Richbee

<edit>

I saw a few of your posts on another forum, did you get banned, or were just humilated by the facts?

post tenebras lux

Odd. I'd never noticed. Oh well. Have you provided a reference for that 19^th century quote yet Richbee?

When and where did Professor Thomas Arnold make the statement you claim he made?

Richbee

You have brought up two questions best hashed out on two more new threads.

I accept the four independent historical accounts from Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John.

It is pointless to discuss the evidence you're lacking to support a POV from unbelief, or Atheistic nihilism.

post tenebras lux

R. T. France? Hmm, here's a quote from him:It's his first sentence in an online article (also) called "The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity" - or is the online article what you're refering to Richbee?

Richbee

Pinchas Lapide
Orthodox Jewish Scholar, Germany
Born 1922

I accept the resurrection of Easter Sunday not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as a historical event.

If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on that Easter Sunday were a public event which had been made known...not only to the 530 Jewish witnesses but to the entire population, all Jews would have become followers of Jesus. To me this would have had only one imaginable consequence: the church, baptism, the forgiveness of sins, the cross, everything which today is Christian would have remained an inner-Jewish institution, and you [Gentiles], my dear friend, would today still be offering horsemeat to Wotan on the Godesberg. Put in other words, I see in the fact that the Easter experience was imparted to only some Jews the finger of God indicating that, as it says in the New Testament, "the time is fulfilled."

Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine: A Dialogue by Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 59, 68.

Space Chef

Hmmm. You accuse others of being off-topic, and then proceed to go off-topic yourself.

Dude, calling someone <consistency> isn't allowed here, and this post shows you resorting to an ad hominem.

post tenebras lux

Pinchas Lapide quote?

Here's a little article ---> http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...2/2wrap97.html

Agenda07

'No evidence outside of the New Testament historical records'? Didn't you start this thread by claiming that your ten points were 'established historical facts'? I'm glad you finally admit that the gospel account is uncollaborated by historical record.

As I understand it, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, modern scholarship doesn't consist of disbelief, but rather of actually scrutinising the claims made by the gospels and their credibility rather than simply assuming that the Biblical account is inerrant.

Wikipedia, a well known internet encyclopedia, has written:

An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is a logical fallacy because its method of inference is not rock-solid.

Wikipedia, last modified 21:51, 16 March 2006.

FatherMithras

Pure drivel without substantiation. Atheism is the natural result of a review of history and science when you uphold the principle of parsimony. You seem to not know what nihilism actually is. Oh well.

You supplied an assertion, not any evidence, thus there's nothing to refute. Trolling is more along the lines of blasting a group of people for their position without a single logical argument upheld by anyone relevant in the field, as you have done. Go review some of the exodus threads for an example of the Bible being a historical fuck up.

Idiotic. You're saying "They have different findings but they're not relevant because they don't agree with me". Circular logic.

The documentary hypothesis, along with modern biblical scholarship shows the utter ridiculousness of your assertions. Saying we're biased because we don't believe is no mre relavant than us saying your biased because you do. It's the facts that matter. And the facts as they stand, reviewed by scholars have come out to disagree with you. That's the reason I deconverted. Lack of facts.

You seem to think we're saying NO ONE agrees with you. Of course you can find religious people out there willing to write books saying your religion is true. But the fact is, the majority of scholars disagree, and pick apart these accounts.
If you could try and be less rude I'd appreciate it. The comments your making about people seem ban worthy, and if you don't want a polite discourse I don't see why I shouldn't start flagging.

Anduin

Richbee, I guess you missed the bolded comment. Do you agree with this assertion? If so, where does that leave your previous idea that the Gospel writers are eyewitnesses?