Originally posted by David C Mock away, pathetic hypocrite. Be sure to pray extra hard to your Syncretic Saviour® for your forgiveness tonight.
Anyone who takes seriously the claims of such unscholarly work deserves what they get. It is sad, but true. Your itching ears are being thusly tickled, just as you requested. Enjoy.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Then perhaps you should point out exactly where the fallacies lie in Holding's rebuttals.
Item 1-a: The Gospels should be treated as reliable historical facts because that's how they've been treated by the majority of mainstream biblical "scholars" for the last few dozen centuries.
Item 1-b: Jesus existed, because the Bible says so.
Take your pick of whichever essay you like, and apply liberally.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Anyone who takes seriously the claims of such unscholarly work deserves what they get. It is sad, but true. Your itching ears are being thusly tickled, just as you requested. Enjoy.
Right. Tell us again how The Story of Jesus is Told in the Stars of Heaven? Got a link?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Anyone who takes seriously the claims of such unscholarly work deserves what they get. It is sad, but true. Your itching ears are being thusly tickled, just as you requested. Enjoy.
The sooner that everyone realises that there are fanatics in any religious (or anti-religious) group and gets over it, the sooner we can all share this world in peace. Everyone believes different things for different reasons. Get over it, move on...
Originally posted by David C Item 1-a: The Gospels should be treated as reliable historical facts because that's how they've been treated by the majority of mainstream biblical "scholars" for the last few dozen centuries.
Item 1-b: Jesus existed, because the Bible says so.
Take your pick of whichever essay you like, and apply liberally.
If Holding actually did argue on the basis of 1a alone, then yes, it would be fallacious. But, in my reading of his rebuttals, that isn't the basis of his arguments - just one of his arguments. So, that's just presenting a strawman.
As to 1b, how is it circular reasoning?d
EDIT: And Holding does not argue the "last few centuries" bit. In fact, historico-critical scholarship in the last few centuries has been biased against the assumption of historicity - that is a more modern development. Again, that's a strawman.
Originally posted by dags The sooner that everyone realises that there are fanatics in any religious (or anti-religious) group and gets over it, the sooner we can all share this world in peace. Everyone believes different things for different reasons. Get over it, move on...
Something tells me there will be hot and cold wars for the rest of human history, regardless of religious affiliations and/or fanaticism.
Originally posted by firejunkie2027 Thats what I deserve, but by the grace of God and his love for me he sent his son to die for me and you! So that I will not have to!
*Yawn* self-delusional... *coughing* got something in my throat there... *Big yawn, back to sleep* đ´
Originally posted by firejunkie2027 Thats what I deserve, but by the grace of God and his love for me he sent his son to die for me and you! So that I will not have to!
"Your mind powers won't work on me, boy." - Jabba the Hutt
Originally posted by lucifershammer Again, that's a strawman.
Then pay more attention. Holding's essays in response to Mythical Christ proponents amount to several paragraphs of ad homenims followed by the usual appeal to the popularity among "biblical scholars" of the historicity of Jesus.
As to 1b, how is it circular reasoning?
1) The Gospels exist because Jesus was real.
2) Jesus was real because the Gospels say so.
I realize this is an oversimplification, and you might want to point to any number of historical figures about whom we have very little documented evidence. I'm not concerned with Socrates or Alexander, as the existence of these characters do not have any bearing on the "fate of my eternal soul", as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron might put it.
You might find one or two of these in your collection. Now, you are of the opinion that the parallels between the observed stellar bodies and Gospel of the NT are a result of God's divine intervention. You won't argue that the constellations of stars, as we see them today, have probably remained unchanged for perhaps millions of years. It has been demonstrated that the Zodiac, in its' present form, pre-dates Jesus (see Temple of Dendera).
The inverse approach would seem to be somewhat more realisitic, don't you agree?
Originally posted by David C You won't argue that the constellations of stars, as we see them today, have probably remained unchanged for perhaps millions of years.
01 Apr '06 12:39
Darth Christ?
Back to Top