVIDENCE IS!!! (smile)

Quote:

Dr. Simon Greenleaf writes about the nature and quality of evidence, and burden of proof required by "skeptics" who wish to impeach the New Testament evidence.

Testimony of the Evangelists - by Dr. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels; and injustice silently acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the Christian affirmatively, and by positive evidence, aliunde, to establish the credibility of his witnesses above all others, before their testimony is entitled to be considered, and in permitting the testimony of a single profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to outweigh that of any single Christian. This is not the course in courts of chancery, where the testimony of a single witness is never permitted to outweigh the oath even of the defendant himself, interested as he is in the cause; but, on the contrary, if the plaintiff, after having required the oath of his adversary, cannot overthrow it by something more than the oath of one witness, however credible, it must stand as evidence against him. But the Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his favor; and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in human tribunals, his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false, until it is proved to be true. This treatment, moreover, has been applied to them all in a body; and, without due regard to the fact, that, being independent historians, writing at different periods, they are entitled to the support of each other: they have been treated, in the argument, almost as if the New Testament were the entire production, at once, of a body of men, conspiring by a joint fabrication, to impose a false religion upon the world.

It is time that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one sacred writer on any point, should no more detract from his own veracity or that of the other historians, than the like circumstance is permitted to do among profane writers; and that the Four Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other, as readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy."

Hotlink: Simon Greenleaf

RGD · 05-10-2006, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

[size=2]Come back when you have any evidence on your side?

But we've given you the evidence. All the evidence is on our side. Your argument from ignorance does not change that particular fact.

Quote:

Even better, don't come back until you KNOW what EVIDENCE IS!!!

I know what evidence is: it's what you have failed to provide.

(various quotes from Greenleaf snipped)

Greenleaf does not represent the consensus of modern scholarship. The source you linked to is full of lies, inaccuracies, mistakes, and poor logic.

Do try harder next time, won't you? We're waiting. :wave:

Kosh · 05-10-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

There are five passages in the New Testament that claim to be historical accounts of what happened to Jesus, and these are:

Matthew 28:1-20
Mark 16:1-14
Luke 24:1-53
John 20:1-29
1 Corinthians 15:1-8

I continue to look for discussion in your posts, but all I find is preaching and apologetics. Apologetics which areeven worse than those of McDowell, which I didn't think was possible!

Stop repeating the assertions and actually discuss things, or go ~elsewhere~...

RED DAVE · 05-10-2006, 10:40 PM

From Simon Greenleaf:

Quote:

It is time that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it

BULLSHIT.

Extraordinary claims, like walking on water, rising from the dead, virgin birth, etc., require extraordinary proof. We don't even have ordinary, independently verified, noncontradictory proof from the gospels.

Another thing I enjoy about Richbee is his extraordinary humility. He makes such a perfect ambassador of xtianity.

RED DAVE

rlogan · 05-10-2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Even better, don't come back until you KNOW what EVIDENCE IS!!!

*yawn*

Two thousand year old fairy tale. Wow.

Let's see some recent action.

Avatar · 05-10-2006, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Yet you have NO historical sources that support your fantasy assertions!?!?!

LOL!

Pot, meet kettle.
Do you even know what a fact is?

Is there any hard, testable evidence for any of your claims save the last?

Vorkosigan · 05-11-2006, 01:25 AM

Quote:

There are five passages in the New Testament that claim to be historical accounts of what happened to Jesus, and these are:

Mark 16:1-14

Richbee, please show me exactly where in the Gospel of Mark it claims to be an historical account. Be concrete.

Michael

Jack the Bodiless · 05-11-2006, 01:49 AM

We have covered Simon Greenleaf before (there was even a thread on this topic, which you were given a link to: The Gospels put on TRIAL....).

If you continue to post the same cut-and-paste articles over and over again, you will probably get yourself banned as a "spammer".

Is this your intention?

JEST2ASK · 05-11-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

We have covered Simon Greenleaf before (there was even a thread on this topic, which you were given a link to: The Gospels put on TRIAL....).

If you continue to post the same cut-and-paste articles over and over again, you will probably get yourself banned as a "spammer".

Is this your intention?

From the link

Quote:

Pervy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Greenleaf
The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true.

Quote:
That man is a religious being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally true. He is everywhere a worshiper. In every age and country, and in every stage, from the highest intellectual culture to the darkest stupidity, he bows with homage to a superior Being.

Yep - that's a skeptic for you...

Richbee please admit that your sources are not from a wide specrum but choosen due to their bias, and support for your belief system.

I do not admire or respect your unwavering stance in defense of your worldview but rather pity your failure to see that you are being intellectually dishonest (IMO) .. Why can you not simply say ... Sorry but this is what I believe and there will be no discussion or real interchange of ideas, I value my faith too much. Stop the game with us and yourself.

ETA from Post #372 I have no problem with you stating you believe the biblical record ... I do have major problems with you presenting your beliefs as facts widely accepted and confirmed, by dispassionate (even hostile) sources ...

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

05-11-2006, 01:49 AM	#419
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	We have covered Simon Greenleaf before (there was even a thread on this topic, which you were given a link to: The Gospels put on TRIAL....). If you continue to post the same cut-and-paste articles over and over again, you will probably get yourself banned as a "spammer". Is this your intention?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.