• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Atheists Confronted with Truth...2 Different Outcomes...

For a person who supposedly has two degrees, your knowledge of history and grammar are abysmal.

I provided links to documentation showing that Simon Greenleaf was an active Christian well before he stood in front of any classroom of Harvard students.

SECOND: Mr Greenleaf was the ROYALL Professor of Law, the title of the position paying honor to the man who had provided funding for the job - The Legacy of Isaac Royall, Jr

THIRD: Lord Lyndhurst and Thomas Arnold were "royal" attorneys, they were British.

FOURTH: Thomas Arnold, though well educated in the field of history, didn't much care for the work of the scientists of his day. He wrote that ". . . rather than have physical science the principal thing in my son's mind, I would gladly have him think that the sun went round the earth, and that the stars were so many spangles set in the bright blue firmament. Surely the one thing needful for a Christian and an Englishman to study is Christian and moral and political philosophy." Arnold of Rugby: His School Life and Contributions to Education (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), p. xvii.
He also didn't see Catholics, Quakers or Unitarians as Christian

FIFTH: Mr Arnold was the Regius Professor of History at OXFORD University - NOT Oxnard.

My dad used to call that kind of flippant one up-man-ship being a jailhouse lawyer.

The big thing is, for all your so-called 'smarts and knowledge,' those learned men were all heads and heels above you concerning the historical Jesus. It still amazes me to this day how a guy like you - or any person - can be presented with the reams and volumes of evidences for the historical Jesus, etc., etc., and still be absolutely clueless about it all. And then be a believer in socialism to boot. I still get a kick out of that, lol.
 
As for Simon Greenleaf, I remain unconvinced that there is evidence proving Christ resurrected, so I can only assume he was mistaken or misled.
And no, I'm not willing to read up on claimed proof of it, as I consider that a waste of my time.


Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, I'll bet you can't provide even one credible reason why it's false.

But feel free to correct me on that if you think you can.
 
Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, I'll bet you can't provide even one credible reason why it's false.

But feel free to correct me on that if you think you can.

We have no reason to believe it’s true. There is no verifiable evidence. I have the same reason to believe Jesus resurrected as I do to believe Augustus Caesar was a demigod: mythological writings.
 
My dad used to call that kind of flippant one up-man-ship being a jailhouse lawyer.

The big thing is, for all your so-called 'smarts and knowledge,' those learned men were all heads and heels above you concerning the historical Jesus. It still amazes me to this day how a guy like you - or any person - can be presented with the reams and volumes of evidences for the historical Jesus, etc., etc., and still be absolutely clueless about it all. And then be a believer in socialism to boot. I still get a kick out of that, lol.

Once again, you show the readers your inability to answer questions or to respond to points that contradict your earlier claims.

Your "reams and volumes of evidences" are nothing more than the writings of True Believers.

Funny how once those TBs had gained control of the Empire, they ordered the destruction of thousands of volumes contradicting their beliefs. (Nag Hammadi finds)

Sad, how those early Christians once they were in power showed they were as willing to kill non-believers as the earlier Romans had been happy to kill the Christians.
 
Your "reams and volumes of evidences" are nothing more than the writings of True Believers.
Many of whom were once atheists and agnostics, but who weren't spiritually challenged to the point they rejected good evidence.

Funny how once those TBs had gained control of the Empire, they ordered the destruction of thousands of volumes contradicting their beliefs. (Nag Hammadi finds)

I'd bet if you were writing back then they would have trashed your revisionist follies too.

Sad, how those early Christians once they were in power showed they were as willing to kill non-believers as the earlier Romans had been happy to kill the Christians.

Lots of wolves in sheep's clothing there then, Somerville. Jesus tried to teach you about that too, but I guess like everything else it didn't take.
 
<chuckle>

FYI on Simon Greenleaf, etc. -

"If you were to meet the greatest scholar in the history of the law school of Harvard University, it would be Simon Greenleaf, Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, who made that school what it was. He was the greatest single authority on legal evidences in the history of Law, and who authored the classic three volume work, “A Treatise on the Laws of Evidence.” Many of the laws of evidence used in our courtrooms today were written by Simon Greenleaf. He was once challenged to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. After having examined every thread of evidence for the Resurrection, this man, who started as a disbeliever, concluded that if the evidence for the resurrection of Christ were presented before any unbiased courtroom in the world, they would have to conclude that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead. – Professor Dr. Simon Greenleaf, “Testimony of the Evangelists.”

Or consider Lord Lyndhurst, recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history. He had conferred upon him the highest honors any judge or jurist could ever have. He was elected as Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, then the attorney general of Great Britain, and finally, he was the High Chancellor of England. He was elected as the High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices that any judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him (and which no other person ever received). What did he say? If this isn’t a statement of incredible humility, I have never heard one. This man, with all those titles, said: “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection [of Christ] has never broken down yet.”

One more – Thomas Arnold, who said this: “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”Thomas Arnold, Regius Professor of History at Oxnard University and author of the three volume work, “History of Rome.” Source: Christian Life, Its Hopes, Its Fears, and its Close,” 6th ed. (London: T. Fellowes, 1859), pp. 15-16."

Simon Greenleaf - 1783, Lord Lyndhurst - 1772 and Thomas Arnold - 1795.

Are you ****ing kidding me .. this is the best you can come up with.
 
The big thing is, for all your so-called 'smarts and knowledge,' those learned men were all heads and heels above you concerning the historical Jesus. It still amazes me to this day how a guy like you - or any person - can be presented with the reams and volumes of evidences for the historical Jesus, etc., etc., and still be absolutely clueless about it all. And then be a believer in socialism to boot. I still get a kick out of that, lol.
You should just go on believing and not get into debates about the reality of god, your gonna lose and get frustrated. A few centuries ago the Catholic church could simply get rid of deniers, not anymore.

The bible is simply a book written by ancient folk who believed in things that are impossible and have no basis in science or fact.

Posting things some people thought in the 1700's is a joke for the lack of a better word.
 
Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, I'll bet you can't provide even one credible reason why it's false.

But feel free to correct me on that if you think you can.

Concerning the resurrections of

Osiris

Dionysus

Zalmoxis

Inanna

Adonis

Romulus

Aesclepius

Ba'al

Melqart/Hercules


I'll bet you can't even provide one credible reason why they are false.

Considering your basic historical ignorance on most subjects outside of your church's accepted books, I doubt you know much about Justin Martyr. He was born into a prominent, Greek-speaking pagan family in Samaria, and from an early age studied ancient and Hellenic Grecian philosophy. After accepting Christianity, he supposedly wrote many texts, almost all of which have been lost, though three are available to modern readers. First and Second Apologies plus the most famous and frequently quoted - Dialogue with Trypho.

The reason I mention Justin is the ever so small fact that he accepted that there had been other deities who had died and were resurrected. So - do you believe this early Christian martyr's words or not?

THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
And when we say… the Word … was produced without sexual union, and … was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem to be sons of Jupiter.
… And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if anyone objects that He was crucified, this is in common with those sons of Jupiter (as you call them) who suffered, as we have now enumerated. [he previously had named Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius]. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them
 
Concerning the resurrections of

Osiris

Dionysus

Zalmoxis

Inanna

Adonis

Romulus

Aesclepius

Ba'al

Melqart/Hercules


I'll bet you can't even provide one credible reason why they are false.

Considering your basic historical ignorance on most subjects outside of your church's accepted books, I doubt you know much about Justin Martyr. He was born into a prominent, Greek-speaking pagan family in Samaria, and from an early age studied ancient and Hellenic Grecian philosophy. After accepting Christianity, he supposedly wrote many texts, almost all of which have been lost, though three are available to modern readers. First and Second Apologies plus the most famous and frequently quoted - Dialogue with Trypho.

The reason I mention Justin is the ever so small fact that he accepted that there had been other deities who had died and were resurrected. So - do you believe this early Christian martyr's words or not?

THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

Baal was the son of El aka Yahweh, in the Ugaritic tradition. Jesus had a stormy brother!
 
Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, I'll bet you can't provide even one credible reason why it's false.

But feel free to correct me on that if you think you can.
I don't have any reason to believe it happened, so trying to find proof it didn't would indeed be a waste of my time.
 
I don't have any reason to believe it happened, so trying to find proof it didn't would indeed be a waste of my time.
Sounds like you do have a belief - the belief the resurrection didn't happen. That's based on what?
 
You should just go on believing and not get into debates about the reality of god, your gonna lose and get frustrated. A few centuries ago the Catholic church could simply get rid of deniers, not anymore.

The bible is simply a book written by ancient folk who believed in things that are impossible and have no basis in science or fact.

Posting things some people thought in the 1700's is a joke for the lack of a better word.

Sorry bud, but you haven't done your homework on the historical Jesus.

Also, when did science conclude God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? Got any replicated studies to back that up?
 
Concerning the resurrections of

Osiris

Dionysus

Zalmoxis

Inanna

Adonis

Romulus

Aesclepius

Ba'al

Melqart/Hercules


I'll bet you can't even provide one credible reason why they are false.

<chuckle> What a farce...

23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus is NOT a Copy of Pagan Religions -

"It is clear that the mythicists are not seen as credible scholars. A mythicist like Richard Carrier can indeed have a Ph.D., but this makes him no more credible in the eyes of scholars than a holocaust denier with a Ph.D is deemed credible to historians of Jewish history. Indeed this reflects in the voices of mainstream scholars. The reputable Ben Witherington remarks that “Not a single one of these [mythicist] authors and sources are experts in the Bible, Biblical history, the Ancient Near East, Egyptology, or any of the cognate fields…. they are not reliable sources of information about the origins of Christianity, Judaism, or much of anything else of relevance to this discussion.”

 
<chuckle> What a farce...

23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus is NOT a Copy of Pagan Religions -

"It is clear that the mythicists are not seen as credible scholars. A mythicist like Richard Carrier can indeed have a Ph.D., but this makes him no more credible in the eyes of scholars than a holocaust denier with a Ph.D is deemed credible to historians of Jewish history. Indeed this reflects in the voices of mainstream scholars. The reputable Ben Witherington remarks that “Not a single one of these [mythicist] authors and sources are experts in the Bible, Biblical history, the Ancient Near East, Egyptology, or any of the cognate fields…. they are not reliable sources of information about the origins of Christianity, Judaism, or much of anything else of relevance to this discussion.”


Straw man argument. Being influenced by older myths does not equal being a copy.
 
Sounds like you do have a belief - the belief the resurrection didn't happen. That's based on what?
The lack of any evidence that it did.
 
<chuckle> What a farce...

23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus is NOT a Copy of Pagan Religions -

"It is clear that the mythicists are not seen as credible scholars. A mythicist like Richard Carrier can indeed have a Ph.D., but this makes him no more credible in the eyes of scholars than a holocaust denier with a Ph.D is deemed credible to historians of Jewish history. Indeed this reflects in the voices of mainstream scholars. The reputable Ben Witherington remarks that “Not a single one of these [mythicist] authors and sources are experts in the Bible, Biblical history, the Ancient Near East, Egyptology, or any of the cognate fields…. they are not reliable sources of information about the origins of Christianity, Judaism, or much of anything else of relevance to this discussion.”


Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) is not a reliable source?

The title of James Bishop's blog article really should be -
23 Reasons Why Christian Scholars BELIEVE Jesus is NOT a Copy of Pagan Religions

Every scholar whose name is mentioned at your linked blog is a Christian, in fact, several are ministers or professors at schools that demand a statement of faith. Even Richard Carrier says there is a 1 in 3 chance that there was an itinerant rabbi named Yeshua bar Yosefa but he was of so little consequence during his lifetime that there are no mentions of his 'revolutionary' teachings during his lifetime.
 
Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) is not a reliable source?

Not on what you're talking about.
The title of James Bishop's blog article really should be -
23 Reasons Why Christian Scholars BELIEVE Jesus is NOT a Copy of Pagan Religions

Every scholar whose name is mentioned at your linked blog is a Christian...

And they're all biased liars, right, Somerville? That's got to be a condition like Tourette's Syndrome for skeptics, belching out - "He's a Christian so he must be a liar!"

Get a new dog.

"Who is the liar? It is the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is antichrist..." - 1 John 2:22
 
Sorry bud, but you haven't done your homework on the historical Jesus.

Also, when did science conclude God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? Got any replicated studies to back that up?

That’s not how science works. Science also hasn’t concluded there isn’t an invisible intangible pink unicorn sitting right next to you. Do you believe one is?
 
Not on what you're talking about.


And they're all biased liars, right, Somerville? That's got to be a condition like Tourette's Syndrome for skeptics, belching out - "He's a Christian so he must be a liar!"

Get a new dog.

"Who is the liar? It is the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is antichrist..." - 1 John 2:22

Is it a lie when a person truly believes what they are saying is TRUE? Your 'scholars' believe as you believe and are apparently unable to accept any contradictory information. Sad it is when an intelligent person refuses to accept new information. That they refuse to acknowledge the research and findings which show problems with their religion does not mean they aren't 'good' people who may be relied upon when discussing non-religious matters.

It is your opinion then, that one of the earliest patriarchs of the Christian faith didn't understand the relationship between his faith/beliefs and those held by the ones who worshipped older gods?

1 John 2:18 (NIV) Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Did all the clocks, hourglasses, stop working back in the First Century? Apparently so, because for some reason - 2000 years later we still haven't reached the "last hour"
 
Is it a lie when a person truly believes what they are saying is TRUE? Your 'scholars' believe as you believe and are apparently unable to accept any contradictory information.
They're not buying the lies of the revisionist Christ-deniers.

It is your opinion then, that one of the earliest patriarchs of the Christian faith didn't understand the relationship between his faith/beliefs and those held by the ones who worshipped older gods?

1 John 2:18 (NIV) Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Did all the clocks, hourglasses, stop working back in the First Century? Apparently so, because for some reason - 2000 years later we still haven't reached the "last hour"

<yawn>

You don't believe hard-core atheists when they accept the historical evidences for Jesus Christ. Now they're Christians and suddenly liars, right?
 
A true believer with half a brain who's made millions selling books to sheep.
Tell you what. You talk a big game but I'm going to challenge you.

How about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy.

If you can't, then you have nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom