[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2013, 07:20 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2013 07:30 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(02-02-2013 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  Rejoining the debate... for a bit... Smile

(02-02-2013 01:30 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Simon Peter, Saul of Tarsus, Mary Magdalene, Nathanael of Cana, Thomas Didymus, James and John bar Zebedee......
And the proof that they are trust-worthy eye witnesses is... ?

Can people trust their own eye sight? Are these people not Abrahamic theists who think God is watching if they lie - thereby breaking a commandment?
They would regard it as a lie to say they had NOT seen someone they thought was Jesus.
Bucky Ball asserts the idea of the ''noble lie'' but this is a case of the noble truth and the motive of these people is paramount. Their motive was simply to tell the truth to a skeptical audience.


(02-02-2013 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  
Quote:Now, what do I have to prove? That these people actually existed? That they ever made any such claims about a person named Jesus?
It'd be a start.

The Gospel documents are AT LEAST as historically credible as anything else from the 1st Century.
Remember, they assert historical facts as to what real people thought they saw and how real people reacted to those claims.
Bart Ehrman correctly notes that historians simply decide the probability that a secular, terrestrial event probably was or probably wast a historical fact.

Did Jesus probably rise from the dead? For skeptics, that is a speculative matter of theology not secular history.

Did Jesus probably exist? That is a matter historians CAN assess on the basis of historical documents and archeology.

Did something historically factual cause the rapid rise of a new Jewish sect called Christianity? Yes, obviously.

And the claim that the historical events which gave rise to Christianity never happened and that the Gospels are pure fiction written before anyone ever heard of a (mythical) miracle worker named Jesus and His Crucifixion is a claim which GOES AGAINST the consensus of most historians.

Non-theist historians dont need to accept miracles. But they DO accept the historicity of events in which real people claimed they experienced a miracle.

Do you see what I saying here? The historical event is the human being actually being executed by the Romans. The historical event is the actual burial of the body. And the historical event is the people who later claimed they saw Jesus. These are SECULAR historical claims.

James Randi wouldnt quibble with the fact that honest people can and do CLAIM to have experiences which they sincerely attribute to the supernatural.
What the Resurrection debate centers on is the best explanation and likely motives for people thinking they saw a miracle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2013, 07:29 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(03-02-2013 07:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(02-02-2013 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  Rejoining the debate... for a bit... Smile

And the proof that they are trust-worthy eye witnesses is... ?

Can people trust their own eye sight? Are these people not Abrahamic theists who think God is watching if they lie - thereby breaking a commandment?
They would regard it as a lie to say they had NOT seen someone they thought was Jesus.
Bucky Ball asserts the idea of the ''noble lie'' but this is a case of the noble truth and the motive of these people is paramount. Their motive was simply to tell the truth to a skeptical audience.


(02-02-2013 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  It'd be a start.

The Gospel documents are A LEAST as historically credible as anything else from the 1st Century.
Remember, they assert historical facts as to what real people thought they saw and how real people reacted to those claims.
Bart Ehrman correctly notes that historians simply decide the probability that a secular, terrestrial event probably was or probably wast a historical fact.
Did Jesus probably rise from the dead? For skeptics, that is a speculative matter of theology not secular history.
Did Jesus probably exist? That is a matter historians CAN assess on the basis of historical documents and archeology.
Did something historically factual cause the rapid rise of a new Jewish sect called Christianity? Yes, obviously.

And the claim that the historical events which gave rise to Christianity never happened and that the Gospels are pure fiction written before anyone ever heard of a (mythical) miracle worker named Jesus and His Crucifixion is a claim which GOES AGAINST the consensus of most historians.
Non-theist historians dont need to accept miracles. But they DO accept the historicity of events in which real people claimed they experienced a miracle.

Do you see what I saying here? The historical event is the human being actually being executed by the Romans. The historical event is the actual burial of the body. And the historical event is the people who later claimed they saw Jesus. These are SECULAR historical claims.

James Randi wouldnt quibble with the fact that honest people can and do CLAIM to have experiences which they sincerely attribute to the supernatural.
What the Resurrection debate centers on is the best explanation and likely motives for people thinking they saw a miracle.


Why would you think they are just as reliable as other texts? They are propaganda.

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
03-02-2013, 07:34 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(02-02-2013 03:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I'm still waiting for a response from you, Lion_IRC. Consider

Sorry.
I'll go back and see if there was something I was obviously supposed to reply to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2013, 07:50 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(03-02-2013 07:34 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(02-02-2013 03:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I'm still waiting for a response from you, Lion_IRC. Consider

Sorry.
I'll go back and see if there was something I was obviously supposed to reply to.

Oh wait.
That was a Kalam-related post. Not a Resurrection debate post.
I will link it and post an answer in the other KCA thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2013, 08:19 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Debating Lion IRC is like a Monkey Humping a Cat: Lots of fur, fury, fangs and screaming - but nothing is produced by it.

So...Why do it?

[Image: Monkeys-Humping-Cats.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Julius's post
03-02-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(03-02-2013 07:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(02-02-2013 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  Rejoining the debate... for a bit... Smile

And the proof that they are trust-worthy eye witnesses is... ?


Can people trust their own eye sight? Are these people not Abrahamic theists who think God is watching if they lie - thereby breaking a commandment?
They would regard it as a lie to say they had NOT seen someone they thought was Jesus.
Bucky Ball asserts the idea of the ''noble lie'' but this is a case of the noble truth and the motive of these people is paramount. Their motive was simply to tell the truth to a skeptical audience.


(02-02-2013 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  It'd be a start.


The Gospel documents are AT LEAST as historically credible as anything else from the 1st Century.
Remember, they assert historical facts as to what real people thought they saw and how real people reacted to those claims.
Bart Ehrman correctly notes that historians simply decide the probability that a secular, terrestrial event probably was or probably wast a historical fact.

Did Jesus probably rise from the dead? For skeptics, that is a speculative matter of theology not secular history.

Did Jesus probably exist? That is a matter historians CAN assess on the basis of historical documents and archeology.

Did something historically factual cause the rapid rise of a new Jewish sect called Christianity? Yes, obviously.

And the claim that the historical events which gave rise to Christianity never happened and that the Gospels are pure fiction written before anyone ever heard of a (mythical) miracle worker named Jesus and His Crucifixion is a claim which GOES AGAINST the consensus of most historians.

Non-theist historians dont need to accept miracles. But they DO accept the historicity of events in which real people claimed they experienced a miracle.

Do you see what I saying here? The historical event is the human being actually being executed by the Romans. The historical event is the actual burial of the body. And the historical event is the people who later claimed they saw Jesus. These are SECULAR historical claims.

James Randi wouldnt quibble with the fact that honest people can and do CLAIM to have experiences which they sincerely attribute to the supernatural.
What the Resurrection debate centers on is the best explanation and likely motives for people thinking they saw a miracle.


Lion, even though this is a debate, please take your boxing gloves and your rose coloured glasses off and do some reading about real history. You appear to be reasonably intelligent and self-confident, so you should be able to take that advice without feeling patronised.

You just don't know how much you don't know.

You have almost no knowledge about who wrote the gospels, when or why. You've ignored my posts about Paul and Titus....and you really, really shouldn't....because a whole new world will open up for you if you start to understand the history.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
03-02-2013, 11:52 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2013 11:55 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(03-02-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(03-02-2013 07:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Can people trust their own eye sight? Are these people not Abrahamic theists who think God is watching if they lie - thereby breaking a commandment?
They would regard it as a lie to say they had NOT seen someone they thought was Jesus.
Bucky Ball asserts the idea of the ''noble lie'' but this is a case of the noble truth and the motive of these people is paramount. Their motive was simply to tell the truth to a skeptical audience.




The Gospel documents are AT LEAST as historically credible as anything else from the 1st Century.
Remember, they assert historical facts as to what real people thought they saw and how real people reacted to those claims.
Bart Ehrman correctly notes that historians simply decide the probability that a secular, terrestrial event probably was or probably wast a historical fact.

Did Jesus probably rise from the dead? For skeptics, that is a speculative matter of theology not secular history.

Did Jesus probably exist? That is a matter historians CAN assess on the basis of historical documents and archeology.

Did something historically factual cause the rapid rise of a new Jewish sect called Christianity? Yes, obviously.

And the claim that the historical events which gave rise to Christianity never happened and that the Gospels are pure fiction written before anyone ever heard of a (mythical) miracle worker named Jesus and His Crucifixion is a claim which GOES AGAINST the consensus of most historians.

Non-theist historians dont need to accept miracles. But they DO accept the historicity of events in which real people claimed they experienced a miracle.

Do you see what I saying here? The historical event is the human being actually being executed by the Romans. The historical event is the actual burial of the body. And the historical event is the people who later claimed they saw Jesus. These are SECULAR historical claims.

James Randi wouldnt quibble with the fact that honest people can and do CLAIM to have experiences which they sincerely attribute to the supernatural.
What the Resurrection debate centers on is the best explanation and likely motives for people thinking they saw a miracle.


Lion, even though this is a debate, please take your boxing gloves and your rose coloured glasses off and do some reading about real history. You appear to be reasonably intelligent and self-confident, so you should be able to take that advice without feeling patronised.

You just don't know how much you don't know.

You have almost no knowledge about who wrote the gospels, when or why. You've ignored my posts about Paul and Titus....and you really, really shouldn't....because a whole new world will open up for you if you start to understand the history.

Why do you assume I ignored your post. I was the one who challenged you to back up your claim that Rome produced the Gospels.

Your post about Titus was IN RESPONSE TO MY SPECIFIC QUESTION.

And what did I get in return....? A book from 2005.

Quote:Atwills Theory...There’s a fascinating, intriguing theory about the origins of the gospels that fits with my suspicion.

First you claimed the Gospels were "a mess of incoherent ideas'' THEN you came up with the thought bubble about Rome making them.
I asked was it Nero or Gaius Caligula or Tiberius? Why would they be trying to exterminate the very same early Christians who were spreading Romes brilliant espionage?

I had NEVER BEFORE heard this theory about the source(s) of the Gospels.
If you think it is compelling and worthy of critical historical examination please drop a URL into the thread here showing a scholarly explanation as to why the Roman Empire had such a hard time procuring enough paper to produce a few dozen copies of their own Gospels. Where are the rest hidden? Along with the Davinci Codes and the Shroud of Turin?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2013, 11:52 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(03-02-2013 07:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The Gospel documents are AT LEAST as historically credible as anything else from the 1st Century.
Remember, they assert historical facts as to what real people thought they saw and how real people reacted to those claims.
Bart Ehrman correctly notes that historians simply decide the probability that a secular, terrestrial event probably was or probably wast a historical fact.
OK but can you back up the assertion that they are as historically credible? What credence do you give to the Quran ? It has lots of magic stories too. Also claimed as eye-witness accounts.

Quote:Did Jesus probably exist? That is a matter historians CAN assess on the basis of historical documents and archeology.
Not necessarily - there may not be enough evidence one way or another. At the very least it would require extensive study to be sure.

Quote:Did something historically factual cause the rapid rise of a new Jewish sect called Christianity? Yes, obviously.
Well, but historically factual stuff causes everything - cause and effect. The cult of Isis didn't spring from a vacuum.

Quote:And the claim that the historical events which gave rise to Christianity never happened and that the Gospels are pure fiction written before anyone ever heard of a (mythical) miracle worker named Jesus and His Crucifixion is a claim which GOES AGAINST the consensus of most historians.
Hmmm. Who makes this claim? There's no denying that Christianity became a major world religion within a few centuries. If you assert that merely the fact that Christianity became popular implies that the claims of the gospels are true... seems a bit tenuous to me ?

Quote:Non-theist historians dont need to accept miracles. But they DO accept the historicity of events in which real people claimed they experienced a miracle.
You're talking generalities. Do you think the events of the Odyssey happened as described ? Sure I'll grant you they may be based in historical truth, but they could also be a pleasant fiction. Greeks of the period took them to be every bit as factual as you claim the gospels are.

Quote:Do you see what I saying here? The historical event is the human being actually being executed by the Romans. The historical event is the actual burial of the body. And the historical event is the people who later claimed they saw Jesus. These are SECULAR historical claims.
And the evidence that these secular claims happened is all from your biased source, again ? *No* external evidence.

Quote:James Randi wouldnt quibble with the fact that honest people can and do CLAIM to have experiences which they sincerely attribute to the supernatural.
What the Resurrection debate centers on is the best explanation and likely motives for people thinking they saw a miracle.
OK, this is fine. Now your claim is that the best explanation and likely motives are 1. that it actually did happen and 2. spreading the love of God ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 03:44 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 07:32 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(03-02-2013 11:52 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(03-02-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Lion, even though this is a debate, please take your boxing gloves and your rose coloured glasses off and do some reading about real history. You appear to be reasonably intelligent and self-confident, so you should be able to take that advice without feeling patronised.

You just don't know how much you don't know.

You have almost no knowledge about who wrote the gospels, when or why. You've ignored my posts about Paul and Titus....and you really, really shouldn't....because a whole new world will open up for you if you start to understand the history.

Why do you assume I ignored your post. I was the one who challenged you to back up your claim that Rome produced the Gospels.

Your post about Titus was IN RESPONSE TO MY SPECIFIC QUESTION.

And what did I get in return....? A book from 2005.

Quote:Atwills Theory...There’s a fascinating, intriguing theory about the origins of the gospels that fits with my suspicion.

First you claimed the Gospels were "a mess of incoherent ideas'' THEN you came up with the thought bubble about Rome making them.
I asked was it Nero or Gaius Caligula or Tiberius? Why would they be trying to exterminate the very same early Christians who were spreading Romes brilliant espionage?
Gosh, what an angry young muppet you are! And you're still wearing your boxing gloves and rose coloured glasses!

If you had actually read my post you would have realised it is about a very plausible explanation about how Rome created the gospels. You didn't comment at all about a very interesting topic.

I actually said that Christianity, (not the gospels,) is a mess of incoherent ideas. I will tell you why, if you're interested.

You don't have a good understanding of ancient Rome and how the government treated religious beliefs. The Nero/fire of Rome/ Christian persecution thing is probably just a tall story. If you disagree, say why. Please provide some evidence that Tiberius or Caligula persecuted Christians as I'm not aware they did. Please explain your understanding of the persecution of Christians, including dates, reasons and the protagonists.

There was some persecution of some Christians by the government sporadically in the later 2nd, 3rd and early 4th centuries, but the extent of it has been grossly exaggerated in Christian circles. It usually only happened when Christians refused to worship the gods of the state, which was seen as being unpatriotic, so they weren't persecuted for being Christians, but rather because they refused to obey the law.

Governments in ancient Rome were very much dependent on the ideals of the man at the top. Vespasian and Titus were propagandists. When Domitian (the other son) took over, everything changed, and all subsequent emperors had different agendas.



RE "I had NEVER BEFORE heard this theory about the source(s) of the Gospels." Not many people have. That's the great thing about forums....you get to learn something...wouldn't you agree? There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Where you let yourself down is by obviously dismissing new ideas because they contradict what you've always thought.


RE..."If
you think it is compelling and worthy of critical historical
examination please drop a URL into the thread here showing a scholarly
explanation as to why the Roman Empire had such a hard time procuring
enough paper to produce a few dozen copies of their own Gospels. Where
are the rest hidden? Along with the Davinci Codes and the Shroud of
Turin?"

Where do I start?

Firstly, there was no paper in first century Rome.

Perhaps you could explain where you get your "few dozen copies" idea from? There were scores of different gospels in the first few centuries of Christianity. Which "few dozen" of which gospels are you referring to? Please be specific.

Are you aware that 4th century Catholic Christians destroyed nearly all so called "heretical"gospels? (and burnt libraries and many universities?).

Are you aware that the 4 now canonical gospels were written, then rewritten multiple times over 250 odd years?

The "rest hidden" (your words) were destroyed. All except for... 1) Google Nag Hammadi library- maybe this is your "few dozen?", and 2) the writings that were quoted by the church fathers.

"Davinci Codes/shroud of Turin????????? Please explain whatever point you're trying to make.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 04:02 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 04:07 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(03-02-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(03-02-2013 07:34 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Sorry.
I'll go back and see if there was something I was obviously supposed to reply to.

Oh wait.
That was a Kalam-related post. Not a Resurrection debate post.
I will link it and post an answer in the other KCA thread.
Speaking of the resurrection ..... waiting for the evidence. Are we gonna get any ? Why is it the Jews and Romans who wanted him gone, including their own historians we know were in Jeruslaem at the time, never mention the fact that he had come back, or remained a threat ? Why is there no mention of all the other zombies in the zombie invasion in Matthew ? If "many other saints rose" why would all the other gospels not bother to mention such a momentous event ? The earthquake ? The (spontaneously) torn temple curtain ? The split rocks ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: