[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2013, 11:44 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(17-02-2013 11:40 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(16-02-2013 09:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ...Whoever the authors of the gospels were, they had no direct or second hand connection with Jesus.

See, this is a perfect illustration of the problem. Skeptics claim certainty that the Gospels dont contain eyewitness testimony.
Yet, here you see a classic case of an atheist admitting they dont actually know who wrote what. Mark Fulton certainly doesnt know that the existing manuscripts are the first ever put down in writing.

Atheists/skeptics demand extra-biblical corroboration and dismiss the Gospel maunscripts as history, but I want to ask....
Were the New Testament accounts part of the bible when they were written?

And its grossly disingenuous to quibble about the dating of the manuscripts if you wouldnt believe their contents ANYWAY!

Suppose evidence came to light that all of the manuscripts were written <40AD.

How many non-believers here are suddenly going to change their view of the Gospel content? Consider

It's the actual event rejected as impossible which is the sticking point with most unbelievers. The Resurrection didn’t happen because God can’t do miracles, and the reason He can’t is because He doesn’t exist.

So please dont get all precious about the dating of the text.


[Image: jesus_facepalm.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-02-2013, 01:30 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(17-02-2013 11:44 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-02-2013 11:40 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  See, this is a perfect illustration of the problem. Skeptics claim certainty that the Gospels dont contain eyewitness testimony.
Yet, here you see a classic case of an atheist admitting they dont actually know who wrote what. Mark Fulton certainly doesnt know that the existing manuscripts are the first ever put down in writing.

Atheists/skeptics demand extra-biblical corroboration and dismiss the Gospel maunscripts as history, but I want to ask....
Were the New Testament accounts part of the bible when they were written?

And its grossly disingenuous to quibble about the dating of the manuscripts if you wouldnt believe their contents ANYWAY!

Suppose evidence came to light that all of the manuscripts were written <40AD.

How many non-believers here are suddenly going to change their view of the Gospel content? Consider

It's the actual event rejected as impossible which is the sticking point with most unbelievers. The Resurrection didn’t happen because God can’t do miracles, and the reason He can’t is because He doesn’t exist.

So please dont get all precious about the dating of the text.


[Image: jesus_facepalm.jpg]


Oh hello.

Nice to see me around here.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 02:44 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(17-02-2013 11:27 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(16-02-2013 02:42 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  After 55 pages Lion, you still refuse to understand the burden of proof....

The burden of proof is on whoever wants to do the proving.

Please continue.
You were saying....?
Gentleman, I've made a diagnosis.

I'm afraid we're dealing with quite a severe case of oligodendro-synaptopenia.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 03:16 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2013 03:21 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(17-02-2013 11:27 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The burden of proof is on whoever wants to do the proving.
Please continue.
You were saying....?

(18-02-2013 02:44 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Gentleman, I've made a diagnosis.

I'm afraid we're dealing with quite a severe case of oligodendro-synaptopenia.

Mark, allow me to respond at Puss' level :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-74ss5gou4

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 03:39 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(17-02-2013 11:27 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(16-02-2013 02:42 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  After 55 pages Lion, you still refuse to understand the burden of proof....



The burden of proof is on whoever wants to do the proving.



Please continue.

You were saying....?
Wrong.

Try again.

(17-02-2013 11:40 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(16-02-2013 09:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ...Whoever the authors of the gospels were, they had no direct or second hand connection with Jesus.

See, this is a perfect illustration of the problem. Skeptics claim certainty that the Gospels dont contain eyewitness testimony.
1) Yet, here you see a classic case of an atheist admitting they dont actually know who wrote what. Mark Fulton certainly doesnt know that the existing manuscripts are the first ever put down in writing.

2) Atheists/skeptics demand extra-biblical corroboration and dismiss the Gospel maunscripts as history, but I want to ask....
Were the New Testament accounts part of the bible when they were written?

3) And its grossly disingenuous to quibble about the dating of the manuscripts if you wouldnt believe their contents ANYWAY!

4) Suppose evidence came to light that all of the manuscripts were written <40AD.

How many non-believers here are suddenly going to change their view of the Gospel content? Consider

5) It's the actual event rejected as impossible which is the sticking point with most unbelievers. The Resurrection didn’t happen because God can’t do miracles, and the reason He can’t is because He doesn’t exist.

So please dont get all precious about the dating of the text.
1) Ok then, where is your evidence that there are older Bible texts waiting to be discovered?

2) No, but you have missed the point. The texts were extremely biased and do not back up their claims with any evidence. That is why they are dismissed, it is not just because they are in the Bible.

3) We'd believe the contents if there was any evidence to support them. The dating is important, because it gives an idea of how much the authors knew about what actually went on.

4) If evidence came to light that the gospels were written prior to 40 AD, we would say

"Huh, apparently they were written earlier than we thought. Now where's the evidence that the events actually happened?"


It would make it more likely that the writers saw/knew of Jesus - but we would still have to find out who they were in order to make that claim.

5) No, the resurrection didn't happen because there isn't any evidence in favour of it happening.

The issue with God not existing only becomes important when you try to use God as evidence for the Resurrection. Then we have a perfect right to demand proof of God before accepting that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes hedgehog648's post
18-02-2013, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2013 12:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(17-02-2013 11:27 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The burden of proof is on whoever wants to do the proving.

Exactly. But unless it done, anything the person making the assertion says, remains suspect and questionable, and after 50 + pages waiting, the failure looks like the person making the assertion cannot and will not be doing anything. We'll assume you can't and won't.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-02-2013, 10:12 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  1) Ok then, where is your evidence that there are older Bible texts waiting to be discovered?

Why do we need earlier manuscripts? I'm defending the content of the ones we already have.
I dont need earlier manuscript copies which say the same thing.


(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  2) No, but you have missed the point. The texts were extremely biased and do not back up their claims with any evidence. That is why they are dismissed, it is not just because they are in the Bible.

The claim is simply that they believed they saw Jesus alive. How is that ''extremely biased''? It's not even controversial.
To people who think God exists and who think God DOES do miracles from time to time, those claims are not extraordinary.

The controversial question is, why would they make the claim at all, when they could have avoided the hassle and lived happily ever after if they had just kept it to themselves. (Personal revelation. Private religion. None of your business unbelievers.)

Why would people risk death in order to share a possible hallucination if they werent 100% convinced that they needed to obey God and obey the evidence
of their own eyes and ears?



(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  3) We'd believe the contents if there was any evidence to support them. The dating is important, because it gives an idea of how much the authors knew about what actually went on.

Saying you would believe the evidence if there was evidence to support the evidence is circuitous. How many honest people need to report having seen a miracle, that you didnt see, before you say....OK, now I have enough evidence?

And the dating of texts from antiquity is not a necessary logical connection to whether or not the contents are conclusively factual. If one manuscript is written in 50 AD and another written in 70 AD the earlier is not necessarily more true than the later. In fact, it may be the exact opposite. The later manuscript author may have taken more time to verify and corroborate sources.

(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  4) If evidence came to light that the gospels were written prior to 40 AD, we would say

"Huh, apparently they were written earlier than we thought. Now where's the evidence that the events actually happened?"

THERE YA GO! Thumbsup
Thanks !
Thats an honest admission that the actual dating of the manuscripts is materially irrelevant to atheist skepticism.


(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  It would make it more likely that the writers saw/knew of Jesus - but we would still have to find out who they were in order to make that claim.

Am I to understand that if the Gospel authors attached a copy of their birth certificate and provided current residential address and social security number, so you could find out ''who they were'', then you would be MORE LIKELY to believe what they wrote?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 10:43 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(18-02-2013 10:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  1) Ok then, where is your evidence that there are older Bible texts waiting to be discovered?

Why do we need earlier manuscripts? I'm defending the content of the ones we already have.
I dont need earlier manuscript copies which say the same thing.


(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  2) No, but you have missed the point. The texts were extremely biased and do not back up their claims with any evidence. That is why they are dismissed, it is not just because they are in the Bible.

The claim is simply that they believed they saw Jesus alive. How is that ''extremely biased''? It's not even controversial.
To people who think God exists and who think God DOES do miracles from time to time, those claims are not extraordinary.

The controversial question is, why would they make the claim at all, when they could have avoided the hassle and lived happily ever after if they had just kept it to themselves. (Personal revelation. Private religion. None of your business unbelievers.)

Why would people risk death in order to share a possible hallucination if they werent 100% convinced that they needed to obey God and obey the evidence
of their own eyes and ears?



(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  3) We'd believe the contents if there was any evidence to support them. The dating is important, because it gives an idea of how much the authors knew about what actually went on.

Saying you would believe the evidence if there was evidence to support the evidence is circuitous. How many honest people need to report having seen a miracle, that you didnt see, before you say....OK, now I have enough evidence?

And the dating of texts from antiquity is not a necessary logical connection to whether or not the contents are conclusively factual. If one manuscript is written in 50 AD and another written in 70 AD the earlier is not necessarily more true than the later. In fact, it may be the exact opposite. The later manuscript author may have taken more time to verify and corroborate sources.

(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  4) If evidence came to light that the gospels were written prior to 40 AD, we would say

"Huh, apparently they were written earlier than we thought. Now where's the evidence that the events actually happened?"

THERE YA GO! Thumbsup
Thanks !
Thats an honest admission that the actual dating of the manuscripts is materially irrelevant to atheist skepticism.


(18-02-2013 03:39 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  It would make it more likely that the writers saw/knew of Jesus - but we would still have to find out who they were in order to make that claim.

Am I to understand that if the Gospel authors attached a copy of their birth certificate and provided current residential address and social security number, so you could find out ''who they were'', then you would be MORE LIKELY to believe what they wrote?

The claims are not extraordinary, in the sense that many people claimed their gods died and rose form the dead. Just like this set. The "extraordinary" part is that in the history of the planet, no one has ever risen from the dead, and if you study Dr. BB Scott, a physical ressurection is not what was meant. The claims are EXTRAORDINARY to NON-BELIEVERS. Puss, you're not trying to convince BEVIEVERS. The men who flew the planes into the towers also died for their beliefs. Dying for your beliefs obviously proves nothing. Saying one would believe the evidence if there was any is NOT circuitous. Puss, look up the definition of "circular", idiot. You don't even know the meanings of the words you use, or the lame arguments you try to make.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-02-2013, 10:56 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Skeptic wants extra-biblical, independent, personally signed, personally dated, witnessed by a Justice of the Peace, veridical, historical corroboration of Jesus,
free from opinion or bias written by;

- a multi-lingual, literate, articulate, person who has a good geographical knowledge of Asia Minor (but free from cultural bias/baggage of having lived there.)

- an atheist / non-believer,

- preferably an open-minded skeptic who never witnessed a miracle (because that would affect their impartiality.)

- with no political connections to Jerusalem or Rome (or Greece)

- who scrupulously applies the scientific method to all the data

- who doesn’t derive any income or benefit from publication of their work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 11:05 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2013 11:09 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Atheist - Where are all the other documents reporting Jesus Resurrection?

Lion IRC - Oh, you mean the ones written by people who werent there?

Atheist - No, I mean extra-biblical, non-Christian historians.

Lion IRC - You mean something written by people who hadnt heard of Jesus' and His disciples?

Atheist - No! I mean third parties who could corroborate the Gospels.

Lion IRC - How could they corroborate an event they didnt even know about yet? Premonition?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: