Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Ouroboros]

May I?

Go for it.

 

And LNC, I do have answers for those questions (answer that satisfy my mind), but I don't readily share them. I have tried in the past (not only with you), but realized through experience that the only way to really get understanding between two people is that they both share a fundamental knowledge and view on the things they talk about, and you and I are miles apart. What you're asking for is like trying to teach someone to become skilled in a game or sport. It takes time. It takes practice. It takes serious discussion and sharing of thoughts. And it definitely requires a mutual will to get there. My feeling is, we're far from the point of really discussing any of these subjects, and I don't think you and I ever will get there. (Very nice of you, by derailing this thread too, btw.) Seriously, you really don't want to know my answers. I haven't seen that in you one single time. Your attitude is that you don't want to learn here. You behave like you only want to tell us what the "truth" is. What comes out from you is that you think you're always right, never wrong, and you can never admit an error. Sorry, but I'm done discussing those topics with you.

 

I don't think you fully understand how arrogant you seem to most people here. It's okay though, I have no problem with arrogance, but it comes with a price, people will not like you and will not listen to you either. If your purpose is to come here to learn and to share your view, then I'd say you have failed miserably. Very few, or if any, are taking you serious anymore. And you might consider that problem in the light of the reasons of why you're here.

[agnosticator]

For one example, I think in a language. Language is a form of communication with others-not just talking to oneself. Why would I need a language to think or fantasize by myself? When I speak english to a russian who doesn't understand english, why doesn't he respond in english? How come I don't understand his russian? If I picture a woman in my mind, how could I identify this image as a woman in the first place? How would I know what a monkey is?

 

Aside from that, if I didn't sense or know a speeding bullet would or did hit me (even though it really did, and destroyed my brain or heart), would I still exist by myself or die? How could I imagine that event before, during, or after it happened?

 

LNC However, that still wouldn't prove that language is not just something that your brain conjures up, just as it would other people.

 

Language is taught, not conjured up. Prove otherwise. My example is not explained by saying it came from oneself.

 

 

LNC The problem is that we have no way of getting outside of ourselves and our thoughts to empirically verify anything outside of ourselves. If we were a brain in a vat or simply the thought of another higher being, we could never prove otherwise.

 

People are shot in the head every day without their knowledge and awareness. Does that mean the other persons and the bullet they shot don't exist? The funeral is a figment of their imagination?

 

LNC We have both a physical and a non-physical aspect of ourselves that gives us the ability to not only have beliefs, but also beliefs about our beliefs. We not only have thoughts, but thoughts about our thoughts. This is one of the aspects that separates us from the rest of the animal world and also points us to the non-physical reality of our natures.

 

Certain mammals besides us are self-conscious and social. The more scientists learn, the more dualistic beliefs will be exposed as the fantasy they are. Without neurons firing, there can be no thoughts. Just because we don't know all the "hows" of the way thoughts arise from the brain via neurons firing, doesn't mean we could decide to assign thoughts to be from a separate ghostly entity. A non-physical "self" is pure fantasy.

[Deva]

...Beliefs are those ideas that we hold that may or may not be connected to reality and it is only by examining the basis and evidence for our beliefs that we can determine whether they are valid. However, as you indicated, what I hold is more than just beliefs since I actually act on my beliefs, those are called convictions. Yes, I do view the world through my worldview which is formed by my beliefs and which forms my convictions, just as do you. The question that we must both answer for ourselves is whether our beliefs and our worldview match with reality.

 

I actually agree with the last sentence of the above. However, you must examine what criteria you use for determining what basis and evidence exist for your "beliefs". For example, your idea of "historical fact" seems to be quite different from mine.

 

Addressing your questions by the corresponding numbers:

 

1. The universe probably always existed or it comes in and out of existence. I think further discoveries in quantum mechanics may eventually answer this question as to how it occurs. The cop-out answer is to simply say "God did it."

 

2. Morality arose from early humans realizing the survival value of hanging together in groups. It varies widely from one culture to another although certain basics like don't kill your neighbor of your own tribe and don't steal his stuff are pretty widespread.

 

3. No, there is no "ultimate meaning" to life. The idea that there must be is purely a human phenomenon. Even though there is no ultimate meaning, a person can maintain an individual meaning to their life. Why can't life be intrinsically valuable? The ability to be conscious to see the sun rise, birds sing, beautiful scenes in nature and the ability of humans to create beautify things seems to me to have value. Suicidal thoughts? Purely depends on the person and the individual situation as to what I might say to them. Unlike what Christians think there is no cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all, true- for -all- time formula. I know uncertainty in these matters is a real bitch for Christians, though.

 

4. To the victims of a mass murderer I would probably say nothing. In the initial shock, nothing would help. Unlike Christians, I have no pithy answers. Later on, possibly I would say that there were literally millions of circumstances that led to that particular outcome. The whole of the universe acts when an action takes place. In the universe there is no such thing as justice. This concept does not exist outside of human language. Death erases all actions. It is then over. Possibly there is something like karma - actions do have consequences and produce effects, but it is not a cosmic justice system.

 

I really don't care if you ignore me, LNC, since many others are reading this thread.

[Ouroboros]

4. To the victims of a mass murderer I would probably say nothing. In the initial shock, nothing would help. Unlike Christians, I have no pithy answers. Later on, possibly I would say that there were literally millions of circumstances that led to that particular outcome. The whole of the universe acts when an action takes place. In the universe there is no such thing as justice. This concept does not exist outside of human language. Death erases all actions. It is then over. Possibly there is something like karma - actions do have consequences and produce effects, but it is not a cosmic justice system.

The problem with the Christian view is that if a mass murderer become Christian (get saved, or whatever) they will *not* get punished for eternity for their crimes.

 

Meanwhile, the nice neighbor atheist, who never hurt a fly or committed any crime of any kind, he will go to eternal punishment.

 

So, I'm not even sure arguments for afterlife justice makes any sense, since there's a "get out of jail" card which circumvents the whole justice part. Somehow Christians manage to maintain that disassociation between the ideas without flinching. One idea is ruined by the other.

 

It's enough for the Christian mother who drowned her kids to save them from demons, to say, "sorry Jesus," and she'll be singing with the angels and drink nectar from the heavenly cups. Yeah... that's justice my ass...

[Neon Genesis]

And LNC, I do have answers for those questions (answer that satisfy my mind), but I don't readily share them.

And once again, LNC goes back to picking apart the so-called "flaws" of atheism by using the same old debunked cliched apologetics instead of presenting proof of his claims because for some reason he can't prove the existence of God unless he tears into somebody else's arguments and I'm still waiting for LNC to provide non-scriptural evidence that all those bodies were raised from the dead when Jesus died which he seems to keep ignoring for some reason. And is LNC's list of arguments against atheism an indirect way of him saying atheists are evil immoral people who don't deserve to live? At least that's the impression I always get when a Christian asks me what reasons I have to live or be moral without God. But once again, LNC can do whatever LNC doesn't like other people doing.

[Deva]

The problem with the Christian view is that if a mass murderer become Christian (get saved, or whatever) they will *not* get punished for eternity for their crimes.

 

Meanwhile, the nice neighbor atheist, who never hurt a fly or committed any crime of any kind, he will go to eternal punishment.

 

Exactly. As long as the mass murderer has a death bed conversion, he is OK and in eternal bliss forever. It is totally immoral. It has no correspondence with any concept of justice. True justice would be to turn the clock back and have the victim be restored to life. This does not and cannot happen.

[Ouroboros]

Exactly. As long as the mass murderer has a death bed conversion, he is OK and in eternal bliss forever. It is totally immoral. It has no correspondence with any concept of justice. True justice would be to turn the clock back and have the victim be restored to life. This does not and cannot happen.

Yes.

 

Just imagine if the victim was an atheist. A young girl, non-believer, had her whole life in front of her, and lets say God did exist and Christianity was true, she could have had a chance to convert later in life. But instead, her life was cut short, and she's sent to Hell, punished for dying too early in life. While the killer, converts because he's scared to die and doesn't want to go to Hell.

 

What kind of fucked up justice is that? I'd say it's evidence that it's all morally corrupt, and not "absolutely good" in any shape or form.

[Neon Genesis]

I wonder if Anne Frank is going to hell because she was a Jew and not a Christian. Hasn't she suffered enough in this life?

[agnosticator]

DevaLight, Neon Genesis, and Hans,

 

What all three of you said is fundamentally why I shed my christian beliefs. But people like LNC either blind themselves or reason it all away with convoluted thinking. It's astounding.

[Ouroboros]

What all three of you said is fundamentally why I shed my christian beliefs. But people like LNC either blind themselves or reason it all away with convoluted thinking. It's astounding.

It truly is astounding. And I feel as time passes by, that it becomes more and more difficult even to try to understand or get back to the mindset. I used to be like that too (not as stubborn, but close), but I can't really put myself in that state of thinking anymore.

[agnosticator]

What all three of you said is fundamentally why I shed my christian beliefs. But people like LNC either blind themselves or reason it all away with convoluted thinking. It's astounding.

It truly is astounding. And I feel as time passes by, that it becomes more and more difficult even to try to understand or get back to the mindset. I used to be like that too (not as stubborn, but close), but I can't really put myself in that state of thinking anymore.

 

I think back to when I was most indoctrinated, and don't recall ever being challenged or questioned in depth by unbelievers. So I don't know how stubborn I would have been. There was one guy I met that gave me some stuff to read, and that was played a small but helpful role in my deconversion. I only wish i met him sooner!

[RationalOkie]

Snip... This points us to the idea that we are more than the sum of our parts, more than mere physical objects. We have both a physical and a non-physical aspect of ourselves that gives us the ability to not only have beliefs, but also beliefs about our beliefs. We not only have thoughts, but thoughts about our thoughts. This is one of the aspects that separates us from the rest of the animal world and also points us to the non-physical reality of our natures.

 

You need to make up your mind what the hell your arguing. Your biblical evidence, {snicker snicker}, means nothing to this crowd. You clearly also want to argue that somehow Philosophy can prove the existence of god. Philosophy can only speculate about the existence or nonexistence of gods. By definition if one were to prove that god exists it would be through Science and NOT philosophy. I think you like to muddy the waters by coalescing the two.

[LNC]

If it is arrogant of me, isn't your statement arrogant as well since you are saying that I am wrong? Does't your saying that I am wrong imply that you are right and that you have truth and I don't? So, why is it OK for you to make these statements but not me? You see, these kind of statements need to be assessed against your own statements to make sure that you are not being self-contradictory.

Isn't the difference that you believe in an absolute moral, and absolute dictum from God which demands you to not be arrogant. Or did I understand the Bible wrong? What about being "meek" and all the fruits of the spirit and stuff? It doesn't mean anything to you? Or Jesus command isn't really important?

 

So basically you believe there is an absolute moral and absolute truth in the Bible, but you excuse your behavior by projecting your own failings unto those who do not believe?

 

How is it an excuse to say: "but you don't do it" to Antlerman or anyone else? If you believe the code, you follow the code. We do not believe in the code, so don't expect us to follow it. But since you claim that you do believe in the absolute code from God, then we will hold you against it. You must follow the code you believe in, or we will think that you don't believe it at all. Simple as that.

 

You didn't even address what I said. Are you really saying that it is arrogant to claim to know truth? You are being self-contradictory in making your statement and because of that your claim is fallacious. Just claiming to know truth is not arrogant, otherwise your pointing that out would itself make you guilty of arrogance and you seem not to accept that claim about yourself. You fall on your own sword with this claim. Nothing in Judaism or Christianity implies that it is arrogant to understand and proclaim truth - that is your mistake.

[Ouroboros]

You didn't even address what I said. Are you really saying that it is arrogant to claim to know truth? You are being self-contradictory in making your statement and because of that your claim is fallacious. Just claiming to know truth is not arrogant, otherwise your pointing that out would itself make you guilty of arrogance and you seem not to accept that claim about yourself. You fall on your own sword with this claim. Nothing in Judaism or Christianity implies that it is arrogant to understand and proclaim truth - that is your mistake.

You're still arrogant. And it's your mistake to live in denial. And there's no use to try to explain or answer you anything, because you stubbornly maintain your delusional ideas of the world anyway. We have reached the end of the road, and there's no sense in reiterating arguments since you avoid the ones that prove you wrong, just pick apart the fringe issues, and the arguments which are proven to you to be wrong, you don't even respond to, but still you repeat two weeks later like they've never been challenged. You keep on sidetracking the topics and avoiding the main questions. You disregard and downplay the authority of real Bible scholars, while you put some obscure scientists in the wrong fields from 50 to 100 years ago on the pedestal as your reference.

 

You maintain your view on things, and I'll maintain mine. I disagree with most of the things you say, and you disagree with most of the things I say. I keep my view based on multiple sources, you maintain your view on a few authors religious beliefs 2,000 years ago. You fail to provide any evidence for "absolute" morality, and you fail to prove the historicity of the Bible. You also have failed to prove that God exists, or that there are any supernatural forces in play in our world at all. You have failed to show any reasonable or logical argument for God's existence, the truthfulness of the story about Jesus, or the validity of Christian faith.

 

You have failed. Or like my sons would say: Epic Fail!

[LNC]

You see, this is the problem with you, you use fancy language, and you throw logical fallacies all over the place, and yet you grasp very little of what people say.

 

OK, let's test your assertion to see if it stands.

 

I see, so the grammar dictates if the author invented the text or if God gave it to him. Awesome.

 

Look at my sentence above, it's from God. I can see the divine grammar in it.

 

Historians don't believe Jesus did all the miracles. They use the proper techniques. So, they agree with me, and I agree with them, that the Gospel (and Bible) is full of myth making.

 

(And understand one thing, I am not one who say the Gospel/NT got no historical value. I for one think there is a possibility of an historical Jesus, however not a miracle-Jesus or Son-of-God-Jesus, but just a magician, with some cool stuff to say, Jesus.)

 

You completely misunderstand what I said and obviously don't understand how literary criticism is done, so on what basis do you criticize the Bible?

 

Which historians? On what basis do they draw their conclusions? Since you claim to know the techniques that they used to arrive at these conclusions then surely you can explain them to me. However, apparently you still misunderstand the genre of myth since your conclusion doesn't follow. Even if the eyewitnesses made up all of their accounts of Jesus, the NT still wouldn't fall into the genre of mythology. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find any historian who would put the NT into that category (since that is not their field of study anyway) or who would deny the whole of the NT, since there is archeological evidence to back up many of the NT accounts. But hey, if you know of some, please let me know.

 

Eh, okay. So why doesn't God just wipe out Iraq, Iran, with children and women like in the good ol' days?

 

And why is it right to kill babies of the perpetrators, especially if their crime of the fathers were to kill babies?

 

So I guess you believe to erase evil, we have to become and use evil? And even God?

 

God had no other way to fix those abominations but to kill people, women, children, animals? Or when someone in Israel did some sin, God in his wrath killed 100,000 people. You're saying that is righteous?

 

I think it stinks of old tribal-god images.

 

And how do we know that the Canaanites sacrificed children anyhow? Through the testimonies of their enemies? Christians were accused of blood sacrifices by the pagans. Jews were accused of child sacrifices by antisemites in the 18th and 19th century. So should we kill (in the name of God) all Christians and Jews?

 

OK, so you don't understand the degree of evil that was going on back then as modern day Iraq and Iran are actually pretty sedate in comparison. OK, so the babies are left alive while the parents are killed. I am not sure of all the reasons God had for killing the children with the parents, but are you saying that you know better than an omniscient being as to what is best? I wasn't there so I can't give you insight beyond what the Bible says, I would only be speculating.

 

Are you saying that the application of justice is just a different type of evil? Would you advocate releasing prisoners since imprisonment is harmful to the criminal? How do you determine what is and isn't evil from your perspective?

 

I guess that God considered the whole situation so despicable that there was need for drastic measures. I am not one to judge God as he is omniscient and I am not. But then again, you are applying your subjective standards against God, so I wonder why you are filled with such self-righteous indignation? Have you lived a life such that you can cast the first stone? I know that I haven't.

 

Do a quick Google search and you will find enough evidence that this type of child and female sacrifice was going on. Where is the evidence that Christians were doing blood sacrifices? Where is the evidence that Jews were doing child sacrifices? There is a difference between accusation and evidence. Anyone can make an accusation.

[Ouroboros]

You still fail, and have not proven anything. Pure speculations and immaterial arguments based on your personal preferences. The only evidence you provide are weak, questionable, and sometimes even stupid. Get some classes in Ethics and/or Sociology, and perhaps you're the one who needs to take a few classes in Anthropology (and preferable not in a Christian Brain-Wash school. Got somewhere with some decent quality on their education. You know, taking a class in logic doesn't mean you know the truth.)

[LNC]

1) Not if the body was hidden or destroyed.

 

2) Torture is a very unreliable method, and if they had and put that in a report, you wouldn't believe that report anyway. Also, who can say if they did make an attempt such as that, but the report got lost? And how do you know the eyewitnesses to the resurrection was tortured to retract their statements? Oh, by the story from the same people who wrote these stories. Yeah... good evidence.

 

3) Perhaps they were knocked out, ashamed, or perhaps they never existed either. Perhaps the story about the soldiers guarding the tombs was a later invention by the Christians to exactly cover the reasoning you have? So what then? Should the Jews and Romans provided evidence that the soldiers never stood outside the tomb too? Where does it end? To prove everything against a conspiracy theories is impossible, because they always have another excuse to why their belief is true, and the lack of evidence is just more proof for them to believe. Just like you.

 

The burden of proof is on you as the evidence points heavily in the favor of the resurrection. So, please show me the evidence. Again, anyone can concoct a theory, but the theory needs to be backed up with evidence, otherwise it is highly implausible.

 

Eh... I'm not sure the Roman soldiers were of the higher educational tier. Or do you seriously suggest that the farmers and the soldiers were on the level with Einstein? Interesting.

 

Who said that the Roman soldiers were running the government? Are you saying that the Roman soldiers who conquered every army that they faced creating the largest Empire in history were incapable of guarding a tomb against a couple of fisherman?

 

And much of it has evolved and changed. Some theories do not hold as evident or certain anymore, and some were really good. Interesting that you take up Greek culture and philosophy as a higher intelligence compared to Christians of today.

 

In other words: the pagan Greeks 2300 years ago were smarter than today's Christians. Good to know.

 

Really, which ones have been changed? I am sure the philosophy department at my local university will be interested in knowing that. Yes, many of the Greek philosophers were smarter than many Christians today, I don't know what that proves since they were also smarter than the vast majority of college professors, even in Ivy League schools. So what of it? Smart doesn't always mean that one comes to the right conclusions.

 

No, but the Egyptians and the Chinese beat them. So should we conclude that Chinese philosophy and Egyptian religion is superior than today's Christian?

 

What do you mean that the Egyptians and Chinese beat them? Beat them at what?

 

And you have the truth how? By using a bunch of explanations to circumvent the obvious problems and contradictions in the text. So who is using extraneous explanations to make up their own "truth" here?

 

You have pointed out no contradictions in the text, nor have you provided one shred of evidence to prove your theory. It is you who is using an extraneous explanation to make up your own "truth," thanks for asking.

 

Again, you completely ignore the point of my posts in that you considered the Romans "poor schmucks" and I am showing you that they were actually highly intelligent people. All you can do is to say, in effect, "oh yeah, well if they are so smart then..." Yet, none of your counters in any way indicates that they were any less than fully able to provide evidence that the resurrection was false, if it was.

 

Acts? You mean the Christian propaganda history book to prove their own religion? Prove that any of the disciples of Jesus were killed for their faith, by using OTHER sources outside the propaganda literature.

 

Deal with the evidence I have provided. Either impeach it or accept it. Just calling it "Christian propaganda" does nothing to impeach the evidence, you actually have to show evidence that it is untrustworthy. I cannot simply take your word for it, sorry.

 

Exactly. People die for what they believe to be true. And did the disciples of Jesus die because of their belief, or is it just stories?

 

Right, they believe because they claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. That refutes your claim that they stole the body, thank you for helping me to make that point.

 

It depends on who was in on it and did the stealing. Lets say Josephus from Arimethea was in on it, and he used some of his paid goons to do the job. Did he die a martyrs death?

 

Well, we know that if Joseph (not Josephus, he was a Jewish historian) did steal the body and then let Stephen, James, and possibly others go to their deaths for what he knew to be a lie. That would be counter-intuitive to what he knew that Jesus taught and would not bring him any gain either. But again, what is your evidence for such an ad hoc theory? How do you explain that so many people claimed to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion (a point you seem to be avoiding)?

 

The problem is that we can't be sure about the stories about them, or if they really died martyrs, or if they did as martyr for believing that Jesus was bodily resurrected. Perhaps they did martyrs for having a heretic Jewish religion? Perhaps the physical resurrection of Jesus wasn't part of that early church, and they believed in Jesus resurrected in spirit only to God in Heaven, and they had visions of Jesus in their heads, just like Paul, and the wanted to challenge the Jewish faith, and they died because of that? Then it isn't clear if they died because they believe like you do, but rather, the died for a slightly different reason, and you have a belief based on 2,000 of additions and subtractions from the original thoughts.

 

The thing is, you believe waaaaayy too much in your religion. You make attempt after attempt to find reasons and arguments to keep your precious religion intact.

 

Why can't we be sure about the stories about them? Do you have a valid reason to doubt Luke's history? The historical record indicates that they died martyr's deaths, so unless you have evidence to the contrary, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the historical record. It doesn't matter that they may have been considered heretical to Judaism, in fact, the Jews who persecuted him did consider him and Christians to be heretical to their understanding of Judaism, but I don't see how that changes the fact that they were martyred for their convictions. There is no early evidence to lead one to think that they considered the resurrection to be anything but a bodily, physical resurrection, so again, if you have evidence for your theory, please present it. You have a lot of theories but are short of any evidential support, so again, I consider them to be just throwing ideas against the wall to see if anything sticks. Unfortunately for you, they seem to be sliding off the wall pretty quickly.

 

You have given me no reason not to believe in my convictions. You present empty assertions and theories with no evidential backing and then what, you want me to abandon the evidence in favor of them? Sorry, that would be to make a blind leap in the dark and I am not disposed to do that.

[Ouroboros]

You have given me no reason not to believe in my convictions. You present empty assertions and theories with no evidential backing and then what, you want me to abandon the evidence in favor of them? Sorry, that would be to make a blind leap in the dark and I am not disposed to do that.

And you have not given me any reason to believe in your convictions either. You present assertions made from pure speculations and without any evidence. You claim to have evidence, but you don't. You use inductive reasoning without proper support. So why should I even argue with you?

 

The question is, do I want you to abandon your belief? You came here. I didn't come to you. So who is on the offensive here? You are coming here to challenge what people believe here, and you're trying to tell me that I'm the one trying to convert you?

 

You have chosen not to listen or understand, and I can't make you, so it's your own choice. Don't project your own faults on others and blame them for your own shortcomings.

[Mriana]

You still fail, and have not proven anything. Pure speculations and immaterial arguments based on your personal preferences. The only evidence you provide are weak, questionable, and sometimes even stupid. Get some classes in Ethics and/or Sociology, and perhaps you're the one who needs to take a few classes in Anthropology (and preferable not in a Christian Brain-Wash school. Got somewhere with some decent quality on their education. You know, taking a class in logic doesn't mean you know the truth.)

 

I couldn't have said it better myself, HanSolo. I agree 100% LNC really needs to get a REAL education.

[Mriana]

You have chosen not to listen or understand, and I can't make you, so it's your own choice. Don't project your own faults on others and blame them for your own shortcomings.

 

Projecting is quite typical of Fundamngelicals, esp when they themselves are doing what they accuse others of, but you are right, LNC came here, therefore, s/he is the one who is offending and attempting shove his/her beliefs down our throats and attempt to convert. :eyeroll:

[RationalOkie]

You have given me no reason not to believe in my convictions. You present empty assertions and theories with no evidential backing and then what, you want me to abandon the evidence in favor of them? Sorry, that would be to make a blind leap in the dark and I am not disposed to do that.

And you have not given me any reason to believe in your convictions either. You present assertions made from pure speculations and without any evidence. You claim to have evidence, but you don't. You use inductive reasoning without proper support. So why should I even argue with you?

 

The question is, do I want you to abandon your belief? You came here. I didn't come to you. So who is on the offensive here? You are coming here to challenge what people believe here, and you're trying to tell me that I'm the one trying to convert you?

 

You have chosen not to listen or understand, and I can't make you, so it's your own choice. Don't project your own faults on others and blame them for your own shortcomings.

Dude...give it up. He's simply baiting you with one remark after the other. To keep a thread going he simply say's something so unbelievable that you feel that you HAVE to respond. But, it's a trap. All he's doing is wasting everyone's time. He's not here to convert anyone or to have a rational debate. He's clearly either INSANE or just trying to be disruptive. Either way, it's a huge waste of time.

[chefranden]

Funny because that's the argument Ehrman uses in Jesus Interrupted. I just dare you to go email Ehrman at his site and tell him he's not a legitimate scholar.

 

But of course we know that "legitimate scholar" means scholar who agrees with me, or scholar with whom I agree, or scholar sanctioned by my denomination. No doubt some people consider Jack Chick to be a "legitimate scholar".

[Ouroboros]

I couldn't have said it better myself, HanSolo. I agree 100% LNC really needs to get a REAL education.

That, and learn how to apply theories correctly and synthesize what he knows to different areas.

 

Projecting is quite typical of Fundamngelicals, esp when they themselves are doing what they accuse others of, but you are right, LNC came here, therefore, s/he is the one who is offending and attempting shove his/her beliefs down our throats and attempt to convert. :eyeroll:

They do project their own faults a lot, don't they. And they stay in denial of what they do. Everyone else has to follow certain "rules" and "guidelines" they set up, but they barely follow them.

 

 

Dude...give it up. He's simply baiting you with one remark after the other. To keep a thread going he simply say's something so unbelievable that you feel that you HAVE to respond. But, it's a trap. All he's doing is wasting everyone's time. He's not here to convert anyone or to have a rational debate. He's clearly either INSANE or just trying to be disruptive. Either way, it's a huge waste of time.

I know. You're absolutely right. He apply double standards to practically everything he does and says. It's quite amazing, and he do exactly what you say, trying to fish for responses, only picking the things he can hook into and throw out the line with the most crazy stuff. I have seen many crazy nut-jobs on this website, but he's probably one of the worst bovine excrementalists.

[Deva]

Since we have different definitions of what constitutes "history" and "evidence" from what LNC has, there is no point in further discussion. There is absolutely no agreement on this point and the argument just runs in circles.

[Neon Genesis]

You're still arrogant. And it's your mistake to live in denial. And there's no use to try to explain or answer you anything, because you stubbornly maintain your delusional ideas of the world anyway. We have reached the end of the road, and there's no sense in reiterating arguments since you avoid the ones that prove you wrong, just pick apart the fringe issues, and the arguments which are proven to you to be wrong, you don't even respond to, but still you repeat two weeks later like they've never been challenged. You keep on sidetracking the topics and avoiding the main questions.

Is he ever going to give any non-scriptural evidence that Matthew 27:51-53 really happened?

 

Since we have different definitions of what constitutes "history" and "evidence" from what LNC has, there is no point in further discussion. There is absolutely no agreement on this point and the argument just runs in circles.

He even uses a different definition of "smart." It's obvious that he's not speaking in English but in Christianeze and I'm getting tired of having to find the secret meaning of what he means whenever he posts.