Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Even accepting what you said, we still have Paul, John and Mark as independent sources. 3 independent sources is extraordinarily good, few facts from ancient history are supported by 3 independent sources.

Nope, one source.

Try again.

 

[Paula Eilene]

The promised Biblical Moshiach comes and fulfills all the Messianic Prophesies then he dies, his heir takes his place, he is nothing like the christ of the New Testament.

 

[leroy]

Nope, one source.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't facepalm when you have continually failed in your claims. The Bible fails as a book of magic. It should not have the countless flaws that it has if it is the "word of God".

 

[leroy]

Don't facepalm when you have continually failed in your claims. The Bible fails as a book of magic. It should not have the countless flaws that it has if it is the "word of God".

Grate, I am not asserting that the New Testament is the word of God,
Just treat the documents in the same way you would treat any other ancient document



Why wouldn’t you count Paul, and Mark as independent sources?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Grate, I am not asserting that the New Testament is the word of God,
Just treat the documents in the same way you would treat any other ancient document



Why wouldn’t you count Paul, and Mark as independent sources?

No, not after they were chosen after the fact for consistency with each other. There was a reason that most of the "gospels" were not included in the Bible.

If you set up a panel, specifically the Council of Nicaea, and then follow that up with the first Council of Constantinople, and last finished with the work of St Jerome you end up with one source. By eliminating the sources that disagreed with today's Bible he made the other sources no longer independent. They could not be in the Bible if they did not agree with each other. By putting that demand upon them they disqualified them from being multiple independent sources. Their appearance in the Bible depends upon them agreeing with each other.

 

[leroy]

No, not after they were chosen after the fact for consistency with each other. There was a reason that most of the "gospels" were not included in the Bible.

If you set up a panel, specifically the Council of Nicaea, and then follow that up with the first Council of Constantinople, and last finished with the work of St Jerome you end up with one source. By eliminating the sources that disagreed with today's Bible he made the other sources no longer independent. They could not be in the Bible if they did not agree with each other. By putting that demand upon them they disqualified them from being multiple independent sources. Their appearance in the Bible depends upon them agreeing with each other.

I honestly don’t understand your point; these documents existed long before the Council of Nicaea,

Are you suggesting that someone from the Vatican modified the documents I the NT so that they all agree? Is this your claim ? (honestly I don’t get your objection)

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 5791048, member: 63191" There was a reason that most of the "gospels" were not included in the Bible.

[/QUOTE]
Because the gospels that were not accepted where written 200+ years after the crucifixion (+ many other reasons).

But the documents are there, and widely available for anyone to study…….. I am willing to apply the same principle for those documents, “let’s treat those documents the same way we would treat any other ancient document. “

Does any of these Gospels makes a relevant point? (Relevant to our discussion)

As far as I know none of these gospels denies the burial of Jesus anyway, so what is your point?

 

[Jollybear]

The "variation" was rather significant. But then that is the excuse given all to often. You see if the Bible was the "word of God" then it should not have such flaws in it. If it were just the work of flawed men, then we would expect such "variation".

The variation was not rather significant. It was consistent. It may not have been verbatum, but it dont have to be. Variation dont equel contradiction, it equels additional details.

For instence, my witness of the murder.

I saw the guy stab the guy and he fell down unconcious.

2, i saw the guy stab the other guy in the stomach and he fell down and was unconcious.

3, i saw the guy stab the other guy in the neck and he fell down sqirming.

All 3 are variations, but only the third is a contradiction(a.k.a. a flaw).

There was no contradiction in all 3 times his story on demascus road was told.

If you still persist in saying there was, point it out.

Also if the bible had no such variation, youd still not say its the word of God, youd simply say they plagurized or recopied from looking at the first source. Its like either way we cant win with you.

The bible is not the word of God in the sense that God magically controlled the authors hands. No, they had real experiences and wrote them down honestly using there own freedom of style.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I honestly don’t understand your point; these documents existed long before the Council of Nicaea,

Are you suggesting that someone from the Vatican modified the documents I the NT so that they all agree? Is this your claim ? (honestly I don’t get your objection)

t

Really? You can't reason logically?
Since the gospels and epistles that disagreed with the ones that they chose were destroyed there are no gospels that disagree with the existing ones. That makes all documents dependent upon each other. None of them are independent as a result.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The variation was not rather significant. It was consistent. It may not have been verbatum, but it dont have to be. Variation dont equel contradiction, it equels additional details.

For instence, my witness of the murder.

I saw the guy stab the guy and he fell down unconcious.

2, i saw the guy stab the other guy in the stomach and he fell down and was unconcious.

3, i saw the guy stab the other guy in the neck and he fell down sqirming.

All 3 are variations, but only the third is a contradiction(a.k.a. a flaw).

There was no contradiction in all 3 times his story on demascus road was told.

If you still persist in saying there was, point it out.

Also if the bible had no such variation, youd still not say its the word of God, youd simply say they plagurized or recopied from looking at the first source. Its like either way we cant win with you.

The bible is not the word of God in the sense that God magically controlled the authors hands. No, they had real experiences and wrote them down honestly using there own freedom of style.

The point is that you want to claim this is a magic book. You want to claim that it counts as extraordinary evidence. A magic book would have to meet a higher standard than you would in a court of law. For a magic book it is far too self contradictory.

 

[lukethethird]

The point is that you want to claim this is a magic book. You want to claim that it counts as extraordinary evidence. A magic book would have to meet a higher standard than you would in a court of law. For a magic book it is far too self contradictory.

"higher standard than you would in a court of law" Yes, that's why we swear on that book to tell the whole truth in a court of law, magic book-1 Subduction Zone-0

 

[Subduction Zone]

"higher standard than you would in a court of law" Yes, that's why we swear on that book to tell the whole truth in a court of law, magic book-1 Subduction Zone-0

Not any longer. The choice of what to swear on, if anything at all, is up to the person taking the oath.

Quite a few people.are.aware of the failures of the Bible.

 

[lukethethird]

Not any longer. The choice of what to swear on, if anything at all, is up to the person taking the oath.

Quite a few people.are.aware of the failures of the Bible.

Yes, like all the Christians that don't even read that book and yet are all hypnotized into believing that it's the good book, and you go claiming that that is not a magic book.

 

[Jollybear]

Ok you’re Arguing form ignorance. Because
Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I.

Theres not just clement, theres the other church fathers that are mentioned in that article i gave you. Plus clement does have a letter that majority of schollars accept as from him. Its 1rst epistle of clement to the church in Corinthians. Date around 96 AD. And in the letter the apostles are mentioned. There said to have appointed bishops over the church and it also mentions paul and peters myrters. First Epistle of Clement - Wikipedia

And how can the apostles be the sources for clements writings when the accession of Clement was something like thirty-six years after the death of the Apostles. As this would make it almost impossible for Clement to have been their contemporary.

Your trying to argue clement did not know the apostles? You got evidence of that? His own letter mentions them. They lived in the same time period.

And the link you sent me only confirms your confirmation bias. Because you continually seek out information that confirms your pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them, both positive and negative.

Thats a accusation and a false one at that. In fact i have read bart ermans book called misquoting Jesus and that book certainly does not confirm my views. And i have read articles that dont confirm my views and watched youtube debates on the subject. So, dont tell me im biased, why dont you point the finger at your own self because your the one that asked for evidence and then when its given, instead of refuting it, you accuse me of bias and act like thats a refutation. Well, sorry there pale , ITS NOT a refutation.

Why do so many people love wasting time on crap like

"Your ignorant"

"Your dishonest"

"Your stupid"

Instead of just getting to the issues and staying there. Its so dam annoying.

 

[Jollybear]

The point is that you want to claim this is a magic book. You want to claim that it counts as extraordinary evidence. A magic book would have to meet a higher standard than you would in a court of law. For a magic book it is far too self contradictory.

You just flat out ignored what i told you.

Show me the contradictions in pauls 3 repeats of his testimony?

You have not accounted for my point on variations vs contradictions. You have not accounted for how we can remember things even from childhood.

And you havent showed me any contradiction in pauls 3 repeats of his testimony.

Just because you repeat the bible is a magic book, bla bla does not get you off the hook from accounting for the issues i told you.

THIS IS A DEBATE, treat it as such.

Quit the naturalistic dogmatism. Continue the debate. Get to accounting.

 

[leroy]

t

Really? You can't reason logically?
Since the gospels and epistles that disagreed with the ones that they chose were destroyed there are no gospels that disagree with the existing ones. That makes all documents dependent upon each other. None of them are independent as a result.

1 that wouldn't change the fact that they are independent sources

2 can you name any Apocrifal gospel, or epistole that disagrees with the burial of Jesus. (Or with any of the 5 facts that I listed) ?

3 the church simply used good historical methodology to determine which documents are reliable and which ones are fraudulent or legends......if you disagree with the methods that they use you are always free to suggest which documents should be removed and which should be added.

4 the documents where not destroyed, they are widely available, easy to find and free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 that wouldn't change the fact that they are independent sources

Wrong, the screening process they went through made them dependent upon each other. If you start with a thousand independent sources and screen for preset answer so that you only have 20 sources those sources are all dependent upon that screening process and as a result are dependent, at least in the Bible's case, of each other.

2 can you name any Apocrifal gospel, or epistole that disagrees with the burial of Jesus. (Or with any of the 5 facts that I listed) ?

There is no need to. You already disqualified your sources as being "independent".

3 the church simply used good historical methodology to determine which documents are reliable and which ones are fraudulent or legends......if you disagree with the methods that they use you are always free to suggest which documents should be removed and which should be added.

4 the documents where not destroyed, they are widely available, easy to find and free.

No, they picked the favorite stories and avoided the ones with way out woo woo. They still kept some woo woo because it makes a good story. Your claim was in error.

You only have one source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just flat out ignored what i told you.

Show me the contradictions in pauls 3 repeats of his testimony?

You have not accounted for my point on variations vs contradictions. You have not accounted for how we can remember things even from childhood.

And you havent showed me any contradiction in pauls 3 repeats of his testimony.

Just because you repeat the bible is a magic book, bla bla does not get you off the hook from accounting for the issues i told you.

THIS IS A DEBATE, treat it as such.

Quit the naturalistic dogmatism. Continue the debate. Get to accounting.

Nope, you are ignoring the errors in your book and using rationalization to cover them up. Once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your books do not even count as ordinary evidence and I showed you how they fail terribly at being extraordinary.

Why would I need to account for your weak claims? The Bible is supposedly the word of God and yet there are from minor to large contradictions in it. This may be minor, but they still should not be in such a book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, like all the Christians that don't even read that book and yet are all hypnotized into believing that it's the good book, and you go claiming that that is not a magic book.

Countless people are deluded. Look at how many take the Vedas seriously? Or the Quran? Numbers of gullible people are not evidence for a belief.