Vorkosigan

Can you give an example of a demonstrated historical event which was seen in terms of sacred scripture? I do not regard anything in the NT gospel fantasies as a "demonstrated historical event." There is no credible outside support for anything in there.

We're "skeptics" because we don't take statements unsupported by sound methodology on faith. No sound methodology supports any of your claims, so it hard to imagine why you are so certain. I suppose you must mortar the crumbling bricks of your facade with the strong cement of faith.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

This was already done in here. I am tired of repeating stuff and I am not going to do so anymore.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

I haven't seen any examples yet. I've seen long lists of unsubstantiated claims and unsupportable nonsense, but no serious claims backed by sound methodology.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Since we know what your opinions are, why do you bother repeating them so vigorously? Try and enter the discussion.

Do you not think that the battles in 1 Maccabees were historical? Do you deny that there was a battle at the Tiber river? Do you deny the existence of John the Baptist as well? Do you, like Toto, deny there was a Gentile mission in the First Century? Do you deny Vespasian was a Roman emperor?

C'mon, if you want to participate in a discussion please do. But don't expect much response or respect if all you do is do a drive-by shooting of strong opinions and little discussion.

Layman

Another example from 1 Maccabees is 7:15-17:

Layman

I'm beginning to see the core of skeptic methodology. Anything that contradicts your pet theories must be in interpolation, whether it be found in Paul, Josephus, or Tacitus. Anything that is in Acts must be a fiction, even if--like the expulsion from Rome--it is confirmed by other historians.

Are you seriously suggesting that Toto's argument that there were no Chrsitians in Rome during the first century or that there was no Gentile mission--and no Gentile Christians--until the second century, is based on substantiated claims, supported excellent points, and sound methodology?

I don't normally, do this, but if so: LOL

Toto

Just to be clear, there may have been "Christians" in Rome in the first century, but they would have been Jews, and we don't really know what they believed or what connection they had to The Way or the people who were later known as Christians.

I suspect that the mission to the Gentiles (meaning preaching a new religion to people who were not ever expected to become circumcized or follow the Jewish laws) happened after 70 CE.

The problem with early Christian history is that it doesn't make sense. It's like a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces can't fit together. You have to decide where a piece might be missing, where a piece might have been carved into a different shape for some reason, where an extra piece got in from a different puzzle. I haven't read (or read of) any one who has actually put together a coherent story of Paul.

Amaleq13

Don't forget the Therapeutae! A religious sect that predates Christianity but Eusebius considered Christian?

Vorkosigan

I do not regard all of these with the same probability. I don't know if there was a gentile mission in the first century. I think there was. I am sure that Vespasian, 1 Mac, and JBap were historical. But then, none of these lived lives that were apparently drawn out of the OT. Can you show me which Roman holy document Vespasian's like is apparently drawn from?

In light of your utter inability to provide a methodology to support your unlimited contempt for skeptics, I can only wonder where a comment like this came from.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Just bring on the methodology. We're going on three years here and you and your apologist cohorts have been unable to supply any rational solid historical reason to support your conclusions. Just faith-claims and vapor.

Are you seriously suggesting that you even understand what Toto is saying? Because you obviously don't.

Vorkosigan