Radorth

Well at least we agree that whole groups and belief systems should not be impugned because of the actions of phony followers. At least I think we do.

Do you guys ever wish Jesus had directly condoned physical violence and engaged in it himself, so you could make some valid comparison with Muhammed and Islam?

Too bad about that fig tree and the pigs though. We know how some atheist hearts bleed for them. Some atheists seem more concerned about them than the Christians being killed and oppressed in Africa by Muslims.

Rad

Celsus

Sorry Radorth, but despite your triumphant gestures, your mischaracterisations, and your attempts to paint me as a Jesus myther, you haven't come close to proving that Jesus said what he is reported to have said in the gospels. I take it you aren't willing to take a challenge of a debate on legendary development in the gospels?

Joel

Radorth

It's already been debated by wiser folks than we, but if you have a single example of an apostate saying "I saw them making it up" or "Paul never really believed Jesus came in the flesh" or any such proof, I'd like to see it. Those portions of the NT which were made up or inserted later, are pretty well known and documented by CHRISTIAN scholars already. (How ironic that skeptics use known scripture interpolations to argue points).

In any case, JM'er's (and semi-mythers) are implicitly slandering the early writers and fathers, so the burden of proof is entirely on them. We need no proof other than that which is substantiated as we walk "by faith," such as miraculous changes in behavior and circumstances, speaking in tongues, and physical miracles. I've seen the Shekinah glory wrap itself a round a person and heal them, so for me the whole Bible could be proved false and nothng would change. I would then probably decide that I just happened to confuse cause and effect, since I began reading it when my life changed and I began to see the reality and goodness of God.

The only question I enjoy debating is Lewis' trilemma. We can do that sometime, although I'm writing a patent right now and have no time except to kabitz.

Rad

lpetrich

Radorth:
We won the Jesus-myther argument long ago. It was discovered JM'er's couldn't locate a shred of evidence for their assertions and premises, except what one expects to hear at witch trials.

Said Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf.

Radorth gloats too fast; there is much in the Gospels that is mythology, pure and simple. The story that Jesus Christ was the son of a god and a virgin is much like the story that Romulus was the son of a god and a virgin, just to name one example.

We did learn in one thread that Luke was a woman named Paul who wrote Acts around 150 AD. Sorry you missed it though, as it was most entertaining.

Whoever is supposed to have said that.

LP: Radorth does not seem to have read his Bible very well,

Yeah, me, Paul and a billion other Christians apparently can't read.

Cry me a river, O Radorth. Do you always feel so sorry for yourself?

"Speculations" being the operative word. Well no, JM'er's aren't going to list all their cynical assumptions in one sentence, because JM'ers would appear what they are- mere cynics who are remarkably careless with facts and who slander hundreds of early Christians by default.

Cry me another river, O Radorth. I don't see how that accusation follows. And is it any worse than (say) belief in exclusive salvation -- that everybody who believes in some religion or sect other than one's own will be sentenced to eternal torment, no matter how good they have been.

Well at least we agree that whole groups and belief systems should not be impugned because of the actions of phony followers. At least I think we do.

So you now consider Communist leaders to have been fake Marxists?

Do you guys ever wish Jesus had directly condoned physical violence and engaged in it himself, so you could make some valid comparison with Muhammed and Islam?

The way you wish that Jesus Christ had been an exemplary family man with a wife and kids, that he had taught that one ought to hate and kill one's enemies, that selfishness and greed are good, etc., I'm sure.

Too bad about that fig tree and the pigs though. We know how some atheist hearts bleed for them.

Radorth, I didn't know that you enjoyed killing pigs and fig trees just for the heck of it.

Some atheists seem more concerned about them than the Christians being killed and oppressed in Africa by Muslims.

While Muslims are fair game, right?

lpetrich

Radorth:
It's already been debated by wiser folks than we,

Like Earl Doherty and Richard Price and Richard Carrier.

but if you have a single example of an apostate saying "I saw them making it up" or "Paul never really believed Jesus came in the flesh" or any such proof, I'd like to see it.

Except that they would have started their own early Xtian sect; there were some who had believed in a purely spiritual Christ.

Also, where are the early Muslim apostates who describe how Mohammed composed the Koran? If none can be found, then that means that Mohammed got it from Allah, right?

Those portions of the NT which were made up or inserted later, are pretty well known and documented by CHRISTIAN scholars already. (How ironic that skeptics use known scripture interpolations to argue points).

SO WHAT?

In any case, JM'er's (and semi-mythers) are implicitly slandering the early writers and fathers, so the burden of proof is entirely on them.

The way that Radorth implicitly slanders the founders of every religion and sect that he rejects.

We need no proof other than that which is substantiated as we walk "by faith," such as miraculous changes in behavior and circumstances, speaking in tongues, and physical miracles. (someone allegedly cured) ...

Except that such alleged miracles have not put doctors and hospitals out of business.

The only question I enjoy debating is Lewis' trilemma.

Which shows where Radorth is coming from. That trilemma ignores lots of other options.

hezekiah jones

Radorth:
"Those portions of the NT which were made up or inserted later, are pretty well known and documented by CHRISTIAN scholars already. (How ironic that skeptics use known scripture interpolations to argue points)."

lpetrich:
"SO WHAT?"

My dear Mr. Petrich, surely you're aware by now that one must be guided by the Holy Spirit in order to successfully incorporate Scripture into one's argument.

hezekiah jones

[off topic but amusing]

"Those Piltdown-style hoaxes which were made up or inserted later, are pretty well known and documented by EVOLUTIONIST scientists already (How ironic etc., etc.)."

[/off topic but amusing]

Radorth

Your favorite Martians, who agree on almost nothing, and far less than Bede, Nomad, Layman, et al.

One or two, which of course proves nothing. The fact is, not one apostate, who had every reason to deny an HJ, did so.

Why should I? They readily admit their gods never came in the flesh when it is so. I don't doubt the stories of Muhammed written on banana leaves. To claim he was not who his early disciples said he was would be disingenuous. I have no proof. It must be a real thorn that they didn't claim Muhammed worked any miracles except one (and that only if you torture the Koran text as you torture the NT).

It only takes one true miracle or one true after death experience to blow your theories and worldview to bits. You can't disprove them all, except by slandering ordinary people who were as surprised as they could be.

All of which are relatively petty. Lewis' argument stands up well. If you'd lke to name your favorite other option, I will find time to answer it today or tomorrow. Choose well.

Rad

scombrid

Glossalalia, pareidolia, and a smattering of self delusion is all that is necessary for this proof. If you believe hard enough, that burnt toast will start to look like an image of Jesus. "Miraculous" changes in behavior occur frequently without supposed intervention and even those that have supposed divine intervention show no signs of anything other than the persons own will changing. I know a guy that after 2 decades of drinking a bottle of whiskey per day quit when he became a 7th day Adventist. Is there evidence that God stopped his drinking? No. He did quit because he fervently believes that is what god wants him to do but there is no evidence that god had a hand in his actions. Just like no spirit helped me quit smokeless tobacco (I quit because it has a negative impact on my athletic performance and is a cancer risk. Ernest Angelly would have you believe that I quit because Jesus came and drove out those foul nicotene spirits.)

lpetrich

LP: Like Earl Doherty and Robert Price and Richard Carrier.

The earlier "Richard Price" was my misremembering of his name.

Radorth:
Your favorite Martians, who agree on almost nothing, and far less than Bede, Nomad, Layman, et al.

I don't know what he means by "my favorite Martians", since these gentlemen look and act as if they've resided on our planet for a long time.

And as to "agreeing on almost nothing", this makes me wonder if Radorth has really read what these gentlemen had written.

... The fact is, not one apostate, who had every reason to deny an HJ, did so.

I'm sure that Radorth knows about dozens of 1st-century Xtian apostates; I'd like to know more.

... I don't doubt the stories of Muhammed written on banana leaves. To claim he was not who his early disciples said he was would be disingenuous. I have no proof. It must be a real thorn that they didn't claim Muhammed worked any miracles except one (and that only if you torture the Koran text as you torture the NT).

I'm not sure what this means -- that Radorth is conceding that Mohammed had received the Koran from Allah by way of the angel Gabriel?

Except that such alleged miracles have not put doctors and hospitals out of business.

It only takes one true miracle or one true after death experience to blow your theories and worldview to bits. You can't disprove them all, except by slandering ordinary people who were as surprised as they could be.

However, if miracles could be worked regularly enough, the medical profession could be driven out of business by not having any more patients.

Also, I wonder what Radorth thinks about miracles of religions other than his. Does a Catholic-saint miracle make him want to convert to Catholicism? Does an Islamic tomato make him want to convert to Islam? Does a milk-drinking Ganesha statuette make him want to convert to Hinduism?

Which shows where Radorth is coming from. That trilemma ignores lots of other options.

All of which are relatively petty.

To Radorth, perhaps. But there are lots of possibilities.

Jesus Christ could have been just like whatever Radorth believes about Mohammed, Zoroaster, the Buddha, and other religious prophets that Radoth has chosen not to follow.

Jesus Christ could have been honestly mistaken.

Jesus Christ could have been a myth.

[/b]Lewis' argument stands up well. If you'd lke to name your favorite other option, I will find time to answer it today or tomorrow. Choose well.[/b]

Which is why I have chosen Jesus-mythicism.