worldling

Old Man says:
No, skeptics do not. You, however, in making such a dishonest assertion, have just proven yourself to be a liar.

Nevermind. Honesty, like self-awareness, has never been a Christian strong point.

Old Man

Fatuous nonsense. You only have to read a book like "The Unauthorized Version" by Robin Lane Fox, to see how everything written in the bible is automatically assumed to be unrealiable and untrustworty unless it can be verified from some external historical or archaeological source.

Hence that book dispenses with almost the whole of the Old Testament prior to the Babylonian captivity, merely on the basis that it can't be verified.

So with all due regard to your sentiment, I stand by my statement that:
That is exactly the basis upon which scepticism operates.

worldling

Christian self-deception at its most blatant. Since when have the authors of the OT and NT = "all men"? Clearly you prefer to prevaricate and misrepresent the opposition rather than admit that you are wrong. Just how "old" are you, Old Man? Fifteen?

Kosh

42 3/4 years old, chronologically speaking, that is.

Alludium Fozdex

Old Man spake thusly:
Remind us again why this is a bad thing.

Butters

that it can't be verified?, or that all the evidence points AWAY from the OT having any historical accuracy?

HaysooChreesto!

You're looking for Jesus? He used to get work down on the corner with the rest of the vatos until this gordo white guy picked him up and gave him a job laying block and shit. So he ain't doin' so bad now. I guess he got himself an' old lady that has her own place down in La Puente so he don' have to crash at Pablo's moms house no more with the rest of the mohado's no more.
I hear he's trying to get his ol' lady to marry him so he don' have to worry about gettin' his green card stamped and shit no more.
But if you see him firs', let him know that his ol' pocho homey Fido is lookin' for him an' shit.
Asta holmes.

Justin70

When a religion prides itself on being historically accurate and is set within a very definable period of time the question totally begs itself: Did it really happen?

Are you familiar with the scientific method, OM? To prove that something really happened by quoting ITSELF is incredibly falacious - you need some type of outside information to either collaborate or contradict the information that you've collected.

Perhaps you really should go back a few steps and read some introductory logic and the steps behind the scientific method. People here USE that and ask questions based on that. It works, trust me. Try it sometime. =)