Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RGD · 06-04-2006, 03:00 PM

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.

Interesting. Trajan was a real person; and he performed miracles. Mohammed was a real person, and he performed miracles. Moreover, he pointed out that Christ was not the Son of God, but merely one of the last prophets.

Every modern scholar agrees.

RGD · 06-04-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It never ceases to amaze me how people can claim that Jesus' disciples wrote the 4 gospel accounts. For one, the disciples were illiterate and spoke aramaic - how the hell would they suddenly learn greek AND learn how to write?

Second, all 4 gospel accounts are written in third person. How the hell can a third person writing be considered "eyewitness"?

Yes, even the source that allegiance cites points out that we don't know who wrote them.

I simply love that flavor of theist who cites articles which either fail to support or actually contradict their claim.

It's fascinating.

Hedshaker · 06-04-2006, 03:20 PM

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.

Read it for yourself, you provided the link, it says this:

Quote:

Nevertheless, there are no extant contemporaneous documents that make mention of Jesus

Do you accept what is writen in your own link?

No one is denying that there may have been an historic character names Jesus, who was a preacher, who had a following, etc. But there is no evidence for the demigod Jesus as depicted in the Bible, ie miracles, reanimating after being clinically dead for three days, the ascension etc.

Extraordiary claims require exraordiary evidence. And for the historical evidence for the Jesus HAS DEPICTED IN THE BIBLE, there is no evidence at all Faith is all you have I'm afraid :huh:

one allegiance · 06-04-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

Not really, no. For example:

The Bible claims that a worldwide flood happened a few thousand years ago, and that one family survived on an ark with two of every living creature on board.

Yet there isn't a shred of evidence for a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, or ever for that matter.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/....ap/index.html
http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk...10/sec10-5.htm
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm

...thats enought for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

Furthermore, there is no evidence for the existence of any sort of vessel which could possibly hold two of every living thing upon the earth. Such a notion is patently absurd.

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1.html
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-07.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

So the Bible really is quite lousy as a history book. There are some historical places mentioned in the book, some historical figures, and even some stories which can be verified, but "historicaly accurate"?

Not even close.

hmm...So your saying you would pick and choose what is historical out of the bible...seems illogical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

You know, there should be a big, flashing sign on the front page of this website. Something along the lines of:

"Warning! Many of the people who frequent this forum do not believe in God, do not accept the Bible as history, and doubt Jesus ever existed. So do not be surprised if you encounter one or even a large number of these people. Hence, the name Internet Infidels."

Nice...

show_no_mercy · 06-04-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-07.htm

LOL!

I think maybe... just maybe... you should click on that "Search" button at the top of the form and type in "Wyatt"...

cjack · 06-04-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/....ap/index.html
http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk...10/sec10-5.htm
http://www.trussel. com/prehist/news165.htm

...thats enought for now.

Wow. You sure showed me, huh? Three whole links! One wacky evangelical site, and two news stories about the same evidence for a regional (not worldwide) flood that may have been the source for the Biblical flood story.

Did you read either of those articles?

From the last link:

Quote:

Ryan and Pitman also suggested that the flood may have triggered massive migrations to destinations as diverse as Egypt, western Europe and central Asia, an idea that has provoked some academic controversy. Scholars also question whether any natural disaster could be conclusively identified as the inspiration for the story of Noah's flood.

"All modern critical Bible scholars regard the tale of Noah as legendary," said Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review. "There are other flood stories, but if you want to say the Black Sea flood is Noah's flood, who's to say no?"

Shanks pointed out that biblical scholars date the writing of the Book of Genesis, from which the story of Noah is taken, at between 2,900 and 2,400 years ago, and a similar event is described in the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh legend, written about 3,600 years ago.

But while Ryan and Pitman do not prove that the Black Sea flood directly inspired Gilgamesh or Noah, their theory argues persuasively that the event was probably horrific enough for scribes and minstrels to remember it for thousands of years.

(emphasis added)

Keep in mind that this is the "evidence" you're using to back up your claim of a world-wide flood more or less exactly as desrcibed in the Bible.

Yes, that is more than enough for now. Enough to tell me you didn't even bother to read either what I wrote, or the links you provided as "evidence."

fromdownunder · 06-04-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

What is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are they not eyewitness accounts? Written by the men closest to Jesus.

I'll just pick out one example here - the Author of Luke does not claim to heve been an eyewitness of anything:

Luke (NIV)

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

None of the other Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. either. The earliest (Mark) was not written until after 70CE.

Norm

one allegiance · 06-04-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

Wow. You sure showed me, huh? Three whole links! One wacky evangelical site, and two news stories about the same evidence for a regional (not worldwide) flood that may have been the source for the Biblical flood story.

Did you read either of those articles?

From the last link:

(emphasis added)

Keep in mind that this is the "evidence" you're using to back up your claim of a world-wide flood more or less exactly as desrcibed in the Bible.

Yes, that is more than enough for now. Enough to tell me you didn't even bother to read either what I wrote, or the links you provided as "evidence."

Of course there is evidence to the contrary...there wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't. And the flood WASN'T world wide. Look, I know it makes you feel really cool to try and shove stuff back in my or other theists faces, but just b/c there isn't adequate evidence now doesn't mean there will never be evidence..

cjack · 06-04-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

Of course there is evidence to the contrary...there wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't. And the flood WASN'T world wide. Look, I know it makes you feel really cool to try and shove stuff back in my or other theists faces, but just b/c there isn't adequate evidence now doesn't mean there will never be evidence..

You know, in some of the higher level history courses I took, the professors were pretty picky. If you provided something as a source which you either didn't read, or just plain didn't realize that it didn't support your claims, you'd be shredded in front of the whole class.

Now, if you didn't even understand what was asked in the first place, then tried to cover your ass...well, let's just say you'd probably wind up dropping the class.

I said:

Quote:

...there isn't a shred of evidence for a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, or ever for that matter.

(emphasis added)

You replied with your links, and added (rather smugly)

Quote:

...that's enough for now.

Now you're backpedaling and claiming that you weren't trying to defend a worldwide flood?

Need I remind you that your second link claims:

World Wide Evidence
Of The Genesis Flood

on the title page?

And for the record, it doesn't really make me feel "really cool," but if you need something shoved in your face in order to learn, then...:huh:

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-04-2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verich

What is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are they not eyewitness accounts? Written by the men closest to Jesus.

As a matter of fact, they are not. Those authorship traditions were ascribed to anonymous works in the 2nd century. They weren't actually written by "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." Nothing in the New Testament was written by a disciple. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Quote:

Moses didn't see creation, but it didn't stop him from writing about it.

Your evidence for this is what? What is your evidence that Moses existed at all?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.