Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[otseng]

Once again, I am left awstruck by the sheer silliness of atheist claims.

Moderator Comment

Just present the facts. Don't make comments that a claim is silly.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Mithrae]

That's a no then.

I agree that Luke was probably written by Luke, who was a gentile companion of Paul (possibly from Antioch) and explicitly stated that he was writing based on earlier accounts (Luke 1:1-4). So at least two of the synoptic gospels are not first-hand accounts.

Agh, no - that would be a yes. If Luke is writing a more detailed recount of his experiences ... while relying on his own notes ... like ..GASP ... modern historians do ... that is STILL a primary source.

Luke was there to witness the events ... pretty simple.

You were saying about the inability to acknowledge when one was wrong?

Ah well, it was interesting talking to you Stubborn One - I do enjoy discussing both sides of a question. But you're openly making things up here, so I think it's time to say goodbye. Your special approach to discussion of Jesus has helped me to understand not only your own views, but also partly why some other folk might treat it with such excessive scepticism at times. Best wishes to you

[Goat]

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.

I see bare links to web sites and then told 'Go read'. I extract items from the web site you provide that show the exact opposite of your claim, and you complain about 'Random Google links'..

I don't see you showing where in the web sites you provided that , well, you actually backed up your claim.

Or, besides bluster, actually addressed your claim.

I see a lot of ranting, and ranting against G.A. Wells

But you know what?? You are the only person on this thread that talks about Dr Wells. The OP mentioned Richard Carrier, a PH.D in hisotry.. not G.A Wells, a doctorate in linguistics.

Yes, you provided your opinion. However, the one thing you did NOT do is back up your claims. You built huge straw men. But you refused to address the actual points made.

You pointed to an apologist web site, and showed their opinion. You didn't show any reason to accept some random guy on an apologist web sites opinion.

[stubbornone]

That's a no then.

I agree that Luke was probably written by Luke, who was a gentile companion of Paul (possibly from Antioch) and explicitly stated that he was writing based on earlier accounts (Luke 1:1-4). So at least two of the synoptic gospels are not first-hand accounts.

Agh, no - that would be a yes. If Luke is writing a more detailed recount of his experiences ... while relying on his own notes ... like ..GASP ... modern historians do ... that is STILL a primary source.

Luke was there to witness the events ... pretty simple.

You were saying about the inability to acknowledge when one was wrong?

Ah well, it was interesting talking to you Stubborn One - I do enjoy discussing both sides of a question. But you're openly making things up here, so I think it's time to say goodbye. Your special approach to discussion of Jesus has helped me to understand not only your own views, but also partly why some other folk might treat it with such excessive scepticism at times. Best wishes to you

Agh no, that is what history is Mith. You look at the evidence and you form a cogent analysis of events based upon that evidence. The Synoptic gospels, with all the scholarly debate about them are very clearly written by those who witnessed the events of Jesus FIRST HAND. Whether these were written by the actual men, or transcribed from notes in an ancient time ... the fact remains that they are first hand accounts, there accuracy is attested to by Paul, etc, etc. etc.

There will always be debate around the specifics of Christian claims. Always.

However, excessive skepticism is little more than absurdity, particular when it produces not an intent to solve, but malign and deny.

The trick is an honest examination, and when you find your views ridiculed by professional scholars ... its a safe bet that you have applied a form of skepticism that is FAR too excessive.

[stubbornone]

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.

I see bare links to web sites and then told 'Go read'. I extract items from the web site you provide that show the exact opposite of your claim, and you complain about 'Random Google links'..

I don't see you showing where in the web sites you provided that , well, you actually backed up your claim.

Or, besides bluster, actually addressed your claim.

I see a lot of ranting, and ranting against G.A. Wells

But you know what?? You are the only person on this thread that talks about Dr Wells. The OP mentioned Richard Carrier, a PH.D in hisotry.. not G.A Wells, a doctorate in linguistics.

Yes, you provided your opinion. However, the one thing you did NOT do is back up your claims. You built huge straw men. But you refused to address the actual points made.

You pointed to an apologist web site, and showed their opinion. You didn't show any reason to accept some random guy on an apologist web sites opinion.

If you are going to make a point, feel free to make one Goat.

You asked for evidence in support of Mark - you got it.

Now, God himself cannot determine what the devil you are trying to do? How about you clarify your position on Mark, and using the newly discovered evidence (which you have already dismissed as apologists? Because those who place a large and acrimonious portion of scholarship on a web site are of course ... er, not producing such evidence?) and support your contention?

That assumes you are not just another rabid Jesus Denier looking to flame people at any cost?

Well, lets see it then? Reveal your colors one way or the other Goat.

In fact, you have yet to spell out a position on Carrier, or even demonstrate any familiarity with what he deals with. It appears you are simply pulling a Wells, finding random reasons to randomly disagree merely for the sake of disagreement - a practice that scholars have dismissed as simple intellectual insanity.

[Goat]

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.

I see bare links to web sites and then told 'Go read'. I extract items from the web site you provide that show the exact opposite of your claim, and you complain about 'Random Google links'..

I don't see you showing where in the web sites you provided that , well, you actually backed up your claim.

Or, besides bluster, actually addressed your claim.

I see a lot of ranting, and ranting against G.A. Wells

But you know what?? You are the only person on this thread that talks about Dr Wells. The OP mentioned Richard Carrier, a PH.D in hisotry.. not G.A Wells, a doctorate in linguistics.

Yes, you provided your opinion. However, the one thing you did NOT do is back up your claims. You built huge straw men. But you refused to address the actual points made.

You pointed to an apologist web site, and showed their opinion. You didn't show any reason to accept some random guy on an apologist web sites opinion.

If you are going to make a point, feel free to make one Goat.

You asked for evidence in support of Mark - you got it.

Now, God himself cannot determine what the devil you are trying to do? How about you clarify your position on Mark, and using the newly discovered evidence (which you have already dismissed as apologists? Because those who place a large and acrimonious portion of scholarship on a web site are of course ... er, not producing such evidence?) and support your contention?

That assumes you are not just another rabid Jesus Denier looking to flame people at any cost?

Well, lets see it then? Reveal your colors one way or the other Goat.

In fact, you have yet to spell out a position on Carrier, or even demonstrate any familiarity with what he deals with. It appears you are simply pulling a Wells, finding random reasons to randomly disagree merely for the sake of disagreement - a practice that scholars have dismissed as simple intellectual insanity.

Where did I get support for Mark being written by an eye witness?? Really? Why don't you extract the passage from the web page whose raw link you posted that shows that 'Mark was written by an eye witness'. I cut/paste from that very web site that shows scholars say it was not written by an eye witness.

Please, cut/paste the words from that web site the show that "Mark was written by eye witnesses', or withdraw the claim.

I see everything but support for your claim. I see4 avoidance for backing up that claim.

Right now, all I am doing it trying to get you to support your claim.

And, for you to support your claim doesn't mean I have to give my opinion on Carrier. When it comes to the primary sources .... I most certainly have given my opinion on the primary extra-biblical sources, and find that are insufficient to think they are independent sources, and that there is enough evidence of corruption at Christian hands to discount the validity of the writings from Josephus for example.

[stubbornone]

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.

I see bare links to web sites and then told 'Go read'. I extract items from the web site you provide that show the exact opposite of your claim, and you complain about 'Random Google links'..

I don't see you showing where in the web sites you provided that , well, you actually backed up your claim.

Or, besides bluster, actually addressed your claim.

I see a lot of ranting, and ranting against G.A. Wells

But you know what?? You are the only person on this thread that talks about Dr Wells. The OP mentioned Richard Carrier, a PH.D in hisotry.. not G.A Wells, a doctorate in linguistics.

Yes, you provided your opinion. However, the one thing you did NOT do is back up your claims. You built huge straw men. But you refused to address the actual points made.

You pointed to an apologist web site, and showed their opinion. You didn't show any reason to accept some random guy on an apologist web sites opinion.

If you are going to make a point, feel free to make one Goat.

You asked for evidence in support of Mark - you got it.

Now, God himself cannot determine what the devil you are trying to do? How about you clarify your position on Mark, and using the newly discovered evidence (which you have already dismissed as apologists? Because those who place a large and acrimonious portion of scholarship on a web site are of course ... er, not producing such evidence?) and support your contention?

That assumes you are not just another rabid Jesus Denier looking to flame people at any cost?

Well, lets see it then? Reveal your colors one way or the other Goat.

In fact, you have yet to spell out a position on Carrier, or even demonstrate any familiarity with what he deals with. It appears you are simply pulling a Wells, finding random reasons to randomly disagree merely for the sake of disagreement - a practice that scholars have dismissed as simple intellectual insanity.

Where did I get support for Mark being written by an eye witness?? Really? Why don't you extract the passage from the web page whose raw link you posted that shows that 'Mark was written by an eye witness'. I cut/paste from that very web site that shows scholars say it was not written by an eye witness.

Please, cut/paste the words from that web site the show that "Mark was written by eye witnesses', or withdraw the claim.

I see everything but support for your claim. I see4 avoidance for backing up that claim.

Right now, all I am doing it trying to get you to support your claim.

And, for you to support your claim doesn't mean I have to give my opinion on Carrier. When it comes to the primary sources .... I most certainly have given my opinion on the primary extra-biblical sources, and find that are insufficient to think they are independent sources, and that there is enough evidence of corruption at Christian hands to discount the validity of the writings from Josephus for example.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Christian narratives before being so silly.

Who are the Apostles? What did they do? Who ostensibly wrote Mark?

Now, would you please, as you are so much smarter and more logical than everyone else, demonstrate logical analysis by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark (or any other Synoptic Gospel) was written by someone else with the deliberate intent to fool?

Ignoring of course Paul and Esuebius ... and others ...

Lets see you ACTUALLy produce an argument rather than just play atheist baseball. If you can. But I seriously doubt it.

Asking others to produce evidence to support heir contentions, when they are self evident, while failing to do so in reverse is the highlight of hypocrisy.

Typical of Jesus Mythers.

So, of note, I have made and supported several arguments in this thread. You have yet to make even one.

All I see is denial to absurdity.

A reminder Goat, it is YOU that drug in Mark. It is YOU that demanded evidence. It is YOU that are claiming it is an obvious forgery.

Why I have to support a claim I am not making? Why I have to provide the opposite of your claim for you? All I did was give you the evidence you asked for and told you to help yourself and use the evidence to arrive at your own conclusion.

Now, I have to do all the work? Lazy.

In the meantime, Mark is clearly written with first hand knowledge of Christ - from a witness. THat we cannot, after 2,000 years positively prove that Mark wrote it? Well, we cannot disprove it either - Paul, and other ancient historians, attest to its accuracy - thus we use it critically as a primary source.

Or do you think that Mark was intended to be written as a biography? Fiction?

Well, lets see the proof then - because only one of us appears AT ALL familiar with the evidence not dismissed as apologist.

[Goat]

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.

I see bare links to web sites and then told 'Go read'. I extract items from the web site you provide that show the exact opposite of your claim, and you complain about 'Random Google links'..

I don't see you showing where in the web sites you provided that , well, you actually backed up your claim.

Or, besides bluster, actually addressed your claim.

I see a lot of ranting, and ranting against G.A. Wells

But you know what?? You are the only person on this thread that talks about Dr Wells. The OP mentioned Richard Carrier, a PH.D in hisotry.. not G.A Wells, a doctorate in linguistics.

Yes, you provided your opinion. However, the one thing you did NOT do is back up your claims. You built huge straw men. But you refused to address the actual points made.

You pointed to an apologist web site, and showed their opinion. You didn't show any reason to accept some random guy on an apologist web sites opinion.

If you are going to make a point, feel free to make one Goat.

You asked for evidence in support of Mark - you got it.

Now, God himself cannot determine what the devil you are trying to do? How about you clarify your position on Mark, and using the newly discovered evidence (which you have already dismissed as apologists? Because those who place a large and acrimonious portion of scholarship on a web site are of course ... er, not producing such evidence?) and support your contention?

That assumes you are not just another rabid Jesus Denier looking to flame people at any cost?

Well, lets see it then? Reveal your colors one way or the other Goat.

In fact, you have yet to spell out a position on Carrier, or even demonstrate any familiarity with what he deals with. It appears you are simply pulling a Wells, finding random reasons to randomly disagree merely for the sake of disagreement - a practice that scholars have dismissed as simple intellectual insanity.

Where did I get support for Mark being written by an eye witness?? Really? Why don't you extract the passage from the web page whose raw link you posted that shows that 'Mark was written by an eye witness'. I cut/paste from that very web site that shows scholars say it was not written by an eye witness.

Please, cut/paste the words from that web site the show that "Mark was written by eye witnesses', or withdraw the claim.

I see everything but support for your claim. I see4 avoidance for backing up that claim.

Right now, all I am doing it trying to get you to support your claim.

And, for you to support your claim doesn't mean I have to give my opinion on Carrier. When it comes to the primary sources .... I most certainly have given my opinion on the primary extra-biblical sources, and find that are insufficient to think they are independent sources, and that there is enough evidence of corruption at Christian hands to discount the validity of the writings from Josephus for example.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Christian narratives before being so silly.

Who are the Apostles? What did they do? Who ostensibly wrote Mark?

Now, would you please, as you are so much smarter and more logical than everyone else, demonstrate logical analysis by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark (or any other Synoptic Gospel) was written by someone else with the deliberate intent to fool?

Ignoring of course Paul and Esuebius ... and others ...

Lets see you ACTUALLy produce an argument rather than just play atheist baseball. If you can. But I seriously doubt it.

Asking others to produce evidence to support heir contentions, when they are self evident, while failing to do so in reverse is the highlight of hypocrisy.

Typical of Jesus Mythers.

So, of note, I have made and supported several arguments in this thread. You have yet to make even one.

All I see is denial to absurdity.

A reminder Goat, it is YOU that drug in Mark. It is YOU that demanded evidence. It is YOU that are claiming it is an obvious forgery.

Why I have to support a claim I am not making? Why I have to provide the opposite of your claim for you? All I did was give you the evidence you asked for and told you to help yourself and use the evidence to arrive at your own conclusion.

Now, I have to do all the work? Lazy.

In the meantime, Mark is clearly written with first hand knowledge of Christ - from a witness. THat we cannot, after 2,000 years positively prove that Mark wrote it? Well, we cannot disprove it either - Paul, and other ancient historians, attest to its accuracy - thus we use it critically as a primary source.

Or do you think that Mark was intended to be written as a biography? Fiction?

Well, lets see the proof then - because only one of us appears AT ALL familiar with the evidence not dismissed as apologist.

Gosh, I am not the one making the claim, now am I? You pointed me to a specific web site, saying that backed up your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by an eye witness. I couldn't find it. Perhaps if you cut/paste the exact phrase, I can examine it to see if it says what you claim it does.

I see that you repeat the claimm
'In the mean time, Mark was clearly written with someone with first hand knowledge of Christ'. Back that up. Repeating a claim is not backing UP a claim.

You are trying to make me back up your claim. Sorry.. but.. no. Back up your claim or withdraw it.

And, I also would like you to back up the claim I said Mark was a forgery. I know exactly what I said.. and I brought up Mark because you made the claim "The Gospel were written by eye witnesses'.

Since you seem so reluctant to back up Mark, and avoid the issue, how about moving on to Matthew.. or would you prefer John or Luke first? How about if you back up the claim that ANY of the 4 gospels were written by an eye witness. I chose 1 out of the four .. let's see you back up ANY of them. Pick one, and show that it was written by an eye witness. Come to think of it.l.. include Mark in that, since so far you have failed to show that. You give raw links.. but.. well. the raw link you provided says the exact opposite.

[stubbornone]

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.

I see bare links to web sites and then told 'Go read'. I extract items from the web site you provide that show the exact opposite of your claim, and you complain about 'Random Google links'..

I don't see you showing where in the web sites you provided that , well, you actually backed up your claim.

Or, besides bluster, actually addressed your claim.

I see a lot of ranting, and ranting against G.A. Wells

But you know what?? You are the only person on this thread that talks about Dr Wells. The OP mentioned Richard Carrier, a PH.D in hisotry.. not G.A Wells, a doctorate in linguistics.

Yes, you provided your opinion. However, the one thing you did NOT do is back up your claims. You built huge straw men. But you refused to address the actual points made.

You pointed to an apologist web site, and showed their opinion. You didn't show any reason to accept some random guy on an apologist web sites opinion.

If you are going to make a point, feel free to make one Goat.

You asked for evidence in support of Mark - you got it.

Now, God himself cannot determine what the devil you are trying to do? How about you clarify your position on Mark, and using the newly discovered evidence (which you have already dismissed as apologists? Because those who place a large and acrimonious portion of scholarship on a web site are of course ... er, not producing such evidence?) and support your contention?

That assumes you are not just another rabid Jesus Denier looking to flame people at any cost?

Well, lets see it then? Reveal your colors one way or the other Goat.

In fact, you have yet to spell out a position on Carrier, or even demonstrate any familiarity with what he deals with. It appears you are simply pulling a Wells, finding random reasons to randomly disagree merely for the sake of disagreement - a practice that scholars have dismissed as simple intellectual insanity.

Where did I get support for Mark being written by an eye witness?? Really? Why don't you extract the passage from the web page whose raw link you posted that shows that 'Mark was written by an eye witness'. I cut/paste from that very web site that shows scholars say it was not written by an eye witness.

Please, cut/paste the words from that web site the show that "Mark was written by eye witnesses', or withdraw the claim.

I see everything but support for your claim. I see4 avoidance for backing up that claim.

Right now, all I am doing it trying to get you to support your claim.

And, for you to support your claim doesn't mean I have to give my opinion on Carrier. When it comes to the primary sources .... I most certainly have given my opinion on the primary extra-biblical sources, and find that are insufficient to think they are independent sources, and that there is enough evidence of corruption at Christian hands to discount the validity of the writings from Josephus for example.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Christian narratives before being so silly.

Who are the Apostles? What did they do? Who ostensibly wrote Mark?

Now, would you please, as you are so much smarter and more logical than everyone else, demonstrate logical analysis by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark (or any other Synoptic Gospel) was written by someone else with the deliberate intent to fool?

Ignoring of course Paul and Esuebius ... and others ...

Lets see you ACTUALLy produce an argument rather than just play atheist baseball. If you can. But I seriously doubt it.

Asking others to produce evidence to support heir contentions, when they are self evident, while failing to do so in reverse is the highlight of hypocrisy.

Typical of Jesus Mythers.

So, of note, I have made and supported several arguments in this thread. You have yet to make even one.

All I see is denial to absurdity.

A reminder Goat, it is YOU that drug in Mark. It is YOU that demanded evidence. It is YOU that are claiming it is an obvious forgery.

Why I have to support a claim I am not making? Why I have to provide the opposite of your claim for you? All I did was give you the evidence you asked for and told you to help yourself and use the evidence to arrive at your own conclusion.

Now, I have to do all the work? Lazy.

In the meantime, Mark is clearly written with first hand knowledge of Christ - from a witness. THat we cannot, after 2,000 years positively prove that Mark wrote it? Well, we cannot disprove it either - Paul, and other ancient historians, attest to its accuracy - thus we use it critically as a primary source.

Or do you think that Mark was intended to be written as a biography? Fiction?

Well, lets see the proof then - because only one of us appears AT ALL familiar with the evidence not dismissed as apologist.

Gosh, I am not the one making the claim, now am I? You pointed me to a specific web site, saying that backed up your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by an eye witness. I couldn't find it. Perhaps if you cut/paste the exact phrase, I can examine it to see if it says what you claim it does.

I see that you repeat the claimm
'In the mean time, Mark was clearly written with someone with first hand knowledge of Christ'. Back that up. Repeating a claim is not backing UP a claim.

You are trying to make me back up your claim. Sorry.. but.. no. Back up your claim or withdraw it.

And, I also would like you to back up the claim I said Mark was a forgery. I know exactly what I said.. and I brought up Mark because you made the claim "The Gospel were written by eye witnesses'.

Since you seem so reluctant to back up Mark, and avoid the issue, how about moving on to Matthew.. or would you prefer John or Luke first? How about if you back up the claim that ANY of the 4 gospels were written by an eye witness. I chose 1 out of the four .. let's see you back up ANY of them. Pick one, and show that it was written by an eye witness. Come to think of it.l.. include Mark in that, since so far you have failed to show that. You give raw links.. but.. well. the raw link you provided says the exact opposite.

Agh, so indeed, you admit it ... you are indeed not engaged in making a single claim nor supporting with anything.

Indeed, being asked to investigate the evidence, conveniently provided for you, means that I am making a claim and must read aloud the evidence to the laziest of all investigators?

You've been invited to form your own conclusions, please do so and engage in something besides atheist baseball and attempting to pigeon hole people in making claims so that you can deny them using google after the fact.

In the mean time, as we have no idea who wrote say .. beowulf, we still seem to be able to use that source as a PRIMARY SOURCE for investigating Norse Mythology do we not?

And yet you pointedly, without actually saying so ... because you are not actually claiming anything ... think we should treat the gospels differently should we?

Well, why?

Because a random inexpert atheist, one too lazy to read the very evidence he demands and gets, cannot come up with a good reason to reject the evidence placed right before him ... and is indeed not even claiming we should reject them?

Well, your arguments are such a wonderful display of how logic and analysis can be used to not say anything at all! At least when atheism gets a hold of logic ...

[Goat]

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.

I see bare links to web sites and then told 'Go read'. I extract items from the web site you provide that show the exact opposite of your claim, and you complain about 'Random Google links'..

I don't see you showing where in the web sites you provided that , well, you actually backed up your claim.

Or, besides bluster, actually addressed your claim.

I see a lot of ranting, and ranting against G.A. Wells

But you know what?? You are the only person on this thread that talks about Dr Wells. The OP mentioned Richard Carrier, a PH.D in hisotry.. not G.A Wells, a doctorate in linguistics.

Yes, you provided your opinion. However, the one thing you did NOT do is back up your claims. You built huge straw men. But you refused to address the actual points made.

You pointed to an apologist web site, and showed their opinion. You didn't show any reason to accept some random guy on an apologist web sites opinion.

If you are going to make a point, feel free to make one Goat.

You asked for evidence in support of Mark - you got it.

Now, God himself cannot determine what the devil you are trying to do? How about you clarify your position on Mark, and using the newly discovered evidence (which you have already dismissed as apologists? Because those who place a large and acrimonious portion of scholarship on a web site are of course ... er, not producing such evidence?) and support your contention?

That assumes you are not just another rabid Jesus Denier looking to flame people at any cost?

Well, lets see it then? Reveal your colors one way or the other Goat.

In fact, you have yet to spell out a position on Carrier, or even demonstrate any familiarity with what he deals with. It appears you are simply pulling a Wells, finding random reasons to randomly disagree merely for the sake of disagreement - a practice that scholars have dismissed as simple intellectual insanity.

Where did I get support for Mark being written by an eye witness?? Really? Why don't you extract the passage from the web page whose raw link you posted that shows that 'Mark was written by an eye witness'. I cut/paste from that very web site that shows scholars say it was not written by an eye witness.

Please, cut/paste the words from that web site the show that "Mark was written by eye witnesses', or withdraw the claim.

I see everything but support for your claim. I see4 avoidance for backing up that claim.

Right now, all I am doing it trying to get you to support your claim.

And, for you to support your claim doesn't mean I have to give my opinion on Carrier. When it comes to the primary sources .... I most certainly have given my opinion on the primary extra-biblical sources, and find that are insufficient to think they are independent sources, and that there is enough evidence of corruption at Christian hands to discount the validity of the writings from Josephus for example.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Christian narratives before being so silly.

Who are the Apostles? What did they do? Who ostensibly wrote Mark?

Now, would you please, as you are so much smarter and more logical than everyone else, demonstrate logical analysis by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark (or any other Synoptic Gospel) was written by someone else with the deliberate intent to fool?

Ignoring of course Paul and Esuebius ... and others ...

Lets see you ACTUALLy produce an argument rather than just play atheist baseball. If you can. But I seriously doubt it.

Asking others to produce evidence to support heir contentions, when they are self evident, while failing to do so in reverse is the highlight of hypocrisy.

Typical of Jesus Mythers.

So, of note, I have made and supported several arguments in this thread. You have yet to make even one.

All I see is denial to absurdity.

A reminder Goat, it is YOU that drug in Mark. It is YOU that demanded evidence. It is YOU that are claiming it is an obvious forgery.

Why I have to support a claim I am not making? Why I have to provide the opposite of your claim for you? All I did was give you the evidence you asked for and told you to help yourself and use the evidence to arrive at your own conclusion.

Now, I have to do all the work? Lazy.

In the meantime, Mark is clearly written with first hand knowledge of Christ - from a witness. THat we cannot, after 2,000 years positively prove that Mark wrote it? Well, we cannot disprove it either - Paul, and other ancient historians, attest to its accuracy - thus we use it critically as a primary source.

Or do you think that Mark was intended to be written as a biography? Fiction?

Well, lets see the proof then - because only one of us appears AT ALL familiar with the evidence not dismissed as apologist.

Gosh, I am not the one making the claim, now am I? You pointed me to a specific web site, saying that backed up your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by an eye witness. I couldn't find it. Perhaps if you cut/paste the exact phrase, I can examine it to see if it says what you claim it does.

I see that you repeat the claimm
'In the mean time, Mark was clearly written with someone with first hand knowledge of Christ'. Back that up. Repeating a claim is not backing UP a claim.

You are trying to make me back up your claim. Sorry.. but.. no. Back up your claim or withdraw it.

And, I also would like you to back up the claim I said Mark was a forgery. I know exactly what I said.. and I brought up Mark because you made the claim "The Gospel were written by eye witnesses'.

Since you seem so reluctant to back up Mark, and avoid the issue, how about moving on to Matthew.. or would you prefer John or Luke first? How about if you back up the claim that ANY of the 4 gospels were written by an eye witness. I chose 1 out of the four .. let's see you back up ANY of them. Pick one, and show that it was written by an eye witness. Come to think of it.l.. include Mark in that, since so far you have failed to show that. You give raw links.. but.. well. the raw link you provided says the exact opposite.

Agh, so indeed, you admit it ... you are indeed not engaged in making a single claim nor supporting with anything.

Indeed, being asked to investigate the evidence, conveniently provided for you, means that I am making a claim and must read aloud the evidence to the laziest of all investigators?

You've been invited to form your own conclusions, please do so and engage in something besides atheist baseball and attempting to pigeon hole people in making claims so that you can deny them using google after the fact.

In the mean time, as we have no idea who wrote say .. beowulf, we still seem to be able to use that source as a PRIMARY SOURCE for investigating Norse Mythology do we not?

And yet you pointedly, without actually saying so ... because you are not actually claiming anything ... think we should treat the gospels differently should we?

Well, why?

Because a random inexpert atheist, one too lazy to read the very evidence he demands and gets, cannot come up with a good reason to reject the evidence placed right before him ... and is indeed not even claiming we should reject them?

Well, your arguments are such a wonderful display of how logic and analysis can be used to not say anything at all! At least when atheism gets a hold of logic ...

Well. I see you are concentrating on me. One thing you are not doing is supporting your claim. As for 'evidence presented'. well, you DID link to a raw link, but, well, what that link said directly contradicted what you said, and you STILL kept pointing to it (without quoting from what was actually there, I might add). That is not providing evidence.

Now, please show the part in that web page you used that supports your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by an eye witness, or withdraw the claim.

Please provide evidence that ANY of the gospels were written by eye witnesses,.. or withdraw your claim

Stop diverting the fact you have not actually presented any evidence by concentrating on my supposed faults in your eyes, but, well, actually supply evidence.