Cross Examiner

Mr. Amaranth
Big points for rhetoric and whimsical tonality he but loses points for mentioning Conan the Barbarian and referencing The Holy Bible in the same breath! Don't I know you, didn't you go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical School, class of '01? I'd serve better the community by responding to CX's response (have to choose when grossly outnumbered ) rather than yours, since his is more serious, thanks for the levity though, always nice!

Funny thing here CX, trichotomy is a word! So is trilemma...anyway...I'll try answer your (Amaranth) more-specific claims quickly here with some questions (Socrates rules): is a prophet good, or wise if he claims not to be merely speaking for God, but is God himself (check out the primary definition of prophet to help answer this)? Did Alexander the Great exist {Hint: I purpose left out "legend" from our trichotomy because it's such a fringe-y/largely discredited point of view)? Wouldn't a political revolutionary's teachings be full of, well, political thought?

Sumthin' to chew on fer a bit...

Most Entertained,
BGiC

The_Unknown_Banana

Billy Graham, I have answered your post here

Cross Examiner

Mr. CX, respected Moderator
True, true. I'll keep it light and peppy then, agreed? Maybe I'll just ask oodles of philoserfizin' questions--to justify this diversion...

Yeah, I know 'bout the controversy over 7:14. I'll let it alone for your sake. That still leaves us: Micah 5:2, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9:9, Zechariah 11:12, Isaiah 53:7, Isaiah 50:6, Psalm 22:16, Psalm 69:21, Psalm 22:18, Isaiah 53:9, Psalm 16 and Isaiah 9:6 regarding the Messiah to wrassle with though. I cling to the "best fit" notion. Where to start, where to start...take Micah 5:2, what or whom, if not about Messiah and Bethlehem, could reasonably explain the statement?

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times

Not Messianic? Give me a more plausible explanation for starters, we can do more later.

Sticking with our Micah 5:2 example; the Gospels of Mathew and Luke specifically mention Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus: "Matthew and Luke agree independently in placing the birth at Bethlehem without, in St. Luke's case, any sign of influence of Micheas' (Micah's) prophecy (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II). Could Matthew or Luke successfully retroject such a falseity?

For Jesus' existence? I won't spend too much time on this as I wouldn't spend much time defending the existence of Alexander the Great. Aside from mountain of circumstantial evidence (an interesting study) that could not have come into being without an historical Jesus, and our reliable biographies in the Gospels themselves, and the confirmation of Paul the apostle (another interesting read), we have the corroboration of historians Josephus, Tacitus and inferentially, Pliny. Bare in mind that Gathas of Zoroaster's most respected Parsi (Persian) biography was written in A.D. 1278, or about 2300 years after the events. Buddha's biography was written about 600 years after his death. Muhammed was born in 570 A.D. yet his sayings were not compiled until 767. Are these unreliable? Not necessarily. Oral tradition in Eastern Culture was reliable. Oral tradition there, then is not what it is here, now. So, the Gospels are heads and tails above their challengers...

CX...by the sound in your voice one would think you don't like Mr. C.S. Lewis! Ouch. That hurts bad. I digress though. To answer your question, respected moderator; I cannot answer your question. The FBI studies the real twenty dollar bill so they can recognize the fake, intuitively. I've read the Gospels and the Epistles and the NT and (most) of the OT and I can spot the bad interpretations, the ones that are ludicrously off. So, in the interest of my time (and my sanity, challenges aplenty, I am at infidels.org ya know) I'll ask for your favorite charactarization of Jesus, and we can see, together, if that shoe fits better than mine.

Most obvious alternative? Are you on the Jesus Seminar? Did you co-author that one book with Karen Armstrong? Or maybe you've seen the Life of Brian one too many times?

So you think the Gospels are legendary in nature? How so? The original recipients didn't think so (Irenaeus et al.). Yours is a more modern notion, please explain it as you understand it. You probably doubt the Resurrection, what is your basis? Do you suppose there are interpolations and contradictions? Have you looked at the manuscript evidence yet? What, in particular, do you think is ahistorical? Do you believe the authors intended their writing to be taken as trustworthy? Were the authors of bad character? Were the authors really someone other than they say they were? Did they have reason to lie? Did they report only the good stuff, or did they also report the harsh and embarrassing? Were they inconsistent? Were their testimonies countered by other witnesses? Are you familiar with the 8 tests of testimony reliability? How would you apply them to the Gospels? What do you think of Simon Greenleaf's (former skeptical founder of Harvard Law) opinion on the veracity of the Gospels? Is his analysis incorrect?

Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C. Plutarch and Arrian wrote his biographies ~400 years later. Modern historical scholarship considers them trustworthy...

There are a lot of questions and it's tough to get time to answer each thoroughly, CX, I understand. If you want to focus on one or two, please do so. I know these are not the most satisfying, in-depth responses but they are what time (and the scope of this forum) permits. The Unknown Banana has responded, I've read some of it and he's already on my good side for making me chuckle (not that he is not intellectually serious but that he seems to have a good sense of humor--the difference between a discussion and an argument). I'm not here to answer every question, just to give you reason to believe that there is reason to believe. I dislike blind faith as much, if not more, than the next skeptic.

Hide the Ho-Hos. I come in peace (mostly )
BGiC

Philosoft

And you've yet to establish a logical connection between accurate biblical prophecy and the factual existence of the J-C God. The prophecies, if accurate, are evidence that someone knew a lot about the future, but it doesn't logically require God to have been a part of the foretelling. If you open the door for supernaturalism, wherein causes and effects are not logically connected, then one explanation really is as good as another.

These two assertions are not analogous. The history of Alexander isn't rife with claims of his divinity.

As CX mentioned, there are more than three alternatives. In any case, you don't seem to have a problem dismissing the other Messiah wanna-bes who existed at the time. Why is it so unbelievable that Jesus might have lied? Because the stories written about him survived?

Believe what you want, I'm just telling you what I think about your ability to objectively assess evidence of the falsity of Christianity given that you have an immense emotional investment in the truth of same.

Hawkingfan

Theists who believe in the J/C god, please re-read the following and answer the questions afterward:
Do you believe this theists own personal mythology? Why do you not believe that this theist is correct when he has presented similar "evidence" (experience) for his beliefs as you for yours? Do you believe that he has experienced something other than the J/C god? He is sure that it is not the J/C god and is something else.
And finally, can you understand why atheists do not buy into "experience"as evidence since it has led to varying degrees of personal myths and is proof that the experience is nothing more than a confirmation bias?

So far, no theist has addressed these questions, and it still proves that this is ignored because it totally blows holes through theist beliefs. We have had responses, but not to the actual topic. If anything, a theist has admitted that it is only a "gut feeling" why other myths are wrong, but yet does not see how unreasonable that belief is.

Amaranth

Hah! That's the word I was hunting for...blasted thing kept evading me. I'm bringing a scope next time.

My dictionary calls a prophet someone who speaks for, or interprets the word of god. I don't think this is quite the definition you are looking for, so perhaps you should just spell it out.

Probably, from what I've read and seen. It is worth noting, however, that the BC&H board "experts" disagree with your implied notion that the historocity of Jesus and Alexander are comperable. Not a subject for this board, though...

In Sunday school, they often taught that the Jews had a serious problem with the state-imposed religion of Rome. Now, thinking about it, I've never seen this really verified outside of church. Hmmm...

Regardless, it's certainly not a position I would defend, but the few folks I had spoken to about it had put a lot of careful examination into it. So it serves it's purpose, as another possibility outside of your given three.

And you shall be much better served replying to CX in most cases - His experience, learning, and wisdom in this particular area far outstrips mine. I am, however, a far superiour dancer

Spenser

To go back to the OP. I would like to see a Christian debate a Muslim on the existence of their god.

Hawkingfan

Me too. Especially why through their "experience", the Christian version of god says "Jesus is Lord", while Jews and Muslims "experiences" say "no he isn't".

stretch

Yeah. Unfortunately, I have to work for a living ... I'm going to try to catch up on these threads tomorrow ....

stretch

That would probably be a pretty boring and short debate, since both Christians and Muslims believe in the same god.

A debate on some of the perceived characteristics of the one god in which they both believe might be more interesting.