NotBlinded Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 KH> Well, aside from a specific proposal that I would work hard to be precise on, I'm trying, as you are, to get everyone to see that when examining the very basics of a view one should not require unreasonable standards, i.e. we should use the same criteria for the New Testament or the person of Christ that we accept for other ancient writings and persons. Once we get a handle on that, we can examine what the data tells us about further aspects of the view (Jesus existed but was he divine?). I have noticed an objection to this on this thread along the lines of "Alexander and Plato didn't claim to be God or divine, etc." IOW, if something is of great import, then we should require unreasonable standards of proof for it. I reject that. Kevin H I really don't see the conflict. The standards would be the same in order to show that Jesus lived. But one must be ready to be specific in deciding which Jesus was used as the basis for the stories in the bible. It really doesn't matter to me whether he actually lived or not. The bible is what it is regardless of the actual existence of Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Jesus is linked to David legally (through Joseph) and physically (through Mary). Many scholars think this is a plausible explanation for the two genealogies. Kevin H Quick response... Jechoniah stops Jesus from being a legal successor to the throne of David. Nathan stops Jesus being eligable for the Throne of David. Of course, should you want to argue this, take it to the Geneology topic. Geneology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 i.e. we should use the same criteria for the New Testament or the person of Christ that we accept for other ancient writings and persons. Once again, I call bull shit. Claims about whether or not Alexander led his armies to create an empire are not miraculous. The bible makes miraculous claims and cannot be judged on the same standard. It was also claimed that Alex was immaculately conceived. I reject that claim on the same basis I reject the miraculous claims in the bible. Once we get a handle on that, we can examine what the data tells us about further aspects of the view (Jesus existed but was he divine?). This ought to be good. I have noticed an objection to this on this thread along the lines of "Alexander and Plato didn't claim to be God or divine, etc." IOW, if something is of great import, then we should require unreasonable standards of proof for it. I reject that. Kevin H Of course you reject that, that is why you are still a christian. The rest of us don't have our heads in the clouds though and we can see the simple truth that these extraordinary claims demand a much higher standard of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Kevin H made the claim that there was no contemporary evidence for Alexander the Great. I posted one. That's the kind of evidence I need to prove Jesus was a man. Something from the early - or even mid - first century that references him. To me, that would prove Jesus had lived as a person. Certainly not a god, but at least a person who walked on the earth. Kevin H or no one else can produce this, since no such evidence is in existence. KH> I didn't make that claim and I complimented your post. What I wanted us all to see is that the vast bulk of what we know about Alexander comes more than four centuries after Alexander from Arrian and Plutarch. For Jesus? Much, much, much earlier (closer to the events) from the New Testament documents and non-New Testament Greco-Roman writings. BTW, I am still watching the James Ossuary situation that mentions Jesus. Some experts think it could be genuine and first-century. But it doesn't look hopeful right now from what I've read. Kevin H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 KH> Show me the verse in the Bible where apples lead to evil. I'm referring to the Garden of Eden story, obviously. You should know that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Take a look at this. It's the same site that has the Babylonian reference to Alexander in "Astronomical Diaries". Check out Ancient Judaea / Jesus of Nazareth. This is a really good website. The only real "sources" for Jesus are the gospels, the interpolated passages of Josephus, and Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43 a-b. I've read the Talmud passages several times, and there you find that Yeshu was hanged on the eve of the Passover, and that he had five disciples - named Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah. Either the gospels were based on this Yeshu, and dramatically enhanced, or this is an unrelated "Yeshu". Once you realize the evolution of the gospels, starting with the writer of Mark's gospel, (basic story, no virgin birth, no post resurrection appearances) and ending with the writer of John's gospel (the universe was created through Jesus - who existed before the universe began).. You understand that the gospels are far from any kind of credible source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Give up, Kevin. My signature refutes the existence of god. Done, over. Go home. Es Fin. Edit - That just slipped out. Sorry. That's why I can't ever accept a formal debate challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 BTW, I am still watching the James Ossuary situation that mentions Jesus. Some experts think it could be genuine and first-century. But it doesn't look hopeful right now from what I've read. Kevin H Boy, you are a couple years behind on that one. The James Ossuary has been clearly proven to not only be a fake, but the guy who did it was being charged with a crime. They found his "lab" where he makes fake artifacts, and he confessed. But it doesn't surprise me in the least that Christians are clinging to it because it is the only physical evidence they can come up with. And that's a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I won't do the Arena thing. I'm not formal debater material. And I don't want to commit to the time necessary to get into a one-on-one debate. But, Kevin H, you have made lots of claims here about authenticity and historical evidence, without ever once getting into specifics. If you'd like to take this to the colliseum, and get into the specific details, you should do it. We'll give it a shot. If Kevin H has been misrepresenting himself, we may have to call up the A team. If he has nothing more than the groundless claims he's shown so far, there is nothing there that us chops can't handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I won't do the Arena thing. I'm not formal debater material. And I don't want to commit to the time necessary to get into a one-on-one debate. But, Kevin H, you have made lots of claims here about authenticity and historical evidence, without ever once getting into specifics. If you'd like to take this to the colliseum, and get into the specific details, you should do it. We'll give it a shot. If Kevin H has been misrepresenting himself, we may have to call up the A team. If he has nothing more than the groundless claims he's shown so far, there is nothing there that us chops can't handle. KH> Okay I'll hang around here in the Den and see if I can get into some specifics. If there is a good opportunity I can always go to the Collisuem and Arena later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I have mostly just uncovered burden of proof shifts and naturalistic presupposition. Friggin comedy. Once again trying to spin the subject onto another topic, and I'm glad nobody here took the bait. You're the one shifting the burden of proof dude. It's how you delay losing the debate. In the chat room, we had you pegged as a presuppositionalist from the beginning. You've been hiding it but alluding to it the whole time. See everyone? Now all he needs to do is get someone to admit that they're a naturalist, and that naturalism is a presupposed philosophy, and then he can say 'presupposition of god is as valid as presupposition of no god' like presups do. We see right through you. Showing that naturalism may be a presupposition does not make Jesus Christ real, Kevin. Naturalism is not the debate. The positive claim of "The bible is true and god is real" needs to be proven. Presupposing it's true, and then explaining away every contradiction and lie using your presupposed view is NOT a valid proof of its truth. Never mind that presuppositionalism is just an argument for agnosticism, and not god or the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Zing! Ver' nice, Lloyd. I knew I liked you for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I have mostly just uncovered burden of proof shifts and naturalistic presupposition. Friggin comedy. Once again trying to spin the subject onto another topic, and I'm glad nobody here took the bait. You're the one shifting the burden of proof dude. It's how you delay losing the debate. In the chat room, we had you pegged as a presuppositionalist from the beginning. You've been hiding it but alluding to it the whole time. See everyone? Now all he needs to do is get someone to admit that they're a naturalist, and that naturalism is a presupposed philosophy, and then he can say 'presupposition of god is as valid as presupposition of no god' like presups do. We see right through you. Showing that naturalism may be a presupposition does not make Jesus Christ real, Kevin. Naturalism is not the debate. The positive claim of "The bible is true and god is real" needs to be proven. Presupposing it's true, and then explaining away every contradiction and lie using your presupposed view is NOT a valid proof of its truth. Never mind that presuppositionalism is just an argument for agnosticism, and not god or the bible. KH> I am not a presup as relates to apologetics and theology. I fall more in the camp of classical or evidentialist. For this reason: all of us have presuppositions. The question is, are our presuppositions warranted? The Presuppositionalist apologist says, "yes, my presups are warranted, here's why..." and they're back to giving evidence. So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one. Kevin H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Burden of Proof Shift #24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 KH> I am not a presup as relates to apologetics and theology. I fall more in the camp of classical or evidentialist. For this reason: all of us have presuppositions. The question is, are our presuppositions warranted? The Presuppositionalist apologist says, "yes, my presups are warranted, here's why..." and they're back to giving evidence. So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one. Kevin H I don't belong to any particular camp or have any label that I know of, except that I think what I have already experienced will probably happen again if I do the same things that made it happen in the first place. Are you saying that because I believe if I jump in the air that I will soon come down, I have presuppositional beliefs? I admit that I presuppose that when I push the button on my keyboard that has a circle on it, an "o" will magically appear on my TV screen thingy. Does that make me a man of faith?? I just want to know how badly you need to force everyone into a faith-based worldview so that you can level the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Burden of Proof Shift #24 KH> All views make a truth claim. All truth claims bear the burden of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one. Kevin H Slippery debating tactics Kev. You don't want truth, you want us to play by your rules and draw us into the defensive when you are the one making claims here. Lloyd called you out on it and you still try and slip it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 And there's #25. I am not a presup as relates to apologetics and theology. I fall more in the camp of classical or evidentialist. For this reason: all of us have presuppositions. The question is, are our presuppositions warranted? The Presuppositionalist apologist says, "yes, my presups are warranted, here's why..." and they're back to giving evidence. So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one. Kevin H Why even bother to say you're not a 'presuppositionalist as regards x y or z' when you clearly are in regards to your overall theology and faith? The next line about all of us presupposing things is straight out of the presuppositionalist handbook for crap's sake. Are you just trying to spin things? Or are you really being deceitful? All of your apologetic arguments stem from the 'If there was a god and the bible described him, then (explanation of conflicting scripture or failed promise)'. The 'if' part you refer to repeatedly is only solved by presupposition, which really is just a fancy word for belief. You were pressed hard on that in the chat room and you dodged it there, too. Just admit you're a presup and the only reason you believe any of this crap is because of your faith and we can end the discussion agreeing to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 "Naturalistic presuppositions"! Ah, Christian presuppositionalism. The last resort of the desperate apologist. When all else fails, abandon logic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one. Kevin H This is actually a very subtle straw man. Being someone who observes that there have not been any reliable resurrection accounts in recorded history, and only a few unreliable ones in the realm of religion, does not make someone a presuppositional naturalist, it makes them an observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 KH> All views make a truth claim. All truth claims bear the burden of proof. We are not the ones making fantastical claims. You are. If someone said that they worshipped an invisible pink unicorn and demanded that you also should worship the IPU, wouldn't you demand proof from them? Or would you leave Christianity for IPU worship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Kevin, My only claim is as follows... That which my senses tell me is real, is real. What could make me change my mind... If ever biblegod were to speak to me directly and I had no doubts about his identity in person, I would then believe in his existence. I would still choose not to worship him, because he is unworthy of my worship, but I would acknowledge his reality. Your claim is as follows... That which you cannot observe with any of your senses is real. So, what could make you change your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Burden of Proof Shift #24 KH> All views make a truth claim. All truth claims bear the burden of proof. Do you really believe that??? Really??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 If you're interested let me know or make a proposal in the Arena. I'm requesting this because most of you know this forum and I am a newbie. I have found Lloyd, Crazy Tiger, Mythra, and Pritishd to be knowledgeable and enthusiastic. I have sadly found most of you rude, angry, or hurting. I'm in good company. I can be those things as well. Fine I'll take up the challenge of your debate if you atleast attempt to resolve the Genealogy Debate in the Colloseum. Also I'll debate in the Colloseum not the Arena. I am not a formal debater and I am more of the conversation guy. The Colloseum rules doesn't permit rude comments, and I can see how a newcomer can get overwhelmed in the Lions Den Here is my topic of the debate The Historical Credibiblity of The Protestant Canon The topic will examine atleast all of the following 1)The Continues Flux of the Canon And Why The Protestant Bible Should Be Considered the Absolute Correct One. 2)Why Other Gospels Can Not Be Considered As Historically Reliable? 3)Manuscript Transmission and The Reliability 4)The Internal Historical Condradiction Of The Various Gospels In The NT 5)Corroboration Of Secular Sources As Evidence 6)The Application of Proposed Reliabiliitly And Historical Tests On Other Religious And Historical Books Before we start I must point out to that regarding the Historical Evidence of the Alexander and Other Characters you mentioned, no one in the world is holding a infallible position regarding historicity of the above character. History will be rewritten about these characters as we find more information about them. Like the issue about the great battle of Troy was highly debated amongst scholars until a historian actually found the actual site in Turkey. Even then no historical scholar will go ahead and say that other events described in Homer's Iliad are true On the other hand, the bible and protestant hold a infallible position for you. Even if some data is found contrary to the bible(eg like the historical date of the great Flood or the Garden of Eden), the bible will not be rewritten to compensate for the new data(atleast in today's date). And here are some of the links regarding the history of the Canon Different Biblical Canons of the World Books of The Different Bible Who Decided What Went In The Bible Textual Intergrity of The Bible Biblical Canon of The World Manuscript Fallacies Is the Bible Perfect? If you propose some of your own links please present it to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Burden of Proof Shift #24 KH> All views make a truth claim. All truth claims bear the burden of proof. Do you really believe that??? Really??? He has to, otherwise he has to admit that he really is the only one in the room who has unjustified beliefs in the magical and mysterious. *Kev: I'm not crazy. Prove to me that reality is reality. Ha ha* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts