anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[Eponymic]

KH> Your response is nothing more than an ad hom. But thanks anyway.

 

Kevin H

 

 

And how is saying that not ad hoministic? You're not adding anything to this other than jumping back on the emotional argument.

 

Meanwhile, you've dropped the argument about Thomas after several references were given to you; You retorted Asimov's statements with nothing more than opinions without any references or backing; you're ignoring Mythra's discussion about "NT scholarship"; And you're even skipping over my simple, piddly responses to your rebuttal of my post, which, ignored my initial points anyhow.

 

So is your plan to actually debate & discuss issues with us, or are you going to just keep the ad homenim wheel turning?

[crazy-tiger]

Are you really that unable to understand simple English?

 

 

KH> Your response is nothing more than an ad hom. But thanks anyway.

 

Kevin H

My response was a question... Are you really that unable to understand simple English that you can manage to mis-read what Lloyd posted to such an incredible degree? (though I gave you credit for enough intelligence to infer the second half of the question from the first half...)

 

If yes, then you have some real problems that you need to overcome before trying to debate anything.

If no, then you have deliberately mis-understood what Lloyd said and used that misunderstanding to avoid answering his post.

[Eponymic]

Thank you kindly for telling me exactly how to think and feel.

Very Christian of you. (and that's not a joke.)

 

KH> I guess I was right. I did not want to put you on the defensive and apparently I did.

 

It's really a shame that you interpret that as defensive. I actually go on to back up some of my ideas. Where as you, in a more true defenition of defensive, only take the time to call me defensive then runaway.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Gents and ladies..

 

Seems that KevinH seems to follow the usual seagull pattern of dropping flying dung, then flying away..

 

Oughta know by now that when faced with a multi-faceted, multi personed dicussion of "their" setup arguments all of them falter and fail.

 

We know most "declare victory and go home* soon after.

 

Almost funny to watch. Again...

 

kL

[Kevin H]

Thank you kindly for telling me exactly how to think and feel.

Very Christian of you. (and that's not a joke.)

 

KH> I guess I was right. I did not want to put you on the defensive and apparently I did.

 

It's really a shame that you interpret that as defensive. I actually go on to back up some of my ideas. Where as you, in a more true defenition of defensive, only take the time to call me defensive then runaway.

 

 

 

KH> My reply was brief because you said you were uninterested in dialoguing with me. But, here I am, what exactly would you like me to address? What did I gloss over?

 

 

Kevin H

[Kevin H]

Kevin,

 

You are pretty adamant about demanding proof and sources from US......

 

How about giving us some proof yourself.

 

Without using circular logic.....using the bible to prove the bible, or surrogate circular logic.....using an essay which uses the bible as it's source of evidence.....

 

Would you kindly provide proof that the bible is the word of god to begin with?

 

Thanks much.

 

 

 

KH> I try not to ever use circular logic. I have given lines of evidence to support various views here. Each line of evidence can be examined and fleshed out individually.

 

So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration.

 

1). There is good reason to believe God exists.

 

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

 

3). Being reliable, they reliably report the life and words of Christ.

 

4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead.

 

5). Therefore we can conclude Jesus was the divine Son of God and the predicted Messiah.

 

6). As such, he is authoritative in all he affirms.

 

7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament.

 

8). Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God.

 

9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny.

 

10). Therefore, as a cumulative case, we can conclude that the Bible is the word of God.

 

 

Remember, circular logic is when the conclusion is found in the premises ("the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God therefore the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God....).

 

 

Kevin H

[NotBlinded]

Kevin,

 

You are pretty adamant about demanding proof and sources from US......

 

How about giving us some proof yourself.

 

Without using circular logic.....using the bible to prove the bible, or surrogate circular logic.....using an essay which uses the bible as it's source of evidence.....

 

Would you kindly provide proof that the bible is the word of god to begin with?

 

Thanks much.

 

 

 

KH> I try not to ever use circular logic. I have given lines of evidence to support various views here. Each line of evidence can be examined and fleshed out individually.

 

So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration.

 

1). There is good reason to believe God exists.

 

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

 

3). Being reliable, they reliably report the life and words of Christ.

 

4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead.

 

5). Therefore we can conclude Jesus was the divine Son of God and the predicted Messiah.

 

6). As such, he is authoritative in all he affirms.

 

7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament.

 

8). Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God.

 

9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny.

 

10). Therefore, as a cumulative case, we can conclude that the Bible is the word of God.

 

 

Remember, circular logic is when the conclusion is found in the premises ("the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God therefore the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God....).

 

 

Kevin H

 

How can you be so certain they are reliable when others existed?

 

That the apostles had received a "secret doctrine" from Jesus, and that he himself taught one, is evident from the following words of Jerome, who confessed it in an unguarded moment. Writing to the Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, he complains that "a difficult work is enjoined, since this translation has been commanded me by your Felicities, which St. Matthew himself, the Apostle and Evangelist, DID NOT WISH TO BE OPENLY WRITTEN. For if it had not been SECRET, he (Matthew) would have added to the evangel that which he gave forth was his; but he made up this book sealed up in the Hebrew characters, which he put forth even in such a way that the book, written in Hebrew letters and by the hand of himself, might be possessed by the men most religious, who also, in the course of time, received it from those who preceded them. But this very book they never gave to any one to be transcribed, and its text they related some one way and some another."*** And he adds further on the same page: "And it happened that this book, having been published by a disciple of Manichaeus, named Seleucus, who also wrote falsely The Acts of the Apostles, exhibited matter not for edification, but for destruction; and that this book was approved in a synod which the ears of the Church properly refused to listen to."****

 

He admits, himself, that the book which he authenticates as being written "by the hand of Matthew"; a book which, notwithstanding that

 

[[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------

* Hieronymus: "De Virus.," illust., cap. 3. "It is remarkable that, while all church fathers say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, the whole of them use the Greek text as the genuine apostolic writing, without mentioning what relation the Hebrew Matthew has to our Greek one! It had many peculiar additions which are wanting in our evangel." (Olshausen: "Nachweis der Echtheit der sammtlichen Schriften des Neuen Test.," p. 32; Dunlap: "Sod, the Son of the Man," p. 44.)

 

** Hieronymus: "Commen. to Matthew," book ii., ch. xii., 13. Jerome adds that it was written in the Chaldaic language, but with Hebrew letters.

 

*** "St. Jerome," v., 445; "Sod, the Son of the Man," p. 46.

 

**** This accounts also for the rejection of the works of Justin Martyr, who used only this "Gospel according to the Hebrews," as also did most probably Titian, his disciple. At what late period was fully established the divinity of Christ we can judge by the mere fact that even in the fourth century Eusebius did not denounce this book as spurious, but only classed it with such as the Apocalypse of John; and Credner ("Zur Gesch. des Kan.," p. 120) shows Nicephorus inserting it, together with the Revelation, in his "Stichometry," among the Antilegomena. The Ebionites, the genuine primitive Christians, rejecting the rest of the apostolic writings, made use only of this Gospel ("Adv. Haer." i., 26), and the Ebionites, as Epiphanius declares, firmly believed, with the Nazarenes, that Jesus was but a man "of the seed of a man."

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[[Vol. 2, Page]] 183 THE CRAFT OF ST. JEROME.

he translated it twice, was nearly unintelligible to him, for it was arcane or a secret. Nevertheless, Jerome coolly sets down every commentary upon it, except his own, as heretical. More than that, Jerome knew that this original Gospel of Matthew was the expounder of the only true doctrine of Christ; and that it was the work of an evangelist who had been the friend and companion of Jesus. He knew that if of the two Gospels, the Hebrew in question and the Greek belonging to our present Scripture, one was spurious, hence heretical, it was not that of the Nazarenes; and yet, knowing all this, Jerome becomes more zealous than ever in his persecutions of the "Haeretics." Why? Because to accept it was equivalent to reading the death-sentence of the established Church. The Gospel according to the Hebrews was but too well known to have been the only one accepted for four centuries by the Jewish Christians, the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. And neither of the latter accepted the divinity of Christ.

 

If the commentaries of Jerome on the Prophets, his famous Vulgate, and numerous polemical treatises are all as trustworthy as this version of the Gospel according to Matthew, then we have a divine revelation indeed.

 

Why wonder at the unfathomable mysteries of the Christian religion, since it is perfectly human? Have we not a letter written by one of the most respected Fathers of the Church to this same Jerome, which shows better than whole volumes their traditionary policy? This is what Saint Gregory of Nazianzen wrote to his friend and confidant Saint Jerome: "Nothing can impose better on a people than verbiage; the less they understand the more they admire. Our fathers and doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity forced them to."

 

 

 

Isis Unveiled

[crazy-tiger]

Remember when you said that if the premises are false, the conclusion doesn't follow?

KH> I try not to ever use circular logic. I have given lines of evidence to support various views here. Each line of evidence can be examined and fleshed out individually.

 

So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration.

 

1). There is good reason to believe God exists.

Possibly a god, but not BibleGod... that's a leap of faith that isn't backed by reason. Premise falsified.

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

The NT docoments are a collection of heresay, mistranslations and fakes... Premise falsified.

3). Being reliable, they reliably report the life and words of Christ.

They aren't... Premise falsified.

4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead.

Earliest reports showing nothing of the kind except in the NT documents that are unreliable... Premise falsified.

5). Therefore we can conclude Jesus was the divine Son of God and the predicted Messiah.

Where to start? The Predicted Messiah (PM from now on) was NOT to be a miracle worker. The PM was to be just another human. The PM was not to be a sacrifice in any way, shape or form. The PM was supposed to fulfill a shit-load of prophesies in ONE lifetime. Jesus was none of those, so was NOT the PM. Premise falsified. (and falsified bigtime)

6). As such, he is authoritative in all he affirms. Falsified.

 

7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament.

NT not reliable... Premise falsified.

8). Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God.

No authority found, due to falsified premises, therefore... Premise falsified.

9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny.

Premise falsified due to the fact that a: The Bible falls apart under scrutiny and b: other books have the same caracteristics so it's nowt special.

10). Therefore, as a cumulative case, we can conclude that the Bible is the word of God.

Conclusion does not follow due to the falsification of all 9 premises.

Remember, circular logic is when the conclusion is found in the premises ("the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God therefore the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God....).

 

 

Kevin H

Now find us something that hasn't already been falsified but shows that the Bible is the word of God.

 

Concluding the Bible is right based on evidence in the Bible is what you just did... even while you were trying to prove that you don't.

 

 

 

The irony of that is breath-taking...

[Guest Guest]

 

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

 

 

 

What 's your evidence that the four Gospels are reliable and are first hand eyewitness account of these events?

 

You obviously did not read my post.

As far as preservation of the NT text goes, the NIV Bible has a footnote that says the most reliable early manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20. How are we to know that other NT text have not been altered

 

You also mentions a plethora of manuscript as a some form of evidence.

 

the following site does a good job of debunking that claim

 

Manuscript Fallacies

 

Up to the ninth century there is only one complete manuscript of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century CE). Only two other uncial manuscripts come close to having the complete New Testament, the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century CE), [in which the first 25 chapters of the gospel of Matthew is missing, a couple of chapters of the gospel of John and eight chapters of II Corinthians] and the Codex Ephremi (fifth century)[missing completely II Thessalonians and II John.]. [11]

 

There are less than sixty complete (or almost complete) manuscripts of the New Testament extant; 59 to be exact. We have seen the three uncials above. The 56 remaining complete manuscripts of the New Testament are minuscules manuscripts. All these are late and date from the ninth century CE and later.

 

Most of the extant manuscripts are fragmentary. Let us give some example of the papyri manuscripts. P1, a third century manuscript, consists of only 17 verses from the gospel of Matthew (1:1-9, 12, 14-20). P2, a sixth century manuscript, consists of three verses from John (12:12-15) and six verses from Luke (7:22-26, 50). Even the famous P52, from the John Rylands library, the earliest fragment of the New Testament, consists only of five verses from the gospel of John (18:31-33, 37-38). Out of the 96 catalogued papyri manuscripts, 68 contain 20 verses or less. Only thirteen of the papyri manuscripts contain more than 40 verses. The situation with the uncial manuscripts is not much different. Of the 299 extant uncial manuscripts, 195 have only two folios or less. (A folio, by the way, is a parchment folded in the middle to make four pages)

 

I had also asked

 

3)Could you give the list of authors of the various books of your bible? Please don't include church tradition or speculation

 

led a sinless life

 

Lets see according to the NT Jesus commited the following sin

1)Working on a Sabbath

2)Not stoning a woman to death for adultery

3)Telling people to give up various god defined food laws

4)Introducing Blood drinking rituals which was prohibited by the OT

5)Lying in an interrogation

6)Participating in heathen rituals such as baptism in water.

 

Still want to claim he led a sinless life.

 

9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny.

The NT contradict the OT on many accounts, especially in the theology.

 

It plaguerises a lot of text of the OT out of context to make up prophecies, and also makes a lot factual mistakes which are cited in the OT.

 

At many times NT cities prophecies which don't even exist in the OT.

 

Could you tell me where can I find the following prophecies

 

1)The Messiah would have to Worshipped

2)The Messiah would come twice

3)The law would not need to followed and Salvation can be found in worshipping a human sacrifice

[SkepticOfBible]

The above statement was mine

[Mythra]

So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration.

Kevin H

 

You have GOT to be kidding.

 

You might as well say "You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart"..

 

If that's your evidence, you might as well cut and run, dude.

[Mythra]

[4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead.

Kevin H

 

I love blanket statements that are utterly and completely without merit.

 

The "earliest reports" were all over the freakin place with regards to "Jesus"

 

Paul was one of the earliest. (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians) And he recorded not one word of miracles, , Jesus' teachings or sayings, virgin birth, Pontius Pilate, Nazareth, Lazarus, or that Jesus had recently been a "man" grounded in time.

 

Irenaeus has Jesus living during the reign of Trajan (98 - 117 CE)

 

Epiphanius has Jesus living during the reign of Alexander Janneus (103 - 76 BCE)

 

When you speak of "earliest reports and traditions" - what you really mean are the official "early reports and traditions"..

 

Why don't we include Valentinus, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, Marcus, Simon Magus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Cerdo, Marcion, Tatian, Celsus? These were all part of the "early reports and traditions". But of course, we can dismiss all of their accounts because they were heretics.

[Eponymic]

What did I gloss over?

 

Oh boy.

 

Tell you what Junior Mint, why don't you go back to my posts & try & figure it out for yourself. I'm not here to hold your hand, help you figure it out, & give you a lollipop cause you got it right.

 

KH> My reply was brief because you said you were uninterested in dialoguing with me. But, here I am, what exactly would you like me to address?

 

Here's a great example of you not paying attention & reading your own meaning into things.

 

So you're clear, I'll even quote myself on this one.

The closest things I said to not being interested in a dialogue were this:

"I wonder if I should even continue since you are already ignoring, not addressing, or just not catching my meaning."

and

"And there's no sense in me going into more detail until you bother to actually refute my initial statements with something other than emotional arguments."

 

Now you tell me where I actually said that I don't want to talk at all & I'll go ahead and give you that aforementioned lollipop.

[Kevin H]

Remember when you said that if the premises are false, the conclusion doesn't follow?

KH> I try not to ever use circular logic. I have given lines of evidence to support various views here. Each line of evidence can be examined and fleshed out individually.

 

So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration.

 

1). There is good reason to believe God exists.

Possibly a god, but not BibleGod... that's a leap of faith that isn't backed by reason. Premise falsified.

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

The NT docoments are a collection of heresay, mistranslations and fakes... Premise falsified.

3). Being reliable, they reliably report the life and words of Christ.

They aren't... Premise falsified.

4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead.

Earliest reports showing nothing of the kind except in the NT documents that are unreliable... Premise falsified.

5). Therefore we can conclude Jesus was the divine Son of God and the predicted Messiah.

Where to start? The Predicted Messiah (PM from now on) was NOT to be a miracle worker. The PM was to be just another human. The PM was not to be a sacrifice in any way, shape or form. The PM was supposed to fulfill a shit-load of prophesies in ONE lifetime. Jesus was none of those, so was NOT the PM. Premise falsified. (and falsified bigtime)

6). As such, he is authoritative in all he affirms. Falsified.

 

7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament.

NT not reliable... Premise falsified.

8). Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God.

No authority found, due to falsified premises, therefore... Premise falsified.

9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny.

Premise falsified due to the fact that a: The Bible falls apart under scrutiny and b: other books have the same caracteristics so it's nowt special.

10). Therefore, as a cumulative case, we can conclude that the Bible is the word of God.

Conclusion does not follow due to the falsification of all 9 premises.

Remember, circular logic is when the conclusion is found in the premises ("the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God therefore the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God....).

 

 

Kevin H

Now find us something that hasn't already been falsified but shows that the Bible is the word of God.

 

Concluding the Bible is right based on evidence in the Bible is what you just did... even while you were trying to prove that you don't.

 

 

 

The irony of that is breath-taking...

 

 

KH> You falsified none of them but only listed the heading of your assertions (as I did). Therefore, which one do you want to take first, or do you want to take them in order?

 

Kevin H

 

 

KH> Your response is nothing more than an ad hom. But thanks anyway.

 

Kevin H

 

 

And how is saying that not ad hoministic? You're not adding anything to this other than jumping back on the emotional argument.

 

Meanwhile, you've dropped the argument about Thomas after several references were given to you; You retorted Asimov's statements with nothing more than opinions without any references or backing; you're ignoring Mythra's discussion about "NT scholarship"; And you're even skipping over my simple, piddly responses to your rebuttal of my post, which, ignored my initial points anyhow.

 

So is your plan to actually debate & discuss issues with us, or are you going to just keep the ad homenim wheel turning?

 

 

KH> I don't have time to answer everyone as fast as you would apparently prefer. Tell you what, I'll take you to some Christian forums where you'll be deluged and outnumbered and we'll see how fast you are. How bout that?

 

Kevin H

[Fweethawt]

KH> I don't have time to answer everyone as fast as you would apparently prefer. Tell you what, I'll take you to some Christian forums where you'll be deluged and outnumbered and we'll see how fast you are. How bout that?

 

Kevin H

Make this offer to whomever invited you here.

[willybilly30]

I got some questions about the bible Kevin.

1. can you name one case not in the bible were a woman had birth without sex?

2. Have you seen someone walk on water hey why don’t you try it and tell me if you can.

3. The bible says a believer can pick up a snake and if it bites them it wont kill them look up snake handling churches on the net and tell me why the founder of it died of a snake bite.

4. How can a male god create with out a woman?

For the bible to be true, it has to be based on fact.

[white_raven23]

1). There is good reason to believe God exists.

 

Personally I do believe god exists, but I know it's not biblegod. How do I know? (I know you'll ask) God isn't god without being a supreme being. Such a being, to me, knows all past, present, future, and is completely without limitations. The being described in the bible and labelled god, doesn't know all, and is in fact limited. Why would god need to take a nap after working six days? How could such a being worthy of being called a god EVER become tired?

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

According to whom? What is your source for this statement? You seem to think we would accept this as a "given", but we do not, as the reason we are here in the first place indicates we've found enough source material of our own indicating otherwise in amounts large enough for each of us to abandon life long beliefs. That is a LOT of evidence. Not one of us just woke up one day and decided, gee....I think I'll go completely against the majority of mainstream society, and believe something else.

Please give proof for statement 2.

 

 

And unfortunately from there on, the rest of your points all hinge entirely upon the acceptance and agreement on point number 2. So I shall wait for your evidence.

[Mythra]

KevinH, we didn't go out seeking a fight, as you did. We are just here on this site to assist each other in leaving behind an oppresive, ugly, self-deprecating thought life derived from believing a lie. If you can't handle the heat, you should either hitch up your pants and get busy, or get out of the kitchen.

 

7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament.

 

This "proof" is a complete joke. The evangelists who wrote the gospels had the OT in their hand when they wrote it. It's not like the OT was unknown and it was discovered later, and waa-laa! Look at all of the fulfilled prophecies! It's a miracle!

 

The OT was the pattern, the template. Through the process of midrash, the gospels were put together using Isaiah, Zechariah, Hosea, Psalms, Nehemiah, Ezra.

 

It would be a miracle of stupidity on the part of the gospel writers if "prophecy" had not been "fulfilled".

[crazy-tiger]

KH> You falsified none of them but only listed the heading of your assertions (as I did). Therefore, which one do you want to take first, or do you want to take them in order?

Kevin H

Ok... From the top.

 

 

a: What is the reasoning that takes you from there possibly being a supernatural agent to it being a God to it being the God of the Bible?

 

b: Since there were no written accounts made by any of Jesus' contemporaries, and since those accounts that are assumed to be by his contemporaries are second-hand at best, and since there are admitted fakes in amongst those accounts, please explain how the NT documents could possibly be reliable.

 

c: Since the NT is not reliable, any claims made on the basis of said reliability are false.

 

d: The earliest reports have Jesus living at anytime within a 220 year span. They also have details of Jesus living into his 50's. Some have Jesus being a spiritual being only, while some have him as pure flesh.

Since those reports do not show that Jesus was "a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead" but do show how unreliable they are with the huge amount of contradictory information in them, You premise that Jesus was "a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead" is well and truely falsified.

 

e: The Predictied Messiah, (henceforth TPM) according to the Tanach (the original "Old Testament" that the Bible has twisted) was not supposed to perform miracles. TPM was supposed to be a King of flesh and blood, ruling over Israel. TPM was not prophesised as a sacrifice... he was to rule until the end of his days then die a natural death. TPM was supposed to rebuild the Temple before he died. TPM was supposed to reunite Israel before he died.

Those are just a few of the prophesies that TPM is to fulfill in his SINGLE LIFE. Since Jesus failed to fulfill any of those, Jesus fails to be TPM and your claim that he is such is bogus.

 

f: Since Jesus has failed to be TPM, your claim that he is authorative in all he claims is shown false.

 

g: Since the NT documents have been shown to be fatally unreliable, your claim that "In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament" is not just falsified but shown to be in direct contradiction to history.

 

h: Since the NT is still unreliable, and since the NT is the only source of the claim that Jesus is TPM (aka. Christ) then the claim that "Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God" is falsified since Jesus is not TPM, is therefore not Christ and is therefore without any kind of authority to affirm the Bible as the word of God.

 

i: The Bible fails to hold up under scrutiny in the most vital areas... the details of Jesus.

Since it cannot agree as to what his Geneology was, what his last words on the cross were, where he went after his baptism, whether he rode into Jeruselem on one animal or two, whether he was taken to Egypt or Galilee immediately after his birth, when he was born, where he lived, just to name a few... your claim that "The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny" is proven very badly false. The Quran also has amazing unity for it's timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation and confirmation in the face of textual critisism to the same standard as the Bible, (if not to a higher standard...) then what is contained in the Quran is ALSO reliable and can confirm that the Quran is the word of God, thus proving the Bible false.

 

j: Since your conclusion is based soley on the premise that the NT is reliable AND can be evidence for it's own claim is shown to be badly in error and a wonderful exercise in circular logic... the very thing you were trying to prove that you don't use!

 

 

None of the details I have posted here are unsupported assertions, since they are all proven facts and the detailed articles are very easily found. (no, I'm not doing the work for you... I've already noticed a very nasty habit you have of ignoring the majority of a post to give a niggling reply)

 

 

 

 

Appologies to everyone else for the length of this, but I made the mistake of crediting KH with the intelligence to read my previous post and spot the details I have mentioned which refuted each and every one of his claims.

Since he either lacks that intelligence or refuses to utilise it, I have had to be more detailed and long-winded to accomodate said absence of intelligence.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

KH> I don't have time to answer everyone as fast as you would apparently prefer. Tell you what, I'll take you to some Christian forums where you'll be deluged and outnumbered and we'll see how fast you are. How bout that?

 

Kevin H

 

If you feel that your are outnumbered and people tend to go off topic, then I suggest going to the Collesseum section of the forum.

[MQTA]

KevinH, we didn't go out seeking a fight, as you did. We are just here on this site to assist each other in leaving behind an oppresive, ugly, self-deprecating thought life derived from believing a lie. If you can't handle the heat, you should either hitch up your pants and get busy, or get out of the kitchen.

 

7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament.

 

This "proof" is a complete joke. The evangelists who wrote the gospels had the OT in their hand when they wrote it. It's not like the OT was unknown and it was discovered later, and waa-laa! Look at all of the fulfilled prophecies! It's a miracle!

 

The OT was the pattern, the template. Through the process of midrash, the gospels were put together using Isaiah, Zechariah, Hosea, Psalms, Nehemiah, Ezra.

 

It would be a miracle of stupidity on the part of the gospel writers if "prophecy" had not been "fulfilled".

 

If priests and preachers know this, then this isn't The Greatest Story Ever Told, it's The Greatest Scam EVER played on mankind.

[Amethyst]

KH> Similarities do not prove same source. Also, to compare Harry Potter and Jesus is ludicrous, and your point does not hold. We don't worship other heroes from the ancient world. it takes more than literature to garner worship.

 

I never said they came from the same source, and to me, it is NOT ludicrous. You see, to me, Jesus is like Santa Claus. Just a myth. Excpet that Harry Potter never claimed to be reality.

 

Why don't you believe in Santa Claus then? Or the Tooth Fairy? Or the Fairy Godmother? Or the Easter Bunny? The vast majority of five year-olds do, and they also believe in Jesus. Could thousands of five year-olds be wrong if that's what their parents taught them to believe? I mean, their parents taught them to believe in Jesus, too. So why pick only one myth over all the others? Why not also believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Chocolate Goddesses, fairies, leprechauns, the whole nine yards? Why pick and choose?

 

The majority of ancient historical documents don't make the same fantastic claims that the bible does. The foundational choice about how I am to live my life and lo spend eternity does not spin on whether or not Alexander was a pedophile or not.

 

Good point. Most ancient, historical documents do not say that snakes talked, men walked on water, did miraculous healings, rose from the dead, made other people rise from the dead, etc., etc. Why would you believet that without any other proof? It makes no sense. You might as well take Superman literally, or Lord of the Rings, or something.

[MQTA]

It's all Hit or Myth

[Kuroikaze]

KH> I try not to ever use circular logic. I have given lines of evidence to support various views here. Each line of evidence can be examined and fleshed out individually.

 

So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration.

 

1). There is good reason to believe God exists.

 

This is a higly subjective statment....I don't think that there is any good evidence of God's existance....you do think so...who is right. It doesn't really matter because the fact that other inteligent people disagree with this statement proves that it is not nessarlly true.

 

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

 

Uh.....The new Testament is not reliable at all. I could show you a list of proofs but I doubt you would believe me or take me seriously so whats the point?

3). Being reliable, they reliably report the life and words of Christ.

 

The Christ of the Bible is very probably a mixture of several people who claimed to be messiah in the 1st century. Again I don't think the bible is reliable, and I've studied it... a lot.

 

4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead.

 

There are plenty of stories in Roman mythology in which various gods preformed miracles...Do you believe them? Do you just believe anything you see because its written down? If not then why believe the bible just because its written down?

 

 

5). Therefore we can conclude Jesus was the divine Son of God and the predicted Messiah.

 

 

Again, I could go through the process showing exactly why Jesus didn't even meet the requirements for the Messiah according to the Old Testement, However since you have already concluded that Jesus is the Messiah before looking at the evidence, you would just ignore it anyway.

 

 

6). As such, he is authoritative in all he affirms.

 

Authoritative to whom? Not to me its not. Sorry but I tend to not to give credence to books full of bigotry and homophobia. I'll take the Tao te Ching or the Code of Bushido any day over the Bible.

 

7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament.

 

Both the Gospels and Paul misquote the old testiment many times....Compare the two geneologies in Matthew and Luke to the Old testement Geneolgies to see what I'm talking about.

 

 

8). Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God.

 

 

would be a nice conclusion if half of your premises weren't false and the other half questionable or subjective.

 

9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny.

 

Yeah amazing unity FOR ITS TIMESPAN.....hmmm I thought it was perfect no mater what the timespan. and it also has a lot of prophecies that dont' come true....

 

lots of archeological confermation? Yes but archeology contradicts it in many places too. Christians love to pull from archeology when its supports the bible and ignore it when it doesn't. Care to explain how according to archeology the city of Jerico was never destoryed by the israilites?

 

and most textual criticism shows that the are glaring discrepancies in the bible...the only criticism that doesn't are made by apologists, and they assume the conclusion before they even start to study.

 

10). Therefore, as a cumulative case, we can conclude that the Bible is the word of God.

 

again your premis' are flawed

 

Remember, circular logic is when the conclusion is found in the premises ("the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God therefore the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God....).

 

ok...you didn't apeal to circular logic. I'll give you that so you are one up on most of the xians that come here, but still your argument is just not convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe...and certainly not to some one who did believe and stopped.

[white_raven23]

It's all Hit or Myth

 

 

Hee Hee.

 

Pervert!

 

*snicker*