what is your opinion on christians.

We asked you to quote the book in the first place. And you refused.

So how is being treated exactly the same not fair?



.

 

technically since its been written down, changed and translated so many times, its not even eye witness testimony.

ps did you ask for straws?

 

Because I would be doing entirely too much typing. All I ask is he quote a small part of what he read.

 

Which is all we asked of you too....

so anyway did you ask for straws?

 

When it was written down, many of the eyewitnesses were still alive.

 

And I'm referring to the oldest manuscripts.

 

And did they all speak english?

ps just because its written down and old, it doesnt mean its true.

If that were true, gilgamesh trumps your bible anyday.

 

You've got to be kidding me dude. Summaries of 17 pages of arguments is standard practice. Are you in high school?

I read what you told me to read. Have you actually read this book? Genuine question.

Again, this is a well researched phenomenon. Here's another source, one available on the internet:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Physical evidence such as fossils, etc. If these were corroborated in more historical documents, say from the Romans, something along the lines of "HOLY COW WE KILLED THIS GUY AND HE CAME BACK" etc. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

I don't need to go back and read anything. I can go by memory for now.

First of all the oldest manuscripts of the NT scripture were written down while most of the eye witnesses would still be alive.

If the accounts were false, people would know it because many of the eye witnesses would have pointed that out.

The disciples and the many Christians of that day were persecuted severely for their beliefs. They were willing to die for their beliefs as many of them did. Including Peter and many others who were mentioned in the gospels. Why would they die for something that they knew wasn't true. That sounds pretty unlikely to me.

You are leaving too much info out. Cherry picking parts of what you read, and claiming it is unreliable when they explain in the book why it is.

 

And Like I said you are being too vague.

 

If you can go by memory, why the need for direct quotes?

So were those of Paul Bunyan.

Why? Stories of miracles abound before scientific testing and documentation became a widespread thing.

People died for Jim Jones in the Jonestown suicides. People died for Osama Bin Laden and the war on the West. Does that make their beliefs valid?

Point me to what I'm leaving out in the book.

 

The new testament is full of contradictions, I linked a huge list of them earlier today, that proves its unreliable as a historical record.

 

Luke was a historian and in the book of Luke he mentions at the beginning that he gathered his information from eyewitnesses. When you get eyewitness accounts from different people, contradictions are inevitable. One person remembers one part slightly different than the other. One person saw what happened from one angle another from another angle giving different accounts of what happened. Even in the court of law, when people are giving eyewitness testimony contradictions are to be expected. If there are none and peoples stories sound too similar in many cases the defendants lawyer will accuse the eyewitnesses of corroborating together.

 

Cognitive recollection is a science and a technique used to optimize such testimony...it also depends entirely on what is being seen and referred too

Task driven testimony (or "look at this an tell me what happens") was often considered more reliable, but gorillas and basketballs shown this is equally not true

There is also an optimal time for recollection, somewhere between 24-48hrs. After that the memory is less reliable, so your claim that the people were still alive therefore eyewitnesses is again showing a flagrant lack of understanding

The fact you are using this to show why the books claims of reliability should be believed essentially torpedoes your own argument

This book is starting off badly, and that's before it has even got into specifics

 

so massive contradictions mean Its reliable?

Orwell would love you.

 

who died for Paul bunyan? And who ever believed him to be anything but non-fiction anyway.

Fair enough .But I didn't say anything about miracles as evidence. Your changing the subject and playing a game. I'm going to drop out of this debate because apparently your just playing to win. Not to be fair.

No. But you know the Jonestown people were forced to commit suicide. The war on the west is different. They are going by OLD OLD OLD scriptures in the koran before they were even born. A case of having faith. The people that died from the bible were still alive when the scriptures were written. And the eyewitnesses would have told them that the accounts were false. In fact many of the people that died for what they believed in, were alive when the scriptures that they believed in were written down. and they were actually IN the scriptures that were written down. Peter for example. You can't compare suicide bombers in the bible to people that were still alive when the scriptures were written down. Like I said you are not being fair, you are just saying whatever it takes to win.


Point me to what I'm leaving out in the book.[/quote]

You don't seem to be interested in debating fairly, just saying anything it takes to win, so i'm going to drop out of this so called debate we are in. If you want to call it that. I think Ill call it a circus. Anyone else who wants to discuss, the book feel free, and I will reply when I get to it.

For some reason it did not post my rebuttles to your argument. THey disappeard I will post them here.

Suicide bombers are not the same as people that were still alive when the scriptures were written. Oh WAIT A MINUTE. they did post.

I forgot to put the end quotes I will do that now.

MOD Note. Please take the time to put your thoughts into once clear post, as one line post after one line post is messy.

 

Odin said he gave us Runes - we have runes
Odin said he gave us his wisdom - we have the Havamal
Odin said he would end the ice giants - we have no ice giants

I have a more substantial case there for Odin than you have for Jesus and I have not mentioned the eyewitnesses or accounts from the sagas or from those who claim to have spoken directly with him in the past and even so today, including those who run with the Wild Hunt

So according to your measure I have proven Odin exists....and if he does your Bible cannot be correct because it is monotheistic

 

The above is pretty much how you are arguing your point

 

Fair enough. But if you really want to argue your point, your going to have to elaborate.

I know nothing about Odin. Or the supposed eye witnesses. But I imagine that the supposed eyewitness accounts your speaking of are a completely different circumstance then the ones I was speaking. about.

For example, Muhammed is a supposed eyewitness of the angel that gave him the knowledge of the koran. Ok. Ill give someone that if they want to make that point.

But that is a little different than there being a large group maybe even thousands of eyewitnesses witnessing Jesus's crucifixion, as an example. Then Luke interviewing eye witnesses later on who were still alive and writing it down. And lets say they were lying. Surely someone out of all those witnesses such as Peter for example who denied Jesus 3 times would have claimed it to be myth. And not only that Peter and the many other Christians that believed so strongly in the scriptures, would not face the persecution and death for their beliefs. Especially when the other eye witnesses are claiming them as liars.

so maybe your point has some validity. But if you want to prove me wrong your going to have to elaborate on this Odin stuff. Because this debate can get quite complex and complicated. I don't know anything about Odin, but I would imagine you can't argue the same points I did, for Odin.

 

Do you see??

Are you beginning to see?!?

Do you see!!!

And now, I leave you with the musical styling of Ozzy Osbourne...
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j34juXrJWqw"]Ozzy Osbourne - 'Miracle Man' - YouTube[/ame]