The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[Audie]

As good as a BA in NT studies may be, it's hardly a basis for an unsupported assurance. If you want to make a case for your assertion you'll have to provide evidence, or at least scholarly support.



Assuming you stand behind the conclusion of the others you quote here, in what sense do you mean it's "the best affirmed"? "Best"can have a lot of different meanings.


.

Notice the qualifier "has been called".
Terrif!
Trump has been called a great man.

 

[Skwim]

Notice the qualifier "has been called".

What is it? You expect BilliardsBall's sources, and those of everyone else, to continually utter their thoughts? Kind of wacky don't you think. Their comes a time when X stops saying Y, at which time X's utterance of Y becomes a past event.


.

 

[Audie]

What is it? You expect BilliardsBall's sources, and those of everyone else, to continually utter their thoughts? Kind of wacky don't you think. Their comes a time when X stops saying Y, at which time X's utterance of Y becomes a past event.


.

uh, ok..thought you had me on ig anyway

 

[Skwim]

uh, ok..thought you had me on ig anyway

I do, but every once in awhile . . . . . . In any case, if you thought I had you on ignore why would you address me in your post?

.

 

[Audie]

I do, but every once in awhile . . . . . . In any case, if you thought I had you on ignore why would you address me in your post?

.

Is that hard to figure? It was for others, not for you.
I didnt expect a response from you, and now I
think I'd rather not get any.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your logic still falters at the foot of the question. Why would any civilization produce papers proclaiming that events didn't happen?

Contextualize your question properly:

"What would be a possible motivation for documents countering claims that were causing thousands of Jews to separate from their historic faith, preach against the Roman pantheon, refuse to fight for Israel or Rome, etc., etc., etc.?"

Or if you like, "Skeptics document via posts hundreds of times a day at ReligiousForums that the Bible events didn't happen. Where were skeptics with their documents at the time of the supposed events that are so contentious through the past two millennia?"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Contextualize your question properly:

"What would be a possible motivation for documents countering claims that were causing thousands of Jews to separate from their historic faith, preach against the Roman pantheon, refuse to fight for Israel or Rome, etc., etc., etc.?"

Because those events were obviously not contemporaneous to the events described. Why would they need to pre-emptively repudiate things that hadn't even actually been alleged or had a significant impact yet?

Or if you like, "Skeptics document via posts hundreds of times a day at ReligiousForums that the Bible events didn't happen. Where were skeptics with their documents at the time of the supposed events that are so contentious through the past two millennia?"

Once again, you're asking for documents saying that certain events didn't happen. You don't determine history by what was said to not have happened, you do it through accounts of what actually is claimed to have happened.

So where are the contemporary sources backing up the Bible's historical claims?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Joseph Smith got a lot of followers too.

As for "Paul", his obviously phony snake story pretty
much makes puts anything else he says suspect.

Of course, you will brush that off as another so called "Ad hom".

If, of course, you were on trial for your life and a
prosecution witness were a known perjurer, paid
to testify against you,you'dnot want defense to mention that, coz it would be like, an ad hom. Right?

Something like the "snake story" does not bother you?

I've never seen an atheist come up with a logical refutation of the fact that 11 other NT writers and teams of writers echo the delusional, phony writer Paul, besides apocryphal writers. Perhaps you'd like to accept that challenge.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then your claim is not self-evident. Finally, we've made it to the answer.

You are using the term self-evident as it applies to all persons (sun rises and sets) as opposed to what is self-evident to me: I am saved. You are against my Savior, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

By whom??

You can start here:

http://freethinkingministries.com/h...esurrection-a-debate-with-a-skeptical-friend/

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've never seen an atheist come up with a logical refutation of the fact that 11 other NT writers and teams of writers echo the delusional, phony writer Paul, besides apocryphal writers. Perhaps you'd like to accept that challenge.

You ignored the explanations. It is not a case of atheists not explaining it for you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As good as a BA in NT studies may be, it's hardly a basis for an unsupported assurance. If you want to make a case for your assertion you'll have to provide evidence, or at least scholarly support.



Assuming you stand behind the conclusion of the others you quote here, in what sense do you mean it's "the best affirmed"? "Best"can have a lot of different meanings.

.

.

Sure, I'll sit here and post letters from church fathers, because the atheists will read them. The church fathers were explicit that God's Spirit led them to meet and to find upon meeting they were in agreement across the ANE and Europe already, from afar, and the Jews didn't believe in the apocrypha, either.

"Best" has a "lot of meanings"? Is that where we are now, semantically, or can you offer a better objection?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are using the term self-evident as it applies to all persons (sun rises and sets) as opposed to what is self-evident to me: I am saved. You are against my Savior, etc.

If it's only self-evident to you, it's useless to everyone else. Like I've pointed out several times now.
So it's not really self-evident, by standard usage of the term.

I have to wonder why you've bothered saying it's self-evident at all, when you can't even demonstrate it is, and such a claim is useless to everyone else but yourself.

 

[Audie]

I've never seen an atheist come up with a logical refutation of the fact that 11 other NT writers and teams of writers echo the delusional, phony writer Paul, besides apocryphal writers. Perhaps you'd like to accept that challenge.

ah so, change the subject.

I did not suggest "Paul" was delusional.

Seems more like a cynical liar.

Like his "snake story". Anyone who'd believe that
would be a sucker for "dog ate my homework"
or, "Nigerian oil minister wants to transfer
27.6 million to your bank account".

 

[Audie]

If it's only self-evident to you, it's useless to everyone else. Like I've pointed out several times now.
So it's not really self-evident, by standard usage of the term.

I have to wonder why you've bothered saying it's self-evident at all, when you can't even demonstrate it is, and such a claim is useless to everyone else but yourself.

It was a mere oversight or mistypo for "self evident
to myself".

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can start here:

http://freethinkingministries.com/h...esurrection-a-debate-with-a-skeptical-friend/

So some guy on the internet named Tim Stratton? So what?
He also seems to think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument that points to a "Supernatural Cause and Creator of the Universe."
So, pardon me if I don't take his word for it.

 

[Skwim]

"Best" has a "lot of meanings"? Is that where we are now, semantically, or can you offer a better objection?

It's not an objection, just an appeal for clarification: What do you mean by "best" in your statement

"The resurrection from the dead has been called the best affirmed ancient event," ?
​

In what way is it best?

.​

 

[Polymath257]

Contextualize your question properly:

"What would be a possible motivation for documents countering claims that were causing thousands of Jews to separate from their historic faith, preach against the Roman pantheon, refuse to fight for Israel or Rome, etc., etc., etc.?"

Or if you like, "Skeptics document via posts hundreds of times a day at ReligiousForums that the Bible events didn't happen. Where were skeptics with their documents at the time of the supposed events that are so contentious through the past two millennia?"

In the first few centuries, the influence of Christianity was small and the Jews had MUCH bigger problems to deal with (like the destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora). Why waste energy writing a response to a minority position that really wasn't significant? Remember that writing was an expensive endeavor and copying even more so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because those events were obviously not contemporaneous to the events described. Why would they need to pre-emptively repudiate things that hadn't even actually been alleged or had a significant impact yet?


Once again, you're asking for documents saying that certain events didn't happen. You don't determine history by what was said to not have happened, you do it through accounts of what actually is claimed to have happened.

So where are the contemporary sources backing up the Bible's historical claims?

Let's start with what we have, we can focus on the NT. The NT has a dozen writers/teamed writers. The apocrypha includes contemporaneous documents verifying some of the content of the NT.

You merely reject the NT because of its supernatural elements.

 

[BilliardsBall]

ah so, change the subject.

I did not suggest "Paul" was delusional.

Seems more like a cynical liar.

Like his "snake story". Anyone who'd believe that
would be a sucker for "dog ate my homework"
or, "Nigerian oil minister wants to transfer
27.6 million to your bank account".

Using the hypothesis method/assumption of truth/hallmark of scientific inquiry:

Paul is a liar. He never did miracles or lead thousands to start new churches and follow him in Roman imprisonment and martyrdom:

Why did 11 other writers plus apocryphal writers agree with Paul?
Why did Peter, a follower of Jesus, say Paul's writings were scripture?
Who was the Jesus of Nazareth Paul spoke of, and why did Jesus rise from the dead?