Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 04-24-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Because when you invent a story about the past, it is pretty hard to "poof" such places into existence. You can't refer to some pre-existing site since there was no site to begin with when you wrote the story.

But of course, that's just exactly what Constantine's mother did. She had her agents "poof" the tomb and nativity locations into being. The funny thing is, most Xians don't even realize it.

NOGO · 04-24-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

DavidfromTexas
False.

Peter and James saw Jesus in the flesh, not only in visions. Both of them were biblical authors.

What did Peter and James write?

How do you know that Peter nad James saw Jesus in the flesh?

Vorkosigan · 04-25-2006, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Very good.

Yes, it is an inscription... IN STONE. And contains only parts of 4 words. http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html

Are you going to say that Jesus did not exist because His name is not found among stone inscriptions in Palestine dating to the time that Jesus lived?

I'm sorry to have bothered. The case against the existence of Jesus is a bit more complex than "his name not found in the records of those days." Nobody would make the ridiculous strawman claim you make above.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer · 04-25-2006, 12:33 AM

I have a question? I keep seeing "skeptics were skeptical of of Pontius Pilate" but I've never seen a source for this. I've not known anyone who is skeptical of Pilate's existence - he was mentioned by both Josephus and Philo. Where is this strawman coming from?

tdcanam · 04-25-2006, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Where are you getting your info from?

Where are you getting your info from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is not really contemporary and probably interpolated but even if we accept it as genuine, it constitutes the entirety of semi-contemporary, extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. That's not exactly overwhelming.

Why does it have to be overwhelming? Straw man. It is there, so it is considered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It is highly debatable whether the Talmud refers to Jesus and the writings which are asserted by some to refer to Jesus were written centuries after the fact anyway. I thought you said there were contemporary references.

Debate it all you want mate, in this case it's being used as evidence. Prove it wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is proof only that Christians existed. There is no reason to believe that Tacitus got his infomation from anywhere but Christians themselves. He also gave the wrong title to Pilate. Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator.

Again, prove it. Prove he got his info. from christians. And humans make mistakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What does this quotation have to do with Jesus? Jesus wasn'ta king and the Jews didn't kill him.

Jesus was the "son" of David. He was in the liniage of king David. His mother was also royalty if memory serves. Royalty of Jews not granted by Rome at that time ment nothing, but he was in line to be king. The Jewish leaders of that time used Rome to have Jesus killed. Don't say you don't know the story. It made Mel Gibson a lot of coin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Dated by who? Consensus for Luke-Acts is in the 90's. Even more conservative dates put it in the 80's.

Wrong. Mark is c. 70, Matthew c. 80.

1 Peter is late 1st century. 2 Peter is 2nd century.

The dates I gave were published. Like all people looking to support, I will throw in the earliest, like all people looking to appose, you will throw in the latest. But the dates are published none the less.

Also, why was there no mention of AD70 if the books were written after that? Do you have any idea what that did for the christian church? They were free from all OT law forever. No more temple, no more sacrifice, no more sabbath day, ect. This would have been a key point in the lives of all christian writers. Why did they leave it out?

I believe 70ad is what Jesus was reffering to in Matt. 24, and also in Luke. Revelation even speaks of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If by "these men" you mean the authors of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and the Epistles of Peter, you're wrong. The authors never met Jesus.

Peter wrote nothing in the NT. The Epistles of Peter were not written by the apostle.

Too bad they didn't write anything about it.

Prove it. Peter walked on the water as the story goes to meet Jesus.

I never said Mark or Luke.

John was the desiple Jesus loved. He was the one who's head rested on His chest at the last supper.

Vorkosigan · 04-25-2006, 06:46 AM

Good luck, Diogenes!

Look, TD. Around here we usually go by the mainstream, and if you aren't on the mainstream, you gotta supply valid reasons. The mainstream date of Mark is ~70 CE. You can find that in any reasonable intro text. A "late" date for Mark would be like ~130, although I know of people who date Mark even later (no reason it can't be, really). Diogenes has offered you a series of mainstream dates. Likewise, the view is that 1 Peter is not by Peter, and 2 Peter is obviously not only not by the same author as 1 Peter (completely different Greek styles) but closely copied Jude.

This is basic knowledge. I'm curious. What serious scholarly texts on the New Testament have you read?

Vorkosigan

tdcanam · 04-25-2006, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

..it really would be nice if the newbies would bother to read the sticky posts first....

I cut and pasted this from a site on my way out the door to work.

I flew over it and posted it for the sole purpose of possibly raising questions. Not my work, I just instigated it. *chuckle*

Sorry.

Explain please?

tdcanam · 04-25-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

Christians don't use the words truth and witness like the rest of us do, and anyway, 'bearing witness' doesn’t mean you actually saw an event.

And what event are modern evangelicals witnessing? Don't they witness too? Aren't they told to go out and witness? Do they mean witless? It's awful to think, but you may have to consider the possibility you’ve wasted 2000 years just because someone once had a speech impediment.

Boro Nut

Straw man.

tdcanam · 04-25-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

What other properties of heaven can you tell us other than it has a left and right hand side. Is there an up or down? Which way is North? What if god scratches his left ear with his right hand? Where does Jesus sit then?

Boro Nut

Sigh, another straw man.

tdcanam · 04-25-2006, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What is your evidence that the "beloved disciple" was intended to refer to the author of GJohn? What is your evidence that the "beloved disciple" was named John?

Where is your evidence that it wasn't?

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

04-25-2006, 12:33 AM	#24
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I have a question? I keep seeing "skeptics were skeptical of of Pontius Pilate" but I've never seen a source for this. I've not known anyone who is skeptical of Pilate's existence - he was mentioned by both Josephus and Philo. Where is this strawman coming from?

04-25-2006, 06:46 AM	#26
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Good luck, Diogenes! Look, TD. Around here we usually go by the mainstream, and if you aren't on the mainstream, you gotta supply valid reasons. The mainstream date of Mark is ~70 CE. You can find that in any reasonable intro text. A "late" date for Mark would be like ~130, although I know of people who date Mark even later (no reason it can't be, really). Diogenes has offered you a series of mainstream dates. Likewise, the view is that 1 Peter is not by Peter, and 2 Peter is obviously not only not by the same author as 1 Peter (completely different Greek styles) but closely copied Jude. This is basic knowledge. I'm curious. What serious scholarly texts on the New Testament have you read? Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.