Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Ouroboros]

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

Don't hold your breath. At the best he will tell you that he "already answered that." And when you go back to find his answer, it's not there, or it doesn't answer. A few times he had an answer, based on some weird authority declaring that some, this or that, was in line with his thinking, and they weren't even authorities in the subject. Meanwhile he reject true scholars, historians, philosophers, sociologist, biologists, scientists in general, etc, only based on that they don't agree with him. The selective power is strong with him.

[RationalOkie]

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

Don't hold your breath. At the best he will tell you that he "already answered that." And when you go back to find his answer, it's not there, or it doesn't answer. A few times he had an answer, based on some weird authority declaring that some, this or that, was in line with his thinking, and they weren't even authorities in the subject. Meanwhile he reject true scholars, historians, philosophers, sociologist, biologists, scientists in general, etc, only based on that they don't agree with him. The selective power is strong with him.

 

One of my Fav's from LNC "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."

 

This entire statement is so incredibly fallacious that it screams for a response and that's exactly what he's counting on. Over and over and over…. This is a game not a debate. In my opinion, the tactic is to simply be disruptive on this site. He's not here to offer us a legitimate debate.

[Ouroboros]

One of my Fav's from LNC "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."

Yeah, I remember that one! It's a classic.

 

I think the evidence points heavily in favor of LNC being out of his mind. And so far, no evidence has contradicted it.

[LNC]

Again, you really can't grasp higher level thinking. That becomes very obvious when you can't see the connection with above answer from you to the fact that all kinds of people have stepped forward to prove Christianity false, as a simple web search will easily indicate.

 

The point here is: comparison.

 

What Ex-Mormons do to Mormonism, Ex-Christians do to Christianity.

 

Christianity is not more true than Mormonism.

 

Then you can point me to someone who has definitively proven Christianity to be false? OK, then I will look for you to point me to that person. Or, better yet, give me your knock-out argument.

 

Sorry, I am on an Ex-Christian site and no one has done that here. If you can, please attempt to do so, if you haven't been trying already.

 

Christianity is based upon evidence and is falsifiable. Can someone please produce the golden tablets on which the BOM was dictated? How about showing me evidence that Jesus was in America? Sorry, Mormonism is not falsifiable which is why they urge people to feel the "warm burning of the bosom" to determine whether it is true rather than to test the evidence. It is completely subjective.

 

Gosh, you're so blind.

 

There are erroneous history in the Bible as well.

 

Such as? If you are going to make these statements, it may serve you well to actually follow it with evidence or an example. It may make your claim seem more reasoned.

 

Only to you, as a believer, not to the unbelievers.

 

I don't know what that means. I said that no historian outside of Mormonism considers the BOM and D&C to be historical and your retort has nothing to do with my statement.

 

And the Bible fail repeatedly.

 

Where? Again, an assertion with no backing.

 

Where is the Ark? And which tomb is the one Jesus was in?

 

The tomb is in Jerusalem. The ark may have been carved up for wood to build houses, how do I know. The things that can be tested, have been and have proven reliable. Such things include Pilate, whom many didn't believe was an actual person until an archealogical dig produced an artifact with his name on it. The same for the pool of Bethesda, which many historians didn't believe existed, until it was discovered. That story is repeated many more times.

 

And continues to be proven wrong as well.

 

There were never a revival in Nineveh to Judaism. There's no evidence of millions of people marching out from Egypt. The Gospel records are contradictory about their "historical" events, which means as "historical" reliable they argue against each other for "reliability." And there are more things like this, but all of them you would excuse by some "clever" explanation... just like the Mormons do when they face your critique of their religion. You behave just like a Mormon would do, the only difference is the name of your religion.

 

Who said that there was a revival in Nineveh to Judaism? I don't recall reading that in the Bible. Maybe you are thinking of the story of Jonah, but that wasn't a revival to Judaism, it was repentance (meager as it probably was) of the people for their rebellion against God, but they didn't become Jews.

 

How do you know that there wasn't an exodus from Egypt? Did some contemporary historian record that there wasn't? What is your evidence? What "contradictory" events do you believe the NT records? How do you know that they are contradictory? Again, you haven't given any specific examples, just vague generalities. How can I give you an explanation for anything if you aren't specific? Also, just because an explanation may be clever doesn't mean that it is not true. However, whether the explanation is clever or clumsy I don't expect that you would accept them no matter how compelling.

[LNC]

But you just said earlier in your post that you can judge if a church is a true church by comparing their teachings to the NT. If you're judging which churches are the true churches, then you are putting yourself in God's throne and judging churches in God's stead.

 

Judging truth and judging a person's heart and mind are two completely different concepts. I can test truth claims against the evidence and data; however, I cannot test a person's mind and heart, that is God's job. Do you see the distinction?

 

So, is the book of Job a book of poetry or is it historical fact? Is Revelation a literal representation of future events or is it an allegorical letter written about present day events?

 

It is in the genre of wisdom literature, but it also contains factual information. Revelation is in the genre of apocalyptic literature and contains a combination of symbolic representations as well as descriptions of future events. I will grant you that it takes a person skilled in the genre to sort some of it out, but some is quite obvious to the average reader.

 

This is why I compared him earlier to William Lane Craig. They both try to make their beliefs look more rational and sound than they actually are by using a lot of flowery language but in reality they're just using the same tired old cliched debunked arguments. They're both basically nothing but sophists. LNC has also not explained yet why there is no non-biblical evidence that all those people raised from the dead when Jesus died. I'm not sure who is more honest, William Lane Craig or Ray Comfort. And aren't you taught in English class not to use unnecessary flowery language when you wouldn't in every day conversations?

 

Which arguments do you consider debunked and where have you debunked these ideas in our conversation? It seems that if they have been debunked you could easily put my arguments down, yet I don't see that you have. In all of the debates that I have seen or listened to against Craig, I have not seen anyone come close to defeating his arguments.

 

I already said that I know of no extra-biblical sources that discuss the resurrection after Jesus died. However, I have explained that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That would be making an argument from silence which is a logically fallacious argument. I don't use the resurrection account in the cumulative case that I make. How do you know that I don't use this type of language in everyday speech? I don't know that I have been necessarily "flowery" in my language. But, I am sorry if my language offends you - maybe I will end some sentences with prepositions from time to time to let you know that I am just one of y'all if that would help.

[Ouroboros]

blah, blah, blah, blah...

Immaterial arguments based on assumptions and delusional fantasies, and riddled with fallacies and special pleading. Come back when you know what you're talking about. And grow a brain while you're at it.

[bdp]

1. Did the universe come into existence or has it always existed?

 

What's the difference?

 

2. What is the basis of morality?

 

Whose morality?

 

3. Does life have ultimate meaning?

 

No.

 

4. If there is no life beyond this one and no ultimate judgment, what do you say to the victims of a mass murderer who simply got away with his or her crime?

 

Nothing can be said. That's the bitch about the holocaust or the genocide of the natives of this continent - it will never be redressed or justified.

 

What do you say to the person who has suffered injustice in this life and is looking for hope and justice in the next life?

 

Stop wasting your life and just live it. Looking for 'justice' in a next life that can't be proven? Look for your meanings in this life that you KNOW you have.

[Deva]

Then you can point me to someone who has definitively proven Christianity to be false? OK, then I will look for you to point me to that person. Or, better yet, give me your knock-out argument.

 

To me this is like saying "produce someone that can prove there are no pink unicorns living on the other side of the moon".

[Ouroboros]

Then you can point me to someone who has definitively proven Christianity to be false? OK, then I will look for you to point me to that person. Or, better yet, give me your knock-out argument.

 

To me this is like saying "produce someone that can prove there are no pink unicorns living on the other side of the moon".

I don't think he really knows what proof and evidence really is. He thinks that if he believes it, then it is proven. There's no way to prove that the tomb was the one Jesus was in. The tomb is considered Jesus's because of tradition, not DNA, fingerprints, photos, traces, or anything else that can prove, without a doubt, that the tomb was Jesus's.

 

Here's an another example of how to falsify Christianity: make a hypothesis, then test the hypothesis. For instance, make the hypothesis that Jesus heals people when you pray. It's easy to test, using a double blind, and this has been done and the numbers did not show that prayer healed people. And we could come up with several experiments like this, with the same results.

 

He's quite silly to claim that Christianity got proofs because some person, a secondary character in the drama, has been proven to have existed. Just because Pilatus existed, it doesn't mean Jesus did. Just because G.W. Bush existed, it doesn't mean movies from the last 8 years, with depictions of Bush in them, are in themselves true also. LNC is really very confused person.

 

The evidence against Christianity is history itself. Other pagan beliefs and how similar it is to Christianity. The division of hundreds of Christian sects already in the first 100 years prove Christianity didn't have solid, concise, and united faith, but rather it was a mishmash of whatever people threw in there. The lack of any contemporary documents or author only show that the events (if they happened) were not as extraordinary to the people as the later stories claimed. etc. It all proves that Christians believe in a fiction.

 

When LNC grows up, he will start to realize this (I hope).

 

It's funny that my comment, which he responded to, had to do with him first claiming that all other religions have been disproved by people. In other words, he think that just because some Christian say that the gold tablets didn't exist, or that Jesus wasn't in US, then the believers in these crazy ideas are proven wrong. But LNC is the one who is really wrong. If the quality and method of evidence against other religion is a certain way, the same measurement must be used against Christianity. And he won't let anyone do that. No. LNC wants special treatment of his dearest religion.

 

Or put it this way, if Mormons, JW, Muslims, etc, have been proven wrong by religious elopers and arguments from lacking evidence, then Christianity is too. Christianity does not have a special treatment. And LNC fails repeatedly to see this.

[Ouroboros]

I already said that I know of no extra-biblical sources that discuss the resurrection after Jesus died. However, I have explained that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That would be making an argument from silence which is a logically fallacious argument.

It's also a false argument to claim that just because of this, then it must be true. Lack of evidence could also be because the events did NOT happen.

 

There are two explanations to lacking evidence:

 

1) It happened, but all (really, all?) evidence is gone.

 

2) It didn't happen.

 

And until more data can be found, it is actually very reasonable to take the view on point 2, and not 1.

 

Consider all the crazy beliefs out there in the world without evidence. Should we, just because "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence", believe EVERYTHING!?? That's stupid. You must agree to this.

 

There are more things you DON'T believe in like this, than things you DO believe in. Every religion, with every belief, all without evidence, you don't believe them, because they don't make sense, and because you have no evidence for those things to be true.

 

So, your attitude towards other religions, that is OUR attitude towards YOUR religion. Get that into your thick skull.

 

Which arguments do you consider debunked and where have you debunked these ideas in our conversation? It seems that if they have been debunked you could easily put my arguments down, yet I don't see that you have. In all of the debates that I have seen or listened to against Craig, I have not seen anyone come close to defeating his arguments.

That's because you're blind, not because the arguments exists. Just because you don't understand the counter arguments, doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

Wait, what was your attitude again? "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" was it? Isn't it similar here? Just because you can't see the argument against Craig, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

So be consistent.

[RationalOkie]

I'll ask again.

 

From LNC - "We look for natural explanations first and when those fail to fit the data we have to look at other possiblilities. Now, you seem to eliminate explanations that are not natural, which is a presuppositional bias on your part. I, on the other hand, keep my mind open to the possibility of the supernatural as a valid explanatory option."

 

LNC - Give me 1 'Supernatural' event, outside of Christianity, that you are willing to accept as being true.

[chefranden]

Then you can point me to someone who has definitively proven Christianity to be false? OK, then I will look for you to point me to that person. Or, better yet, give me your knock-out argument.

 

Sorry, I am on an Ex-Christian site and no one has done that here. If you can, please attempt to do so, if you haven't been trying already.

 

What you mean is that no one has overcome your belief, not that no one has disproved Christianity. IMHO the problem of evil nicely disproves Christianity*. Your insistence that it doesn't is like creationist insistence that the earth is only 6000 years old. Faith is the standard process by which humans can and most often do confidently and steadfastly ignore fact.

 

Of course on the other hand you can't produce any definitive argument that proves Christianity, like writing out the absolute moral rules as I asked you on another thread.

 

*It doesn't offer proof against any god. An asshole god is invulnerable to the argument.

 

1. Christianity is based upon evidence and is falsifiable. 2. Can someone please produce the golden tablets on which the BOM was dictated? How about showing me evidence that Jesus was in America? Sorry, Mormonism is not falsifiable which is why they urge people to feel the "warm burning of the bosom" to determine whether it is true rather than to test the evidence. It is completely subjective.

 

1. What evidence? Oh you mean like 500 anonymous witnesses who never swore out even the least bet of an affidavit? How convenient. Ok then, I have 501 anonymous witnesses who say it was crap. True they didn't swear out any affidavits either, but my witnesses are as good as yours.

 

2.Can somebody please produce the original documents of the bible? Gee, no? But you think you have the real deal anyway. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I have to accept the authenticity of the bible then I have no reason not to accept the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or the Vedas. Unfortunately your assertion does not over come my lack of bias toward one religion over another. They, including yours, are all equally absurd.

 

By the way the book of Mormon had known sworn witnesses to the existence of the golden tablets. Not 500, but at least we know who they were.

[Neon Genesis]

Judging truth and judging a person's heart and mind are two completely different concepts. I can test truth claims against the evidence and data; however, I cannot test a person's mind and heart, that is God's job. Do you see the distinction?

This makes no sense at all. You say you're only judging the falsity of their beliefs, not them as a person, but a person's beliefs is apart of that person. It'd be like if I called you a liar but then I denied I was judging you, I was just judging your claims, yet if you're the person making false claims, then I can't judge the claims without judging the person making the claims. It's logically impossible to separate the claims a person makes from the person making them given that we're talking about people's beliefs here. You make no sense and are just trying to give excuses to be an asshole.

 

It is in the genre of wisdom literature, but it also contains factual information. Revelation is in the genre of apocalyptic literature and contains a combination of symbolic representations as well as descriptions of future events. I will grant you that it takes a person skilled in the genre to sort some of it out, but some is quite obvious to the average reader.

What factual information does Job contain? Is Leviathan a factual creature? What is it, then? If Revelation contains future events, does this mean only 144,000 men will get into heaven and no women are allowed since Revelation says so or is that symbolic? How do you determine what parts are symbolic and what parts are future events?

 

 

 

Which arguments do you consider debunked and where have you debunked these ideas in our conversation? It seems that if they have been debunked you could easily put my arguments down, yet I don't see that you have. In all of the debates that I have seen or listened to against Craig, I have not seen anyone come close to defeating his arguments.

 

I already said that I know of no extra-biblical sources that discuss the resurrection after Jesus died. However, I have explained that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

But I'm not talking about the resurrection of Jesus. How many times do you want me to repeat myself? I want non-scriptural evidence that the events in Matthew 27:51-53 really happened. Surely someone somewhere would have written about a bunch of dead Jewish people raising from the dead. You claim 500 people witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, but nobody wrote down that they saw a bunch of dead Jews be raised from the dead? And how does the lack of evidence prove something really happened? So, what if I claimed I saw you murder someone and you denied that you did but I argued that the evidence of absence is not the evidence of absence. Would that be acceptable proof that you really are a murderer? What's the saying? Innocent until proven guilty? So, where's your proof this really happened? Since you admit there's no proof, then there's no reason why we should convert to your religion.

[Mriana]

LNC, falsifiable means one can prove it false. IF Christianity is falsifiable, then it can be proven false. Likewise, so can Mormonism. I suggest you get your dictionary out, because I don't think you are using that word in the manner you are wanting, unless you do mean that Xianity is falsifiable, then what you are saying is that it is able to be proven false.

[agnosticator]

Of course on the other hand you can't produce any definitive argument that proves Christianity, like writing out the absolute moral rules as I asked you on another thread.

 

LNC is absolutely absolved from having to write out absolute moral rules-God

[LNC]

And your historian was: Sir William Ramsay, was it not? A professor in chemistry with a degree in philosophy... yes, that's a true historian, compared to a person like Ehrman who spent all his money and time to learn the Christian history, learning Greek, and much more.

 

Who is more reliable? A guy from the 19th century with a philosophy and chemistry degree, or a guy from our century with a degree in religious studies and Christian foundations? I think you're a bit deluded here...

 

I don't make statements on my own authority as does Ehrman. If he makes statements on his own authority and he is not credentialed or schooled to make those statements authoritatively, then we have reason to question the accuracy of his conclusions, especially when credentialed authorities dispute his conclusions, which is the case.

 

Regarding William Ramsay, I believe you have the wrong one, check this out and you will find that he is an eminent scholar qualified to make authoritative statements. Ehrman's focus is on textual criticism not on history and theology. Maybe you could consider doing better research next time before you resort to ad hominem.

[LNC]

You still don't get it. I want non-scriptural evidence that show the events described in Matthew 27:51-53 really did happen.

 

I don't use that account in building a case for the resurrection, so I don't know why it is of concern to the argument. Also, you have given no reason, other than an anti-supernatural bias, to not accept Matthew's account as accurate. If you can give me more than an argument from silence or an anti-supernatural bias argument as to why to reject it, then I will consider your appeal as being possibly valid; however, I don't see the need to "move the goalposts" on the acceptance of this account.

 

Where is the non-scriptural evidence this really happened? By non-scriptural, I mean proof not found anywhere in the bible or church traditions. I want actual non-scriptural proof. This should not be that hard of a question to grasp.

 

Where is your grounding for rejecting this account as that of an eyewitness or the relaying of an eyewitness account? You say that proof is not found in the Bible, yet it is a biblical account that we are discussing. I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that it is not reported in other Gospels? If so, we have already discussed that and that is not evidence that it did not occur, but merely an argument from silence on your part - that is not proof or your claim. The question is not hard to grasp, but the justification of the basis for your request is questionable. Maybe you can do better to give a valid justification.

 

But again, I don't have to use that account to build a valid case for the resurrection, so to me it is a moot point.

[LNC]

6. cultural anthropology system of supernatural beliefs: a body of organized practices and beliefs supposed to involve interaction with and control over supernatural powers

This definition is clearly false, since all religions would be considered cults. This simply shows an unsubstantiated, anti-supernatural bias.

I'm sorry, what would 'substantiate' a belief in 'supernatural' events? Are you aware that ALL Science and ALL rational people have an 'anti-supernatural bias'? That's completely absurd to make that statement.

 

In the words of Sir Galahad in Monty Python's Holy Grail, "Is there someone else up there we could talk to?"

 

You need to reread the statement and definition above as it is not me who is making a definitive supernatural claim, but the person who wrote the definition who assumes that the supernatural does not exist. Making such a definitive statement puts the burden of proof on them, not me.

 

Science is a discipline and therefore "science" does not have a bias. Now, if you are discussing scientists, that is a different story. Scientists who practice the hard sciences are looking for naturalistic explanations for hypotheses and theories, but I don't know what that has to do with the statement above as cultural anthropology as that is not considered one of the hard sciences. One is simply committing the genetic fallacy when trying to explain away the existence of the supernatural by explaining why people act in certain ways via naturalistic explanations. So, the claim that I made is not absurd at all, but actually quite valid.

[Ouroboros]

I don't make statements on my own authority as does Ehrman. If he makes statements on his own authority and he is not credentialed or schooled to make those statements authoritatively, then we have reason to question the accuracy of his conclusions, especially when credentialed authorities dispute his conclusions, which is the case.

He's more qualified than you. And he's more qualified than someone who got his degree 100 years ago.

 

 

Regarding William Ramsay, I believe you have the wrong one, check this out and you will find that he is an eminent scholar qualified to make authoritative statements. Ehrman's focus is on textual criticism not on history and theology. Maybe you could consider doing better research next time before you resort to ad hominem.

Hmm... so what about this bio: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemist...ramsay-bio.html (Nobel Prize website, Sir William Ramsay won prize in chemistry 1904. Agree. That was very bad research on my part to use such a poorly accredited source... bonehead.)

We have two competing biographies for the same guy.

William Ramsay was born in Glasgow on October 2, 1852, the son of William Ramsay, C.E. and Catherine, née Robertson. He was a nephew of the geologist, Sir Andrew Ramsay.

 

Until 1870 he studied in his native town, following this with a period in Fittig's laboratory at Tübingen until 1872. While there his thesis on orthotoluic acid and its derivatives earned him the degree of doctor of philosophy.

 

On his return to Scotland in 1872 he became assistant in chemistry at the Anderson College in Glasgow and two years later secured a similar position at the University there. In 1880 he was appointed Principal and Professor of Chemistry at University College, Bristol, and moved on in 1887 to the Chair of Inorganic Chemistry at University College, London, a post which he held until his retirement in 1913.

And that's from the Nobel Prize website...

 

You must admit, it's confusing. Two guys, both "sirs", same birth place, only born a year and few months apart. It's easy to make a mistake when this happens. And I must admit, this is very strange. Extremely strange.

 

Can it be true? Two people, both sirs, with the same names, born almost at the same time, but completely different careers. And the two sources are Nobel Prize committee, and the other Encyclopedia Britannica. You must admit this is extremely strange!

 

So I guess, Nobel Prize committee's resources is NOT doing research completely. Maybe they have been giving prizes in chemistry to apologists since the beginning, but where lying about it?

 

Again, you must admit, this is strange. Do you have some explanation to this coincident?

 

---

 

Damn! Further research, looking into what Encyclopedia Britannica said about Sir William Ramsay, those liars say he was a chemist. Damn! They must be possessed with DEMONSssssss... Something is up the walls here, and I'd like to know exactly what it is.

 

But then, I can also find the Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, archeologist, in Oxford's archives. They must be possessed by the demons of Darwin.

 

This is a very strange mystery...

[Deva]

Where is your grounding for rejecting this account as that of an eyewitness or the relaying of an eyewitness account? You say that proof is not found in the Bible, yet it is a biblical account that we are discussing. I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that it is not reported in other Gospels? If so, we have already discussed that and that is not evidence that it did not occur, but merely an argument from silence on your part - that is not proof or your claim. The question is not hard to grasp, but the justification of the basis for your request is questionable. Maybe you can do better to give a valid justification.

 

But again, I don't have to use that account to build a valid case for the resurrection, so to me it is a moot point.

 

My own bolding for emphasis. So I take it that it is automatically a correct eyewitness account if its in the Bible? Eyewitness accounts are not automatically acceptable in a court of law today for events that are much less incredible than the resurrection of a bunch of people. ALL Biblical accounts of this purported event and the so-called resurrection of Christ were written at least 70 years after the fact according to Biblical scholars. Why should we believe them? Do you believe stuff like this on the hearsay of people or because it was written in some old book?

 

LNC, you are being deliberately obtuse if you can't see what Neon is getting at. You know very well, LNC, that there is NO reason for accepting the resurrection unless you accept the Bible as "proof" or as you like to refer to it --"data".

[LNC]

Non sequitur.

 

Consider that there could be other reasons why we are debating so much about Christianity.

 

Lets turn the tables. Why are you here discussion and debating with us and trying to convince us that we're wrong? Why are you debating non-Christianity so much? Perhaps you aren't completely convinced that we are wrong then?

 

You see, it goes both ways. Unless, there is a possibility that you have other reasons to be here and debate... a big surprise, so could we.

 

Sorry, that still doesn't negate the point that I was making nor does it prove to be a non sequitur.

 

I am here for many reasons. First, because I was invited last year to come over here. Second, because I have actually appreciated interacting with many of you, including you, Han, as for the most part, I consider them to be challenging and meaningful discussions. Third, I think that debating ones ideas helps a person to understand the truth. If a person's ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, then they should either study them better to understand them, or change them. Fourth, and most importantly, because I believe who Jesus was and what he said and that has implications for me, you, and everyone else in the world. I don't think that you are wrong about everything, yet, I do believe that Jesus is who he said he was and that what he said fits reality most closely of any worldview that I have studied.

 

Colossians 2:8 (NIV)-

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather then on Christ.

 

1Timothy6:20-21-

[LNC], guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered away from the faith.

 

What you are doing here is in direct violation of the new testament. You are told to abstain from philosophical chatter with us heathens because philosophy is of this world, and in opposition to the kingdom. I, myself hope you do wander away and realize this earth is your home.

 

You misread Paul's admonishment in Colossians, it says, not to be taken captive by deceptive philosophy...thankfully, I have not been taken captive by deceptive philosophy of this world.

 

Regarding Paul's admonishment to Timothy, I have not been engaging in "godless chatter" but have actually seasoned my words with godly wisdom. I think that you may want to look to what Peter said,

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 1 Peter 3:15

 

Why would you want me to wander away from the truth and embrace a "philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world"? That would seem quite foolish for me to do and not very wise for you to wish for me. "I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am" Acts 26:29.

[Ouroboros]

LNC, you are being deliberately obtuse if you can't see what Neon is getting at. You know very well, LNC, that there is NO reason for accepting the resurrection unless you accept the Bible as "proof" or as you like to refer to it --"data".

Meanwhile, he refuse to take any other source as "proof" or "data." Or more accurately, only "data" that supports his belief is true, while "data" that contradicts his belief, is false. Those simple minds never stops amaze me.

 

Oh, gosh, the Sir Ramsay mixup is growing. Wikipedia got two different Sir William Ramsay:

 

Here's the Christian archeologist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

 

And here's the Nobel Prize winning chemist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_William_Ramsay

 

How come the chemist version got picture, and the archeologist does not? I think we have discovered perhaps the earliest stolen identity or something.

 

Blah blah...

Whatever.

[LNC]

Funny, because the official site for the Jesus Seminar says

 

Did you actually count how many people are associated with them? I count 145, not 200 as you claimed and not all are NT scholars as I said. I think that my point stands.

 

But you don't consider anyone who doesn't agree with your unfounded presumptions to be real scholars anyway, so you'll simply ignore anything I say anyway.

 

I have no unfounded presumptions, I simply look at what a person's field of study and expertise is and judge based upon that like everyone else. Do you have different criteria by which you judge?

 

Quoted from the official site http://www.bartdehrman.com/biography.htm

Among his fields of scholarly expertise are the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

And when are you going to answer my question of where's the non-scriptural evidence that Matthew 27:51-53 is real?

 

OK, I will give you that point and judge his understanding based upon his evidence and whether his conclusions are supported by that evidence. I think that the case still stands against him on the resurrection in light of evidence.

 

Why are xtians such crybabies? You'd think after what Jesus went through, a little bit of parody would be nothing. You're an insult to real martyrs for the Christian faith everywhere.

 

Who is crying? I am merely making an observation that atheists often hide behind ad hominem rather than do the work of producing evidence to back up claims. I am by no means a martyr for the faith, nor do I consider name-calling and insults to be a personal attack against me. I simply consider them for what they are, a smoke screen behind which skeptics can hide the fact that they don't have a valid counter argument for their case. So, I say if all one can do is call names, then it actually gives credence to the arguments that I have made - so, keep them coming.

[agnosticator]

You misread Paul's admonishment in Colossians, it says, not to be taken captive by deceptive philosophy...thankfully, I have not been taken captive by deceptive philosophy of this world.

 

Regarding Paul's admonishment to Timothy, I have not been engaging in "godless chatter" but have actually seasoned my words with godly wisdom. I think that you may want to look to what Peter said,

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 1 Peter 3:15

 

Philosophy is "of this world" (the love of wisdom or knowledge....analysis of human existence, experience and the universe). Philosophy is what humans have invented: godless chatter according to the verse. Wisdom of this world is not for you. Have you have volunteered to come here to the "godless" for evangelism? I think you veil your sarcasm while pretending to seriously discuss these posts. You write as if you are innocently naive, but I don't buy it. Unless you really are dense. I don't know.

 

Why would you want me to wander away from the truth and embrace a "philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world"? That would seem quite foolish for me to do and not very wise for you to wish for me. "I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am" Acts 26:29.

 

Another seemingly innocent and naive response, with a touch of evangelism to boot! You just quoted the new testament's view of the discipline of philosophy. It is not saying you can embrace philosophy while the new testament condemns it.

[Ouroboros]

You misread Paul's admonishment in Colossians, it says, not to be taken captive by deceptive philosophy...thankfully, I have not been taken captive by deceptive philosophy of this world.

I missed this tidbit. I like it. You're absolutely right. You have not been taken by the philosophy of this world. If it's deceptive or not, it's a matter of view. For the religious of course, reasonable, rational, and logical arguments of this world, are of course a threat to the delusional fantasy which religion maintain. So I guess we finally got it in print. I must say, I do agree with you finally.