Claims about the NT

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response.

well even a human boss has other humans transcribe for him... you give me this and ill give you everything else you ask for

A human boss at some point in his career must have written something down, from his own computer or paper, for all to see. A human boss can be presented as a witness to any trial.

The god of the bible has been reported (in the bible) to have carved his commandments into stone for Moses directly, with no scribe. Why does he not do the same for the NT books? If the god of the bible inspired the words to the writers of the original books of the bible, why did he not exert any effort to have the autographs (originals) perserved? Why does the NT contain documents that are versions of the autograph several centuries later with several obvious inconsistencies/mistakes. If these were a deity's only words, don't you think the deity would have taken better care for it to have survived as originally intended? If the deity were to be assumed omnipotent and omniscient, there really is no excuse.

If you assume a deity, you should be able to show evidence that supports this deity's existence. Otherwise, I must question you on your assumption. And further question you (assuming that such a deity exists) why such deity wants to play hide and seek?

Regards,

UF

Edited August 7, 2009 by UndecidedFrog

[Guest shiloh357]

Why can't I compare Jesus with Lao Tzu?

Too disimilar to warrant comparison.

How do you know that everyone KNEW where Jesus was buried?

Several reasons:

1. All tombs were registered. Along with death certificates, the location of family tombs had to be registered and that information was stored at the Temple.

2. Jesus was buried in the Tomb of a wealthy and well known member of the Sanhedrin (supreme court of ancient Israel).

3. Jesus' mother and close friends went to the tomb to bury Him, AND went to the tomb three days later to anoint the body with spices.

4. The Roman authorities sealed the tomb and guarded it to ensure the body was not disturbed.

5. The disciples knew where the tomb was because Peter and John ran to the tomb after Mary Magdeline told them that she had seen Jesus.

How do you know that everyone DID NOT KNOW where Lao Tzu was when he dematerialized into the Tao?

Irrelevant and immaterial.

Again, failure to produce a corpse is not evidence that the dead person resurrected or dematerialized.

Given this particular situation, it is evidence. Producing the corpse would have disproven the resurrection entirely. Given the fact that the Jewish and Roman authorities knew where the tomb was, and given that they wanted to end any claim of a resurrection, the most logical and effective means of doing so would be to produce the body of the one claimed to have been resurrected.

You are mistaken in comparing a person's default position of innocence until proven guilty with the truth. We do not believe what some book claims is true until it is proven to be true. The default position on belief is non-belief until the claims have been proven true.

No, you are wrong. If the Bible's claims are tested and cannot be disproven, there is no reason to disbelieve them.

The difference between books like the Bible and the Koran is that the claims of the Bible are rooted in historical and geographic fact. All of the Bible's claims are made within a setting of real places, times, events and witnesses. The Bible lends its self to being tested, challenged, searched out, and verified. The Christian faith is very evidentiary in nature.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion. I am not a christian. If you dislike my opinion, please feel free to disregard it.

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your responses to my comments.

Why can't I compare Jesus with Lao Tzu?

Too disimilar to warrant comparison.

Not at all, we are talking about figures that very little is known about. We are talking about incredible claims of resurrection and dematerialization. I think the comparison is very worthwhile, especially since you claim the truth of one and reject the truth of the other.

How do you know that everyone KNEW where Jesus was buried?

Several reasons:

1. All tombs were registered. Along with death certificates, the location of family tombs had to be registered and that information was stored at the Temple.

2. Jesus was buried in the Tomb of a wealthy and well known member of the Sanhedrin (supreme court of ancient Israel).

3. Jesus' mother and close friends went to the tomb to bury Him, AND went to the tomb three days later to anoint the body with spices.

4. The Roman authorities sealed the tomb and guarded it to ensure the body was not disturbed.

5. The disciples knew where the tomb was because Peter and John ran to the tomb after Mary Magdeline told them that she had seen Jesus.

1. You assume that Jesus' tomb was registered, and that all had access to that registration information. This is based on what?

2. You assume that Jesus was buried in the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (sp?) based on what?......the bible.

3. You assume that Jesus' mom and close friends went to bury him and went to the tomb 3 days later to anoint the body with spices based on what?.....the bible.

4. You assume that the roman authorities sealed the tomb and guarded it to ensure the body was not disturbed based on what?......the bible.

5. You assume the disciples knew where the tomb was because Peter and John ran to the tomb after MM told them that she had seen Jesus based on what?.....the bible.

Based on the bible we also know that:

6. On the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by:

a) A young man (Mark 16:5)

b) It was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)

c) It was two men (Luke 24:4)

d) There was nobody there (John 20:1-2)

How do you know that everyone DID NOT KNOW where Lao Tzu was when he dematerialized into the Tao?

Irrelevant and immaterial.

Not irrelevant and not immaterial if we are comparing this story to the resurrection of Jesus. Your claims that since everyone knew where Jesus was entombed, and that the tomb was later found empty, that Jesus must therefore have been resurrected. With the parallel construction, I can claim that Lao Tzu had followers, and they knew where he was at all times, and they surely must have witnessed (eye- witnessed) his disappearance, which can only lend evidence to his dematerialization to the Tao.

Again, failure to produce a corpse is not evidence that the dead person resurrected or dematerialized.

Given this particular situation, it is evidence. Producing the corpse would have disproven the resurrection entirely. Given the fact that the Jewish and Roman authorities knew where the tomb was, and given that they wanted to end any claim of a resurrection, the most logical and effective means of doing so would be to produce the body of the one claimed to have been resurrected.

Yes, producing the corpse would be evidence to disprove resurrection. However, not producing the corpse is NOT evidence for resurrection. Just like producing the corpse of Lao Tzu would be evidence against his dematerialization to the Tao. However, not producing his corpse is NOT evidence that he did indeed dematerialize into the Tao.

You are mistaken in comparing a person's default position of innocence until proven guilty with the truth. We do not believe what some book claims is true until it is proven to be true. The default position on belief is non-belief until the claims have been proven true.

No, you are wrong. If the Bible's claims are tested and cannot be disproven, there is no reason to disbelieve them.

The difference between books like the Bible and the Koran is that the claims of the Bible are rooted in historical and geographic fact. All of the Bible's claims are made within a setting of real places, times, events and witnesses. The Bible lends its self to being tested, challenged, searched out, and verified. The Christian faith is very evidentiary in nature.

I disagree. You are stretching it here. Huckleberry Finn is a historically accurate novel. It mentions verified locations such as the Mississippi River which have been historically and geographically verified. Does this mean everything in that novel is true? I don't think so.

The default position is non-belief until such time each and every claim is verified as truth. One claim that is verified as truth does not make the entire body of claims true.

Regards,

UF

[Guest shiloh357]

Not at all, we are talking about figures that very little is known about. We are talking about incredible claims of resurrection and dematerialization. I think the comparison is very worthwhile, especially since you claim the truth of one and reject the truth of the other.

Resurrection and dematerialization bear no similarity.

1. You assume that Jesus' tomb was registered, and that all had access to that registration information. This is based on what?

Jewish law at the time period. The Temple served as both a place of worship and as a hall of records. Death certificates, birth certificates and genealogical records were kept there. The reason most people of Jewish descent cannot verify their tribal affiliation is due to the records being destroyed when the temple destroyed in 70 AD.

2. You assume that Jesus was buried in the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (sp?) based on what?......the bible.

Yes, which so far, you have produced no evidence to show is inaccurate. Just because it is from the Bible does not make the claim suspect or unreliable.

3. You assume that Jesus' mom and close friends went to bury him and went to the tomb 3 days later to anoint the body with spices based on what?.....the bible.

Well of course, where else would the information come from?

4. You assume that the roman authorities sealed the tomb and guarded it to ensure the body was not disturbed based on what?......the bible.

Which you cannot provide ample reason to distrust.

5. You assume the disciples knew where the tomb was because Peter and John ran to the tomb after MM told them that she had seen Jesus based on what?.....the bible.

Yes, which contains their own personal testimony to those events.

6. On the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by:

a) A young man (Mark 16:5)

b) It was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)

c) It was two men (Luke 24:4)

d) There was nobody there (John 20:1-2)

All of which are true.

Not irrelevant and not immaterial if we are comparing this story to the resurrection of Jesus. Your claims that since everyone knew where Jesus was entombed, and that the tomb was later found empty, that Jesus must therefore have been resurrected. With the parallel construction, I can claim that Lao Tzu had followers, and they knew where he was at all times, and they surely must have witnessed (eye- witnessed) his disappearance, which can only lend evidence to his dematerialization to the Tao.

(sigh) I really did not want to go here. Lao Tzu as far as being an actual person is doubtful. There are many who believe that his teachings are nothing but a synthesis of the writings of other people. So I am not going to speculate or compare him with Jesus. Jesus' exitence is historically verified by biblical and nonbiblical sources.

You can try to contstruct a story if you want, but I am not going to waste my time refuting some made up story about a myth.

Yes, producing the corpse would be evidence to disprove resurrection. However, not producing the corpse is NOT evidence for resurrection. Just like producing the corpse of Lao Tzu would be evidence against his dematerialization to the Tao. However, not producing his corpse is NOT evidence that he did indeed dematerialize into the Tao.

Besides the fact that he was probably not a real person, there would be no reason to produce a corpse in the case of Lao Tzu.

Put yourself in the position of the enemies of the disciples. You NEED something to silence them. You have tried threats, torture you have already killed one of them, and yet they won't stop claiming to have seen Jesus alive. Worse yet, their following is only growing in spite of the death penalty you have pronounced on all followers Jesus.

Would not the most logical, effective means of silencing this crowd and putting an end to any claim of a resurrection be to produce the rotting corpse and stop this movement dead in its tracks? Nothing would be more effective or more practical. These men who went to the Romans to seal up the tomb would simply need to have the seal removed and the body exhumed and paraded down the streets of Jerusalem for a few days and that would be the end of disciples' movement. One would have to be a bit naive to the think that the idea of producing the body had not crossed the minds of the disciples' enemies.

Sure you could argue in one sense that not producing the body would not be evidence, but not being able to produce the body under THESE particular circumstances would lend to the argument given that so many people would have known where the body was.

I disagree. You are stretching it here. Huckleberry Finn is a historically accurate novel. It mentions verified locations such as the Mississippi River which have been historically and geographically verified. Does this mean everything in that novel is true? I don't think so.

No, no. You are talking about historical fiction. Huckleberry Finn mentions real locations but presents itself as a work of fiction. It does not claim to be a work genuine history.

The Bible, on the other hand makes an entirely different claim. It claims to be among other things, historical. It claims eyewitneses to real events by real people. You cannot compare the Bible with Huckleberry Finn for that reason.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion. I am not a christian. If you dislike my opinion, please feel free to disregard it.

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your responses to my comments.

Resurrection and dematerialization bear no similarity. However, claims of resurrection and dematerialization are both incredible. Both will require incredible evidence to support the truth of each. To me, I see the evidence that you have presented for Jesus' resurrection similar to the evidence that can be said for Lao Tzu's dematerialization. You argue Jesus' disciples alleged eyewitness testimony (albeit passed down via oral tradition), yet you do not believe Lao Tzu's followers alleged eyewitness testimony (albeit passed down via oral tradition). You want me to believe in Jesus' alleged resurrection, yet give me no reason why you reject Lao Tzu's alleged dematerialization to the Tao.

Jewish law at the time period. The Temple served as both a place of worship and as a hall of records. Death certificates, birth certificates and genealogical records were kept there. The reason most people of Jewish descent cannot verify their tribal affiliation is due to the records being destroyed when the temple destroyed in 70 AD.

So you are telling me that since this is procedure, that Jesus' tomb must have been registered, and all would have access. Somehow, from my own experience, I can share with you that procedures are not always followed.

Yes, which so far, you have produced no evidence to show is inaccurate. Just because it is from the Bible does not make the claim suspect or unreliable.

Sorry to disagree again. It is not rational to disprove what has not been proven in the first place. It is not rational to believe a book (any book) is truth and then ask others to show you it is not. It is much more rational to withold judgment, and ask those that think it is true to show it. Just because the source is from the bible, it makes it unproven. One should not (rationally speaking) be able to use a source to validate itself. Example: The Democratic party circulates a story about a Republican politician's illegal misdeeds. We should not (rationally speaking) be able to use the Democratic party to validate that story.

Not irrelevant and not immaterial if we are comparing this story to the resurrection of Jesus. Your claims that since everyone knew where Jesus was entombed, and that the tomb was later found empty, that Jesus must therefore have been resurrected. With the parallel construction, I can claim that Lao Tzu had followers, and they knew where he was at all times, and they surely must have witnessed (eye- witnessed) his disappearance, which can only lend evidence to his dematerialization to the Tao.

(sigh) I really did not want to go here. Lao Tzu as far as being an actual person is doubtful. There are many who believe that his teachings are nothing but a synthesis of the writings of other people. So I am not going to speculate or compare him with Jesus. Jesus' exitence is historically verified by biblical and nonbiblical sources.

You can try to contstruct a story if you want, but I am not going to waste my time refuting some made up story about a myth.

I know you really don't want to go there. Lao Tzu is as much an historical figure as Jesus was. Neither has any contemporaneous documentation to their alleged existence. However, I do agree with your last sentiment. I, too, am not going to waste my time refuting some made up story about a myth.

Yes, producing the corpse would be evidence to disprove resurrection. However, not producing the corpse is NOT evidence for resurrection. Just like producing the corpse of Lao Tzu would be evidence against his dematerialization to the Tao. However, not producing his corpse is NOT evidence that he did indeed dematerialize into the Tao.

Besides the fact that he was probably not a real person, there would be no reason to produce a corpse in the case of Lao Tzu.

You are mistaken. If the enemies of Lao Tzu produced his corpse, they would have destroyed his teachings in one fell swoop, by proving that he did not dematerialize into the Tao.

Put yourself in the position of the enemies of the disciples. You NEED something to silence them. You have tried threats, torture you have already killed one of them, and yet they won't stop claiming to have seen Jesus alive. Worse yet, their following is only growing in spite of the death penalty you have pronounced on all followers Jesus.

You are mistaken. If I were the enemy of Jesus (and his apostles) at the time, I would not have done anything. I would have perceived the belief to be a cult, similar to what the Branch Davidians were a few years ago. I do not need to produce David Koresh's corpse to show everyone that he is not god. I would let the belief die out under its own weight.

I disagree. You are stretching it here. Huckleberry Finn is a historically accurate novel. It mentions verified locations such as the Mississippi River which have been historically and geographically verified. Does this mean everything in that novel is true? I don't think so.

No, no. You are talking about historical fiction. Huckleberry Finn mentions real locations but presents itself as a work of fiction. It does not claim to be a work genuine history.

The Bible, on the other hand makes an entirely different claim. It claims to be among other things, historical. It claims eyewitneses to real events by real people. You cannot compare the Bible with Huckleberry Finn for that reason.

What is the difference between Huckleberry Finn and the Bible besides that one is labeled as historical fiction and one is not? The origins of the bible are suspect, and I am interested in it to do my own independent research. We do not know if the contents are fiction or not. I have to be open to the possibility. Clearly the contents of the bible contain some wild incredible events, that are as far fetched as many fables and fairy tales.

Regards,

UF

[Guest shiloh357]

So you are telling me that since this is procedure, that Jesus' tomb must have been registered, and all would have access. Somehow, from my own experience, I can share with you that procedures are not always followed

Well again highlighting your relative ignorance of this. In ancient Israel property ownership was of paramount importance particularly since it was transferred from generation to generation in the same family. Everything had to be registered and accurate genealogical records had to be maintained. One mistake could end up leaving you dispossessed and homeless. The same went for burial property. It was a responsibility no one could afford slaq off.

You want me to believe in Jesus' alleged resurrection, yet give me no reason why you reject Lao Tzu's alleged dematerialization to the Tao.

You provided no eyewitness testimony to that end.

I know you really don't want to go there. Lao Tzu is as much an historical figure as Jesus was.

No, he isnt.

Neither has any contemporaneous documentation to their alleged existence.

Jesus does. He has far more reliabile extrabiblical evidence.

I, too, am not going to waste my time refuting some made up story about a myth.

Which only shows you don't know what you are talking about.

This is not Lao Tzu. The fact that you think you can drum up some silly comparison doesn't change the fact that you have provided no intelligent reason to reject the resurrection of Jesus. And you have provided no intelligent reason to reject the testimony of the apostles. All you have done is try to change the subject and provide evasive responses meant to deflect attention away from your impotence in this matter.

It is not rational to disprove what has not been proven in the first place.

Happens all the time in courts of law in the US.

You are mistaken. If I were the enemy of Jesus (and his apostles) at the time, I would not have done anything. I would have perceived the belief to be a cult, similar to what the Branch Davidians were a few years ago.

Wrong. The disciples were proclaiming that the resurrected Jesus was the Messiah of Israel. The Messiah is a concept that ran contrary to the rule of Rome. The Messiah is a King/Deliverer. The religious leaders were Roman puppets and it was their responsibility to keep the people quiet and to make it easier for Rome to govern them. The enemies of the disciples were directly acccountable to Rome for any upset, revolt, revolution, or uprising. The idea that Jesus was the Messiah could potentially cause an uprising meant to throw off Roman governance. It was their necks on the line if they could not put a lid on this resurrection/Messiah talk. It would have been necessary to do everything in their power to silence and dissolve this movement in order not to incur the wrath of Rome and to lose the perks and creature comforts they got in exchange for their service to Rome. In light of the risks they faced, if they could have produced the body of Jesus, they would have done so.

What is the difference between Huckleberry Finn and the Bible besides that one is labeled as historical fiction and one is not? The origins of the bible are suspect, and I am interested in it to do my own independent research. We do not know if the contents are fiction or not. I have to be open to the possibility. Clearly the contents of the bible contain some wild incredible events, that are as far fetched as many fables and fairy tales.

Yeah, we know if it is fiction or not. Your denial of facts of Scripture does not somehow translate into a credible rejection of those facts. Again, you provided no really intelligent to reasons to disbelieve any claims the Bible makes.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion. I am not a christian. If you dislike my opinion, please feel free to disregard it.

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your responses to my comments.

You provided no eyewitness testimony to that end.

Are you asking me to compare the alleged eyewitness testimonies? OK. The bible is a compilation of second hand (at best) hearsay testimonies of the apostles. We do not have the autographs (original) of the original gospels written by any apostle. The oldest documents are in fact copies, which have shown to include certain parts and not other parts when compared to each other. Granted, that the gospels may not have been written down until many decades after the alleged events, because back then, people relied on oral tradition of passing stories down by word of mouth from one generation to another. The Tao Teh Ching is a compilation of sayings attributed to Lao Tzu. None of his alleged followers wrote down anything first or second hand from him. However, some claim that his dematerialization to the Tao was indeed witnessed by his followers and have later, at some point in time, put that down on paper. I am sure the believers of his dematerialization also permit that stories of this event was passed down via the similar oral tradition.

I know you really don't want to go there. Lao Tzu is as much an historical figure as Jesus was.

No, he isnt.

Non-existent people do not write books. What has Jesus written? Lao Tzu wrote the Tao Teh Ching.

Jesus does. He has far more reliabile extrabiblical evidence.

Oh? Please enlighten me with a few.

This is not Lao Tzu. The fact that you think you can drum up some silly comparison doesn't change the fact that you have provided no intelligent reason to reject the resurrection of Jesus. And you have provided no intelligent reason to reject the testimony of the apostles. All you have done is try to change the subject and provide evasive responses meant to deflect attention away from your impotence in this matter.

There is no reason to accept the alleged resurrection of Horus, Mithra, Jesus, Menachem Schneerson, etc., since it is unreasonable to think that people come back from the dead. Have you personally witnessed anyone being resurrected? Do you know of anyone in your lifetime that was resurrected? Have you experienced resurrection personally?

The question is more like why would you believe in some story that someone was resurrected without accepting other stories of other people being resurrected?

Yeah, we know if it is fiction or not. Your denial of facts of Scripture does not somehow translate into a credible rejection of those facts. Again, you provided no really intelligent to reasons to disbelieve any claims the Bible makes.

How do you know if the bible is fiction or not? Please don't tell me it is because it claims to be the truth. If this is so, I doubt we can have a meaningful discussion.

Regards,

UF

[Guest shiloh357]

Are you asking me to compare the alleged eyewitness testimonies?

No, not really. Like I said, I don't really care about Lao Tzu as he is not material to this discussion. This is about Jesus and the claims of the NT.

Non-existent people do not write books. What has Jesus written? Lao Tzu wrote the Tao Teh Ching.

Jesus is God. The Bible is His book and it is about Him from beginning to end. He is the central character of the entire Bible. Lao Tzu is mythical figure and his writings are nothing but a compilation of the writings of others.

There is no reason to accept the alleged resurrection of Horus, Mithra, Jesus, Menachem Schneerson, etc., since it is unreasonable to think that people come back from the dead. Have you personally witnessed anyone being resurrected? Do you know of anyone in your lifetime that was resurrected? Have you experienced resurrection personally?

Irrelevant.

The question is more like why would you believe in some story that someone was resurrected without accepting other stories of other people being resurrected?

For one thing, most of the stories you cite like Horus are not said to have been resurrected when you check the original myth. People have been trying to cast Jesus death, burial and resurrection as nothing but a rehash of older myths, but really that is nothing but misinformation. It is hoped that no one will actually bother to study Egyptology well enough to dispell the falsehood that includes resurrection as part of the Horus myth. Similar things can be said about the other myths that allegedly speak of "resurrections" as well. It is all just nonsense, and also why I don't hold any respect for your Lao Tzu nonsense either.

How do you know if the bible is fiction or not? Please don't tell me it is because it claims to be the truth. If this is so, I doubt we can have a meaningful discussion.

Because the Bible doesn't give you the option of treating it like fiction. The style is not written to be understood as fiction. It purports its stories to be factual and historical.

What people like you do, is brush aside the Bible as being anything but fictional and demand I prove its factuality. In reality, the Bible presents itself as factual, and if you cannot present substantial evidence to show that its claim is false, there is no reason to disbelieve it.

QUOTE

Jesus does. He has far more reliabile extrabiblical evidence.

Oh? Please enlighten me with a few.

Well for starters, there Gaius Suetonias Tranquillas who served under Hadrian; Cornelius Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the historian Thallus who wrote aboutd the darkness over the land during the crucifixion of Jesus, andof course the Talmud. You can reseasrch all of them as they are nonChristian sources that treat the existence of Jesus as historical fact.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion. I am not a christian. If you dislike my opinion, please feel free to disregard it.

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your responses to my comments.

No, not really. Like I said, I don't really care about Lao Tzu as he is not material to this discussion. This is about Jesus and the claims of the NT.

The criteria with which we use to determine truth is in question. How better to expose this difference than by using a comparitor? You believe the bible claims, yet you disbelieve the claims in Taoism. You provide arguments to support your belief in the bible, yet you refuse to hear similarly constructed arguments that support belief in Taoism.

Jesus is God. The Bible is His book and it is about Him from beginning to end. He is the central character of the entire Bible. Lao Tzu is mythical figure and his writings are nothing but a compilation of the writings of others.

You assert that Jesus is God. I have not come to that conclusion. How do you know that Jesus is god? Let me guess....it says so in the bible. How do you know the bible is telling the truth?.....Because it is god's word. How do you know it is god's word? .....it says so in the bible. Do you understand the circularity of this type of thinking? Do you understand why I cannot think this way?

For one thing, most of the stories you cite like Horus are not said to have been resurrected when you check the original myth. People have been trying to cast Jesus death, burial and resurrection as nothing but a rehash of older myths, but really that is nothing but misinformation. It is hoped that no one will actually bother to study Egyptology well enough to dispell the falsehood that includes resurrection as part of the Horus myth. Similar things can be said about the other myths that allegedly speak of "resurrections" as well. It is all just nonsense, and also why I don't hold any respect for your Lao Tzu nonsense either.

You still haven't directly answered my question. Why would you believe in some story that someone was resurrected without accepting other stories of other people being resurrected? Why is one story not nonsense, while other stories are? On what basis do you make this determination?

Because the Bible doesn't give you the option of treating it like fiction. The style is not written to be understood as fiction. It purports its stories to be factual and historical.

What people like you do, is brush aside the Bible as being anything but fictional and demand I prove its factuality. In reality, the Bible presents itself as factual, and if you cannot present substantial evidence to show that its claim is false, there is no reason to disbelieve it.

I disagree. No book (regardless of whether it is labeled the absolute truth or entirely fiction) dictates to me how I will interpret its contents. The bible does indeed make me question its veracity and validity. The style is indeed fashioned to make me wonder if any of it is real. I have never experienced talking snakes, talking donkeys, parting of waters, plagues of frogs, diseases that claim the firstborns, wine transmutating to wine, humans walking on water (without the aid of technology or illusion), or resurrection before. I doubt any of this is real.

There is every reason to disbelieve these things.

Well for starters, there Gaius Suetonias Tranquillas who served under Hadrian; Cornelius Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the historian Thallus who wrote aboutd the darkness over the land during the crucifixion of Jesus, andof course the Talmud. You can reseasrch all of them as they are nonChristian sources that treat the existence of Jesus as historical fact.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, commonly known as Suetonius was born between 69- and 75 CE, decades after the last alleged sighting of Jesus Christ. He wrote biographies of many Ceasars. However, we know that he was not a primary witness of any of the events he wrote about prior to his birth. At best, he was rehashing secondary (or more) stories. He is not a contemporaneous (at the same time) source that confirms the existence of Jesus Christ.

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Aug 9 2009, 05:16 PM)

No, not really. Like I said, I don't really care about Lao Tzu as he is not material to this discussion. This is about Jesus and the claims of the NT.

The criteria with which we use to determine truth is in question. How better to expose this difference than by using a comparitor?

When you provide a real comparitor that is worth the time and the bandwidth I will dialogue about it. Jesus is a historical figure. Lao Tzu is not. No comparison.

You assert that Jesus is God. I have not come to that conclusion. How do you know that Jesus is god? Let me guess....it says so in the bible. How do you know the bible is telling the truth?.....Because it is god's word. How do you know it is god's word? .....it says so in the bible. Do you understand the circularity of this type of thinking?

I am employing circular reasoning. You are working from the assumption that my belief is the Bible is blind faith and if that were true, you might actually be able to make such an argument. However, the Christian faith is evidentiary in nature, and I have historical, geographical, and logical reasons to trust the Bible.

Do you understand why I cannot think this way?

Yep. It is called blind unbelief.

You still haven't directly answered my question. Why would you believe in some story that someone was resurrected without accepting other stories of other people being resurrected?

Yes I did answer your question. You cite as examples of other stories of other gods who were allegedly resurrected, but an examination of those myths such as the myth of horus from legitimate Egytpological sites demonstrates that no such resurrection is recorded.

There have been a rash of attempts at misrepresenting mytholocial characters to make Jesus appear to be just a rehash of similar myths. They claim that Horus for example was born of a virgin on December 25, in a stable/cave and was crucified and ressurrected and so on. Except that Horus was born in and around November in swamp was not virgin born at all. Not only that but the Horus myth began in ancient Egypt before crucifixion even existed which unravels the whole resurrection thing. As if that was not enough. Jesus was not born December, but in the Fall, which shows that the alleged similarities between Jesus and Horus were concocted after the arrival of Christianity and is based on Christian tradition, not on the authentic Egyptological myth.

That is why I don't accept other stories. They are demonstratably false, while the resurrection of Jesus cannot be shown to be false by you or anyone else.

Why is one story not nonsense, while other stories are? On what basis do you make this determination?

See above.

I disagree. No book (regardless of whether it is labeled the absolute truth or entirely fiction) dictates to me how I will interpret its contents.

Yes they do. Try approaching a oookbook with that kind of reckless attitude or an instruction manual on wiring a lamp. You had better interpret it the way it says or that electricity will fry your hide.

You naturally approach approach poetry, fiction, historical biographys, newspaper articles according to how the authors intend to be understood. If you didn't, it would make you look rather foolish.

The style is indeed fashioned to make me wonder if any of it is real. I have never experienced talking snakes, talking donkeys, parting of waters, plagues of frogs, diseases that claim the firstborns, wine transmutating to wine, humans walking on water (without the aid of technology or illusion), or resurrection before. I doubt any of this is real.

That is not realy relevant. The limited scope of your experience is not the measuring rod of truth, nor does it limit what other people can experience.

It is rather foolish to assume that anyone who has experienced anything that you are not familiar with or have not seen is automatically unbelievable.

Thanks for the first course (starters). Do you have a second course for me to research?

I provided enough to make the point that there were ancient pagan historians who saw Jesus as perfectly historical individual. The fact that you can find liberal scholars to make up bogus refutations of their claims if really entertaining.