Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[Cmass]

Do you think it is necessary for someone to have a masters degree in theology in order to properly debate or understand Christianity?

No I don't. I can see how my tone made me seem an ass. Let's start over. I do apologize but you must understand. I run so many people on boards who just really don't know anything about it and they don't care. I precieve you are not one of them.

sorry.

No need to apologize to me - but thank you for your kindness and empathy and show of great character.
Thus far, I have found this board to be one of the best in terms of it's participants. Most really do care about the topics. Also, I'm like many people in here who have ongoing PM with some of our "rivals" - many of whom I really do enjoy on a personal level no matter how much they tick me off in debate.
So, go for it & kick my ass - sometimes I might even end up learning something.

[Metacrock]

Do you think it is necessary for someone to have a masters degree in theology in order to properly debate or understand Christianity?

No I don't. I can see how my tone made me seem an ass. Let's start over. I do apologize but you must understand. I run so many people on boards who just really don't know anything about it and they don't care. I precieve you are not one of them.

sorry.

No need to apologize to me - but thank you for your kindness and empathy and show of great character.
Thus far, I have found this board to be one of the best in terms of it's participants. Most really do care about the topics. Also, I'm like many people in here who have ongoing PM with some of our "rivals" - many of whom I really do enjoy on a personal level no matter how much they tick me off in debate.
So, go for it & kick my ass - sometimes I might even end up learning something.

Yea I like these boards too. It's rare to find people who really want a good discussion. I appreciate your views and your attitude.

[Lotan]

This is what happens when I go away for a few days...

the assumption is no one die for a story they knew to be a lie. That argument is logical, but of limited use.

Especially when any alleged eyewitnesses are long gone. This argument supports the validity of fundamentalist Islam well enough. The 9/11 hijackers apparently believed.

That's just talking at cross purposes. You are trying to discredit the argument by applying to non analogous situations.

(1) The fact that the witnesses are long gone in no way discredits the argument; the argument being that the people who wrote the gospels would not die for something knew was fictinoal. that's got nothing to do with how long they have been dead.

(2) that the same logic could be used to argue for other faiths or erroniious ideas is totally irrevilvant. It does not change the fact of the argument itself.

(3) any argument can be misapplied.

The analogy here is valid. The 9/11 hijackers didn't know that Islam was a lie, just as the Christian martyrs didn't know that Christianity (specifically the resurrection) was a lie. This refers to the point raised originally by samuelbb7 in Post 120. In both cases people died for what they believed, and not for what they knew.
In response to your objections...
(1) Here's the trouble...

The argument from martyrdom is specific and ony applies to the original evangelists who passed on the story.

There are so many problems with this, it's difficult to know where to start...

a)The evangelists weren't eyewitnesses.
b)There were no eyewitnesses (to the 'resurrection').
c)Jesus' contemporaries weren't martyred for their beliefs.

(2) It only proves that the argument is groundless in the first place.
(3) Oh, so true.

I said that argument is not that any kind of general martyrdom proves Christianity, but that the death of the original tellers of the story is what makes the argument.

And what do you base your knowledge of their deaths on? Dr. McBirnie?

Death of Peter is attestested by Clement of Rome who was a witness and alludes to other witnesses. So at least Peter if not others died for it.

Clement mentions that Peter died, that's true...

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory. - 1Clem 5:4

...but he doesn't claim outright that Peter was martyred for his beliefs, nor does he provide any details to support that conclusion.
[quote="Metacrock" (Post 142)"]Now why would he die for smething he made up?[/quote]
Beats me. I guess he didn't.

that is about the finished product, the fully Redacted version that we know today. But the original version of Mark is proceeded by the UR Marcus and pre Markan redaction which dates to AD 50.

And what dangerous beliefs do you think Ur Marcus might have contained IF it existed? The 'empty tomb'? Crossan has shown how virtually the entire passion narrative can be pieced together from OT scripture. He's also shown that it's exceedingly unlikely that there was a tomb, empty or otherwise. I realize that I've skipped over big chunks of your argument, but there has been nothing presented that's all that compelling. Besides, you haven't explained how the Jerusalem church existed relatively peacefully until the war, when by rights they should have been persecuted for telling their 'story'. If there are details that I haven't addressed then let me know please.

a lot of scholars accept 1 pete.

A lot of scholars don't.

But 2 Pete is the one that's really suspect.

Also the first hand declaration "we did not follow cleverly devized stories" creates a prima facie standard that you must over turn.

Can you please clarify this for me? I'm not sure if you're arguing for the authenticity of 2Peter or not. Just curious.

[Metacrock]

This is what happens when I go away for a few days...

the assumption is no one die for a story they knew to be a lie. That argument is logical, but of limited use.

Especially when any alleged eyewitnesses are long gone. This argument supports the validity of fundamentalist Islam well enough. The 9/11 hijackers apparently believed.

That's just talking at cross purposes. You are trying to discredit the argument by applying to non analogous situations.

(1) The fact that the witnesses are long gone in no way discredits the argument; the argument being that the people who wrote the gospels would not die for something knew was fictinoal. that's got nothing to do with how long they have been dead.

(2) that the same logic could be used to argue for other faiths or erroniious ideas is totally irrevilvant. It does not change the fact of the argument itself.

(3) any argument can be misapplied.

The analogy here is valid. The 9/11 hijackers didn't know that Islam was a lie, just as the Christian martyrs didn't know that Christianity (specifically the resurrection) was a lie. This refers to the point raised originally by samuelbb7 in Post 120. In both cases people died for what they believed, and not for what they knew.

the crucial point you are missing is that the argument only works when used for those who made the tradition in the ferist place. One might argue Mohamid wouldn't die for a lie, but the 9/11 hijackers are irrelivant, they did not invent Islam. The argument is only applicable to the original propogators of the story.

thats' why I said it's limited.

In response to your objections...
(1) Here's the trouble...

The argument from martyrdom is specific and ony applies to the original evangelists who passed on the story.

There are so many problems with this, it's difficult to know where to start...

a)The evangelists weren't eyewitnesses.

yes, they were. The argument goes for the orignal authors of the Gospels who ever the hell they were. you want to make the foolish foolish assertion that they were not eye witnesses, that's fine. It doesn't matter, but the evidence is quite good that they were.

The guys in the story who were with Jesus would not die for a lie, but they did die for the gospel. that is a proven fact. Clement of Rome was a witness to Peter's death. He says he was! he says others were as well,and he knew them.

b)There were no eyewitnesses (to the 'resurrection').

that's an assertion not in evidence. We have good reason to believe there were witnesses. Because the community not only says so but the community knew them, they were famous they were known to the community. And Paul speaks of the 500, that's the community. They are people who lived in Bethany. At the end of Luke Jesus walks through the streets of that town to be ascended into heaven. So they saw him, that's who they were. They wrote Acts.


Last chapter of John a whole body of Elders, community leaders says "we know this guy, we know he's the guy in the story, we know he saw these things, we are witnesses to his life, we know he's only the level." So that's the communtiy,t he treu author attestnig to the fact that their original community leader was an eye witness to Jesus.

the Elder of 1 Johan says "that which we saw which our hands touched." hes' saying "I was an eye witness." and that is born out by Papias who knew that Elder John and says he was a sidciple.

c)Jesus' contemporaries weren't martyred for their beliefs.

yes they were. We can prove at least in three cases.


(a) Peter proven by Clement of Rome and the witnesses he knew

(b) Stephen whom Paul helped stone (who was around in the early days and saw Jesus).

(c) James whom Jospehus says was murdered by the Jews

(d) James the younger also stoned by the Jews.

(2) It only proves that the argument is groundless in the first place.

why would smoeone die for something they knew they made up?

(3) Oh, so true.

what?

I said that argument is not that any kind of general martyrdom proves Christianity, but that the death of the original tellers of the story is what makes the argument.

And what do you base your knowledge of their deaths on? Dr. McBirnie?

see above.

you don't mean Stewart McBirnie, "in the end times, there will come a knowing at your dowwwwer?" and he has a stair case to nowhere in the background. That guy's hoot. who wouldn't believe him. He's way to stupid to lie.

Josephus, Clement and Paul that's pretty solid docs.

Death of Peter is attestested by Clement of Rome who was a witness and alludes to other witnesses. So at least Peter if not others died for it.

Clement mentions that Peter died, that's true...

he clealry says he knew those who saw it and that he himself knew it to be Peter.

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory. - 1Clem 5:4

...but he doesn't claim outright that Peter was martyred for his beliefs, nor does he provide any details to support that conclusion.

yes he does. Quote the whole thing. Brone his tesimony wen to his reward, don't you know how to read? are you so lame you can't read an old work and understand what's being said? I'm sure you've read Shkespire.

[quote="Metacrock" (Post 142)"]Now why would he die for smething he made up?

Beats me. I guess he didn't.

right, but he did die for it, so I guess he didn't make it up.t hat's obvioos any honest thinking person would just cop to the obvious logic. Since I've admitted it's very limited argument no danger to preckous childish little skpeicism.

adolescent rebellion. I'll teach mom and Dad. make go to chruch will you?

that is about the finished product, the fully Redacted version that we know today. But the original version of Mark is proceeded by the UR Marcus and pre Markan redaction which dates to AD 50.

And what dangerous beliefs do you think Ur Marcus might have contained IF it existed? The 'empty tomb'? Crossan has shown how virtually the entire passion narrative can be pieced together from OT scripture.

more atheist reading comprehension problems. So anxious to find evidence aginst the bible you don't even see that Crosson agrees with Koester. Hes 'not a Jesus myther, he said publically Jeesus existed and Dorhty is a fool. He believes in a pre Markan redaction. that means he believes in the UR Marck, get it.??? Yes he does. see Koster's Ancient Chirstian Gospels. He agrees there was an ur Mark it was around in AD 50 and it included the empty tomb!

He's also shown that it's exceedingly unlikely that there was a tomb, empty or otherwise.

wrong he does not.

I realize that I've skipped over big chunks of your argument, but there has been nothing presented that's all that compelling.

all I argued was that the argument about dying for a lie is of limited value but is logical. you have said nothing to disprove that. It's self evident if you udnertsand what it's about.

The evdience about the pre Markan redaction disproves your entire critique of the Gospels.

Besides, you haven't explained how the Jerusalem church existed relatively peacefully until the war, when by rights they should have been persecuted for telling their 'story'.

They had every right to say Jesus was Messiah. there was no law agains tthat In 135 about 87 Rabbis said bar Kabba was the Messiah. Many other Rabbis lauhged at them but no one kicked them out of Judisam or tried to crcuify them.

the only reason Christians were seperated from Judiasm was because they were blamed for not helping in the rebellion. Simeon, Jesus cousin who took over for James, recieved a vision that told him to take is community and flee the city. He did so and they were seen as running out on the Jews and so from that time on the Jews seperated themselves adn excluded them. Before that they were just seen as an excentric sect that was wacy but not blasephemous and not dangerous.

If there are details that I haven't addressed then let me know please.

a lot of scholars accept 1 pete.

A lot of scholars don't.

But 2 Pete is the one that's really suspect.

Also the first hand declaration "we did not follow cleverly devized stories" creates a prima facie standard that you must over turn.

Can you please clarify this for me? I'm not sure if you're arguing for the authenticity of 2Peter or not. Just curious.

No, I accept 1 pete but not 2 pete.

[Lotan]

the crucial point you are missing is that the argument only works when used for those who made the tradition in the ferist place.

I don't think you're catching on. That's my point as well.

One might argue Mohamid wouldn't die for a lie, but the 9/11 hijackers are irrelivant, they did not invent Islam. The argument is only applicable to the original propogators of the story.

Right. The "original propogators" of Jesus' story weren't persecuted for their story. Later Christians were persecuted for theirs.

thats' why I said it's limited.

If you mean that it's a dishonest argument that doesn't fit the evidence then I agree. People like Josh McDowell find it useful.

I'll let Richard Carrier make my argument for me...

"It is still rather unlikely, I am told, that the original believers were making what they believed up for personal gain, in light of the persecution they suffered, and I have a lot to say about this, requiring a substantial digression. It is neither necessary to assume they made it up, nor is it certain that if they did they would be unwilling to die for some greater good that they saw in their creed. And if any original eye-witness did face death and recanted we might not have heard about it: Matthew's remark at 28.17 that some eye-witnesses didn't believe may be seen as a rhetorical defence against evidence of recanters. But most importantly, as I will argue in detail, most believers, and all whom we know died for their belief, were not eye-witnesses. This proves without a doubt that people were willing to die for something that they believed merely on someone else's word. And if they were willing to do that, might they not be willing to die for equally feeble reasons? From kamikaze Japanese dive-bombers and torpedo-peddlers, Islamic suicide-bombers, to any of the dozens of suicide cults in history, or indeed the whole nation of Israel, twice fighting against an obviously unbeatable and demonstrably vindictive Rome, because of beliefs in prophecies of their victory, it is clear that people have a tendency to be willing to die for a seemingly good cause, even when the cause really isn't that good. <snip>
It is important not to forget that, in actual fact, we have no reliable record of any eye-witness dying for their belief. All martyrdom accounts are of converts, not witnesses, except for that of Peter. But the account of his death is first found in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a tale which includes, among other things, a talking dog, a flying wizard, and the resurrection of a tuna fish. Moreover, the account is Gnostic and assumes, as in Peter's dying words in it, that the Resurrection was spiritual, not physical. But most importantly, he would not have escaped death if he had recanted, for he was killed by a magistrate, as the story relates, whom he had angered with his political meddling, and not because he was a Christian. So his death does not prove that he was willing to maintain his faith despite being threatened with death if he didn't recant, because he wasn't. He was condemned no matter what his profession of faith, so his devotion proves nothing here."

yes, they were. The argument goes for the orignal authors of the Gospels who ever the hell they were. you want to make the foolish foolish assertion that they were not eye witnesses, that's fine. It doesn't matter, but the evidence is quite good that they were.

I sure don't have the monopoly on "foolish assertions". The gospels that we have might be the result of an earlier process of transmission, but the earliest (canonical) one is still 40 years after Jesus' death. There is plenty of evidence that the stories grew in the telling, accumulating legendary and midrashic invention, and that their attribution to early disciples of Jesus is later tradition.

The guys in the story who were with Jesus would not die for a lie, but they did die for the gospel.

Maybe, but their idea of the gospel and the later creations of the NT are two different animals. Besides, there were plenty of others who died for their beliefs at this time, eg. the followers of Theudas.

Clement of Rome was a witness to Peter's death. He says he was! he says others were as well,and he knew them.

There's no need to shout.
Anyway, you're wrong. I'll show you why in a minute...

that's an assertion not in evidence. We have good reason to believe there were witnesses. Because the community not only says so but the community knew them, they were famous they were known to the community. And Paul speaks of the 500, that's the community. They are people who lived in Bethany. At the end of Luke Jesus walks through the streets of that town to be ascended into heaven. So they saw him, that's who they were. They wrote Acts.

Sigh Is it possible that we could get through this discussion without having to argue about what a huge load of **** the 'Acts of the Apostles' is? Even rather conservative scholars will admit that Luke was spreading it on thick.
My statement was a bit harsh though, I'll amend it - "There were no eyewitnesses (to the physical 'resurrection').
Is that better? Sure, people got tranced out and had visions of something, just as Paul saw something. The later story tellers created accounts that were more 'physical' for apologetic reasons, but the earlier traditions are all hocus pocus.

Last chapter of John a whole body of Elders, community leaders says "we know this guy, we know he's the guy in the story, we know he saw these things, we are witnesses to his life, we know he's only the level."

"Last chapter"? John's gospel is already at least 60 years after Jesus, and John 21 was tacked on even later than that! People make up all kinds of crazy things! John 21 was written as a mirror to the story of Peter denying Jesus three times; he gets to redeem himself. It's literature.

So that's the communtiy,t he treu author attestnig to the fact that their original community leader was an eye witness to Jesus.

Really? I see it as the creation of later authors with a hellenist agenda, but I guess that's why I'm a skeptic!

the Elder of 1 Johan says "that which we saw which our hands touched." hes' saying "I was an eye witness." and that is born out by Papias who knew that Elder John and says he was a sidciple.

Of course it is. In those days, everybody and their dog was having Jesus sightings. That's why later accounts of physical appearances were necessary to prop up apostolic authority. IOW, "You may have seen Jesus, but we (the apostles) actually touched him, and we saw him first. Except Thomas. Don't listen to those Thomas Christians!"

yes they were. We can prove at least in three cases.

Good thing you listed four then!

(a) Peter proven by Clement of Rome and the witnesses he knew

Clement doesn't say that Peter was martyred, or that he knew him.

(b) Stephen whom Paul helped stone (who was around in the early days and saw Jesus).

If you say he did...
At least he got a trial (if he actually existed, I mean). His speech in Acts 7 certainly sets him up to be the poster boy for Christian martyrdom and the charge against him...

For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. Acts 6:14

...requires a belief in the supernatural power of prophecy. Just for fun though, I'll pretend that there actually was a disciple named Stephen who got killed for shooting his mouth off. That would be one martyr.

c) James whom Jospehus says was murdered by the Jews

James was well regarded in Jerusalem for 30 years prior to his run in with Ananus, and there's no evidence that he was ever persecuted by anyone other than Ananus, who paid a price...

"...as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king (Agrippa II), desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act no more, for what he had already done was not to be justified..." - Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20: chapter 9

Once again, let's ask Carrier...

"Consider what Josephus, a Pharisee, has just written. He is saying that when a Christian (James) was persecuted, the people rose up against no less a person than the High Priest and the Roman Procurator and Agrippa II, the king, both agreed that Ananus had to go. The king and the procurator got rid of the High Priest after less than three months, just because he persecuted a Christian. Does this sound as though the Jews had been systematically rounding up and killing Christians for 30 years? Only when the Roman Procurator, Albinus, was on the road did the High priest dare to act. Does this sound as though the Romans were persecuting Christians?"

(d) James the younger also stoned by the Jews.

Was that before or after Herod cut his head off?

Face it Metacrock, this is pretty weak evidence of 'persecution' among first generation Christians.

why would smoeone die for something they knew they made up?

Answer: they didn't!

Josephus, Clement and Paul that's pretty solid docs.

Except that they're not saying what you think they are saying. They don't agree with Luke's Acts. That's probably more your speed.

he clealry says he knew those who saw it and that he himself knew it to be Peter.

In your dreams maybe...

yes he does. Quote the whole thing.

Okeydoke...

"But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the
elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims
of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves." 1Clement 5:1 - 6:1

Do you need more?

Brone his tesimony wen to his reward, don't you know how to read?

I always thought I did.

are you so lame you can't read an old work and understand what's being said?

Are you so insecure that you can't make an argument without resorting to ad hominem? I can read 1Clement just fine, thanks. By this I mean that I can read it without reading into it something that's not there in the first place. Clement says that Peter "...went to his appointed place of glory" (ie. died), not that he was martyred. I think that the best part is this, though; when you say "he clealry says he knew those who saw it and that he himself knew it to be Peter." are you referring to this rhetorical figure of speech...?

"Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles." 1Clement 5:3

That's too funny!

I'm sure you've read Shkespire.

Was he an eyewitness too?

right, but he did die for it, so I guess he didn't make it up.t hat's obvioos any honest thinking person would just cop to the obvious logic. Since I've admitted it's very limited argument no danger to preckous childish little skpeicism.

So, you think I'm not honest, or thinking? That I'm childish? That's not very civil, young man.

adolescent rebellion.

You'll grow out of it.

I'll teach mom and Dad. make go to chruch will you?

I go to Living Word Pentecostal Assembly just about every Sunday. Where do you go, Methodist church?

more atheist reading comprehension problems. So anxious to find evidence aginst the bible you don't even see that Crosson agrees with Koester. Hes 'not a Jesus myther, he said publically Jeesus existed and Dorhty is a fool.

So what? I think Jesus existed too. Doherty does a fair job of deconstructing Paul's theology, but besides that he does have too much to offer.

He believes in a pre Markan redaction. that means he believes in the UR Marck, get it.???

Sure I get it. Show us where Ur Mark supports a physical resurrection and then we'll all get it. While you're at it, you can show us your evidence for the authors of Ur Mark being contemporary disciples of Jesus.

He's also shown that it's exceedingly unlikely that there was a tomb, empty or otherwise.

wrong he does not.

Sure he does. All those thousands and thousands of crucifixions and only one burial found. Ever. That was part of the punishment. Not only were the crucified denied burial, they remained on the cross as billboards for Roman authority. The 'empty tomb' never existed, except as a symbol of hope. Here's a bit of a review of Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography...

"Crossan dismisses most of the Gospel narrative of the Crucifixion and the events leading up to it as a dramatic fiction. In fact, he suggests, Jesus's first followers knew almost nothing about the details of what happened, and the description was written in order to make the story correspond to prophetic texts in the Hebrew Scriptures. There was no Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus's body was not buried in a tomb; crucified individuals almost never were. Instead, their bodies would be left on the cross or buried in a shallow grave where they would soon be dug up by waiting dogs. This is what would have happened in Jesus's case but "the horror of that brutal truth [was] sublimated by hope and imagination into its opposite." - from here.

I could quote his arguments directly from the book if you really think it's necessary.

all I argued was that the argument about dying for a lie is of limited value but is logical. you have said nothing to disprove that. It's self evident if you udnertsand what it's about.

Of course it is, but like so many apologetic arguments it contains built-in assumptions, like "the gospels were written by eyewitnesses" or "the eyewitnesses were persecuted". The evidence is against these assumptions and unless they are first supported the argument is of no value, let alone "limited" value.

The evdience about the pre Markan redaction disproves your entire critique of the Gospels.

As soon as someone shows that it is based on eyewitness testimony (for the good stuff) I'll repent. Until then, you're begging the question.

They had every right to say Jesus was Messiah. there was no law agains tthat In 135 about 87 Rabbis said bar Kabba was the Messiah. Many other Rabbis lauhged at them but no one kicked them out of Judisam or tried to crcuify them.

I agree. That's why there was no reason for them to be persecuted.

the only reason Christians were seperated from Judiasm was because they were blamed for not helping in the rebellion.

Really? The "ONLY" reason? Are you absolutely sure of that?

Simeon, Jesus cousin who took over for James, recieved a vision that told him to take is community and flee the city.

Jesus' cousin? Are you a Catholic or have the Catholics gotten to you? Unless you're really intent on protecting the perpetual virginity of Mary there is no good reason to assume that Simeon was anything but Jesus' brother. No reason at all.
Also, do you suppose that Simeon was so dense as to require a "vision" to know which way the wind was blowing? Or could it be that that teensy weensy bit of poetic licence is lost on you.

He did so and they were seen as running out on the Jews and so from that time on the Jews seperated themselves adn excluded them.

How convenient. Now tell us the one about how the monkey got his long tail!

Before that they were just seen as an excentric sect that was wacy but not blasephemous and not dangerous.

Seen by whom? All the other wacky and eccentric sects? Judahism at that time came in more flavors than Baskin Robbins.

No, I accept 1 pete but not 2 pete.

Then why did you say...

Also the first hand declaration "we did not follow cleverly devized stories" creates a prima facie standard that you must over turn.

[samuelbb7]

Dear Goat

You wrote.

You are, of course, assuming that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by the apostle Peter.

From the mainstream CHristians biblical scholars, the date for Mark is between 65 and 80, 1 Peter is between 80 and 110, while 2 Peter is between 100 and 160.

And, I would say it is more like that they were mistaken, and also those that followed didn't understand the style of writing

It is your right to make those assumptions and decisions. If I agreed with you then I too would reject the Bible.

Live long and prosper.

[samuelbb7]

Dear Lotan

You wrote

a)The evangelists weren't eyewitnesses.
b)There were no eyewitnesses (to the 'resurrection').
c)Jesus' contemporaries weren't martyred for their beliefs.

First there are some problems with these statments for both of us. YOu can show evidence and reasons for them and I can show evidence against. But all the evidence is not total and there are points on both sides that could make either side true. So these conclusions are probable but not provable.

If these assumptions are true. Then there is no basis for Christianity and the religion is false. But I contend that these assumptions are not valid and that the Evangelists were eyewitness and they were martyred for their beliefs. But I cannot prove it with irrefutable evidence. I can only show it is probable. So I choose to believe or have faith.

I will also admit that my position is not the more logical one.

Live long and prosper.

[Confused]

I still think, overall, Christians apply logic consistently as they see it logically. They can rationalize these supernatural events in a logical coherent way in their mind. We just dont understand it. When a Christian can see a flaw in their logic, I have seen them admit this. Achilles, FiredUp, etc.

[samuelbb7]

Dear Confused.

YOu make a good point. We as Christians do reconcile our beliefs as you mention. If I knew how to give you some tokens I would.

[Metacrock]

the crucial point you are missing is that the argument only works when used for those who made the tradition in the ferist place.

I don't think you're catching on. That's my point as well.

ah, well super, then we are both geniuses.

One might argue Mohamid wouldn't die for a lie, but the 9/11 hijackers are irrelivant, they did not invent Islam. The argument is only applicable to the original propogators of the story.

Right. The "original propogators" of Jesus' story weren't persecuted for their story. Later Christians were persecuted for theirs.

thats' why I said it's limited.

If you mean that it's a dishonest argument that doesn't fit the evidence then I agree. People like Josh McDowell find it useful.

IT's a good argument against people who say "the Apostles just made it all up." But then that's not a credible position in and of itself.




I'm sure you dont' want to know my opinion of Carrier