The end of Empire-USA third world country

[Andy]

People martyr themselves for things that are real to them but imaginary to the rest of us. Do the suicide bombers convince you that Allah rewards them as they believe? Don't you think that the Muslims REALLY believe what they say? Many of them have died at the hands of Christians because they wouldn't renounce THEIR religion--DOES THAT MAKE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TRUE?

Somehow, you are still not getting this, or I'm not saying it right. Yes they really believe what they think is true. But people like Peter Paul the rest would have to know it was a lie. Since they would have to have made up that Jesus did all these things, and then that he died, and then they he raised himself from the dead.

Do people martyr themselves for what they themselves know are lies? No. No one does.

If Peter, Paul, Luke, et al, really existed, we don't have any idea what they saw or what they believed. The writings attributed to them, and the stories of their lives are complete fabrications as far as I can tell, there does not seem to be any proof that all the stuff written about them or by them is true. Maybe Peter got crucified upside down, the Romans did that to a lot of people, there's nothing to say that it was because of Peter's real or imagined relationship with the real or imagined person "Jesus".

So you suggest that the early church, prior to constantine, allowed themselves to be martyred, knowing full well they never met apostles when they said they did, and never met Jesus, when the said they did, and never saw miracles when they said they did? So they all made up that all the letters from Paul, really were not, but they said they were, knowing they were not, and put the lives on the line for what he (didn't) teach?

So the five authors of the NT were all fabricated, and all the people who spoke out for them were fabricated, and the fabricated hatred for the fabricated man by the possibly fabricated Jewish religious authority I suppose, plus the fabricated early believers who fabricated they were martyred. I suppose the Roman guards were also fabricated as well, and had to fabricate the fabrication that the apostles came and stole the body too.

At this point, with all the evidence for Jesus Christ not being enough, we'd have to assume that Shakespeare did not exist either. There is far less evidence for him than Jesus. For that matter, most of the ancient writings have far less evidence for their authors.

You might convince someone that doesn't want to believe in Christianity with that, but I'm a bit to rational for this crazy idea.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Somehow, you are still not getting this, or I'm not saying it right. Yes they really believe what they think is true. But people like Peter Paul the rest would have to know it was a lie. Since they would have to have made up that Jesus did all these things, and then that he died, and then they he raised himself from the dead.

I understand the point your are trying to make. My point is that there is no evidence that Peter, Paul, or any of the others ever existed, or that they were martyred. People wrote those books long after the people who were supposedly there had died, they attributed the books to Peter and Paul and Luke because it makes the story more believable--not because it's the truth.

So you suggest that the early church, prior to constantine, allowed themselves to be martyred, knowing full well they never met apostles when they said they did, and never met Jesus, when the said they did, and never saw miracles when they said they did? So they all made up that all the letters from Paul, really were not, but they said they were, knowing they were not, and put the lives on the line for what he (didn't) teach?

All the things you just listed appear to be pure fabrication, we have NO provable eyewitness accounts of any of the Jesus myth, none. What we have are a lot of people who chose to believe a fantastic story because it gave them hope and were willing--apparently--to die for their belief. You believe it, you have no proof, does it give you hope, are you willing to die for your beliefs?

So the five authors of the NT were all fabricated, and all the people who spoke out for them were fabricated, and the fabricated hatred for the fabricated man by the possibly fabricated Jewish religious authority I suppose, plus the fabricated early believers who fabricated they were martyred. I suppose the Roman guards were also fabricated as well, and had to fabricate the fabrication that the apostles came and stole the body too.

At this point, with all the evidence for Jesus Christ not being enough, we'd have to assume that Shakespeare did not exist either. There is far less evidence for him than Jesus. For that matter, most of the ancient writings have far less evidence for their authors.

You might convince someone that doesn't want to believe in Christianity with that, but I'm a bit to rational for this crazy idea.

I'm not saying that somebody didn't start the religion, it's here, so obviously somebody first told the tale, if you would read some of the history of your own religion you will find that the stories in the Bible are much older than the Bible, lots of people have told those stories--with the names changed--down through history. Jesus was not unique, nor was virgin birth, or being crucified, or rising from the dead on the third day, all of that stuff can be found in many earlier sources than the Bible. Read THE BIBLE WITH SOURCES REVEALED by Richard Elliott Friedman. For Heaven's sake read about the Sinai Bible, it's the oldest complete Old and New Testament in the world, it's a whole bunch different from the Bible you grew up believing in.

All of your histrionics aside, Andy, the really, truly ugly fact of the matter is that there is not a single shred of PROOF of any religion, yours, mine, the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, it's all just belief without proof. If you don't think that's a common thing in human history, then just take a look at the Mormon religion--nothing whatever to support it, but a fanciful tale of golden plates and angels--but it's one of the fastest growing religions on Earth.

Just like everybody else on this tiny ball of dirt, you are going to have to decide what you're going to believe--not based on proof, because there isn't any--but based on your relationship with the Creative Force or Allah or God or whatever name you feel comfortable with in the dark of the night.

 

[Dr.Who]

I understand the point your are trying to make. My point is that there is no evidence that Peter, Paul, or any of the others ever existed, or that they were martyred. People wrote those books long after the people who were supposedly there had died, they attributed the books to Peter and Paul and Luke because it makes the story more believable--not because it's the truth.

Anyone who has ever read some of the conspiracy theories out there about our government knows that people take quotes out of context and misunderstand basic scientific principles and mix facts with falshoods to draw conclusions that seem right but are not. The World Trade Center was blown up because airplane fuel cannot melt steel. Germ theory is unproven so vaccines are worthless. Flouride is military waste disposed of in toothpaste. The government invented aids to wipe out the blacks. And the NT writers did not exist.

The NT was written in the first century. We know this because the early church fathers were writing at the end of the first century and they were quoting scripture thousands of times in their writings. Will you now say that their writings are forged too? Well then we can point to the later church fathers who were quoting the early church fathers, etc. in a chain of descent from one pope to another.

We do not have any complete original manuscripts of the NT. The earliest complete manuscript is the sinaiticus bible. These are true but taken alone they can be twisted to make a case that is baseless. We have portions that are ealier. The writings of the early church fathers quote scripture so much that we could reconstruct a complete NT except for a few passages just from their writings alone. We do have some scraps of manuscripts that might be bits of the originals or at least bits of the first copies. We have a number of more complete parts of the early church writings that are originals and can be dated to the first century. When we have originals it shows us that these things were written down long before they eyewittnesses were dead. When we have copies it shows that these works were copied and disseminated long before the supposed forgery took place.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Anyone who has ever read some of the conspiracy theories out there about our government knows that people take quotes out of context and misunderstand basic scientific principles and mix facts with falshoods to draw conclusions that seem right but are not. The World Trade Center was blown up because airplane fuel cannot melt steel. Germ theory is unproven so vaccines are worthless. Flouride is military waste disposed of in toothpaste. The government invented aids to wipe out the blacks. And the NT writers did not exist.

The NT writers DID exist, there's just no evidence that the people currently credited with the writing actually had ANYTHING to do with it. The Government invented AIDS to wipe out gay people (you need to keep up on your conspiracy theories better).

The NT was written in the first century. We know this because the early church fathers were writing at the end of the first century and they were quoting scripture thousands of times in their writings.

One can quote a nonexistent document as many times as one wishes, the beauty of it is that since it doesn't exist no one can prove you wrong. A lot of people wrote a lot of stuff--so what? There's no proof that any of it was written by anybody who saw Jesus or the miracles. I know you want to believe, I don't even care if you believe, I would just appreciate it if you kept your beliefs in your own life and didn't try to force them on others.

Will you now say that their writings are forged too? Well then we can point to the later church fathers who were quoting the early church fathers, etc. in a chain of descent from one pope to another.

We do not have any complete original manuscripts of the NT. The earliest complete manuscript is the sinaiticus bible. These are true but taken alone they can be twisted to make a case that is baseless. We have portions that are ealier. The writings of the early church fathers quote scripture so much that we could reconstruct a complete NT except for a few passages just from their writings alone. We do have some scraps of manuscripts that might be bits of the originals or at least bits of the first copies. We have a number of more complete parts of the early church writings that are originals and can be dated to the first century. When we have originals it shows us that these things were written down long before they eyewittnesses were dead. When we have copies it shows that these works were copied and disseminated long before the supposed forgery took place.

Not that I have ever seen, not that I have ever heard from an authoratative source, as yet nothing has been proven to be about Jesus. Even the "originals" are nothing more than retelling of older tales unless they contain something new or can be proven to be about Jesus or His miracles. So far nothing has been shown to do this, sorry, the proof simply isn't there.

The weird thing for me is that you want the proof so badly, have you no faith without it? Isn't Christianity about having faith? Nobody can prove the existence of God or Jesus, all we can do is have faith and live our lives by our own lights and the faith that we have.

 

[Dr.Who]

The NT writers DID exist, there's just no evidence that the people currently credited with the writing actually had ANYTHING to do with it.

Other than the texts in many of the letters saying that it was written by so and so. Other than the people who were leaders in the churces at around the same time and aftward writing their own letters saying that they talked to the writers and other people who were around as eyewitnesses.

There is good evidence that the people credited as writing it actually did.
What is lacking is credible evidence that they are forgeries.

The Government invented AIDS to wipe out gay people (you need to keep up on your conspiracy theories better).

Guess I do.

One can quote a nonexistent document as many times as one wishes, the beauty of it is that since it doesn't exist no one can prove you wrong. A lot of people wrote a lot of stuff--so what? There's no proof that any of it was written by anybody who saw Jesus or the miracles. I know you want to believe, I don't even care if you believe, I would just appreciate it if you kept your beliefs in your own life and didn't try to force them on others.

We have more documents than you have been lead to believe. Some of them are only partial but half of Polycarps letter would be enough to prove that it was written.

Not that I have ever seen, not that I have ever heard from an authoratative source, as yet nothing has been proven to be about Jesus. Even the "originals" are nothing more than retelling of older tales unless they contain something new or can be proven to be about Jesus or His miracles. So far nothing has been shown to do this, sorry, the proof simply isn't there.

When one doesn't want to believe something one can find any excuse. If you applied the same level of skepticism to other things in life you would believe nothing.

The weird thing for me is that you want the proof so badly, have you no faith without it? Isn't Christianity about having faith? Nobody can prove the existence of God or Jesus, all we can do is have faith and live our lives by our own lights and the faith that we have.

It is not weird at all to believe a faith that is founded on actual facts. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then the salvation He offers is useless.

But I do not want such proof as badly as you think. I am just willing to counter the ridiculous claims you have made that there is no proof that the letters were written as claimed. I still need faith to believe what is in the letters. After all, walking on water is not an everyday occurence.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Other than the texts in many of the letters saying that it was written by so and so. Other than the people who were leaders in the churces at around the same time and aftward writing their own letters saying that they talked to the writers and other people who were around as eyewitnesses.

There is good evidence that the people credited as writing it actually did.
What is lacking is credible evidence that they are forgeries.
Guess I do.

We have more documents than you have been lead to believe. Some of them are only partial but half of Polycarps letter would be enough to prove that it was written.
When one doesn't want to believe something one can find any excuse. If you applied the same level of skepticism to other things in life you would believe nothing.
It is not weird at all to believe a faith that is founded on actual facts. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then the salvation He offers is useless.

But I do not want such proof as badly as you think. I am just willing to counter the ridiculous claims you have made that there is no proof that the letters were written as claimed. I still need faith to believe what is in the letters. After all, walking on water is not an everyday occurence.

Okay, all my claims are ridiculous. Trot out your proof, let's see a compendium of these documents that you talk about, put together in cogent form demonstrating that your claims are true. If the stuff you say is true, then there would be a copy of that proof in every Christian home in the world. It would be in hotel rooms beside Gideon's Bible and in the waiting rooms of doctor's offices all over Christendom. But there isn't, what we do have is a lot of documents that the most learned Christian scholars argue over incessantly. My statement to Andy still stands: There is no proof of any religion.

Why aren't you a Mormon? They have far better and newer documentation of their belief than any other Christian sect.

It is not weird at all to believe a faith that is founded on actual facts.

That isn't what I said, please reread my post. What's weird is that you seem to NEED the proof so badly, maybe that suggests that your faith is shaky without it. Or, more likely, it is that you want to have something to use to convince other people and to justify the actions of your religious brethren.

If it could be definitively PROVEN that Jesus never walked on water, would that make you give up your belief in Christianity? If you had to go through the rest of your life knowing that you could never prove that your religion had any basis in historical fact, would that change your beliefs?

I realize that since I appear to disagree with you that in your eyes I may be seen as a minion of Satan or some such, but the fact is that I have strongly held religious beliefs. I can't prove that the things I believe are true, I don't even try, THERE ARE NO PROOFS. I simply live by my lights on the basis of my perceived personal relationship with my Creator. My religion does not require anybody else to do anything, no one is required to follow my rules. And here is where I part company with the practice of Christianity today: as a group, Christians are big on requiring others to follow their religious dogma by passing laws. I would like to see this stop, I would like for Christians to own up to the truth that they have no more proof of their religion than the Muslims, Mormons, or anyone else.

 

[Dr.Who]

Okay, all my claims are ridiculous. Trot out your proof, let's see a compendium of these documents that you talk about, put together in cogent form demonstrating that your claims are true.

Yes they are. They fall into the category of conspiracy theories. With the exception of one or two scholars all the rest absolutely believe that Jesus was a real person and that the NT letters were written in the new testament times. Many of these scholars are not even Christians. They look at the actual documents or the best copies available, the look at the documents of those who were around and wrote about the first ones, and they look at archological evidence too. There is much that is not even touced upon by any of the evidence but all the evidence that we do have supports it and never contrdicts it.

If the stuff you say is true, then there would be a copy of that proof in every Christian home in the world. It would be in hotel rooms beside Gideon's Bible and in the waiting rooms of doctor's offices all over Christendom. But there isn't, what we do have is a lot of documents that the most learned Christian scholars argue over incessantly. My statement to Andy still stands: There is no proof of any religion.

There is no need for that. I don't have any data from the scientists who determined the speed of light in my house either. These are just established facts that no one with any weight really doubts

Why aren't you a Mormon? They have far better and newer documentation of their belief than any other Christian sect.

They do have more complete and recent documents. It is the documents that most strongly argues against their belief.

That isn't what I said, please reread my post. What's weird is that you seem to NEED the proof so badly, maybe that suggests that your faith is shaky without it. Or, more likely, it is that you want to have something to use to convince other people and to justify the actions of your religious brethren.

And I have already answered that the proof is not that important. It is as important as for other things in my life. But the main reason I am even aguing it here is because you have been silly enough to claim that highly credible facts are false.

Is my faith shakey without proof? To a degree. So it is a good thing that the proof is there of some of the fundamentals - like the existence of Jesus. Is the proof there for all of it - no, some of what I believe is on faith.

If it could be definitively PROVEN that Jesus never walked on water, would that make you give up your belief in Christianity? If you had to go through the rest of your life knowing that you could never prove that your religion had any basis in historical fact, would that change your beliefs?

That would disprove a few paragraphs of the bible which in turn might disprove the innerancy of the original texts. It would be a problem.

If I had no proof or evidence of any of my religion or that any of it had any historical fact then I would change my believe. You see, my religion is not just what I want. It is not just a preference. It is the truth and truth is grounded in facts.

I realize that since I appear to disagree with you that in your eyes I may be seen as a minion of Satan or some such, but the fact is that I have strongly held religious beliefs. I can't prove that the things I believe are true, I don't even try, THERE ARE NO PROOFS. I simply live by my lights on the basis of my perceived personal relationship with my Creator. My religion does not require anybody else to do anything, no one is required to follow my rules. And here is where I part company with the practice of Christianity today: as a group, Christians are big on requiring others to follow their religious dogma by passing laws. I would like to see this stop, I would like for Christians to own up to the truth that they have no more proof of their religion than the Muslims, Mormons, or anyone else.[/QUOTE]

I don't really go sleepless because of what you think and I have no ill will toward you nor do I think you are a satanists. I just think you are mistaken and when you say what you think publicly and try to lead others astray I will say where I disagree.

My perception of the Creator are based on His revelation to me as well as the confirmation of the bible which is backed up by the evidences listed earlier.

I like legalism no more than you in Christianity. That is the fault of human nature.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes they are. They fall into the category of conspiracy theories. With the exception of one or two scholars all the rest absolutely believe that Jesus was a real person and that the NT letters were written in the new testament times. Many of these scholars are not even Christians. They look at the actual documents or the best copies available, the look at the documents of those who were around and wrote about the first ones, and they look at archological evidence too. There is much that is not even touced upon by any of the evidence but all the evidence that we do have supports it and never contrdicts it.

You whole long post aside, I have seen none of the proof that you claim, and I've looked. What I see is that scholars admit that there is no definite proof, it's all hearsay. If you have documents, books, internet sites, or whatever that are valid professional sources, then please post them. I've been studying the history of Christianity for several decades and I have not yet been able to find what YOU say exists everywhere.

Your schtick about the speed of light is false too, there are many credible sources that define the speed of light and you can go to any major University and duplicate the experiments yourself if you so desire.

 

[Andy]

All the things you just listed appear to be pure fabrication, we have NO provable eyewitness accounts of any of the Jesus myth, none. What we have are a lot of people who chose to believe a fantastic story because it gave them hope and were willing--apparently--to die for their belief. You believe it, you have no proof, does it give you hope, are you willing to die for your beliefs?

Yes I am. Of course I do believe there is proof. However, nothing will change your mind at this point because if you can't see the proof that has already been laid out, no more evidence is going to change anything. We have reached the point of ideological impasse.

This discussion can go no further if you are willing to disregard all the current and obvious evidence given. Dr.Who and myself, have both detailed some of the clearest undisputed evidences for the existence, and historicity of Jesus Christ, and there is much greater evidence for the existence of the apostles and the early church.

You said "credible sources that define the speed of light and you can go to any major University and duplicate the experiments yourself if you so desire.", well equally, you can go into any major University that researches historical text, and use the same tests for authenticity of any other work, apply it to the New Testament, and it passes, and does so by a large margin. There is far less evidence for Plato and Shakespeare and dozens of others, than Jesus.

I will not waste my time, nor yours, in detailing how or why I fully believe in God, and the proof I base it on, and that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who died for the sins of the people. It would be useless to you. However, I came here to dispute the factually incorrect notion that there is no evidence, and I have done that. There is evidence, and your source is flawed, errant, and intellectually dishonest.

Now, maybe that is not good enough for you, and I'm ok with this. I don't need to convert you, or force anything on you. You don't want to follow God, that's your choice. We all make our choice, and we'll all reap the rewards for those choices. But as far as factual evidence is concerned, when you post something that is clearly wrong and errant, I'm going to point it out. As far as convincing you of everything I believe, I have no interest.

 

[Dr.Who]

.....Now, maybe that is not good enough for you, and I'm ok with this. I don't need to convert you, or force anything on you. You don't want to follow God, that's your choice. We all make our choice, and we'll all reap the rewards for those choices. But as far as factual evidence is concerned, when you post something that is clearly wrong and errant, I'm going to point it out. As far as convincing you of everything I believe, I have no interest.

Ditto. I never expected to convince Mare. If others read what Mare writes then I just want the truth to be written next to it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes I am. Of course I do believe there is proof. However, nothing will change your mind at this point because if you can't see the proof that has already been laid out, no more evidence is going to change anything. We have reached the point of ideological impasse.

This discussion can go no further if you are willing to disregard all the current and obvious evidence given. Dr.Who and myself, have both detailed some of the clearest undisputed evidences for the existence, and historicity of Jesus Christ, and there is much greater evidence for the existence of the apostles and the early church.

You said "credible sources that define the speed of light and you can go to any major University and duplicate the experiments yourself if you so desire.", well equally, you can go into any major University that researches historical text, and use the same tests for authenticity of any other work, apply it to the New Testament, and it passes, and does so by a large margin. There is far less evidence for Plato and Shakespeare and dozens of others, than Jesus.

I will not waste my time, nor yours, in detailing how or why I fully believe in God, and the proof I base it on, and that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who died for the sins of the people. It would be useless to you. However, I came here to dispute the factually incorrect notion that there is no evidence, and I have done that. There is evidence, and your source is flawed, errant, and intellectually dishonest.

Now, maybe that is not good enough for you, and I'm ok with this. I don't need to convert you, or force anything on you. You don't want to follow God, that's your choice. We all make our choice, and we'll all reap the rewards for those choices. But as far as factual evidence is concerned, when you post something that is clearly wrong and errant, I'm going to point it out. As far as convincing you of everything I believe, I have no interest.

Both of you gentlemen have "spoken" about evidence, none from any kind of authorative source has been presented.

Perhaps someone could go to a Unversity and do as you say, but so far I have never seen the work of anyone who has done so, what I have seen is the work of people who have TRIED to do so and discovered that the evidence isn't there. I don't have the money to go to someplace to do the research myself, have you done it? My bet is that you have not done so, but instead you have taken this on faith, right? I would be happy to find that there is proof of the story of Jesus, I think His teachings are excellent.

However, my appreciation of His words does not blind me to the lack of factual support for the stories told about Him. And your implied threats about the consequences of my not sharing your blind belief do not appear to be in any way based on the two commandments that Jesus supposedly said were the most important ones in the Bible.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ditto. I never expected to convince Mare. If others read what Mare writes then I just want the truth to be written next to it.

Religious truth is a very flexible substance. In your religion at one time the Earth was the center of the Universe, the Sun circled the Earth, women didn't have souls, mental illness was demon possession, black skin was the Mark of Cain, women could be taken as spoils of war, selling children was acceptable to God and so was slavery. Then all of a sudden we went from the Old to the New Testament and God, appeased by innocent blood sacrifice (now THAT'S truly god-like) became a whole different person. I don't know, men, but reading the Bible and looking at the evidence, I just can't buy all the violence and the bloody schizophrenic transformation. There are just too many discrepancies, too many contradictions, and too much logical nonsense--not to mention all the weird sex by God's good people, like King David and his gay lover Jonathon or Lot getting drunk and impregnating his daughters.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, which you gentlemen have not provided.

 

[Dr.Who]

Religious truth is a very flexible substance. In your religion at one time the Earth was the center of the Universe, the Sun circled the Earth, women didn't have souls, mental illness was demon possession, black skin was the Mark of Cain, women could be taken as spoils of war, selling children was acceptable to God and so was slavery. Then all of a sudden we went from the Old to the New Testament and God, appeased by innocent blood sacrifice (now THAT'S truly god-like) became a whole different person.

Everything you listed is the view of a person reading the material and not what the material itself says. So you have shown us that people who read things are often wrong. We knew that.

I don't know, men, but reading the Bible and looking at the evidence, I just can't buy all the violence and the bloody schizophrenic transformation.

A schism that is in your mind but not in mine. That would make one of us wrong. I am banking on it being you since you demand high standards of evidence from the Bible but virtually no standards from people like Robert Price.

There are just too many discrepancies, too many contradictions, and too much logical nonsense--not to mention all the weird sex by God's good people, like King David and his gay lover Jonathon or Lot getting drunk and impregnating his daughters.

There are not any discrepanies or contradictions. You won't believe me but you might believe Richard Friedman since you listed him as a trustworthy source. He says: "there are hundreds of apparent contradictions in the text, but one could respond that we can take them one by one and find some explanation for each contradiction." He puts this in a section in which he lays out his arguments for his thesis. He also says about his arguments: "the powerful argument is that not any one of these matters. It is that all these matters converge." So not one of his arguments matters by themselves but if we take them together then somehow the collection of them does matter? Afterwards he talks about this convergence and says: "no scholar is clever enough to make all of these terms line up with the sources - and to make it all come out consistent with the other signs of the sources." He is right. No man is clever enough. But God is! His whole argument boils down to men are not smart enough to write the first books of the bible and make it line up so it must have been edited. All the while failing to take into account it's own claim that it was not written by men but inspired by God. And if he were right that men were not so clever then how can he account for the fact that the editor he supposes exists would have to be that clever? Wouldn't that editor be a man?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, which you gentlemen have not provided.

The proofs for the miracles of Jesus are only that the writers claimed them. That is why the Holy Spirit can provide proofs for each person individually.

The proofs for the basic stuff like 'Jesus existed' don't need to be extraordinary since the claim is not extraordinary. Plato existed. Julius Ceasar existed. Jesus existed. Do you doubt all three or just the ones you don't want to be true?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Everything you listed is the view of a person reading the material and not what the material itself says. So you have shown us that people who read things are often wrong. We knew that.

A schism that is in your mind but not in mine. That would make one of us wrong. I am banking on it being you since you demand high standards of evidence from the Bible but virtually no standards from people like Robert Price.

There are not any discrepanies or contradictions. You won't believe me but you might believe Richard Friedman since you listed him as a trustworthy source. He says: "there are hundreds of apparent contradictions in the text, but one could respond that we can take them one by one and find some explanation for each contradiction."

We COULD soak overnight in boiling oatmeal too, but wouldn't make the contradictions any less contradictory. He's not saying that they don't exist, he's not even saying that we SHOULD take them one by one... All he's saying is we COULD.

He puts this in a section in which he lays out his arguments for his thesis. He also says about his arguments: "the powerful argument is that not any one of these matters. It is that all these matters converge." So not one of his arguments matters by themselves but if we take them together then somehow the collection of them does matter? Afterwards he talks about this convergence and says: "no scholar is clever enough to make all of these terms line up with the sources - and to make it all come out consistent with the other signs of the sources." He is right. No man is clever enough. But God is!
I'm sorry, Occam's Razor? Why assume some wild supernatural answer to a question that is easily answered by recognizing clever editing by people? Because you WANT to believe that it's supernatural, okay, but I don't buy it without a shred of supernatural proof.

His whole argument boils down to men are not smart enough to write the first books of the bible and make it line up so it must have been edited.

And your whole argument boils down to you WANTING a supernatural author and refusing to accept that normal people could have written the whole thing down through the centuries with clever editing and outright lies. When dealing with humans I always assume the very human failings unless there is good evidence to the contrary. So far there has not been any presented--certainly not by Friedman.

All the while failing to take into account it's own claim that it was not written by men but inspired by God. And if he were right that men were not so clever then how can he account for the fact that the editor he supposes exists would have to be that clever? Wouldn't that editor be a man?

Your argument here is a bit circular, I think. "Autopistos" means "self-referencing, "You can believe what I tell you because I am telling you the truth." That's what the Bible is based on, it claims to be written by God and proves it by saying so in its text. In point of fact, people could and probably DID write the Bible and edit it many times while rearranging it to make it sound better. There is no proof that this didn't happen, I haven't even seen any credible evidence that it didn't happen that way.

The proofs for the miracles of Jesus are only that the writers claimed them. That is why the Holy Spirit can provide proofs for each person individually.

So how is that different than what the Mormons are saying and doing? They have writers claiming miracles--why are they liars but your religious forebears are not? A little double standard here, I think.

The proofs for the basic stuff like 'Jesus existed' don't need to be extraordinary since the claim is not extraordinary. Plato existed. Julius Ceasar existed. Jesus existed. Do you doubt all three or just the ones you don't want to be true?

Yes, they do need to be extraordinary, Plato didn't walk on water, Julius Ceasar didn't heal people, and none of those historical figures are used as the prima facie basis for a religion. You want to base your religion on these extraordinary claims, then you need to provide extraordinary proofs.

The fact that you are fighting a losing battle when it comes to proofs is demonstrated by the ugly, but undeniable fact that in more than 2000 years NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY PROOF. And now you're starting two millenia down the timeline and trying to find the PROOF that no one else has been able to find in the intervening years? Good luck with that.

 

[Andy]

The fact that you are fighting a losing battle when it comes to proofs is demonstrated by the ugly, but undeniable fact that in more than 2000 years NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY PROOF. And now you're starting two millenia down the timeline and trying to find the PROOF that no one else has been able to find in the intervening years? Good luck with that.

Again, I'm going to, for the most part, stay out of this since I think we did offer the proofs for the theory given. I believe there are tons more proofs than what we covered to, many more than I am willing to detail here. I have more than enough proof for myself, that I am convinced beyond any doubt, that it is true.

But I am curious. One question I would like you to answer, just for my own curiosity. What proof would you like? If there was something that could be found and detailed in some way, showing that Jesus did exist... what would it be? You want XXXXX evidence... what are the Xs?