Destroy a faith in one sentence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:06 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 03:01 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Now prove Alexander is better documented than Christ...

I haven't claimed that. How about you prove Hannibal Barca and Augustus Caesar are not as well documented as Christ?

Lets compare documentation then... get it.

You give up on trying to prove alexander existed? Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:27 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  ...
You give up on trying to prove alexander existed? Tongue

Why does that even matter?

No one ever tells me how I should live my life; who I shouldn't love; what I should think because Alexander the Great said so.

Dodgy

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
02-11-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:26 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The earliest (and historically inaccurate) gospel is textually dated to the late first century.

Wrong... 50 AD
http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-test...t-century/

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

AND the gnostic gospels also date to the mid first century

^^^Going by the earlier estimates this places Mark at 50 AD

Note that the range given is explicitly between 50-150 CE, even from a non peer reviewed source with an extremely evident bias.

So no, it doesn't say "50 AD" by any but the most superficially dishonest interpretation - yours.

(02-11-2014 03:26 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...agels.html

Some reasoned that since these gospels were heretical, they must have been written later than the gospels of the New Testament, which are dated c. 60-l l0. But recently Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University has suggested that the collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, although compiled c. 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, "possibly as early as the second half of the first century" (50-100)--as early as, or earlier, than Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

^^^ this article dates Mark as 60 AD and says the Gnostic gospels probobly predate this, as early as 50 AD

No, it does not say that.

Unless, again, one takes the extreme value from a range estimate and pretends that's an honest methodology - dates which are taken from a suggestion of a possibility by a single analyst.

Note also that the earliest date given - 50 CE - is offered as "as early as, or earlier, than Mark...", which compounds your evident dishonesty.

(02-11-2014 03:26 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
Quote:Instead you have compared textual dates - incorrect ones, but whatever - to manuscript dates.

The corresponding standard would be to recognise that the earliest extant manuscripts of the gospels date to the mid fourth century.

We have manuscripts form 50 ad up... we have thousands within the time from that alexander has 2 that we've seen so far Smile ... and I had to provide those FOR you lay people Smile

If fragments are sufficient evidence, would you care to comment on the existence of fragments of text regarding Alexander?

Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus and others explicitly cite earlier authors such as Cleitarchus, Ptolemy, and Aristobulus - the latter two contemporaries of Alexander - and, more importantly, actual fragments of their works do survive.

Either you don't understand honest historiography or you just don't give a fuck.

I'd bet on the latter, but I'm also leaning towards both.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:27 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  You give up on trying to prove alexander existed? Tongue

I haven't even started, nor will I as I have made no claim on this issue.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:42 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 03:27 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  You give up on trying to prove alexander existed? Tongue

I haven't even started, nor will I as I have made no claim on this issue.

Translated, this means you know Alexander's documentation cant touch the documentation for Christ... yet you believe in Alexander I take it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:44 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Translated, this means you know Alexander's documentation cant touch the documentation for Christ... yet you believe in Alexander I take it?

No, I don't "believe in" him. I accept that there is evidence that a man known as Alexander the Great existed. I am willing to change this if new evidence comes to light that contravenes this.

I certainly don't worship him as a god, or ascribe powers to him that have no evidence to back them up.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:44 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 03:42 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  I haven't even started, nor will I as I have made no claim on this issue.

Translated, this means you know Alexander's documentation cant touch the documentation for Christ... yet you believe in Alexander I take it?

It has been demonstrated that you are wrong to everyone who has read any of the evidence provided. I suggest you read it instead of ignoring it.

And why can't you tell with whom you have a disagreement? EC hasn't made any claims about Alexander.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-11-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If fragments are sufficient evidence, would you care to comment on the existence of fragments of text regarding Alexander?

Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus and others explicitly cite earlier authors such as Cleitarchus, Ptolemy, and Aristobulus - the latter two contemporaries of Alexander - and, more importantly, actual fragments of their works do survive.

Either you don't understand honest historiography or you just don't give a fuck.

I'd bet on the latter, but I'm also leaning towards both.

So you say... Arrian wrote more than 500 years AFTER Alexander... And only a few fragments exist. Show me one mentioning alexander specifically in the original manuscript fragments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 03:44 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Translated, this means you know Alexander's documentation cant touch the documentation for Christ... yet you believe in Alexander I take it?

It has been demonstrated that you are wrong to everyone who has read any of the evidence provided. I suggest you read it instead of ignoring it.

And why can't you tell with whom you have a disagreement? EC hasn't made any claims about Alexander.
blah blah... again not even a link this time... you have no scholarly quotes or we're suppose to believe youre an expert on ancient manuscripts?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Destroy a faith in one sentence
(02-11-2014 03:02 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 03:01 PM)Rik Wrote:  She is. You're not.

Says another one with no documentation to debunk anything or prove anything... youre just as credible as she is at this point.

I provided it, you won't read it. You are ignorant, lazy, and deluded.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: