Written Evidence For The Exodus

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

Sophisticated versions of Christianity insulate themselves from falsifiability. Literalist versions have been falsified many times over.

 

Ficino, in every case I've personally reviewed I've found the problem is that people didn't study the Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic.

 

There is such a thing as "competing hypothesese."  Yes?  The Hebrew word "yom" is the most famous example of this.  Does it mean a 12 hour period?  A 24 hour period?  Or an undefined period of time.

 

A key point of the scientific method is that one can not proceed to experiment until they have first accurately apprehended what is being hypothesized.

 

Jesus understood the idea of falsifiability amongst one's own peers better than anyone religious claimant in all of history.

 

As I said, sophisticated versions of Christianity [try to] insulate themselves against falsifiability. You're doing that here, preparing to pick a meaning of "yom" that suits your purposes. Ad hoc.

 

You do not know Greek. I'm not sure about Hebrew.

 

I have presented three biblical prophecies that were not fulfilled. You have not addressed any of them.

 

BAA has presented the problem of Genesis 1:1 and repeatedly asked you to engage it.

 

Instead, you repeat your opinions about methodology, ask condescending questions, and post more videos.

 

 

So your case is entire case of falsification is based on your personal interpretation of prophecy?

[Guest SteveBennett]

Why not watch the video?  It doesn't favor Christianity (on the contrary, it actually straw man's Christianity as many here, in this forum, do).

 

But it offers incredibly sound logic:

 

[florduh]

Think Florduh,

 

You are actually hypothesizing that the disciples of Jesus, the crowds around Jesus, were actually watching Jesus in the midst of an ancient play?   With special effects and the whole shibang?

 

And thats why they followed Him?

 

I give up. This is beginning (!) to smell like troll. Enjoy yourselves!

[♦ ficino ♦]

In other words:

 

Either I am force fitting a date of prior to 64 A.D. for the biographies of Jesus, or skeptics are force fitting a 2nd century date in order to explain away the historicity of Jesus.

OK, thanks for repeating a specific point made before. It wasn't necessary to use size 6 font.

 

I'm finding that it tends to be necessary to clear away underbrush of vagueness or falsity before engaging your main point. This is a feature of many exchanges on here between you and others. It makes me wonder how rigorous your methodology is.

 

First, if you mean the above choices to be exhaustive, you're guilty of false dichotomy. You neglect the many, who posit a late first century date.

 

Second, the argument you've posted before, i.e. Luke must be writing before 64 because Acts doesn't mention the death of Paul (or Peter), does not apply to the fourth gospel UNLESS you can prove that it is earlier than the third gospel.

 

Third, there are reasons for the view that Acts, at least, is second century. It won't do to combat that view by attacking the motives of those who propose it.

 

I've spent enough time clearing brush right now; life calls.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Florduh,

 

Sir.  I only represent a way of thinking-- a point of view.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

Sophisticated versions of Christianity insulate themselves from falsifiability. Literalist versions have been falsified many times over.

 

Ficino, in every case I've personally reviewed I've found the problem is that people didn't study the Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic.

 

There is such a thing as "competing hypothesese."  Yes?  The Hebrew word "yom" is the most famous example of this.  Does it mean a 12 hour period?  A 24 hour period?  Or an undefined period of time.

 

A key point of the scientific method is that one can not proceed to experiment until they have first accurately apprehended what is being hypothesized.

 

Jesus understood the idea of falsifiability amongst one's own peers better than anyone religious claimant in all of history.

 

As I said, sophisticated versions of Christianity [try to] insulate themselves against falsifiability. You're doing that here, preparing to pick a meaning of "yom" that suits your purposes. Ad hoc.

 

You do not know Greek. I'm not sure about Hebrew.

 

I have presented three biblical prophecies that were not fulfilled. You have not addressed any of them.

 

BAA has presented the problem of Genesis 1:1 and repeatedly asked you to engage it.

 

Instead, you repeat your opinions about methodology, ask condescending questions, and post more videos.

 

 

So your case is entire case of falsification is based on your personal interpretation of prophecy?

 

You challenged us to present cases where the Bible says something and can be falsified. Are you going to prove that these prophecies were fulfilled, or not? I don't want games with non-standard senses of words.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

In other words:

 

Either I am force fitting a date of prior to 64 A.D. for the biographies of Jesus, or skeptics are force fitting a 2nd century date in order to explain away the historicity of Jesus.

OK, thanks for repeating a specific point made before. It wasn't necessary to use size 6 font.

 

I'm finding that it tends to be necessary to clear away underbrush of vagueness or falsity before engaging your main point. This is a feature of many exchanges on here between you and others. It makes me wonder how rigorous your methodology is.

 

First, if you mean the above choices to be exhaustive, you're guilty of false dichotomy. You neglect the many, who posit a late first century date.

 

Second, the argument you've posted before, i.e. Luke must be writing before 64 because Acts doesn't mention the death of Paul (or Peter), does not apply to the fourth gospel UNLESS you can prove that it is earlier than the third gospel.

 

Third, there are reasons for the view that Acts, at least, is second century. It won't do to combat that view by attacking the motives of those who propose it.

 

I've spent enough time clearing brush right now; life calls.

 

 

But what I find complexing is that everyone posting here has posted within 10 minutes of the video I attached.

 

And if that is the case. . . then I have no choice but to suspect that a scheme of confirmation bias is preferred by those who don't actually look at the source I've cited.

 

I've made clear, from the beginning, that I think our method of approaching these issues reveal our true motives.  No one here will ever be forced into believing what they don't want to.  That is not how God wants it.  This is why He allows all of us to approach these issues however we choose to.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm normally pretty mild-mannered, but I begin to lose my temper. Your video is almost a fucking hour long. People write long things on here and you merely attack their character or motives, repeat your opinions about methodology, and demand we spend an hour watching yet another video? You wax eloquent about primary sources and then you demand we watch a VIDEO???

 

You are a troll.

[MerryG]

 

I've made clear, from the beginning, that I think our method of approaching these issues reveal our true motives. 

 

 

Precisely.

 

 

 

That is not how God wants it.

 

Well, since you're so "in" with the Big Guy, perhaps you should ask him how much longer we'll need to wait before the mods finally ban you.

[falemon]

 

 

Without a video, without an overly convoluted answer, tell me in a single sentence or short paragraph how exactly Jesus is falsifiable.

 

Second, why do you so selectively respond to people? Either you are here or you are not. Half measures are just wasting everybody's time, especially people who have put time into participating.

 

The thread will go around in circles if you continue to do that.

 

1) Because the people of Jesus time would have known, that he, as well as his followers, were lieing.

 

2) Because every idea here has been responded to by someone at some point.  I can only choose to focus on those that I've noticed seem to rely most heavily on the informal fallacies.

 

Can you please just answer the question.

 

Without a video, without an overly convoluted answer, tell me in a single sentence or short paragraph how exactly Jesus is falsifiable. I have a background in Logic and Proof (and related subjects), so when you speak of fallacies, I formally model this. It's why I asked you for your process, something else you CHOSE to evade.

 

You've also evaded another one of my questions. What is your background in logic and reasoning? Do you have any formal teaching? Please just answer these questions and stop being evasive.

 

If you continue to evade I'll have to make a case to the mods (with the permission of other forum members) to get you banned as you seem to only be trolling. Rather than participate you seem to be just creating responses to fuel responses (the definition of trolling). And I'll also make a case to the mods to add trolling to prohibited behaviour in the forums. I have no authority here, but I'll make a good case, I'll even start a poll.

 

So if your intentions are not to troll, care either answering the questions above or explaining why you keep evading reasonable questions.

[pratt]

I'm normally pretty mild-mannered, but I begin to lose my temper. Your video is almost a fucking hour long. People write long things on here and you merely attack their character or motives, repeat your opinions about methodology, and demand we spend an hour watching yet another video? You wax eloquent about primary sources and then you demand we watch a VIDEO???You are a troll.

Based on his methodology, PROVE THAT HE IS A TROLL

[falemon]

 

I'm normally pretty mild-mannered, but I begin to lose my temper. Your video is almost a fucking hour long. People write long things on here and you merely attack their character or motives, repeat your opinions about methodology, and demand we spend an hour watching yet another video? You wax eloquent about primary sources and then you demand we watch a VIDEO???You are a troll.

Based on his methodology, PROVE THAT HE IS A TROLL

 

Haha, I guess we're all thinking the same thing

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

1) Because the people of Jesus time would have known, that he, as well as his followers, were lieing.

 

 

Nobody ever heard of, or wrote anything about jesus until decades after his supposed death.  There are no eyewitness accounts.  How could anybody know he was lying in his time?

 

THINK.

 

 

 

Think.  

 

What is the methodology by which you date the biographies of Jesus?

 

Oh, you finally decided to man up and actually respond to one of my posts!  Allow the initial shock to subside and I will provide you with an answer.

[MerryG]

Based on his methodology, PROVE THAT HE IS A TROLL

 

 

Here goes. Based on SteveBennett's METHODOLOGY, SteveBennett is a troll. Because I assert it.

 

And I am a primary source. An EYE WITNESS to the events.

 

Plus I know how to use Big Fonts,  which is the key to SB's METHODOLOGY. And I also know how to repeat the same assertions over and over. This makes me an EXPERT. So based on his own METHODOLOGY, SB is a TROLL.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I find it amazing at how many people here will try and dismiss the logic of the video.

 

Who here has ever heard a peer make an immediately falsifiable claim amongst them and yet an entire crowd of people believed them?

 

If people here are demanding that you not watch the video its because they are a modern type of Pharisee-- they know that the logic presented in the video will bring any modern rationalist (who strictly obeys the rules of rationalism) to faith in Jesus as the Christ.

 

If any video would cause an explosion on this forum. . . I would expect it to be the last one that was linked.

 

In the end, we all approach these issues in our own way.  No one forces anyone to watch, or reason toward, anything.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Instead of answering any question, SB pushes the last of a series of videos he's posted.

 

there's no discussion going on.

 

Florduh, I vote for banning.

[MerryG]

If people here are demanding that you not watch the video its because they are a modern type of Pharisee--

 

Yes, SteveBennett, you uncovered the SECRET EX-C CULT. Our leaders are demanding that we not watch hours and hours of your videos (despite our great eagerness to do so) because they're so afraid that we'll Lose all our faith in atheism under YOUR powerful influence.

 

HELP US, SteveBennett. Our minds are being held captive! Ficino is doing it. No! It's Florduh! BAA! falemon! No, we can't tell you which of our EVIL masterminds are preventing us from watching your videos. It's too dangerous! Why, I could be thrown into the Ex-C dungeon merely for typing ... oh no! NO. PLEASE NO! ...

[Guest SteveBennett]

If you watched the video, then you know I posted it because someone asked me:

 

"Mr. Bennett. . . Get to the point."

 

The purely academic point is that Christianity was falsifiable by the immediate peers of Jesus' time.  Thus Christianity does not have "zero credibility" as all other religions or cults do (who depend upon the unfalsifiable claim's of the leaders).

[MerryG]

Christianity was falsifiable by the immediate peers of Jesus' time.

 

[Guest SteveBennett]

ad lapidem

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

[mymistake]

 

Sophisticated versions of Christianity insulate themselves from falsifiability. Literalist versions have been falsified many times over.

 

Ficino, in every case I've personally reviewed I've found the problem is that people didn't study the Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic.

 

There is such a thing as "competing hypothesese."  Yes?  The Hebrew word "yom" is the most famous example of this.  Does it mean a 12 hour period?  A 24 hour period?  Or an undefined period of time.

 

A key point of the scientific method is that one can not proceed to experiment until they have first accurately apprehended what is being hypothesized.

 

Jesus understood the idea of falsifiability amongst one's own peers better than anyone religious claimant in all of history.

 

 

The Easter Bunny had a much better understanding of that idea than Jesus.  If you were half the scholar you think you are how could you be so ignorant of the Easter Bunny's knowledge?  The problem is that you have not studied Galic, Welsh and Navajo.

 

And how can we ever get to what you hypothesize when you spend months beating around the bush?  At this point I assume you will never answer certain basic questions.

[mymistake]

ad lapidem

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

 

Steve we have explained hundreds of times why you are wrong.  It isn't our problem if we grow tried of repeating it and give up.

 

Why don't you go back and read one of the other explanations.

 

You know nothing of science or fallacies.  Your method is apologetics that mimic the scientific method.  Your approach is happy to incorporate as many fallacies as you need but then you incorrectly sling those fallacy names as if they are some kind of weapon to use when you get stumped.

 

The only thing you do is gather attention and string people along.

[mymistake]

In other words:

 

Either I am force fitting a date of prior to 64 A.D. for the biographies of Jesus, or skeptics are force fitting a 2nd century date in order to explain away the historicity of Jesus.

 

 

There is no historicity of Jesus no matter how big a font you use.

[falemon]

ad lapidem

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

I'm not watching your hour long videos, and it's not argumentum ad lapidem, you've not provided an argument (or a personally produced response) but a link to a video.

 

If you watched the video, then you know I posted it because someone asked me:

 

"Mr. Bennett. . . Get to the point."

 

The purely academic point is that Christianity was falsifiable by the immediate peers of Jesus' time.  Thus Christianity does not have "zero credibility" as all other religions or cults do (who depend upon the unfalsifiable claim's of the leaders).

 

So is that your falsifiability? the "peers at Jesus' time". Is that it?

[Fernweh]

I think Steve has been pulling our legs all along.