winstonjen

Says he who has no credentials.

Mageth

Credentials don't mean didly.

I'm pretty sure being degreed in Ancient History would have some usefulness when researching ancient history.

Would you go to a doctor that didn't go to medical school? Or do you wish to be represented at trial by someone without a law degree?

Oh, and BTW, I wasn't making an argument from authority by listing Carrier's credentials. My intent was to illustrate my point that "Carrier's article is written as an historical analysis of Thallus, and is not simply an "atheistic viewpoint"". Carrier is a degreed professional Historian specializing in Ancient History, hence the articles were written as an historical analysis of Thallus, not simply as an "atheistic viewpoint." Get it?

And to your other question, don't know why they didn't record it. Maybe because Matthew, Mark and Luke did, so they didn't feel the need to. Matthew, Mark and Luke are the eyewitness accounts to Jesus' life and death, the others aren't so much.

Right, other historians didn't record it because it was already recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Forget the fact that those three books weren't written until decades after the supposed events they portray.

The true authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke are unknown, the names ascribed to them are believed not to have been the actual authors, and the authors are generally considered to not have been eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death, as the earliest (Mark) wasn't written until @70 AD, 40 years after Jesus' crucifixion (Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, and were written 1-3 decades later, so even if the author of Mark was an eyewitness, the authors of the other two were not likely to have been).[/b]

If 3 of the apostles, plus 2 accounts from historians...

Bzzt...not the apostles. We don't know who the blokes were.

And what accounts from two historians? You have yet to produce a firsthand account from Thallus, as I asked you to do. All we have is secondhand references from a couple of hundred years later. What other contemporary historian supposedly recorded the event?

...aren't good enough for you, what difference would it make if Josephus and Paul did? ( of course Paul wasn't at the crucifiction).

And neither, in all likelihood, were the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke, whoever they were. Neither was Thallus, as far as we know, if he even existed and was alive at the time.

It's notable that much if not all of Paul's writing predates Mark. And Paul or anyone else would hardly have to have been at the crucifixioin to notice or hear of the sun going black and zombies walking around. Unless you think the sun went out only immediately above the cross while the rest of Jerusalem and the region didn't notice it.

So far you have given three biblical references, two of which were based on the first. That's just one biblical reference, of unknown authorship and written 4 decades after the event. Then you have one questionable extrabiblical second-hand reference. Add to that no other references from historians known to be recording events of the period. Wow, I'm convinced.

-RRH-

Everyone could explain it. Nobody could explain it accurately but that would not stop people from speculating wildly and pretending that their speculation was hard fact.

If the sky really darkened for that long (during the day), I'd expect to see a whole bunch of people attribute it to their own gods, or theories about how the sun works, etc.

Magus55

Mageth, do you ever get sick of prentending you are always right? I'm not a theologist. I learn what i can, and try to explain it. Of course i can't explain God perfectly, if i could He wouldn't be God. Thats why we take alot on Faith. I find it amazing how, whenever it comes to atheists refuting Christians - we have to provide every single tiny little detail imaginable, or its all wrong - yet for Evolution or the big bang, they just say - ah, we don't know how the mechanism worked and what happened to all the transitional fossils and missing links, but its a fact none the less.

Thats exactly what atheists/evolutionists do. You expect Christians to be able to spit out every little detail in the universe about how God and his creation work, yet when it comes to questionable science like Evolution/Big Bang - you are allowed to say, "shrug, we don't know everything".

I really should have listened to myself and not bothered responding to you anymore, since its a complete waste of time. Go live out your life, and believe God doesn't exist, and we'll just wait to see what happens. Have a nice day!

Biff the unclean

…we have to provide every single tiny little detail imaginable, or its all wrong…

Every tiny little detail??!!! You can't even produce God. That's not a very tiny detail.

Demigawd

When you understand the difference between evidence based upon a single book supposedly inspired by the supposed creator of the universe, and the work of multiple humans actually experimenting and documenting observations of the universe, then the "questionable science" might actually have some value for you.

Until then, you're just demonstrating how ridiculous your adherence to an ancient dogma is. Not to mention your desperate wishful thinking.

spurly

ROTFL

Kevin

Bree

It's not "every little detail" Magus - all we do is point out a few discrepancies and ask how God, an all-seeing and all-knowing being - can and even would allow these descrepancies into His Holy Word.

Mageth

Mageth, do you ever get sick of prentending you are always right?

Since I don't "pretend I am always right", no. What I do get a bit tired of is your dodging honest, hard questions I ask you and going off on one of your little snits like this one.

I'm not a theologist. I learn what i can, and try to explain it. Of course i can't explain God perfectly, if i could He wouldn't be God.

That would be theologian. BTW, I have nothing against you, Magus, in spite what you might think. I stated on another thread that one of the reasons I challenge you is so that hopefully you'll learn a little bit, learn to do a little research, and perhaps even learn to be a better debator on this board. So if you're really interested in learning, perhaps you should examine and study my counter-arguments to your posts instead of getting frustrated and running home with your marbles, as you seem wont to do quite often lately.

Thats why we take alot on Faith.

Some things, such as the authorship of the gospels and the historical veracity of accounts such as Thallus', are factual questions and not necessary to "take on faith".

I find it amazing how, whenever it comes to atheists refuting Christians - we have to provide every single tiny little detail imaginable, or its all wrong -

Umm, what I've asked for here is extrabiblical, contemporary accounts of an amazing event such as the sun darkening. That's not exactly a "tiny little detail." And I've never claimed that failing to do so would prove anything "all wrong."

- yet for Evolution or the big bang, they just say - ah, we don't know how the mechanism worked and what happened to all the transitional fossils and missing links, but its a fact none the less.

I have no idea what either Evolution or the big bang (neither of which are considered facts, though Evolution (descent with modification) is about as close to a fact as you can get in science) have to do with the biblical account of the Crucifixion. Why bring it up? The only thing I can think of is that it's some kind of diversionary tactic. Can't answer the question; I know, refutation by "Your (totally unrelated) theory's got problems too!"

Thats exactly what atheists/evolutionists do. You expect Christians to be able to spit out every little detail in the universe about how God and his creation work,

I do? I wasn't aware of that. And what about Christain "evolutionists?" What do they do?

...yet when it comes to questionable science like Evolution/Big Bang - you are allowed to say, "shrug, we don't know everything".

Well, of course science shouldn't, and doesn't, claim to "know everything." All science is "questionable", in a sense, as in all scientific theories should be, and are, scientifically challenged. But Evolution (descent with modification from common ancestors) is backed by such a preponderous mound of evidence that it's really no longer considered "questionabe". Evolutionary theory, i.e. what mechanisms drive evolution, is pretty solid as well, but is still being modified to better fit the evidence as new evidence comes in and new research is performed.

As far as the Big Bang, you're right, we don't know everything. So what?

And you're perfectly welcome to say "I don't know" any time you wish. In fact, you did earlier, when you said "don't know why they didn't record it". But you didn't leave it at that; you responded with some hypotheses, which I challenged (that's the way these things are suppposed to work - someone makes a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is challenged/tested to see if it floats). If you'd left it at "I don't know", I would have accepted that.

I really should have listened to myself and not bothered responding to you anymore, since its a complete waste of time.

Well, I'm sorry you think that way, because I don't.

If you view our discourse as a waste of time, so be it. I would hope, however, that you would be willing to have your ideas challenged, to do a little research, and to seriously think about some of your claims. Who knows, you might learn something. If you don't like your ideas to be seriously challenged, then what are you doing posting such on an Infidel board???

Go live out your life, and believe God doesn't exist, and we'll just wait to see what happens. Have a nice day!

A thinly veiled threat of hell and damnation, followed by a "Have a nice day!" How Christian of you, Magus. How comical! Thanks for the laugh. (And, BTW, Pascal's Wager is useless around here.)

I picture God on judgment day:

"NEXT!...hmm...It says here you're an unbeliever...hmm...OK, eternal hell and damnation for you. Have a nice day!"

You claim frustration at me and ask "do you ever get sick of prentending you are always right?", yet time and time again you threaten me with hell? You sure seem to think you're right about that. Yet I'm willing to continue discourse with you.

Think, Magus, think. That's all I ask.

Radorth

Carrie, you might want to dig around yourself, as you are not going to get all the facts here so you can decide for yourself. Read the agnostic Durant or the Jewish Klausner if you want Christian history from a neutral viewpoint. I believe Durant remarks that one Roman historian tried to show that the darkness on that day was simply a natural event, giving it some independent historical credence. It was apparently a well-known puzzle which he was trying to explain.

Nice to see you around.

Rad