Daggah

You make it really hard to take you seriously if you are actually showing support for Lee Strobel's poorly argued and dishonest tripe. I mean seriously..."honest seeker?" Would that be the same kind of "honest seeker" that Strobel claims to be, and yet obviously wasn't?

Gregg

Whatever. One doesn't exactly have to be "mighty" to debate you, you know. In your own mind, I guess you think you're scoring points, but I guarantee you that you haven't even slightly impressed anyone here.Again, whatever. I don't have any "strategy," I'm just replying to your post. As to why I'm here, I started out as a believer, although I was never an orthodox Christian. And I've seen all the arguments you've raised here many, many times before. None of them are even remotely persuasive.No, I wouldn't say the Messiah is a "preoccupation" of the OT. It's an important theme, but hardly the "central" theme.Don't tell me...Josh McDowell? I believe he's exactly the person Robert Price deconstructs.Uh huh. They're historical narratives because Luke says so. OK. Who am I to argue?Sorry, the references you reference are pretty meaningless. Pliny talks about Christians who worship Christ, not about Christ himself. Tacitus was just repeating what Christians said about Christ (he doesn't even get Pontius Pilate's title correct). Seutonius refers to Jews under the influence of "Chrestus," a very common name. The Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived & wrote into the 40's of the 1st century, couldn't have failed to take an interest in Jesus and the Christians, but he has nothing to say about them. The Jewish historian Justus, writing in the 80's, says absolutely nothing about Jesus or his ministry. Some of the references in the Talmud are attributed to rabbis from the late first century, but were not written down until the 3rd century. And the references themselves are cryptic or off the mark. Thallus and Phlegon's remarks about eclipses come to us through later Christian commentators, so are not reliable. Lucian was just repeating what everybody already knew about Christians and their beliefs (by that time the Gospels were in circulation). As to Jesus being of "local significance only..." uh huh. I assume you believe Jesus did all the things the Gospels say he did. Sorry, such activities would not have been of "local significance only." Palestine was not a backwater of the Empire, it was a vitally important region (a crossroads of several important trading routes, for example). Someone like the Jesus of the Gospels could not have failed to come to the Emperor's attention.It's more likely that Josephus said absolutely nothing about Jesus. If he had, he would have included him with the other rabble-rousers who he blamed for bringing down Rome's wrath on Israel. Instead, the references are either neutral or downright glowing. Not too likely Josephus wrote them.No, I'm saying that's what the early Christian believed. Christianity didn't start out with a historical figure who was crucified. It started out with a divine being, modeled on the Greek Logos, who was crucified and resurrected in a spiritual dimension.(Sigh) Who says myth and allegory is not meant to be taken seriously? Try reading Joseph Campbell. Also, check out www.jesuspuzzle.org.Oh, OK. They were Christians, so they must be models of virtue, of course. No, I'm sure they were quite sincere...but probably just a bit too eager to see prophecies of their divine savior just about everywhere in the Jewish scriptures.Early Christians saw the Gospels as allegories, as teaching stories. This doesn't mean they didn't see them as "legit." They just didn't regard them as histories. It wasn't until Christianity became a predominately Western Gentile faith that the idea that they were biographies became widespread. Again, check out www.jesuspuzzle.org.Did you read what I said? There is no independent attestation to Gospel events OUTSIDE OF CHRISTIAN WRITINGS. And the Gospels are not independent testimonies, as you would know if you were even slightly familiar with Biblical scholarship. Furthermore, Paul and the other epistle writers make very few references to events or people in the four Gospels...and remember that Paul was writing BEFORE the Gospels were written.You have a habit of making snide remarks, but I'll let that pass. First, I never heard that the concept of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" can apply only to the individual. Second, I said, "If enough people believe something is supposed to happen, AND WORK TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, then it just might happen". I said nothing about just "wishing real hard." Please don't make things up.Whatever.I've already read a detailed critique of The Case for Christ. It (The Case for Christ, not the critique) is biased, loaded, self-serving garbage. I'm sure The Case for Faith is more of the same.Apparently there hasn't been enough archaelogical confirmation for some folks, since they seem compelled to create forgeries. But anyway, I still don't understand how the Bible writers' getting some historical details right makes the more fanciful parts of scripture any more credible. Nobody's said they were writing pure. unadulterated, completely-made-up fiction (although some parts are undoubtedly more fictional than others). They WERE, however, interpreting their history through the lens of their faith...and undoubtedly they took plenty of liberties and poetic license in so doing. These weren't the days of dry, objective historical reporting.I'm not the one who invoked the IPU. Get your posters straight. And if you don't know what I mean by the "fanciful" parts of scripture, you desperately need a reality check.Well, we certainly haven't had any Bible-related archaelogical discoveries on par with the ones you mention above. Also, I don't understand how the "experts'" being wrong about certain things proves anything. I mean, so what? They were wrong, such and such town in mentioned in the Bible did exist. Yes? So? Finally, "Not that I'd ever compare the obviously mythological and fictitious accounts of Homer to the serious renderings of the Bible." So, myth and fiction are not "serious" to you--they are just fluffy entertainment. And burning bushes, magic contests, multiple plagues, the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn, the parting of the Red Sea, the blasting of the Ten Commandments onto the tablets, and so on and so on, are very serious, dry historical accounts, and are in no way "obviously mythical and fictitious."What do you mean he was "one of mine?" I was a believer of the Christian variety (although not a fundamentalist) until I began my earnest seeking of evidence that did not naturally corroborate my preconceived notions. Perhaps we could all learn a thing or two from "this postures" whatever that means. As to Strobel's credentials, they're pretty worthless when it comes to Biblical criticism, history, and archaeology. And Strobel is not objective. His "experts" all have confessional interests, he asks loaded questions, he stacks the deck, he spins like a top. Just like a lawyer.I think you mean "buttress" my faith. Not sure what you mean by "faith," though? Faith that fundamentalist Christianity is a load of hooey? Don't need "faith" for that. And no, I haven't bothered to read Strobel's works directly...I got enough of them through the critiques. And no, it wouldn't have made any difference if I HAD read them directly. I didn't need the critiques to recognize that his arguments are bogus. Finally, I'm not sure how the POPULARITY of an argument has any bearing on the QUALITY of the argument. You're committing a logical fallacy.(Siiiigggghhhhh....) Didn't you say something about not wanting to re-invent the wheel? I'm sure you'll find plenty on this subject in the IIDB library.(Sigh) Again, I'm not going to re-invent the wheel. And I never said Paul "equivocated" on the resurrection. I said he and the other epistle writers do not make it clear that this was a physical event.How does it prove that it's NOT true? Find Jesus' skeleton? What incidental facts?What are you talking about? I'm afraid you're not making any sense. Who said anything about a conspiracy?No, like contemporary historians writing about him. Again, you believe he did all the things the Gospels say he did. That sort of stuff would NOT have gone unnoticed.Would you please READ what I write, and quit making things up? I never said they didn't believe in a risen Lord. They just didn't believe the crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension took place on earth. And there was no "conspiracy."There is no conspiracy, and there is no "necessity for the atheist POV that Christ did not exist." Many atheists think that there may have been a human founding figure at the root of Christianity. I happen to disagree, I believe Christianity started with faith in a heavenly savior figure, modeled on the Greek Logos, and similar to other dying/rising savior gods of the period. The gospels were written as allegorical tales about this dying/rising savior, and later came to be seen as biographies. Again, there is no conspiracy here whatsoever...just a religious belief evolving over decades and centuries. (www.jesuspuzzle.org).I didn't "impel" you to brief the Odysseus myth. I brought it up to make a very specific point, not to compare it to the Bible. And if you honestly believe that the Hebrews and Christians didn't borrow from the myths and legends of the people around them, you have a dismal understanding of how religious beliefs develop.As I said, I used to be a believer. I was a believer--and a FIRM believer--from my pre-teens to my late 20's. So don't accuse me of precluding god from my study of the evidence. By the way, precluding all the OTHER possible gods from YOUR study of the evidence is not very objective either.Whatever. First believe, THEN you'll see the evidence. I thought you were big on common sense and "intuitiveness." Where's the intuitiveness in believing first THEN seeing the evidence? It makes much more sense the other way around.First you talk about objectivity. Now you talk about presupposition. Make up your mind.It's actually easily demonstrated that the Christian god, at least, does not exist, so I guess I'm an atheist in that regard. Otherwise, I suppose I'll always be an agnostic on some level.I was making a limited point regarding the skeptical approach to fact-finding. Again, you're applying my comment to something beyond what was intended.Huh? What do THEY have to do with it? They aren't geologists, biologists, naturalists, or zoologists.You shouldn't put so much stock in degrees and titles. They're important, but not as important as you seem to think. Intelligence and clarity of thought are as much, if not more, important. Darwin was a patient observer and a painstaking practitioner of the scientific method. He wasn't right about every single thing he wrote, but I've never seen anyone fault his methodology. And his theory remains the solid foundation of modern biology, and is accepted by hundreds of thousands of scientists of all disciplines with titles and degrees out the wazoo. Pretty impressive for a guy whose only degree was in theology, huh? Ironic.The consignment took place well before Darwin.Forget it, if you don't even know that abiogenesis is not evolution, there's no point in discussing that issue. Go and educate yourself first.You actually don't show much respect. What you show is a cocky arrogance and smart-aleckness that isn't justified by your limited knowledge and weak arguments. Nevertheless,

Respectfully,

Mr. Gregg

The_Unknown_Banana

Sorry Billy Graham, i will get back to you. I'm just in the middle of some heavy debates about evolution, as well as God's existance with a close (religious) friend of mine, so she demands my attention for the time being.

The_Unknown_Banana

lol - actually I chose to do an ancient egypt paper out of interest, though I'm currently doing a bachelor of science at Auckland Uni (North Island)

No, I probably wouldn't. Fact is, there are many testimonies to amazing (And "Godly") occurances happening back then, not necessarily by the christian god, and I have put this down to the lack of knowledge & science at the time. All I'm saying is that it is quite a claim to say you can predict the future, and if the prediction and proof of it happening is in the same book which is promoting the source of the prediction... then I would hope you can see the basis of my skeptical approach.

I'm actually South African :P Spent a few years sailing to NZ, and have now lived here for about 6 years. Though officially, I'm British. So take your pick! lol. Why I'm an atheist? Many reasons really. Theism just doesn't sit right with me - it requires I abandon all my interpretations of reality as I know it. It is ultimately promoted by humans, written about by humans, and interpretted by humans, who are prone to error and in my opinion will believe anything. Which is why I personally don't think it wise to believe anything based only on pure belief.

lol, I took that class - but never really excelled in it I'll be honest :P I really don't know why Israel's existance is so much more of a miracle than Egypt's. If you think it is a definite part of the proof of God's existance, then I would like to hear more about it. My opinion is that, had Egyptians not died out, they would have attributed it to their God, and I'd be arguing an evolved idea of Ra's existance right now. Basically, the natural selection of religions - whichever race prospers most would be a direct testimony to their God's effectiveness. Purely speculation of course.

lol. I'm sure you would! Still, I think my original point was that, if indeed a god had to be responsible for their continued existance against insurmountable odds, how do you know it was your God?


As per my "natural selection of religion" (TM), if it has any merit, then had their opposition survived instead, theists from that group would probably still be attributing it to their god. The surviving race's religion wins!

Also, if I say my god tells me I'll live till next week, and it happens, does that mean my god exists?

lol. Our ignorance of the events in question does not constitute the existance of a God. We don't know where the universe came from - I'm prepared to accept that, rather than believing an explanation on "faith". As for life on Earth, well, that's another issue, which I believe is adequately explained without the existance of God. Arguments against the likelihood of life coming into existance and arguments of science have something in common - they both believe it is possible without God, just too unlikely. (Which brings me back to my argument against God existing just because chances are slim)

Fair enough, and that it might.

lol. Well, your turtle god is pretty small for a God... I've actually eaten one, whilst in Cuba. Not very tasty either, I definitely wouldn't conclude that it tasted divine... Anyway, while I know this is just a silly hypothetical scenario, I would argue that the sun is more believable, as we cannot actually get to it, or touch it, yet we can certainly feel its presence.

Okay, evolution is one. Goes against the "everything suddenly appearing" interpretation of the bible anyway. (Of course this is in debate at the moment... I think the evidence clearly favours evolution though) Also, a previous interpretation of believing the earth was flat, meant beliefs about the science of the bible had to be changed. Also, the belief that heaven was just above the sky. Also, the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old. Off the top of my head anyway.

lol, well, I probably would, except I'm flat broke at the moment. Will have to see...



:P

I would have to look into this. I am under the impression that those were based on earlier works, and that we also have many other pictures, coins, testimonies etc about alex. We also have his father's tomb, so his story has quite a bit of evidence, no?

As far as I'm aware, the accepted dates are 70 to over 100 years after.

Well, like I said, it depends on your interpretation of divinely inspired. I've come across a couple of christians who believed it meant God actually took over the people, or told them exactly what to write. As it happens, they cannot agree on Jesus' last words, or who carried up the cross. Not major at all, if you take it from a "different witnesses to a car accident" view


That's what we'd have to debate isn't it?

Would God want to provide irrefutable evidence so that the people he loved would choose Him and His ways, and didn't end up burning in hell? People would still have the option of not believing, they just wouldn't have a lack of evidence.

:P I do intend to read it........ someday!

Well, you cannot be an expert on everything, you have to believe in actual experts to some degree.


Sorry about the hurried response, for some reason my free time has been lacking lately!

Later.

Gregg

bump.

Whatever happened to Billy Graham is Cool?

Gregg

EGGO

I think it has to do with his son.

DMB

BGic: I realise that this may take you some time, but I would like to reiterate my invitation to you to post your proofs of the resurrection of Jesus in the BC&H forum. I pick this particular element, because it seems to be the keystone of your beliefs.

Cross Examiner

The_Unknown_Banana, DMB, Gregg, EGGO et al.

Sorry for the wait. I have been busy. Banana, I apologize particularly to you--you've been a good sport and deserve a response. I'm sorry to say I don't see one on the horizon for some time. Though I must say that there seems to be a convergence of interest upon the Resurrection, here and elsewhere--as the crux of the matter that separates me from the skeptic or some other religion. DMB noted as much. Taking her advice, I will start a thread on this important subject. Let me know which of you wish to be notified by me via PM when I first post? It should be within a few days. Or, if you prefer, feel free to start one of your own, PM me and I'll join as soon as I am able. Either way, please make your wishes known. Should be interesting at least.

Regards,
BGic