Kelly vs Matt Slick

Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Kelly vs Matt Slick

 

I listened to part 3 of the Matt Slick/Kelly debate, and could not believe how much Kelly lied. She either lied or was just ignorant of the facts. Her arguments were all based mostly on silence anyway. Here are a few of her flaws

 

1. She said we have tons of historical data supporting the historical reality of Alexander the Great. That is a complete lie. Roman historian A. N. Sherwin -White, for example, stated that what we know about Alexander can fit on a couple of pieces of paper, and his biography wasn't even written untill 400 years after his death.

 

2. It is historically fallacious to even equate the evidence for a world ruler to that of a peasant Galliean preacher who sufferd extreme marginality through death by execution. These are FALSE criteria the atheist want to play with. Despite the fact Alex was a world ruler, we have more corroberated evidence for the historicity of Christ then for Alex anyway.

 

3. Without offering a single shred of evidence for her claim, Kelly argued that the corroberative evidence he offered in favor of Christ's historicity (Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus, etc) were disputed passages. That also is a lie Kelly. Even the secular "Encyclopedia Britanica" under the section "Jesus" - 1990 edition, states that the Talmud, Tacitus and Josephus are INDEPENDANT sources for Christ. They are NOT disputed!

 

Stop lying, or get aquainted with the facts before you engage in such errors.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Whatever. Please remove head

Whatever. Please remove head from ass and try again.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:   1. She

Apotheon wrote:
 

1. She said we have tons of historical data supporting the historical reality of Alexander the Great. That is a complete lie.Roman historian A. N. Sherwin -White, for example, stated that what we know about Alexander can fit on a couple of pieces of paper, and his biography wasn't even written untill 400 years after his death.

Why would you quote a Roman Historian when Alexander the Great was a Classical Hellene?  Second, why do you ignorantly assume that all historical data is based on documentations?  Most data historians collect is from the ground, not from papyri.  That includes coins bearing the image of the person, mosaics, inscriptions on stones, dedications and reliefs, and mentions.  The reason why you are clueless is because you have been fed this lie by apologists that we have a lot of information on Jesus.  When it comes to evidence for Alexander the Great we have the following:

     1. A contemporary tablet found as Esagila.

2. Dozens of contemporary inscriptions to Alexander

3. Contemporary coins from Greece and Alexandria with the image bearing Alexander the Great

4. We have in stores some 25,000 - 30,000 tablets with contemporaneous inscriptions from Babylon and Assyria, yet only 3,000 have been published due to various problems in the field.  There are not as many cuneformists as their are experts in Koine.  

5. One of the greatest historians of classical civilization, Arrian, not only gives us evidence of fragments FROM contemporary accounts but also compares them, explaining his methods, and documents his sources in some form of early bibliography.  He wrote in the genre of history and much of what he says agrees with archaeological finds.

Did you pull this information off a website again without fact checking?  Seems to be your MO.  I like how you never source anything either.      

 

Quote:
2. It is historically fallacious to even equate the evidence for a world ruler to that of a peasant Galliean preacher who sufferd extreme marginality through death by execution.

You're assuming that Crossan is correct while ignoring other members of the Jesus Seminar who hold different views.  You're effectively looking into the well of all the assumptions and presuppositions of the historical Jesus research and seeing your own reflection.  In short, you're cherry-picking. 

Quote:
These are FALSE criteria the atheist want to play with.

Generally, Christians like you bring them up.  I can probably go through your posts and find instances where you compared the evidence for Alexander to Jesus, and thought (wrongly) that there was more for Jesus.  Would you like to retract this statement now? 

Quote:
Despite the fact Alex was a world ruler, we have more corroberated evidence for the historicity of Christ then for Alex anyway.

Nevermind, you already proved you're an idiot in the same post.  I'm so glad I can count on you to save me the trouble of searching for your moronic statements, and can just point them out in the one I'm currently working on.  Please provide one contemporary inscription, or coin, or tablet found that talks about Jesus. 

Quote:
3. Without offering a single shred of evidence for her claim, Kelly argued that the corroberative evidence he offered in favor of Christ's historicity (Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus, etc) were disputed passages.

They are.  Do you even know what disputed means?  

Quote:
That also is a lie Kelly.

 

Dispute is defined: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

  • a disagreement or argument about something important; "he had a dispute with his wife"; "there were irreconcilable differences"; "the familiar ...
  • challenge: take exception to; "She challenged his claims"
  • coming into conflict with
  • quarrel: have a disagreement over something; "We quarreled over the question as to who discovered America"; "These two fellows are always scrapping over something"

  • Louis Feldman event admits to the disputed nature of the passage in his translation of Josephus' words in his Harvard Univeristy Press LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY edition.  Also read the book by Steve Mason on Josephus and the New Testament.  He lays out the disputes there!  

Quote:
Even the secular "Encyclopedia Britanica" under the section "Jesus" - 1990 edition, states that the Talmud, Tacitus and Josephus are INDEPENDANT sources for Christ. They are NOT disputed!

Because the Encyclopedia Britannica says so?  Get real, kid.  You are so clueless, you're head rattles when you think, and I can hear it from where I'm sitting. 

Quote:
Stop lying, or get aquainted with the facts before you engage in such errors.

After this thread I vote for your removal from this board.  I'm seriously sick of wasting time having to correct all your falsities and slander.  You are here as a guest, we're paying so you can post here.  We're not paying for you to post lies about us here.  And even worse, we're not paying for you to misuse and twist facts just so you can go to sleep deluded at night.   

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: Why

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Why would you quote a Roman Historian when Alexander the Great was a Classical Hellene? 

For one reason, his credentials far exceed those of Kelly's. But I mistakingly  gave the wrong name. I was referring to J. P. Meier. He said what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper ( see Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, p. 23).

Sherwin-White is not a theologian with any axe to grind. He is "an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times" (Craig, Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, pp. 89-95).

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
 Second, why do you ignorantly assume that all historical data is based on documentations?  Most data historians collect is from the ground, not from papyri.  That includes coins bearing the image of the person, mosaics, inscriptions on stones, dedications and reliefs, and mentions.  The reason why you are clueless is because you have been fed this lie by apologists that we have a lot of information on Jesus.  When it comes to evidence for Alexander the Great we have the following:

     1. A contemporary tablet found as Esagila.

2. Dozens of contemporary inscriptions to Alexander 

Why do you ignorantly assume that is contemporary to Alexander?  And even for the sake of argument it is, something like this would be expected of a world ruler like Alexander the Great. Placing the super high criteria for a world ruler onto a mere peasant Jewish itinerant preacher in Galilee, who suffered extreme marginality by execution, is not the way history works, and it is dishonest. We can't expect evidence to be equal for everyone who ever lived. In the case of Christ, the Jews had an agenda to discredit Him. And my point remians true and unrefuted, the first written biography of Alexander the Great was not written untill some 400 years after He lived. And there is no contemporary evidence for Alexander the Great. Everything we do have of him, is not contemporary. This is bad even for a world ruler. Jesus, on the other hand, had eye-witness testimonies  who wrote about what they saw. (see Luke 1, 1John 1, etc).

 

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
3. Contemporary coins from Greece and Alexandria with the image bearing Alexander the Great

Again, something like that would be expected of a world ruler. We even have a coin of Pontius Pilate, a contemporary of Christ who is mentioned in the Gospels,and was only a governor of Judea. But we have no coins for non-political leaders.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
4. We have in stores some 25,000 - 30,000 tablets with contemporaneous inscriptions from Babylon and Assyria, yet only 3,000 have been published due to various problems in the field.  There are not as many cuneformists as their are experts in Koine.  

Have a reference from a non-atheist source?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
5. One of the greatest historians of classical civilization, Arrian, not only gives us evidence of fragments FROM contemporary accounts but also compares them, explaining his methods, and documents his sources in some form of early bibliography.  He wrote in the genre of history and much of what he says agrees with archaeological finds.

Sorry, that's all hear say evidence. Not first-hand.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Did you pull this information off a website again without fact checking?  Seems to be your MO.  I like how you never source anything either.    

 Check all my posts and see above and below. Liar.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You're assuming that Crossan is correct while ignoring other members of the Jesus Seminar who hold different views.  You're effectively looking into the well of all the assumptions and presuppositions of the historical Jesus research and seeing your own reflection.  In short, you're cherry-picking. 

Who said anything about Crossan? And the only "fellow" of the Westar Institute who doubts Jesus lived, is atheist Robert Price. Crossan is, according to them, the greatest Jesus historian alive. And Crossan affirms not only the historical reality of Jesus, but even His crucifiction. SOURCE ==> "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 145.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Generally, Christians like you bring them up.  I can probably go through your posts and find instances where you compared the evidence for Alexander to Jesus, and thought (wrongly) that there was more for Jesus.  Would you like to retract this statement now? 

My point remians unrefuted. There is no contemporary written evidence for the existance of Alexander the Great, and the evidence you did cite, only fits on a few sheets of paper, as Dr. Meier rightly pointed out. However, with Jesus, we have over 5,700 Greek manuscripts within just a few generations from His life, and over 36,000 references to the Gospels by the early Church Fathers from the late first century on. They quoted everything except 11 verses. We also have 1Corinthians 15 which is dated by ALL NT scholars to date to only about five years after Jesus' execution. This text is based on a pre-pauline creed written in Aramaic. This is tantamount evidence for someone who was executed a criminal and was not a political figure/ world ruler. Its even more tantamount for someone who never even lived. Don't you think?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Nevermind, you already proved you're an idiot in the same post.  I'm so glad I can count on you to save me the trouble of searching for your moronic statements, and can just point them out in the one I'm currently working on.  Please provide one contemporary inscription, or coin, or tablet found that talks about Jesus. 

Again, this is double standard thinking. Only political leaders had coins. You set the criteria too high. And I'll give you a coin of Christ, as soon as you give me contemporary written evidence for Alexander. But we have better evidence then a coin. We have the actual nails and cross Jesus was executed with. You didn't know this did you? We also have hundreds of grave inscriptions of Christians from the first century with the phrase "IC XC" (Jesus Christ) written on them. You didn't know this did you?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
They are.  Do you even know what disputed means?  

Tacitus, Josephus and the Talmud are only disputed in the fertle minds of atheists. And as I referenced (EB, "Jesus", 1990), the above sources provide "independent" corroberation to the historicity of Christ. The EB dedicates no less then 20,000 words to Jesus Christ.

One passage in Josephus has been debated and theorized that it might have been an interpolation by Christians because of its original negative treatement of Christ. But most scholars today, believe the original Aramaic of Josephus is authentic. Dr's Pines and Flusser at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, are considerd the worlds greatest experts on Josephus (you can call them if you like).They have concluded the passage is authentic in the original Aramaic. Charlesworth, another noted authority, agrees. I can pull atheists out of my hat like you. It proves nothing. Look at what the leaders in their fields are saying.

    Rook_Hawkins wrote:
    Louis Feldman event admits to the disputed nature of the passage in his translation of Josephus' words in his Harvard Univeristy Press LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY edition.  Also read the book by Steve Mason on Josephus and the New Testament.  He lays out the disputes there!  
      Again, Pines, Flusser, Charlesworth, etc have refuted that. Your sources are pre-investigation by pseudo-scholars. 

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Because the Encyclopedia Britannica says so?  Get real, kid.  You are so clueless, you're head rattles when you think, and I can hear it from where I'm sitting. 

Because Steve Mason says so? By what law of logical coherence do you accept some fly-by-night author (Steve Mason), as opposed to the scholary and definitive source of the Encyclopedia Britanica?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
After this thread I vote for your removal from this board.  I'm seriously sick of wasting time having to correct all your falsities and slander.  You are here as a guest, we're paying so you can post here.  We're not paying for you to post lies about us here.  And even worse, we're not paying for you to misuse and twist facts just so you can go to sleep deluded at night.   

Sure, but make sure theists have their vote aswell. By the way, why did you never refute my proof on the New Testament authoriship in the other thread? You are invited to come and refute all the facts and sources I listed. I won't hold my breath waiting.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: 3. Without

Apotheon wrote:

3. Without offering a single shred of evidence for her claim, Kelly argued that the corroberative evidence he offered in favor of Christ's historicity (Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus, etc) were disputed passages. That also is a lie Kelly. Even the secular "Encyclopedia Britanica" under the section "Jesus" - 1990 edition, states that the Talmud, Tacitus and Josephus are INDEPENDANT sources for Christ. They are NOT disputed!

 Yeah, it makes perfect sense that Josephus, a Jew, would refer to Jesus as the messiah.  BTW, Josephus wasn't even alive during the supposed existence of Christ.  These are basic things that any moron should know.

The Talmud doens't mention Jesus Christ.

Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus Christ, nor did Tacitus live during the supposed existence of Jesus.

Since you were apparently quite clueless I guess I can assume that you are a liar since you accuse Kelly of the same thing. 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 The only reason I

 The only reason I returned to this website (I was taking a leave of absense for a while), is because I stumbled onto the Kelly/Slick debate online. I had to express my voice somewhere where I thought she could hear it. I am busy these days so I need a vacation from this site. But I do intend to come back in the not too distant future to debate the historical Jesus, the resurrection, God, creationism and evolution. No hard feelings. I know sometimes we get carried away in our posts. I hold to grudges. Peace

 

P.S. Read, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler. Its over 800 pages, and deals with and refutes all the arguments ever made by atheists from A to Z. A must read.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Oops, I hold NO grudges.

 Oops, I hold NO grudges.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:   Yeah, it

D-cubed wrote:
  Yeah, it makes perfect sense that Josephus, a Jew, would refer to Jesus as the messiah.  BTW, Josephus wasn't even alive during the supposed existence of Christ.  These are basic things that any moron should know.

Just as I was getting ready to sign off. Yeah, I believe he was born 4 years after Jesus died. So what? Josephus was an historian. Historians do not write poetry. They write HISTORY. Uhh, you people can be so annoying. Use your head!

D-cubed wrote:
[The Talmud doens't mention Jesus Christ.

Good grief. The Talmud mentions Jesus, the Virgin Mary, James and John the Baptist (Babylonian Talmud, vol.III, Sanhedrin 43a, 106b, Yeb. IV:3, 49a). 

D-cubed wrote:
 Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus Christ, nor did Tacitus live during the supposed existence of Jesus

Lies, lies lies! So you think the Encyclopedia Britanica made a mistake? Have you ever read Tacitus! Tacitus refers to Christ (Latin, Christus) once and to the Christians twice. He also refers to this Christus (Christ) in the very context of the Christians and Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius and Judaea where all this occured (see Annals 15.14). All of these facts corroberate the Gospel data. "Christus" is just Latin for "Christ." And he was just a few years after Jesus. The first written biography we have of Alexander the Great, was written some 400 years after his death!

Moses Hadas, a noted scholar and historian on Tacitus, stated that Tacitus was the greatest historian of ancient Rome (see Introduction, the Complete Works of Tacitus, pp. IX, XII-XIV).

D-cubed wrote:
Since you were apparently quite clueless I guess I can assume that you are a liar since you accuse Kelly of the same thing. 

Now that I have educated you on this subject, and given direct sources proving you didn't have the foggiest idea what you were talking about, you can stop lying. You can no longer claim ignorance on this subject.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Just as I

Apotheon wrote:
Just as I was getting ready to sign off. Yeah, I believe he was born 4 years after Jesus died. So what? Josephus was an historian. Historians do not write poetry. They write HISTORY. Uhh, you people can be so annoying. Use your head!

 Yeah, and writing about the fact that Christians exist proves the existence of Christ just as much as writing about $cientologists existing proves the existence of Xenu.

Apotheon wrote:
Good grief. The Talmud mentions Jesus, the Virgin Mary, James and John the Baptist (Babylonian Talmud, vol.III, Sanhedrin 43a, 106b, Yeb. IV:3, 49a).

Um, unless Jesus changed his name to Yeshua and he got hanged instead of crucified then maybe you might have a point. I take it you never actually read it. 

Quote:
Lies, lies lies! So you think the Encyclopedia Britanica made a mistake? Have you ever read Tacitus! Tacitus refers to Christ (Latin, Christus) once and to the Christians twice. He also refers to this Christus (Christ) in the very context of the Christians and Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius and Judaea where all this occured (see Annals 15.14). All of these facts corroberate the Gospel data. "Christus" is just Latin for "Christ." And he was just a few years after Jesus. The first written biography we have of Alexander the Great, was written some 400 years after his death!

Moses Hadas, a noted scholar and historian on Tacitus, stated that Tacitus was the greatest historian of ancient Rome (see Introduction, the Complete Works of Tacitus, pp. IX, XII-XIV).

I'm thinking you haven't read it since Tacitus was writing about Nero's persecution of Christians and labeled Christians as followers of a Christ.  That's about as much evidence for your Jesus Christ as someone writing about Raelians being the follower of Rael who talked to aliens in a volcano proving that he really did talk to aliens.  

Quote:
Now that I have educated you on this subject, and given direct sources proving you didn't have the foggiest idea what you were talking about, you can stop lying. You can no longer claim ignorance on this subject.

 You've proven you just read some crap from an apologetics website without actually verifing the claims.  Come back when you actually have a point to make without looking foolish.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: D-cubed

Apotheon wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Yeah, it makes perfect sense that Josephus, a Jew, would refer to Jesus as the messiah. BTW, Josephus wasn't even alive during the supposed existence of Christ. These are basic things that any moron should know.

Just as I was getting ready to sign off. Yeah, I believe he was born 4 years after Jesus died. So what? Josephus was an historian. Historians do not write poetry. They write HISTORY. Uhh, you people can be so annoying. Use your head!

 Seriously, has anybody had enough of this guy yet?  Josephus was not a historian, he was an apologist.  His opening letter says it all.  Clear as day, he wanted his works to be a defense against the attacks on his people (the Jews) both through military force and criticism.  He also says he wants his works to be numbered among the Greeks, and he indicates that he wants that - which is why he writes in Greek instead of Latin, which would have made more sense being that he was writing in Rome.  

No historian today would think Josephus is accurate on any subject, and generally he is considered with a very watchful eye.  For example, he claims that Alexander the Great was on his way to destroy Israel for siding with Persia.  God then appears to the High Priest and tells him to wear a specific outfit, and tells him to order all citizens to wear white.  When Alexander shows up, per Josephus, he falls and worships Israel's God, as apparently Yahweh told Alexander that he would defeat the Persians.  This event never happened.  We know that Alexander never came close to Jerusalem.  After Gaza he went straight to Egypt, and then to Tyre, then to Syria and Mesopotamia.  There are fictional stories ALL over Josephus just like this.  And the Josephus-Jesus passage is one of the most hotly debated passage in all of scholarship, with most siding on the side of partial interpolation.  Again, read Louis Feldman (Who is not an atheist, but a Jew - and the worlds LEADING Josephus Scholar, who you ignorantly claimed was a pseudo-scholar and another made up word of yours, which doesn't exist in scholarship.

You also claimed Steve Mason was a fly-by-night author - and then proceeded to make the outrageous claim that he wasn't authoritative like the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Steve mason is in fact a scholar, and a Christian I believe.  He is the Professor of Humanities at Vanier College in Ontario.  He's written several books on Josephus, which is his main field of expertise.  Louis Feldman recommends his book highly, and even endorses it.  

Even your sources, which you always seem to cite, including the one you mentioned above, (J.P. Meier) doesn't agree with the authenticity of the passage.  So much so he created his own translation which has been highly criticized by your bud Geisler.

I ask you for evidence of Jesus and you give me Pontius Pilates coin, like an idiot you are.  I give you a picture of the Tablet found at Egasila and you ask me like a fool, "Are you really that ignorant to think that is contemporary?"  No shit it's contemporary.  You are just too fucking retarded to do your own research and read a book other than Norman Geisler.  I'm sorry you were too intellectually lazy, yet again, to do some research on the contemporary evidence of people who mention.  Perhaps next time, you'll do as Kelly suggests and get your head out of your ass, and actually read a book instead of copy-pasting.

Every author I cited in that reply was not an atheist, yet your ignorant-retarded-ass asked me to cite a "nonatheist" and then proceded to cite ONLY apologists and Christian authors.  Are you really this INSANE that you can't realize what type of hypocrite you are, or are you just that dumb to know the difference?  I think it is a little of both.  All you do is project your lies on other people, while the whole time you LIE.  You must seriously delude yourself into thinking that by writing it on a message board, somehow your words become solidified into fact.  Or maybe you pray they will be fact, and you're so delusional about it, you think your prayers were answered.  They weren't.  You're still a flaming retard, and you're still wrong.  And the mopre you post, the more EVERYBODY who reads my sources, and compares them to yours, will realize that.  And the more anybody reads your hypocritical posts, the more they will see through you.

I'm seriously annoyed that you have the audacity to think you belong anywhere near the field of history.  You're like amnesia to a memory cell.  You fog up history and distort reality and when you're through you effectively kill whatever chance at a decent conversation there might have been.  You claim a lot of bullshit, and when facts are presented, you lie, cheat and lie some more to squirm out of being caught on being a bullshiter.  But you don't realize that we're not as gullible as you are.  We don't accept things without evidence, and see through your half-witted attempt at dodging.  

You are a menace to society, to history and to every other Christian out there who is honest with themselves enough to ignore retardic assholes like you.  Every Christian in the world should see you, see your insecurities.  They should WATCH as you dodge and squirm and hide and cower like a delusional animal that you are, and when they are through they will see the full scope of your mental retardation, and instantly leave their faith behind because they see what sort of drooling, sniveling little puss-bag faith can make you.  

The most amusing part is you're going to do the exact same sort of thing to this post.  You'll know you've been caught, know you've been found out, and instead of walking away or admitting to your failure as a human being, you'll lie, project and dodge the whole way through, and then you'll see this (because you won't read first) and have to go back up and erase, delete, and smudge because you're too anxious to copy-paste another website's shit.  And I'm going to watch it all unfold in the admin area, laughing to myself, and knowing that I had you.  And that you and I both know it. 

 

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: P.S. Read,

Apotheon wrote:

P.S. Read, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler. Its over 800 pages, and deals with and refutes all the arguments ever made by atheists from A to Z. A must read.

Dude, if you think you can prove the existence of jesus with this garbage as a reference, than I can build nuclear weapons by using science fiction novels and comic books as a reference.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Dude, if you

aiia wrote:
Dude, if you think you can prove the existence of jesus with this garbage as a reference, than I can build nuclear weapons by using science fiction novels and comic books as a reference.

Well he read it and still can't refute our positions so that tells you much. 


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: Um, unless

D-cubed wrote:

Um, unless Jesus changed his name to Yeshua and he got hanged instead of crucified then maybe you might have a point. I take it you never actually read it. 

 

Just so ya know....

 

1. Jesus is the Greek spelling of the Aramaic name Yeshua.

2. Crucifixions were referred to as hangings as well. (Luke 23:39).


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote:

irrespective wrote:

Just so ya know....

1. Jesus is the Greek spelling of the Aramaic name Yeshua.

2. Crucifixions were referred to as hangings as well. (Luke 23:39).

Hanging is still hanging whether or not you try to change the meaning of the word.

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T4075


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: Hanging is

D-cubed wrote:
Hanging is still hanging whether or not you try to change the meaning of the word

 

A very profound statement that is, but I would suggest that you are interpreting the word from the mindset of an English-speaking Westerner who has a certain image come to mind when hearing the word "hanging".

 

I am not changing the meaning of the word.  I gave you a very specific place where the word "to hang" was used in the Bible about crucifixion.  Yes the word could mean death by strangulation.  Clearly according to Esther it could also refer to impalation on a stake.  As I think the Luke passage indicates, it could also refer to death on a cross.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote:   I am

irrespective wrote:
 

I am not changing the meaning of the word. I gave you a very specific place where the word "to hang" was used in the Bible about crucifixion. Yes the word could mean death by strangulation. Clearly according to Esther it could also refer to impalation on a stake. As I think the Luke passage indicates, it could also refer to death on a cross.

Based upon what? 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed

D-cubed wrote:
irrespective wrote:

I am not changing the meaning of the word. I gave you a very specific place where the word "to hang" was used in the Bible about crucifixion. Yes the word could mean death by strangulation. Clearly according to Esther it could also refer to impalation on a stake. As I think the Luke passage indicates, it could also refer to death on a cross.

Based upon what?

There are many ways to use "hang" that doesn't involve a rope/noose. For instance, I can hang a poster on a wall with tacks. Jesus was hung on a cross with nails, or so the story goes.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: There are

MrRage wrote:
There are many ways to use "hang" that doesn't involve a rope/noose. For instance, I can hang a poster on a wall with tacks. Jesus was hung on a cross with nails, or so the story goes.

I'm familiar with the concept but how does one know that in this instance it refers to cruci'fiction' while all the other times it has referred to stranglation? 


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: I'm familiar

D-cubed wrote:
I'm familiar with the concept but how does one know that in this instance it refers to cruci'fiction' while all the other times it has referred to stranglation?

 

For one, there is no need to "know" whether or not it definitely refers to crucifixion in the Talmudic passage.  That is not the issue here.  You argued, quite incorrectly, that the term was inconsistent with crucifixion.  I have shown you at Luke 23:39 that the word "hanging" was used to refer to crucifixion.

 

Secondly, the word is not used every other time to mean strangulation.  If you read the article you referenced in your first reply to me, you will notice that the word also referred to impalation on a stake s uch as the Persians and Assyrians used to practice.

 

I am not arguing here that the Talmudic passage refers to Jesus, or that we must interpret "hanging" in that passage to be crucifixion.  I am merely taking issue wi th your assertion that the name mentioned in the Talmudic passage (Yeshua) and the method of execution used (hanging) are inconsistent with the biblical description of Jesus and his death.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote:   For

irrespective wrote:
 

For one, there is no need to "know" whether or not it definitely refers to crucifixion in the Talmudic passage. That is not the issue here. You argued, quite incorrectly, that the term was inconsistent with crucifixion. I have shown you at Luke 23:39 that the word "hanging" was used to refer to crucifixion.

Since the argument is that the Talmud refers to Jesus and his crucifixtion then it is relevant. 

irrespective wrote:

Secondly, the word is not used every other time to mean strangulation. If you read the article you referenced in your first reply to me, you will notice that the word also referred to impalation on a stake s uch as the Persians and Assyrians used to practice.

Nice, but he wasn't impaled by any Persians or Assyrians.

 

irrespective wrote:
I am not arguing here that the Talmudic passage refers to Jesus, or that we must interpret "hanging" in that passage to be crucifixion. I am merely taking issue wi th your assertion that the name mentioned in the Talmudic passage (Yeshua) and the method of execution used (hanging) are inconsistent with the biblical description of Jesus and his death.

You have neither indicated that this Yeshua (which could very well be Joshua) is your Jesus Christ and that he was crucified.  The claim is yours, I just expect you to back it up with something more than wishful thinking.


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote: For

irrespective wrote:
For one, there is no need to "know" whether or not it definitely refers to crucifixion in the Talmudic passage. That is not the issue here.

D-cubed wrote:
Since the argument is that the Talmud refers to Jesus and his crucifixtion then it is relevant.

Dude.  Read the rest of what I wrote.  I specifically said that I'm not arguing with you about that.  It is impossible to know for sure who that character named Yeshua was.  I clearly wrote at the end of my last post that I am not taking issue with you on that.  I am merely pointing out that your objections to the idea that it is Jesus are fallacious.  Hence, I do not feel the need to prove to you that in the Talmud it is definitely speaking of a crucifixion.  You are arguing with Apotheon about that.  I am simply pointing out that Yeshua is the same name as Jesus and hanging "could" be referring to crucifixion.  I think an interesting study to make in this regard is whether Jews of that time executed people via hanging with a rope.  Again, let me repeat so as to be clear--I am not asserting that the Talmud passage is about Jesus.  I am merely asserting that your reasons for disbelieving this are invalid.

D-cubed wrote:
how does one know that in this instance it refers to cruci'fiction' while all the other times it has referred to stranglation? 
 

irrespective wrote:
the word is not used every other time to mean strangulation. If you read the article you referenced in your first reply to me, you will notice that the word also referred to impalation on a stake s uch as the Persians and Assyrians used to practice.

D-cubed wrote:
Nice, but he wasn't impaled by any Persians or Assyrians.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with my comment.  I  never said that Jesus was impaled by Persians or Assyrians.  I was refuting your statement that "hanging" always refers to death by strangulation.  If it also refers to impalation on a stake, then it does not always refer to hanging by the neck on a rope now, does it?  Besides, I have repeatedly given you Luke 23:39 as a specific example from that time period of the word "to hang" being used with reference to a crucifixion.  So we can safely say that "to hang" could mean "impalation on a stake", "hanging by the neck from a rope", or "crucifixion."

D-cubed wrote:
You have neither indicated that this Yeshua (which could very well be Joshua) is your Jesus Christ and that he was crucified.  The claim is yours, I just expect you to back it up with something more than wishful thinking.

What do you mean that Yeshua could very well be Joshua?  Do you not realize?  The names Joshua=Yeshua=Jesus.  They are all the same name, just spelled different ways due to transliterations into English and Greek.  To reiterate: Joshua is the English transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua.  Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua.  Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek name Iesous.  Understand?

Here's a diagram to help:

Hebrew==>English: Yeshua==>Joshua

 

Hebrew==>Greek==>English: Yeshua==>Iesous==>Jesus

 

I have never made the claim (feel free to go back and check) that this passage is referring to Jesus of Nazereth, hence I need not back it up.  Allow me to reiterate my purpose in responding to you (for about the fifth time now, I think?).  I am merely asserting that you are wrong to say that  Yeshua is not the same name as Jesus and that hanging could not be referring to crucifixion.  If you will agree with me that Yeshua is the same name as Jesus and that hanging could possibly refer to crucifixion, then our debate is over.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Rook, you have commited

 Rook, you have commited serious errors in your statements on this thread. And I can't let them go without comment. Any honest and intelligent person should be able to see this.

1. You said Josephus was not a historian. That is just another flat out lie. Even Luis Feldman, the guy you referenced earlier is on record saying:

""Eusebius like Origen considered Josephus an important historian" (Feldman, Josephus, the Bible and History, p.345).

So we see above that the individual you tried to cite against me, actually helps me in stated that Eusebius and Origen considered Josephus "an important historian." Not just an historian. But an "important" historian. This is important too because Eusebius and Origen were both historians themselves, and closer in time to Josephus.

Second, every encyclopedia I have looked at under the heading "Josephus," has categorically affirmed he was an historian. And I invite you and anyone reading this thread to look at any encyclopedia under the heading "Josephus," and they will all tell you he was a great Jewish historian.

These are what the sources say. There is no need to lie and mislead people.

2. Contrary to your claim, I have seen no evidence anywhere that Feldman is the worlds leading scholar on Josephus. Feldman is a Jew with an axe to grind against Christianity, but he does not deny the historical Christ, so your point in even mentioning him was wasted energy and time. You tried to use him against me to show that there is controvery on the Josephus passage. But by showing there was controversy on the passage, does not prove that Feldman denies the validity of said passage. Infact, Feldman even listed the views by scholars on the "Jesus" section in Josephus.

4 scholars completely accept the text as genuine.

6 consider it mostly genuine.

20 accept it with some interpolation.

7 consider it with several interpolations.

13. consider it totally interpolated. (Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, pp. 684-91).

So based on the above statistic from the individual you tried to use against me, only 13 out of 37 Josephus' scholars, believe the text is totally interpolated.

A List of Scholar who accept at least some core passage of the text.

John P. Meier
Raymond Brown
Graham Stanton
N.T. Wright
Paula Fredrickson
John D. Crossan
E.P. Sanders
Geza Vermes
Louis Feldman
John Thackeray
Andre Pelletier
Paul Winter
A. Dubarle
Ernst Bammel
Otto Betz
Paul Mier
Ben Witherington
F.F. Bruce
Luke T. Johnson
Craig Blomberg
J. Carleton Paget
Alice Whealey
J. Spencer Kennard
R. Eisler
R.T. France
Gary Habermas
Robert Van Voorst
Shlomo Pines
Edwin M. Yamuchi
James Tabor

Notice, Feldman is in the list, as is Crossan.

Crossan, as I noted earlier, is considered by the Westar Institute, to be the greatest Jesus historian in the world. Crossan not only accepts the Josephus text on Jesus, but he also believes Jesus was crucified (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 149).

These facts seriously militate against your argument, Rook.

3. You said you asked me for evidence for Jesus. No you didn't. Obviously your responses were copied and pasted from someone else or other threads. Another reason I believe this is because you said:

"You're assuming Crossan is correct."

You said this before I even mentioned Crossan. It is clear you are just copying and pasting without adding any original thoughts of your own.

I only mentioned Crossan after you did, because he comes from a non-conservative perspective. He is classifed as a liberal theologian. You are not going to find any greater authority on the historical Jesus topic from the liberal side then Dominic Crossan. And he affirms not only the existance of Jesus, but also his crucifiction (see above).

4. Appealing to Steve Mason is just another classic text book illustration of the"appeal to authority" fallacy. I have given the worlds leading experts on Josephus and the historical Jesus. And they all contradict you.

 

The arguments against the Josephus text on Jesus, do not even apply to the older Arabic version. There is no evidence the Arabic was interpolated, and it does speak of Jesus, as Dr's Pines, Flusser and Charelsworth have correctly pointed out.

 

P.S.

 Craig Hawkins is teaching a seminary level course on Christology (study of the person and work of Christ) now on www.hischannel.com every Wednesday night at 9 P.M. pacific standard time. It's only a half hour long. If you want to know who Christ is and what He did for you, this class is a must, and its free. It just started, and I highly recommend it. Professor Hawkins is a solid theologian and philosopher. He is an adjunct professor at Trinity Graduate School.


 

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Also, Craig will discuss

 Also, Craig will discuss the historical Jesus and the resurrection of Christ. He has already listed the definitive books on these subjects. Basically the first two classes have been book recomendations and reading assignements. Next week the study actually begins on Christology. It's at the Masters Degree level, so if you want to think and be educated on this subject, watch or listen to the class.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
The New Testament speaks of

The New Testament speaks of crucifiction and hanging in the same way. Jesus is said to have been "hanged" (kremamenos) in Gal.3:13, as were the two men killed at the same time (Greek "kremasthenton" in Luke 23:39). The term "hanged" is simply a variant expression of the same fate.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
The Talmud is not the New

The Talmud is not the New Testament.


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: The Talmud

D-cubed wrote:
The Talmud is not the New Testament.

 

Ah, but both are speaking of the same time period.  The terminology would be expected to be the same.  Besides, why should we have to prove that the word in the Talmud must mean crucifixion.  You have done nothing to prove that it probably means death by strangulation.  You have merely assumed that it is the case.


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the Post/Wisdom for Rook:)

hehe..I'm glad somebody caught that  funny comment about "unless Jesus changed his name to Yeshua"...man

Anyways, really interesting post guys.  It was a good read and lot of cool back and forth. For me this whole question of whether Jesus really existed as a historical figure is great.  This was actually one of the first things I looked into from both sides a couple of years back when I was still an athiest (before even reading the Bible).  Most scholars agree that Jesus did in fact exist. We can debate over what he did or if the NT accounts are accurate but as far as whether he existed or not...I haven't found any of the arguments against a historical Jesus to be compelling at all. 

Just as a side...and I'll try to be as gentle as possible because we all get emotional sometimes...but Rook...dude? How come every post I see of yours has to be full of insults and emotionally charged language? Just use your rationality brother...that's your thing right? How old are you? You keep this up and you're going to have a heart attack before you hit 30.

Of course I get worked up sometimes too so I'm saying this with a smile. Please don't take it too harshly...and please don't sue me either Sticking out tongue

Peace and Love


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman

Matt Churchman wrote:

hehe..I'm glad somebody caught that  funny comment about "unless Jesus changed his name to Yeshua"...man

Anyways, really interesting post guys.  It was a good read and lot of cool back and forth. For me this whole question of whether Jesus really existed as a historical figure is great.  This was actually one of the first things I looked into from both sides a couple of years back when I was still an athiest (before even reading the Bible).

No offense, but I doubt you were an atheist.  If you were an atheist, I doubt you were a responsible one.  This isn't an emotionally charged statement as much as it is an observation.  Most theists who claim they were atheists at one point in their lives are often lying to convert, lying to gain acceptance, or construe atheist to mean "goth kid" or "hates god" or some weird stretch or another.  Or, on the rare occasion they really didn't believe in a god at some point, they were so lead into dogmatic thinking that they did not do any real opposing research on the other side.

Quote:
  Most scholars agree that Jesus did in fact exist.

So?  Most scholars in antiquity that Romulus and Orpheus existed historically too. 

See my articles and discussions:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/historical_jesus_quests

http://www.rationalresponders.com/jesus_mythicist_position_revised_2008

http://www.rationalresponders.com/detractors_answered

http://www.rationalresponders.com/josiah_concept_ministries_and_historical_christ_hypothesis

http://www.rationalresponders.com/misquoting_scripture_rook_hawkins

Quote:
We can debate over what he did or if the NT accounts are accurate but as far as whether he existed or not...I haven't found any of the arguments against a historical Jesus to be compelling at all.

Funny, I can find hundreds of compelling reasons.  In fact, the only thing coming from the historical Jesus camp are complaints about the mythicist position, but no argument has yet been presented to refute it. 

Quote:
Just as a side...and I'll try to be as gentle as possible because we all get emotional sometimes...but Rook...dude? How come every post I see of yours has to be full of insults and emotionally charged language? Just use your rationality brother...that's your thing right? How old are you? You keep this up and you're going to have a heart attack before you hit 30.

Dude...try reading more than one post.  I don't dish out insults without reason.  A Christian has to really be trollish to get disrespectful language out of me.  Perhaps you should start with my blog and work from there.  I don't bite unless provoked. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/rookhawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
"No offense, but I doubt you

"No offense, but I doubt you were an atheist." 

Oookay. Is this where I'm supposed to prove my past atheism or something?

"If you were an atheist, I doubt you were a responsible one.  This isn't an emotionally charged statement as much as it is an observation."

Smiling This is the whole "no true athiest" argument right? Solid. It's like when Christians say that if someone leaves the Christian beleif to become an athiest they were never really a Christian in the first place. Fact is that people on both sides with a genuine and 'responsible' beleif can in fact come across information that may persuade them to change positions. This is one sign of being open minded.

  "Most theists who claim they were atheists at one point in their lives are often lying to convert, lying to gain acceptance, or construe atheist to mean "goth kid" or "hates god" or some weird stretch or another.  Or, on the rare occasion they really didn't believe in a god at some point, they were so lead into dogmatic thinking that they did not do any real opposing research on the other side."

Well maybe this is why you get negative responses that you take as attacks and then bite back.  It's just a communication issue.  You make a lot of assumptions as well about peoples character based on absolutely no knowledge of the individual...this is perhaps a little irrational. using the word liar in a sentence that appears to be attempting to figure me out could be taken to be a first bite. I don't mind though. Actually I've said over and over again that I 'm not concerned with converting people, not really concerned with the acceptance of people on a forum that I will never meet. Not that you're not all cool I just see no reason why acceptence would be a motive. I'm quite content. I do hope you realize that I could come up with all sorts of psycho-analytical reasons based on assumptions with nothing to back them accept my own expereince with certain athiests for why you are the way you are...if I did how would you respond? I wouldn;t do that because it would irrational of me to paint all athiests with the same brush merely because they share a disbeleif in God.

Just to be clear I was not a 'goth kid' or a 'hater of god'. I actually grew up in a family of what you would call 'responsible athiests'. And yes I love and respect my parents. Before becoming a Christian I did a fair amount of study on issues of various faiths and beleifs including atheism (on top of what I had been exposed to in my family life (my parents are both in the science field)...I also have three extremely intelligent sisters who are athiests and a brother in Law who reads authors like Dawkins religiously).  I read books like pagan Christ and the Jesus mysteries cover to cover along with other sources for some of these theories. Engaged my family and friends in coversations ect.

I was not lead blindly into dogmatic thinking without doing any real opposing research. It seems hard for you to accept the fact that someone may have genuinely looked into things and come to a different conclusion than you?  Guess what...when it comes to the existence of God there are well informed people on both sides...some of them may even be more intelligent than yourself Shocked I know it's hard to fathom. But I suppose accepting this would make the whole RRS concept a little silly (athiest missionaries on a quest to save the world by enlightening people to the truth ie. beleiving what you beleive). If this sort of thinking sounds familiar it is probably because you have spent a lot time trying to attack religious groups who do exactly that. Belief in God is not the enemy...intolerance - the beleif that you have everything figured out and anyone who disagrees needs to be 'fixed' is

"In fact, the only thing coming from the historical Jesus camp are complaints about the mythicist position, but no argument has yet been presented to refute it."

There are no arguments presented to refute it? Or there are no arguments that you have found compelling? There is a very big difference. I think I actually may have read an article with you or another athiest discussing what you called "alleged scholarly refutations"? So when you say "no argument has yet been presented" and then go on to address arguments presented...I don't know man are you trying to fuck with my head or something...this is some athiest mind game isn't it;P

"Dude...try reading more than one post.  I don't dish out insults without reason.  A Christian has to really be trollish to get disrespectful language out of me.  Perhaps you should start with my blog and work from there.  I don't bite unless provoked. "

Definately did look at more than one post. I've seen other people on the site 'wig out' and I don't care. The reason you are the person I chose to say something to is because I saw a pattern over a couple of posts. It's like even with this...I don''t care if you beleive different from me. I can still respect that beause I beleive you've come to your conclusions honestly. Even so just the tone of your response comes across as angry. For example "dude try looking at more than one post" - well I know I did so how the heck am I supposed to respond to that? It's just maybe you need to work on your communication a bit. It's a struggle not to respond with sarcasm...which I am guilty of but I hope you are okay with that...I don't mean it in a mean spirited way. Hey don't shy away...be bold and stand behind what you beleive even as that evolves and changes over time.  There is a balance though.

Again man, I hope that you don't take this personally. There have been times in the past and there will be times in the future when I am misunderstood or communicate poorly (most often due to my emotions getting the best of me). It's human. We're really quite similar in some ways. The same things I am concerned with in you are obviously frustrated with when they come from the 'other side'. that's cool man. Keep on learning and growing and developing your beleif with an open mind. I don't mean this in a slick 'Christian' way that means keep learning and you will come to beleive in Christ...I just honestly mean do your thing and become the best you that you are capable of being.

Peace and Love

 


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Forgot???

"So?  Most scholars in antiquity that Romulus and Orpheus existed historically too."

Sorry I'm not sure that you're point is here. Are you suggesting that the opinions of scholars in this area should not be taken into consideration when attempting to form a rational opinion on the subject? Of course the opinions of scholars do not in themselves make something absolutely true...it is the reasons for their conclusions that have value. Of course even still they could be wrong...that's a possiblilty...my point wasn't to present this as absolute proof in itself that Jesus existed...absolute proof in my opinion doesn't exist for many things...if any. I was simply stating that I have come to some conclusions and that most scholars agree with me...or I with them.

Kind of an unimportant post but I just thought that was kind of a funnt thing to say.

 

 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman wrote:"In

Matt Churchman wrote:

"In fact, the only thing coming from the historical Jesus camp are complaints about the mythicist position, but no argument has yet been presented to refute it."

There are no arguments presented to refute it? Or there are no arguments that you have found compelling?

There have been no arguments presented by scholarship. 

Apologists like McDowell and Stewart have presented apologetics, disagreements and ad hominems, but no arguments in the scholarly sense.  

Quote:
There is a very big difference. I think I actually may have read an article with you or another athiest discussing what you called "alleged scholarly refutations"? So when you say "no argument has yet been presented" and then go on to address arguments presented...I don't know man are you trying to fuck with my head or something...this is some athiest mind game isn't it;P

I did not say anywhere in the discussion that it was scholarship presenting refutations.  This is probably why they are "alleged" as opposed to "actual."  No scholar, as far as I'm aware, has refuted the position I adhere to, nor have they refuted any position similar to the one I agree with. 

Quote:
"Dude...try reading more than one post.  I don't dish out insults without reason.  A Christian has to really be trollish to get disrespectful language out of me.  Perhaps you should start with my blog and work from there.  I don't bite unless provoked. "

Definately did look at more than one post. I've seen other people on the site 'wig out' and I don't care. The reason you are the person I chose to say something to is because I saw a pattern over a couple of posts. It's like even with this...I don''t care if you beleive different from me. I can still respect that beause I beleive you've come to your conclusions honestly. Even so just the tone of your response comes across as angry. For example "dude try looking at more than one post" - well I know I did so how the heck am I supposed to respond to that?

How is that angry?  I am responding the way you initiated the conversation.  You assumed I was angry but just as you criticize me for making assumptions about your character you are making assumptions about mine.  I returned the favor.  See how this works?  I respect those who show respect and don't assume things about those who don't assume things about me.  That is what my response to you was all about.  With that aside, I gave you several articles I have written and I'd really like for you to address the subject matter in those articles, in the appropriate threads.  Or, you don't have to do that, and just claim over and over again that there are no compelling cases against historicity and hope that by saying it enough it will become true.

Quote:
It's just maybe you need to work on your communication a bit.

...Says the person who cannot spell "beleive" (it's believe).  Now can we address the issues maybe?  All of this dodging is tiresome.

Quote:
Again man, I hope that you don't take this personally. There have been times in the past and there will be times in the future when I am misunderstood or communicate poorly (most often due to my emotions getting the best of me). It's human. We're really quite similar in some ways. The same things I am concerned with in you are obviously frustrated with when they come from the 'other side'. that's cool man. Keep on learning and growing and developing your beleif with an open mind. I don't mean this in a slick 'Christian' way that means keep learning and you will come to beleive in Christ...I just honestly mean do your thing and become the best you that you are capable of being.

Peace and Love

I appreciate the sermon here, but aside from being nothing more than an elaborate dodge, can we deal with the issues?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman wrote:"So? 

Matt Churchman wrote:

"So?  Most scholars in antiquity that Romulus and Orpheus existed historically too."

Sorry I'm not sure that you're point is here. Are you suggesting that the opinions of scholars in this area should not be taken into consideration when attempting to form a rational opinion on the subject?

Thanks for the ad hoc.  No, that is not what I am saying.  Nor did I imply that.  My point here is that assumptions are assumptions, no matter who makes them.  Just because somebody has a title does not mean they are flawless in every area which that title denotes.  A scholar can make just as many fallacious conclusions as a layman, especially if they base their conclusions on the same assumptions.

Quote:
Of course the opinions of scholars do not in themselves make something absolutely true...it is the reasons for their conclusions that have value.

We agree.  Now you understand why I said what I said.

Quote:
Of course even still they could be wrong...that's a possiblilty...my point wasn't to present this as absolute proof in itself that Jesus existed...absolute proof in my opinion doesn't exist for many things...if any. I was simply stating that I have come to some conclusions and that most scholars agree with me...or I with them.

Right.  You all agree with each other because you all base your conclusions on an assumption - Jesus existed.  No evidence exists for this assumption, which is why it is an assumption.  IT just happens to be a popular assumption to make, and because it is popular people assume that the assumption made here is accurate and not an assumption.  That doesn't mean there is more evidence for the assumption because it is believed in by more people--it only means that it is an assumption that many people, even credentialed, have taken for granted.  My research is about exposing this flaw and bringing it to the surface so it can be examined as it properly should.

Quote:
Kind of an unimportant post but I just thought that was kind of a funnt thing to say.

It's only funny if you think the opposite of your statement: "opinions of scholars do not in themselves make something absolutely true."  If we can agree on this, my statement is more than accurate.  It becomes a maxim.  I hope we can start getting to the meat now.

Regards,

Rook

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Matty Churchman (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
rook

"I did not say anywhere in the discussion that it was scholarship presenting refutations.  This is probably why they are "alleged" as opposed to "actual."  No scholar, as far as I'm aware, has refuted the position I adhere to, nor have they refuted any position similar to the one I agree with." 

To be honest I'll have to check out all of your posts to get a better idea of what it is you are presenting. I watched a little of the lecture and started on some articles but I really can't genuinely say I have a comlete understanding of where you are coming from. I have some ideas as to why there may not be any scholarly refutations but this is soley based on an incomplete understanding of your views. So far it just seems like you are saying - starting with the assumption that Jesus is a myth or legend this may be how it developed and why. I'll have to have a closer look if you are interested in getting a response from me. Can you point me in the direction of a forum where it might be appropriate to respond?

"How is that angry?  I am responding the way you initiated the conversation.  You assumed I was angry but just as you criticize me for making assumptions about your character you are making assumptions about mine.  I returned the favor.  See how this works?  I respect those who show respect and don't assume things about those who don't assume things about me.  That is what my response to you was all about. 

This is the 'do unto others as they have done to you philosophy I suppose'? Man I don't assume anything negative about you anyway. I was just saying that hurling insults and being rude to posters - even if you feel "they started it" is probably not the best style of communication if you are sincerely trying to relate with people and educate them. The anger or perhaps frustration I sensed in your tone seemed failry evident. When you tell me to 'read more than one post' and I have already mentioned that I had...sorry if this was an irrational assumption on my part but...well I don't kow how else to take it. Fair play...maybe you just missed what I had said and then were encouraging me to look at even more posts. I didn't know that you would take constructive criticism about your communication so hard...you could have said "hey I am serious about getting this message across and I feel that calling people idiots is the best way to do it".

With that aside, I gave you several articles I have written and I'd really like for you to address the subject matter in those articles, in the appropriate threads.  Or, you don't have to do that, and just claim over and over again that there are no compelling cases against historicity and hope that by saying it enough it will become true."

Dude, I know when to ease off.  I have done nothing to insult your character and I have continually mentioned that as a person I respect you. Of course I don't think if I say something enough it will become true...seriously and I don't mean this as an insult but how old are you if you don;t mind me asking? Is this only an issue because we are on a forum where people could see my relatively gentle criticism so you felt you had to respond with little shots like that? Maybe this wasn't a shot at all? I saw you in the lecture and you appear to be very meek and self conscious in person so I assume you don't make a habit of just speaking like this to people in person. What you get from me here is what you would get from me in person.

*"I just think maybe you could work on your communication" - ME*

...Says the person who cannot spell "beleive" (it's believe).  Now can we address the issues maybe?  All of this dodging is tiresome. - You

I wasn't dodging. I wasn't aware that I was supposed to get into a debate with you. The main point of posting was to encourage you both for your contributions to the dialogue and to offer some pointers just in case you might be interested in growing as a communicator.

Apparently you knew what I was trying to type and therefore my communication was dead on. It's about understanding not necessarily grammar or spelling. ACtually it's strange with that one...I do know how to spell 'believe' but when I type certain words sometimes one finger moves faster than the finger that is supposed to move first. Like with the word 'Christian' sometimes my 'n' finer comes in before my 'a' finger...so I'm left proclaiming my 'Christina beleif' to the world Smiling It seems to be more of a motor skills thing.  *True that I am not the best at spelling though and so you are write that I also have to work on that ( see that's the appropriate response). Instead of saying "yeah I need to work on my communicatin skills...while we're on the topic you should check the spelling of 'believe' as your mistakes in spelling can effect the way people perceive you." - You say - 'yeah well you can't spell!' This is another fallacy though I can't recall the term.* Oi!

"I appreciate the sermon here, but aside from being nothing more than an elaborate dodge, can we deal with the issues?"

I added no information to the debate. Unless I'm a complete friggin idiot and thought that my extremely vague comments were in some way supposed to add the meat of the conversation (debate over the jesus myth) I don't see why you thought I had even entered into a debate with you that would then perhaps necessitate my 'dodging' as you put it. Sure I'll read into some of your work and am flattered that you are interested to hear my opinion on the matter. Where would be a good place to begine reading and what would be the appropriate forum for me to make a post?

No sermon. Just trying to pacify what appeared to be hosility or frustration. Thank you for expressing your appreciation.

Peace and Love

 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
You're confusing apathy for

You're confusing apathy for hostility.  Let me make this clear: I do not care in what bizarre manner you feel I need to improve my communication skills.  I don't give a shit (profanity does not = hostility, by the way) or a fuck if you think I'm being hostile to a troll, especially when you have not been around long enough to formulate a decent opinion as to what constitutes certain behavior over another when it comes to the manner in which I respond.  I'm certain if you really were an honest person, a quick review over my 2,000+ posts would show you I'm about 90% positive and useful, and 10% insulting, and often times, I am presenting a case while insulting somebody, offering meat instead of baseless ad hominems

Now, once more - I don't care about your opinions.  You stated something as a fact.  I.E. that scholars agreed a historical Jesus existed and you agreed.  This fact is predicated on the idea that you feel there is sufficient evidence to believe in a historical Jesus.  You started this discussion when you could have easily admitted to yourself that perhaps all the data isn't in yet, rather instead you decided to post a comment exposing yourself as somebody who doesn't have a lick of knowledge about what my position is to comment about in the first place.  So...your statement based on ignorance is what initiated this debate, whether you were aware of it or not.  You have a way out of course, simply by admitting you might be wrong, and Jesus may in fact have never existed.  In which case, you can promise me and keep your word that you'll look over the several articles I posted, review the sources, and come back to this discussion with whatever conclusions you will draw, educated on the subject.  Only then will your opinions actually matter, and hopefully in the event you actually follow through with these promises, will you actually bring something more substantial to the table than complaints.

Capice?  That concise enough for you?  Awesome.  Now get to it, my little Nimrod for God (in the Biblical sense). 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
where is my other respnse

Matty Churchman *POST MISSING*

Hey,

I actually responded to your post but my response hasn't shown up yet - probably due to the fact that I posted it without taking the time to sign in because I'm almost certain that I'm not being censored. It'll show up I'm sure and from your last post I think you have perhaps already read it. I don't think that I was suggesting anything too "bizarre" about your communication skills but to each his own I suppose.

Yeah that's fair man. Point taken. I'll have look at the posts you suggested and get back at it.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
You post is there for me,

You post is there for me, but I'm a mod.  Normal users cannot see anon. posts. 


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
rook

Thanks.

I'll get back to you but you'll have to give me some time to do adequate research - both into the claims of your position and also to look at the conclusions of some other scholars.

PS- is there somewhere on here that I would be able to read up on responses from the RRS to some of the allegations against them (as far as character and credentials). It has nothing to do with this debate but I've just been trying to get a feel for who I am talking to and I've come across some serious claims online against yourself and others in the RRS. I'm not forming my opinion based on these claims as I know there are two (or more) sides to every story. If you're not aware of some of these claims you should check into it so you can have a fair chance to respond. I felt kind of bad watching one video on YouTube (I had went to see what the Blasphemy challenge was all about)..I guess a couple of the posters on here had divulged personal struggles that they've gone through...this information was copied and pasted and incorporated in a video that is responding to certain claims made by the RRS about the mental stability of theists. That's kind of off topic but I was just wondering where I might get another perspective on you and your group members. (I didn't know you guys weren't using your real names either... my first thought when I heard from you and Brian was that you had really cool names..they're not as cool (still kind of cool) now that Iknow they are made up.

Talk to you later,

Matt

 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman

Matt Churchman wrote:

Thanks.

I'll get back to you but you'll have to give me some time to do adequate research - both into the claims of your position and also to look at the conclusions of some other scholars.

That's fine, Matt.  I would rather you take your time than rush a response.

Quote:
PS- is there somewhere on here that I would be able to read up on responses from the RRS to some of the allegations against them (as far as character and credentials).

Yes, ask us.  Or google search the site.  Almost every allegation you will find are from epople who know nothing about us and are reciprocating things from hate blogs.  Generally, they are made in ignorance.

Quote:
It has nothing to do with this debate but I've just been trying to get a feel for who I am talking to and I've come across some serious claims online against yourself and others in the RRS. I'm not forming my opinion based on these claims as I know there are two (or more) sides to every story. If you're not aware of some of these claims you should check into it so you can have a fair chance to respond.

The people making these claims are people who are worthless and often not very important.  Many times they're 15-20-somethings who have no real life outside of making other people feel bad about themselves.  the people who matter in scholarship know what I am capable of and have put their trust in me.  Their criticisms are the ones I feel are important.  The kids who live at home in their parents house, living off their parents earnings, who have never been out in the real world, I could care little about playing their game.  Anybody who is an interested party, like yourself, will find out soon enough about my character, what I know, and how weak and desperate their criticisms of me really are.  (As well as all of us here at the RRS)

Quote:
I felt kind of bad watching one video on YouTube (I had went to see what the Blasphemy challenge was all about)..I guess a couple of the posters on here had divulged personal struggles that they've gone through...this information was copied and pasted and incorporated in a video that is responding to certain claims made by the RRS about the mental stability of theists. That's kind of off topic but I was just wondering where I might get another perspective on you and your group members. (I didn't know you guys weren't using your real names either... my first thought when I heard from you and Brian was that you had really cool names..they're not as cool (still kind of cool) now that Iknow they are made up.

Unfortunately some of your compatriots in the theistic community don't take well to people thinking differently and questiong their life-long beliefs.  You handle it much better, or at least, seem to have been handling it much better.  In any event, death threats come and we have to be careful.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to add that the

I'd like to add that the main site being critical of Rook and the RRS (I don't even want to type the name to avoid giving them more google hits, but it rhymes with malignants and knaves ) is a bunch of asshats dedicated to basically trolling the internet for anyone they don't like. They are probably a bunch of 15 year olds who take out getting beat up by the football players out on anyone they can while hiding behind their anonymity. Notice they are all too big of pussies to use a real pic or give any indication who they are, though they love looking up who anyone else is.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Jesus Metalhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
convincing

WOW, Kelly! I must say that was a very convincing rebuttal! XD


Racio (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
RE: Kelly vs Matt Slick

Apotheon wrote:
 

1. She said we have tons of historical data supporting the historical reality of Alexander the Great. That is a complete lie. Roman historian A. N. Sherwin -White, for example, stated that what we know about Alexander can fit on a couple of pieces of paper, and his biography wasn't even written untill 400 years after his death.

 

Yes, there are tons of historical data about Alexander the Great! For start there is the city of Alexandria, name after him! Now, I do not know how much the city weight, but it must be tons! Eye-wink

Then, we have records about his father, relatives, teacher ... etc. Even if we did not have his biography, we would have enough data to know that he existed! 

Just because you lack knowledge of history, you do not have the right to call Kelly a liar!

 

Apotheon wrote:

2. It is historically fallacious to even equate the evidence for a world ruler to that of a peasant Galliean preacher who sufferd extreme marginality through death by execution. These are FALSE criteria the atheist want to play with. Despite the fact Alex was a world ruler, we have more corroberated evidence for the historicity of Christ then for Alex anyway.

Well, if all that Christ was, a peasant Galliean (sic), than who cares, if we do not have a shred of evidence for him. But, He is supposed to be God incarnate! And believing in him makes the difference where you going to spend eternity. I think a moral God should have given us a bit more and a lot more convincing evidences. Or, may be, He is just a kind of god who delight in frying people. in hell for ever. The Bible seems to show that. According to it Jesus talked in parable to people, so they would not understand and would not be saved!

Apotheon wrote:

3. Without offering a single shred of evidence for her claim, Kelly argued that the corroberative evidence he offered in favor of Christ's historicity (Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus, etc) were disputed passages. That also is a lie Kelly. Even the secular "Encyclopedia Britanica" under the section "Jesus" - 1990 edition, states that the Talmud, Tacitus and Josephus are INDEPENDANT sources for Christ. They are NOT disputed!

Stop lying, or get aquainted with the facts before you engage in such errors.

Do you know what the Talmud is and who and when wrote it? Or, do you know where the only copy of Tacitus found? Or, why Josephus is disputed?

The answers to these questions are widely available now on the Internet. They are well known, why would Kelly waste time referencing them, when anybody can look them up.

So, go start reading and stop accusing people.

 


Racio (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
RE: Kelly vs Matt Slick - Talmud

irrespective wrote:
D-cubed wrote:

Um, unless Jesus changed his name to Yeshua and he got hanged instead of crucified then maybe you might have a point. I take it you never actually read it. 

 

Just so ya know....

 

1. Jesus is the Greek spelling of the Aramaic name Yeshua.

2. Crucifixions were referred to as hangings as well. (Luke 23:39).

 

It is all nice and dandy, but you both do not know what you talk about! 

There is NO Yehoshua (YodHeyVavShinAyin) or Yeshua (YodShinVavAyin) which both transliterated Iesous into Greek, in the Talmud.

There is  Yeshu (YodShinVav), which is most likely NOT a name but an acronym meaning 'may his name and memory be bolted out'.

It is nothing to do with Jesus, as some anti-Semitic Christians try to make it out to be.