The blundering filming of atheist film maker Brian Flemming

[Federales]

I recently read the following which gave me a very good laugh. It was in regards to the filming of "The God Who Wasn't There" by atheist film maker Brian Flemming.

Here is what I read:


The filming is poor. This is most likely the result of Flemming’s working from a shoestring budget and either his inexperience or lack of gifting. The poor quality is sometimes distracting. For instance, in two interviews with Robert Price and David and Barbara Mikkelson, there is a distracting reflection of camera light and sunlight in their eyeglasses. In the interview with Price, the camera can even be seen in his eyeglasses, because it is directly in front of him. Changing the angle would have easily eliminated this. Flemming did not bother to straighten the tilted lampshade in his interview with Price. The quality of the filming reaches its low in Flemming’s interview with Scott Butcher. Because of backlighting, Butcher looks very dark. Flemming uses only one camera throughout his interviews and asks his questions from behind the camera, producing the impression that one is viewing a homemade video rather than a professional production. The graphics are very repetitive, seldom change, and are of a low quality. Yet, as we shall see, the film’s technical difficulties are the least of its problems.

from: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/content/view/87/53/



I wonder how big the budget was for the hiring of historians?

[Nick Hallandale]

I recently read the following which gave me a very good laugh. It was in regards to the filming of "The God Who Wasn't There" by atheist film maker Brian Flemming.

Here is what I read:



I wonder how big the budget was for the hiring of historians?

Dear Fed,
I bought the DVD after I read about it in Time Magazine. You're right that the quality of the camera work was poor. But I bought the DVD because I was interested in what the man had to say. I think that I got my money's worth.

[jpholding]

Dear Fed,
I bought the DVD after I read about it in Time Magazine. You're right that the quality of the camera work was poor. But I bought the DVD because I was interested in what the man had to say. I think that I got my money's worth.

Maybe you'd care to debate me on the academic merits of the film since it seems Flemming doesn't want to.

[Nick Hallandale]

Maybe you'd care to debate me on the academic merits of the film since it seems Flemming doesn't want to.

No Thank You.
I'm not an Atheist.

[jpholding]

No Thank You.
I'm not an Atheist.

You don't have to be. You just have to think the film is good. It doesn't matter if you're a Hindoo Rastafarian with a sinus condition.

Yes or no? I don't require a Statement of Belief for debate like he does.

[Darth Executor]

Maybe he bought it for the comic relief.

[jpholding]

Maybe he bought it for the comic relief.

Oh yeah. And then again the DVD case does make a darned good coaster.

[Nick Hallandale]

Oh yeah. And then again the DVD case does make a darned good coaster.


What didn't you agree with on the DVD?
Be as Specific as possible.

[Cynic Sage]

What didn't you agree with on the DVD?
Be as Specific as possible.

JP has an article that contains his opinions on it that you can read here:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html)

[jpholding]

He's running out of delaying questions....

[Nick Hallandale]

He's running out of delaying questions....

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

Do you have any information on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

[jpholding]

Do you have any information on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Lots.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/vector01.html

and look under "Jesus -- Resurrection" at http://www.tektonics.org.TK-J.html

Now do I take that as a "NO" on debating the merits of the film, despite the fact that you essentially propped it here?

Typing "yes" or "no" surely isn't that hard.

[lao tzu]

Chill, JP.

You've already had your "no" back in post #4. With a "thank you" tossed in besides. At this point, it's looking more like bullying than anything else. He's already told you he's not an atheist. His initial post gave you his position, but apparently that's not good enough for you either. If you're not going to bother reading his reasons for viewing the film, why should you expect him to bother writing anything else for you to ignore?

Why can't you theists just get along?

As ever, Jesse

[XaositectCrayon]

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

Do you have any information on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?
uhmmm is it just me or could that go either way?

[lao tzu]

uhmmm is it just me or could that go either way?
It's not just you.

[XaositectCrayon]

It's not just you.

maybe we should get together later :wink:

[Nick Hallandale]

Lots.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/vector01.html

and look under "Jesus -- Resurrection" at http://www.tektonics.org.TK-J.html

Now do I take that as a "NO" on debating the merits of the film, despite the fact that you essentially propped it here?

Typing "yes" or "no" surely isn't that hard.

Dear JP,
Debating the film is too broad a topic.
I would be interested in debating the resurrection of Jesus if we could agree on some ground rules.
If you look back at the Scripture I quoted, you can see that the resurrection is the keystone of Christianity.
1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)
12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
It's all about the resurrection. The rest is superfluous.

Someone famous, I forget who, once said.......
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence
Christianity claims that Jesus rose from the dead. I believe that the burden of proof is upon Christianity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead. The duty of the skeptic is to criticize and refute, if possible, the evidence presented by Christianity.

If we decide to debate, I would require that we limit ourselves to one point at a time. We bounce it back and forth a few times until we have covered it throughly and then move on to another point.
No references to websites. Of course you can quote material that you got from a website but we can't print an address and use it as proof.
If we refer to a Scripture we print the Scripture in the body of our presentation. Identify the version.
No hearsay. Saying that Joe Blow wrote a book and said that the resurrection happened is hearsay if the basis for Joe Blow's conclusion is the Bible. Use Joe Blow's arguments from the Bible, but Joe Blow's testimonial is irrelevant.
I will be going on vacation from June 8-19 so I won't have access to a computer. Can we work around that?
What do you require?

[lao tzu]

Nick, I suggest using the forum search function, typing "ECREE" into the search field and checking for posts by John Powell.

Oh, and welcome to TWeb!

ETA: You might want to check out Champagne's thread Argue Against the Resurrection, Please (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=71512) as well.

[XaositectCrayon]

Dear JP,
Debating the film is too broad a topic.
I would be interested in debating the resurrection of Jesus if we could agree on some ground rules.
If you look back at the Scripture I quoted, you can see that the resurrection is the keystone of Christianity.
1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)
12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
It's all about the resurrection. The rest is superfluous.

Someone famous, I forget who, once said.......
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence
Christianity claims that Jesus rose from the dead. I believe that the burden of proof is upon Christianity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead. The duty of the skeptic is to criticize and refute, if possible, the evidence presented by Christianity.

If we decide to debate, I would require that we limit ourselves to one point at a time. We bounce it back and forth a few times until we have covered it throughly and then move on to another point.
No references to websites. Of course you can quote material that you got from a website but we can't print an address and use it as proof.
If we refer to a Scripture we print the Scripture in the body of our presentation. Identify the version.
No hearsay. Saying that Joe Blow wrote a book and said that the resurrection happened is hearsay if the basis for Joe Blow's conclusion is the Bible. Use Joe Blow's arguments from the Bible, but Joe Blow's testimonial is irrelevant.
I will be going on vacation from June 8-19 so I won't have access to a computer. Can we work around that?
What do you require?


but is it not an extrordinary claim to the orthadox Christians that it didnt happen?

every argument is circular because everything eventually goes back to something that "self references" itself.

all logic is the equivellent of a dog chasing it's tail... usually I dont bring this up in apologetics because that would negate the spirit of apologetics. But I feel kind of funny today...

[jpholding]

You've already had your "no" back in post #4

With "I'm not an atheist" attached. That's not a reason to refuse to debate the film's merits once it has been propped as giving its money's worth.

If you're going to prop something, you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is.





Debating the film is too broad a topic.

Why? Flemming himself doesn't seem to think so since he has a debate offer out. Tell me what the three most persuasive arguments it made were for its core premise (Jesus didn't exist) and that's a debate topic.



I would be interested in debating the resurrection of Jesus if we could agree on some ground rules.


I can do that too.


Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence

I'd reword that. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary explanations. The rules of evidence are the same. That's legal apologetic principle since Greenleaf. You don't set the burden for evidence...the law does.

Furthermore, your "no hearsay" rule itself is arbitrary and nonsensical. All of written history is hearsay. Every out of court statement offered to prove its truth is hearsay. Statements made during debates between atheists and Christians are hearsay. Your local DJ's listing of songs he or she just played is hearsay. Hearsay is not used as testimony in court because it is unreliable, but because the law assumes that in-court statements have certain safeguards that out-of-court statements lack: cross-examination; the oath; the opportunity to observe the declarant's demeanor. I will not buy any argument that says "no hearsay" -- unless you tell me that you reject all historical accounts on the same basis.


What do you require?[

1) That you back up your prop for the film, or admit you can't.
2) That you read all my material on the Resurrection first.

[Nick Hallandale]

Nick, I suggest using the forum search function, typing "ECREE" into the search field and checking for posts by John Powell.

Oh, and welcome to TWeb!

ETA: You might want to check out Champagne's thread Argue Against the Resurrection, Please (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=71512) as well.

Dear Taoist,
Thank You for the information.
I will check out the references you mention at my earliest convenience.
Feel free to PM anytime you have a good idea.
Thanks

[Nick Hallandale]

With "I'm not an atheist" attached. That's not a reason to refuse to debate the film's merits once it has been propped as giving its money's worth.

If you're going to prop something, you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is.




Why? Flemming himself doesn't seem to think so since he has a debate offer out. Tell me what the three most persuasive arguments it made were for its core premise (Jesus didn't exist) and that's a debate topic.




I can do that too.



I'd reword that. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary explanations. The rules of evidence are the same. That's legal apologetic principle since Greenleaf. You don't set the burden for evidence...the law does.

Furthermore, your "no hearsay" rule itself is arbitrary and nonsensical. All of written history is hearsay. Every out of court statement offered to prove its truth is hearsay. Statements made during debates between atheists and Christians are hearsay. Your local DJ's listing of songs he or she just played is hearsay. Hearsay is not used as testimony in court because it is unreliable, but because the law assumes that in-court statements have certain safeguards that out-of-court statements lack: cross-examination; the oath; the opportunity to observe the declarant's demeanor. I will not buy any argument that says "no hearsay" -- unless you tell me that you reject all historical accounts on the same basis.


1) That you back up your prop for the film, or admit you can't.
2) That you read all my material on the Resurrection first.

Dear JP,
First off, I doubt if you are cute and fuzzy like you advertise.
Concerning the Flemming DVD, it really is too big a topic. It would be too time consuming to debate every point made in the movie. Besides, I'm not an Atheist. I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. I believe in the Bible. I'm just skeptical about some of the details. I even go to church on Sundays. I love the music, and the singing. I love to go to the Bible Study and ask questions.

But I am willing to debate the resurrection since you seem so eagar to debate.

You wrote........
""""I'd reword that. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary explanations. The rules of evidence are the same. That's legal apologetic principle since Greenleaf. You don't set the burden for evidence...the law does.""""

I have never debated anyone before. I don't know Greenleaf. I don't understand the point you are making in the previous paragraph.

Concerning "hearsay", of course the Bible is fine to use. I expect to occasionally use the Bible myself. I just don't want you to present me with a list of 37 quotations from 37 theologans who say the resurrection is a fact. Unless they are privy to information that is not available to us their testimonial is just opinion, irrelevant, and not evidence. Recently Pope Benedict XVI said (I'm paraphrasing) the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. To me that is not evidence. Benedict is basing his opinion on the same information that is available to all of us...the Bible. Use the Bible to make your point. Unless Jesus talks to him....or maybe he talks to you?

I have read some of your stuff on the resurrection. Please direct me to your material so that I can read it all.

What rules do you think we need to proceed?

[lao tzu]

With "I'm not an atheist" attached. That's not a reason to refuse to debate the film's merits once it has been propped as giving its money's worth.

Oh, come on! It's plenty of reason.

With a gun to my head, I could probably find something nice to say about Hitler, but since I'm not a nazi, any request to support him without duress is going to receive something a good deal more emphatic than a "No, thank you."

His first post gave his reason for propping the film, and I'm sorry if it's not the opening to apologetic argument you're looking for from Flemming.


"But I bought the DVD because I was interested in what the man had to say. I think that I got my money's worth."

Seems pretty clear to me. He spent his money looking to find what the guy was saying and received just that. You think I read the bible looking for reasons to believe in god? No, but so long as I live in a world surrounded by theists, I think it's a good idea to know what they're thinking, and why. And if a non-atheist wants to return the favor, bully for him.

Of course, from the thread I linked you on IIDB, one might easily argue relatively few atheists feel well-disposed toward Flemming's methods or scholarship regardless. So if his intention was to gauge the atheist mindset, I'd imagine his money wasn't as well spent as he seems to believe. But if he only wished to see a bit inside Flemming's head, that DVD is a great place to start.


If you're going to prop something, you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is.

He already did. It says clear as day in that first post that he "bought the DVD".

This guy is quite obviously not willing to act the Brian Flemming sock puppet you'd like him to be. He's got all of 32 posts on the board at this point, is obviously unaware of either the long-running threads on ECREE or proofs of the resurrection, and, to put it kindly, is simply not in your league when it comes to expressing his opinions.

You want to debate him? I mean, really, JP, chill. Flies, honey, vinegar.

As ever, Jesse

__________

Nick, I recommend holding off on a formal debate at this point until you've become more familiar with the arguments. At the very least, go through Champagne's thread, pick a couple of minor points and get your feet wet resurrecting it. I guarantee you'll get takers, and some practice you can use to your advantage.

No, JP is not "cute and fuzzy".

[Mountain Man]

I have never debated anyone before.
Ooh...in that case, I would suggest you not start with JP. He knows his stuff and knows it well and will make short work of you if you don't. Unless you do your homework and brush up on relevant scholarship, you're going to be one frustrated gipper.

[jpholding]

Dear JP,
First off, I doubt if you are cute and fuzzy like you advertise.

Cuter and fuzzier, in fact. But the reference was too my toons.



Concerning the Flemming DVD, it really is too big a topic. It would be too time consuming to debate every point made in the movie

The resurrection is a LOT bigger....you read my material and you will see.


Concerning "hearsay", of course the Bible is fine to use. I expect to occasionally use the Bible myself. I just don't want you to present me with a list of 37 quotations from 37 theologans who say the resurrection is a fact.

I don't do that....all quotations I use contain either arguments or simply sum up what I say in prior arguments in a way I find ably communicative. I don't use Popes, I use scholars who know their business.



I have read some of your stuff on the resurrection. Please direct me to your material so that I can read it all.

You'll find it all under the Jesus -- Resurrection heading I gave earlier, save perhaps you may want to see my responses to a recent Skeptical book at

http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/emptytomb.html



What rules do you think we need to proceed?

That can be worked out later.

[jpholding]

Oh, come on! It's plenty of reason.

Name three reasons. I know of no one holding a gun to anyone's head in support of the film.



Seems pretty clear to me. He spent his money looking to find what the guy was saying and received just that.

And anyone who says that should be willing to explain themselves. Unless they mean they got it cut rate on eBay for $1.32.



You think I read the bible looking for reasons to believe in god?

Don't care. But if you do, and go somewhere propping for the Bible as evidence for God, you'd better be prepared to back it up. I hold everyone to the same standards.


So if his intention was to gauge the atheist mindset, I'd imagine his money wasn't as well spent as he seems to believe. But if he only wished to see a bit inside Flemming's head, that DVD is a great place to start.

On the gauge part I agree. However, the price tag is a bit much to pay for a view inside someone's head.



He already did. It says clear as day in that first post that he "bought the DVD".

I mean in defense of the prop, and you know that.



You want to debate him? I mean, really, JP, chill. Flies, honey, vinegar.

I don't need a list of what you put on your cereal every morning. :rasberry:

As for only 32 posts, that's here and that says nothing about experiences elsewhere. That's why I posed the challenge in the first place - to determine readiness.



No, JP is not "cute and fuzzy".

My Chet'lyn princess sure is, though, isn't she? :hehe:

[Tophet]

Dear JP,

You wrote........
""""I'd reword that. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary explanations. The rules of evidence are the same. That's legal apologetic principle since Greenleaf. You don't set the burden for evidence...the law does.""""

I don't know Greenleaf. I don't understand the point you are making in the previous paragraph.
Read Greenleaf at http://www.tektonics.org/classics/greent4.pdf

[Nick Hallandale]

Read Greenleaf at http://www.tektonics.org/classics/greent4.pdf

Dear Tophet, and JP Holding if you are present.
I read Greenleaf.
According to Greenleaf, the gospels are old, the gospel writers were nice guys who wouldn't lie, so everything they say is true.
So as it says...........
Matthew 28:5-6 (New American Standard Bible)
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.

6"He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.

According to Greenleaf, angels don't lie, Matthew wouldn't lie, and since it says that Jesus has risen, then Jesus must have been resurrected. End of Debate.
Is this what you and JP Holding have in mind for a debate?

JP can use the Bible. But I intend to impeach the testimony of the Bible. If Greenleaf is the rule we have nothing to debate.

[Nick Hallandale]

__________

Nick, I recommend holding off on a formal debate at this point until you've become more familiar with the arguments. At the very least, go through Champagne's thread, pick a couple of minor points and get your feet wet resurrecting it. I guarantee you'll get takers, and some practice you can use to your advantage.

No, JP is not "cute and fuzzy".

Dear Taoist,
Thank you for the advice.
I would like to debate him one point at a time. I won't debate if he thinks that he can bury me with 20 pages of philosophical arguments all at once. Or bury me with quotes from 37 theologians who testify that they are positive that Jesus rose from the dead. None of that stuff is evidence but Christianity thrives on testimonials rather than facts.
I will try and study JP's stuff tonight and read the stuff that you recommended.
Thanks once again.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

However JP does *not* thrive on testimonials.

[Nick Hallandale]

The resurrection is a LOT bigger....you read my material and you will see.

You'll find it all under the Jesus -- Resurrection heading I gave earlier, save perhaps you may want to see my responses to a recent Skeptical book at

http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/emptytomb.html

That can be worked out later.

Dear JP,
I visited the url in your quotation. It's all about books. I haven't read a single one mentioned in your url. But I have read the Bible a few times. You do a great job of trashing the arguments of those book writers with their theorys against the resurrection. I really liked the one about how Jesus was really a twin separated at birth and reunited after the crucifixtion. I think I saw a murder mystery on TV that had the same plot. Who are these guys who write these books? Are they Christians who write them so guys like you can trash them and then say ""Nobody can prove the resurrection didn't happen...so it must be true""?
Which is your website where you provide evidence that the resurrection really happened rather than the entertaining razzle-dazzle of knocking down straw men?

[Tophet]

Dear Tophet, and JP Holding if you are present.
I read Greenleaf.

You read his work in less than an hour? All of it? Even the footnotes?


According to Greenleaf, the gospels are old, the gospel writers were nice guys who wouldn't lie, so everything they say is true.

And he cited the legal principles involved. Tell us what those legal principles are. Quote from Greenleaf directly and cite the page numbers. Show us that you actually read it and understood what he says.


So as it says...........
Matthew 28:5-6 (New American Standard Bible)
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.

6"He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.

According to Greenleaf, angels don't lie, Matthew wouldn't lie, and since it says that Jesus has risen, then Jesus must have been resurrected. End of Debate.
Is this what you and JP Holding have in mind for a debate?

You said:


I don't know Greenleaf.

I gave you a link to his work. That is what I had in mind.


JP can use the Bible. But I intend to impeach the testimony of the Bible.

All right. Then do so using the standards of the law.


If Greenleaf is the rule we have nothing to debate.

The rules of legal evidence are the rules. Greenleaf was merely applying the rules of legal evidence as one would any historical document. You would know that if you actually read Greenleaf. Are you advocating a double standard?

[lao tzu]

Name three reasons. I know of no one holding a gun to anyone's head in support of the film.

I've yet to see any support of the film from Nick, other than as a way to understand Flemming's thoughts. Until his more recent post, you'll note I was careful to avoid speaking of him even as a theist.

Three reasons? Is quantity more telling than quality? I'll give you one. Asking a theist to defend an atheist position against another theist places them in the position of arguing against both their opponent and themself.


Don't care. But if you do, and go somewhere propping for the Bible as evidence for God, you'd better be prepared to back it up. I hold everyone to the same standards.

Your concern is irrelevant, as you well know. The point was illustrative of the search for understanding a position not personally held. How you feel about what I might conjecturally do with the information I glean is similarly irrelevant.

But again, your analogy of my hypothetical actions is no less flawed than criticism of its object by construction of a hypothetical position for Nick in support of Flemming's film. There is no more evidence of my abuse of scripture than for Nick's position in support of the academic background of "The God who wasn't there."


I mean in defense of the prop, and you know that.

Certainly, but the available information is that your meaning does not coincide with the facts. It is precisely this misattribution addressed by my comment. Were your meaning realigned to remove contradiction, the apparent obscurity in my comment would vanish as well.


I don't need a list of what you put on your cereal every morning. :rasberry:

Nonsense. It's filleted kitten every morning. And I never garnish it with honey.


As for only 32 posts, that's here and that says nothing about experiences elsewhere. That's why I posed the challenge in the first place - to determine readiness.

His familiarity with arguing the subject is as apparent to me as it is to you, with or without reference to his post count. Nor was anything more than his first post in this thread necessary to determine his readiness.


My Chet'lyn princess sure is, though, isn't she? :hehe:

A propane torch to remove the fuzz, then slow broiled with stuffing, and I believe she'd do well for brunch. But as I'm cooking, the dishes will of course fall to you.

As ever, Jesse

:wink:

__________


Thanks once again.

You're welcome.

[jpholding]

I've yet to see any support of the film from Nick, other than as a way to understand Flemming's thoughts.

That's all it takes.


Three reasons? Is quantity more telling than quality?

No, I wanted to make it easy on you. I could have demanded 20.


I'll give you one. Asking a theist to defend an atheist position against another theist places them in the position of arguing against both their opponent and themself.

Then said theist should not prop said atheist. And anyway, the film is not about the question of theism vs atheism, so that's irrelevant.


Your concern is irrelevant, as you well know.

Too bad, isn't it? If you prop it publicly, I'll make it relevant. Not one whit of your rationalizations will erase that....perhaps that Zen spaghetti twirl works on weaker minds, but not on me. :rasberry:


Nonsense. It's filleted kitten every morning. And I never garnish it with honey.

Try hot sauce. It's good for the digestion.



His familiarity with arguing the subject is as apparent to me as it is to you,

It is NOW that I have pulled it out. :ahem: It was not from the first post in the least, though you no doubt wish to pretend that it was for the sake of preserving your honor and dignity after being called down for the error.



A propane torch to remove the fuzz, then slow broiled with stuffing, and I believe she'd do well for brunch.

You may try, but given their nature, you'll end up yourself roasting over a slow flame at the end of a plasma rod. :hehe: You see, they're most apt at fighting creatures several times their size. Just goes to show how apt YOU are at making snap judgments based on minimal information...and ending up at the wrong end of the rotisserie as a result.






Who are these guys who write these books?

Persons who are ideologically aligned with Flemming -- Skeptics and atheists, including some of the most respected out there. Way more respected than Flemming ever was, and in fact, one of them you ought to recognize as one he interviewed in the film. They'd be quite, um, stunned by your not being impressed as they consider that work a blockbuster against the resurrection. But it's good that you're not.


Which is your website where you provide evidence that the resurrection really happened rather than the entertaining razzle-dazzle of knocking down straw men?

I rather wonder if you'd consider all of the opposition straw men. It would be good if you do.

My positive case not against opposition derives from http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

As for Greenleaf, I'll let Tophet address that for now. Your description of him is, er, magnificently simplied.

[Nick Hallandale]

You read his work in less than an hour? All of it? Even the footnotes?



And he cited the legal principles involved. Tell us what those legal principles are. Quote from Greenleaf directly and cite the page numbers. Show us that you actually read it and understood what he says.



You said:



I gave you a link to his work. That is what I had in mind.



All right. Then do so using the standards of the law.



The rules of legal evidence are the rules. Greenleaf was merely applying the rules of legal evidence as one would any historical document. You would know that if you actually read Greenleaf. Are you advocating a double standard?

You are correct. I skimmed the 49 pages. That was far too much for me to read. I didn't read the footnotes.
What kind of rules are you suggesting? Greenleaf is rigged to favor the Christian Apologist.

[lao tzu]

Too bad, isn't it? If you prop it publicly, I'll make it relevant. Stalker.


Not one whit of your rationalizations will erase that....perhaps that Zen spaghetti twirl works on weaker minds, but not on me. Ha! I've already mesmerized you into believing me buddhist. Give it another week, and I'll have you recognizing me as a rastafarian.


Try hot sauce. It's good for the digestion. But strictly prohibited by the EAC™, if there were an EAC™ to prohibit it, but of course there is no EAC™. I'm quite sure of this, as my conspiracy caller this morning was quite adamant about setting the record straight.


It is NOW that I have pulled it out. It was not from the first post in the least, though you no doubt wish to pretend that it was for the sake of preserving your honor and dignity after being called down for the error. Okay, so it took two posts.


You may try, but given their nature, you'll end up yourself roasting over a slow flame at the end of a plasma rod. You see, they're most apt at fighting creatures several times their size. Just goes to show how apt YOU are at making snap judgments based on minimal information...and ending up at the wrong end of the rotisserie as a result. I never cease to be amazed at the effort some will exert for no better reason than avoiding the clear duty of doing dishes.

As ever, Jesse

__________


Persons who are ideologically aligned with Flemming -- Skeptics and atheists, including some of the most respected out there. Way more respected than Flemming ever was, and in fact, one of them you ought to recognize as one he interviewed in the film. They'd be quite, um, stunned by your not being impressed as they consider that work a blockbuster against the resurrection. But it's good that you're not. Not directed toward me, but irresistible none the less.

As much as I love Dawkins' popularizations of evolutionary theory, even in his subject he's prone to miss the mark on occasion. His mathematical analysis of phylogenetic trees was saved from scandal only by its inherent inaccessibility, to be expected from one who was clearly writing beyond his depth. He has yet to revise the continuing misinformation regarding exclusion of male mitochondrial DNA despite public calls for same.

But when he speaks out publicly as a spokesman for atheists, he's simply an embarrassment. More than one thread at IIDB has turned into a Dawkins bashfest detailing the negative consequences of his advocacy. I find it unsurprising that Flemming's shoot from the hip style would find a supporter in Dawkins. He strikes me as having taken one more towel snap in the locker room at boarding school than was good for him.

Or perhaps you're speaking of someone else?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

For Nick H:

I don't think you're ready for a debate with Mr Holding if you're prepared to skim and ignore footnotes. Greenleaf is rigged and biased! :ahem:

[Tophet]

You are correct. I skimmed the 49 pages. That was far too much for me to read. I didn't read the footnotes.

You have plenty of time to do so. Or are you afraid to read it in its entirety?


What kind of rules are you suggesting?

I told you in Post #32. What part of "The rules of legal evidence are the rules." did you not understand?

And to repeat, are you advocating a double standard? Yes or no?


Greenleaf is rigged to favor the Christian Apologist.

Why don't you apply the same legal rules of legal evidence that Greenleaf uses to demonstrate otherwise? Or are you advocating a double standard?

You do know what a double standard is, don't you?

[studyhound]

Dear Tophet, and JP Holding if you are present.
I read Greenleaf.
According to Greenleaf, the gospels are old, the gospel writers were nice guys who wouldn't lie, so everything they say is true.
So as it says...........
Matthew 28:5-6 (New American Standard Bible)
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.

6"He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.

According to Greenleaf, angels don't lie, Matthew wouldn't lie, and since it says that Jesus has risen, then Jesus must have been resurrected. End of Debate.
Is this what you and JP Holding have in mind for a debate?

JP can use the Bible. But I intend to impeach the testimony of the Bible. If Greenleaf is the rule we have nothing to debate.

:hi: You may want find out who Greenleaf is before you throw him out the window. I'll give you a quick sketch of this fellow. He was a atheist lawyer/teacher he was one of whom founded the Havard Law school. He rejected Christianity, on the basis that it was absurd. When asked if he had investigated it, he replied he had not. Since he was a expert on law and evidence, see his works Treatise on the Law of Evidence: much of what we here in America with regards to our legal system and the judicial system we can thank him for, because his works trained many generations of lawyers, judges and those working in the law field. He set out to disprove the resurrection through evidential means. As he work through the historical, manuscript, and archaeological evidence he came to the conclusion that the authors of the Gospels were reliable witnesses and truthful in their claim.



If we can not look to him (Greenleaf) as a reliable source to understand evidence, then there is no possible way to look at any evidence and not reject it.



:sh:

[Nick Hallandale]

For Nick H:

I don't think you're ready for a debate with Mr Holding if you're prepared to skim and ignore footnotes. Greenleaf is rigged and biased! :ahem:

You may be correct. Perhaps I am not ready to debate JP Holding using his rules.

But concerning Greenleaf....his rule #1 is the following.....
1) Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evidence of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

So how does this rule apply to the Bible?
Is it your contention that the Bible is genuine, even though we only have copies of copies of copies etc and there are hundreds of thousands of differences in the manuscripts that we possess?

[Nick Hallandale]

:hi: You may want find out who Greenleaf is before you throw him out the window. I'll give you a quick sketch of this fellow. He was a atheist lawyer/teacher he was one of whom founded the Havard Law school. He rejected Christianity, on the basis that it was absurd. When asked if he had investigated it, he replied he had not. Since he was a expert on law and evidence, see his works Treatise on the Law of Evidence: much of what we here in America with regards to our legal system and the judicial system we can thank him for, because his works trained many generations of lawyers, judges and those working in the law field. He set out to disprove the resurrection through evidential means. As he work through the historical, manuscript, and archaeological evidence he came to the conclusion that the authors of the Gospels were reliable witnesses and truthful in their claim.



If we can not look to him (Greenleaf) as a reliable source to understand evidence, then there is no possible way to look at any evidence and not reject it.



:sh:

Thank you for your advice Studyhound.
I am taking a closer look at Greenleaf.
BTW What is the meaning of all those little icons by your name?
I notice that there is a little penguin by my name and I don't know what it means or why it's there. Can you direct me where it is explained or tell me what they mean.

[studyhound]

Thank you for your advice Studyhound.
I am taking a closer look at Greenleaf.
BTW What is the meaning of all those little icons by your name?
I notice that there is a little penguin by my name and I don't know what it means or why it's there. Can you direct me where it is explained or tell me what they mean.

The Icons are thus, Penguin is the gender icon, blue tie=male, pink bow=girl, Cross= christian all the others below that are the IM's I have accounts for...which reminds me we need a Gmail icon now...Hmmm.

[Tophet]

You may be correct. Perhaps I am not ready to debate JP Holding using his rules.

In other words, you prefer to ignore the rules of legal evidence which apply to all historical documents?


But concerning Greenleaf....his rule #1 is the following.....
1) Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evidence of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

So how does this rule apply to the Bible?

Greenleaf supplies the answer. Why don't you quote his response?


Is it your contention that the Bible is genuine, even though we only have copies of copies of copies etc and there are hundreds of thousands of differences in the manuscripts that we possess?

Read Greenleaf's answer to this and post it. Then we'll know you really want to know the answer to this question.

[Nick Hallandale]

In other words, you prefer to ignore the rules of legal evidence which apply to all historical documents?



Greenleaf supplies the answer. Why don't you quote his response?



Read Greenleaf's answer to this and post it. Then we'll know you really want to know the answer to this question.

I have gone back over Greenleaf's rules and it is not the rules themselves that are objectionable, it is his interpretation of those rules that I object to.

So is the Bible Genuine?
I can prove 100% that the Gospels were edited.
In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus uses the phrase
"kingdom of Heaven" about 30 times.
But in none of the other Gospels, does Jesus
say "kingdom of Heaven".
In the other Gospels, Jesus uses the parallel
expression "kingdom of God".
So, when Jesus was actually speaking and
preaching, about the "kingdom", did he actually
say "kingdom of Heaven", or did he actually
say "kingdom of God"?

It seems evident, that the actual words of Jesus
were edited in respect to the "kingdom"

This editing of Jesus' words seems like a minor
point. However once you accept the premise that
Jesus was edited, you realize that you could
never be sure if other words, verses, or paragraphs
weren't edited, corrected, enhanced, magnified,
or exploded into miracles.

[lao tzu]

The Icons are thus, Penguin is the gender icon, blue tie=male, pink bow=girl, Cross= christian all the others below that are the IM's I have accounts for...which reminds me we need a Gmail icon now...Hmmm.

... or you could have gone the easy route. Nick, just hover your mouse over anything you don't understand. Chances are good a little note box will pop up. Try it on the penguins first.

[jpholding]

So, when Jesus was actually speaking and
preaching, about the "kingdom", did he actually
say "kingdom of Heaven", or did he actually
say "kingdom of God"?

The concepts are fully interchangeable. It is no different than changing "Kingdom of England" to "Kingdom of King George III"..



This editing of Jesus' words seems like a minor
point. However once you accept the premise that
Jesus was edited, you realize that you could
never be sure if other words, verses, or paragraphs
weren't edited, corrected, enhanced, magnified,
or exploded into miracles.

Of course you can be sure. It is a simple matter to understand things like this.

Matthew is a Gospel directed to a Jewish audience, so he has several good reasons to make the change. One of the most likely is that he is adjusting to Jewish sensibilities about writing the name of divinity.

It was very normal for ancient writers to edit the words of those who they recorded speeches of. The purpose of this was to make things clear for an audience, or easier to understand -- not to magnify or to explode.




Is it your contention that the Bible is genuine, even though we only have copies of copies of copies etc and there are hundreds of thousands of differences in the manuscripts that we possess?

Textual criticism allows us to determine the original content of these manuscripts with a high degree of certainty.

If you spent money on Flemming's DVD, and he is not qualified to make assessments about history, will you spend money now on a book by people who DO have qualifications to address these issues?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082542982X/qid=1148640408/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8951690-8488837?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It includes chapters addressing this very issue.

[jpholding]

Stalker.

Loiterer. :rasberry:


Ha! I've already mesmerized you into believing me buddhist. Give it another week, and I'll have you recognizing me as a rastafarian.

I did. I said "spaghetti twirl'. Pastafarian.


I never cease to be amazed at the effort some will exert for no better reason than avoiding the clear duty of doing dishes.

We ran out of the ones large enough for you. We'll use a spit.



Or perhaps you're speaking of someone else?

Carrier. One of the authors in the Empty Tomb book Nick was not impressed by.

[Nick Hallandale]

The concepts are fully interchangeable. It is no different than changing "Kingdom of England" to "Kingdom of King George III"..



Of course you can be sure. It is a simple matter to understand things like this.

Matthew is a Gospel directed to a Jewish audience, so he has several good reasons to make the change. One of the most likely is that he is adjusting to Jewish sensibilities about writing the name of divinity.

It was very normal for ancient writers to edit the words of those who they recorded speeches of. The purpose of this was to make things clear for an audience, or easier to understand -- not to magnify or to explode.




Textual criticism allows us to determine the original content of these manuscripts with a high degree of certainty.

If you spent money on Flemming's DVD, and he is not qualified to make assessments about history, will you spend money now on a book by people who DO have qualifications to address these issues?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082542982X/qid=1148640408/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8951690-8488837?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It includes chapters addressing this very issue.

JP said.....
""The concepts are fully interchangeable. It is no different than changing "Kingdom of England" to "Kingdom of King George III".."""

It is not always so simple. If you were Scottish or Irish you might be concerned, just as it might have made a difference if you were Jewish, Gentile or Samaritan.

JP said.....
""Matthew is a Gospel directed to a Jewish audience, so he has several good reasons to make the change. One of the most likely is that he is adjusting to Jewish sensibilities about writing the name of divinity.""

Jesus was Jewish and spoke to a Jewish audience, he might have said "kingdom of Heaven" so why would the other gospel writers write "kingdom of God?" Maybe they weren't Jewish, but gentiles writing a story to a gentile audience, years after Jerusalem had been destroyed.


JP said.......
"""It was very normal for ancient writers to edit the words of those who they recorded speeches of. The purpose of this was to make things clear for an audience, or easier to understand -- not to magnify or to explode."""

It is refreshing to find a Christian Apologist who admits that the Bible was edited. As one reads through the gospels and discovers how the Apostles were such schmucks, and they were probably the cream of his disciples, I wonder how they could have understood and transmitted accurately anything that Jesus supposedly said.


Thanks for the book recommendation.
Recently I did read a book by Bart Ehrman. When I finished the book he had convinced me that we can't be sure of anything in the NT.
But you're such a smart guy that I'm sure you read his book.

[studyhound]

... or you could have gone the easy route. Nick, just hover your mouse over anything you don't understand. Chances are good a little note box will pop up. Try it on the penguins first.

Well sure if you want to do i the easy way.....:tongue:

[Nick Hallandale]

Well sure if you want to do i the easy way.....:tongue:



Dear Taoist, and Studyhound,
Thank you very much for your help men.
:

Maybe I can help you someday. Just ask.

[jpholding]

All right, time to take the gloves off.



It is not always so simple. If you were Scottish or Irish you might be concerned, just as it might have made a difference if you were Jewish, Gentile or Samaritan.

That's not an answer but a mere attempt to suggest one may exist. If you think there is a problem, you need to show it. The evidence shows that Jews of this era used "heaven" as a roundabout way to refer to "God". Either show that is wrong or admit you have no argument in reply.


Jesus was Jewish and spoke to a Jewish audience, he might have said "kingdom of Heaven" so why would the other gospel writers write "kingdom of God?" Maybe they weren't Jewish, but gentiles writing a story to a gentile audience, years after Jerusalem had been destroyed.

It is more likely that Jesus said "Kingdom of Heaven" and that Mark and Luke, writing to Gentiles, changed it to "God" because their readers would not know of the Jewish equivocation in terms and think it meant "kingdom of the sky".

This would be the same whether they wrote before or after the Temple was destroyed.


It is refreshing to find a Christian Apologist who admits that the Bible was edited.

It's nothing to be ashamed of "admitting". No more so than there is reason to be ashamed of modern translations that try earnestly to make the message clearer to modern readers. If you were taught some sort of KJV Onlyism, that's a shame, but that's not the reality either.



As one reads through the gospels and discovers how the Apostles were such schmucks, and they were probably the cream of his disciples, I wonder how they could have understood and transmitted accurately anything that Jesus supposedly said.

That's an amazing statement, Nicky old man. So a moral failure means you have problems transmitting messages. Yep, so Peter's denial of Christ sure did take away his normal Jewish education for memorizing things, huh.

Of course, since it seems you were once a believer yourself, you made some errors and that means you can't be trusted either.

You said:


I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. I believe in the Bible. I'm just skeptical about some of the details. I even go to church on Sundays. I love the music, and the singing. I love to go to the Bible Study and ask questions.

OH REALLY?

So you no longer stand by this statement you made on the "universist" web site?



This is my first post on this site. I was a Christian for over 50 years. I did a lot of Bible reading. As I spent more time reading I found errors and contradictions. At first I thought the problem was my lack of understanding. Eventually I realized that the only way one can harmonize the Bible is to accept that it is fiction.

It sounds to me like you're running under some false pretenses here. Care to explain yourself?

Or how about this:

http://forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php?p=45660&sid=cfd14896672cae130189108bd1404231

where you compare the NT to the screwy writings to MichaelCadry?

http://forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php?p=45733&sid=fb7a03c81ac47afd0fd5bf9c67a5eafd

Very goofy exposition of John 1 here. Ever hear of hypostatic Wisdom?



Recently I did read a book by Bart Ehrman. When I finished the book he had convinced me that we can't be sure of anything in the NT.
But you're such a smart guy that I'm sure you read his book.

Read it and rebutted it:

http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html

Alse see

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000

which has many details on Ehrman's mistakes.

As of now, though, Nicky boy, I no longer consider you an honest seeker but someone who has in fact already made his decision and is unable to defend it. Which means I was right about you from the start.

[Nick Hallandale]

Carrier. One of the authors in the Empty Tomb book Nick was not impressed by.

Dear JP, and Christian Apologist Friends,

The reason why I am not impressed with “Empty Tomb” books is that the empty tomb might just be a moot point.
Examine and consider the following Scripture; the Apostle Paul’s words from the book of Acts.
Acts 13:27-29 (King James Version)
27For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
As you can read, according to how Paul tells the story, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and their rulers, condemned Jesus to death even though he was innocent of wrong doing, and “”they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.”” Notice that Paul clearly says that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their rulers, evil men who had unjustly condemned Jesus, disposed of Jesus’ corpse.
The way the Apostle Paul tells the story, contradicts the way the story is told in the Gospels where Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus, buries Jesus’ body.
But we must consider the fact that the Gospels, and most assuredly, Matthew’s Gospel were written many years after the execution of Jesus. The following Scripture attests to the late date of Matthew’s Gospel.
Matthew 28:15 (King James Version)
15So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
“””and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”””
This phrase is a dead giveaway, showing that Matthew’ gospel was written a long time after the events that it purports to portray. I can understand, how after many years of oral transmission the story can get garbled, enhanced, and distorted. How can we separate the facts from the legend and really know what happened???

[jpholding]

Examine and consider the following Scripture; the Apostle Paul’s words from the book of Acts.

Oh good grief, this one is going to be as funny as a Bozo the Clown episode....




The way the Apostle Paul tells the story, contradicts the way the story is told in the Gospels where Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus, buries Jesus’ body.

That would be rather funny, Nicky baby, since Luke, who wrote Acts, reports the very story on whch Joseph buries Jesus' body.

Maybe you need to resolve the issue by understanding the practice of representaive speech. The collective acts of these people resulted in the laying of the body in the tomb. Therefore it is rightly said that "they" did it.

Of course, read your way, Luke is obviously saying that tens of thousands of people at once literally carried Jesus' body into the tomb and so on. Wow, I've heard of crowds doing strange stuff, but that's ridiculous!

I guess you also think that when John says Pilate scourged Jesus, it means old Pilate himself rolled up his sleeves, picked up the whip, and went to town, huh?

Congratulations -- you emerge as yet another person who has made the transition from a Christian who was gullible and ignorant to a Skeptic who is gullible and ignorant.



But we must consider the fact that the Gospels, and most assuredly, Matthew’s Gospel were written many years after the execution of Jesus. The following Scripture attests to the late date of Matthew’s Gospel.
Matthew 28:15 (King James Version)
15So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
“””and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”””
This phrase is a dead giveaway, showing that Matthew’ gospel was written a long time after the events that it purports to portray.

Oh, PLEASE. If I say now that "the Berlin Wall remains destroyed to this day" it's only 17 years and the usage is perfectly correct. Matthew is datable to the 50s or 60s AD -- 20-30 years. That's more than sufficient time to use "to this day".


I can understand, how after many years of oral transmission the story can get garbled, enhanced, and distorted. How can we separate the facts from the legend and really know what happened???

Well, YOU sure can't, as gullible as you appear to be in swallowing whole what you read and get in low rent Skeptical sources! :hehe:

[lao tzu]

Until his more recent post, you'll note I was careful to avoid speaking of him even as a theist. But not careful enough.


There is no more evidence of my abuse of scripture than for Nick's position in support of the academic background of "The God who wasn't there." Withdrawn.

[Nick Hallandale]

Oh good grief, this one is going to be as funny as a Bozo the Clown episode....

That would be rather funny, Nicky baby, since Luke, who wrote Acts, reports the very story on whch Joseph buries Jesus' body.

Maybe you need to resolve the issue by understanding the practice of representaive speech. The collective acts of these people resulted in the laying of the body in the tomb. Therefore it is rightly said that "they" did it.

Of course, read your way, Luke is obviously saying that tens of thousands of people at once literally carried Jesus' body into the tomb and so on. Wow, I've heard of crowds doing strange stuff, but that's ridiculous!

I guess you also think that when John says Pilate scourged Jesus, it means old Pilate himself rolled up his sleeves, picked up the whip, and went to town, huh?

Congratulations -- you emerge as yet another person who has made the transition from a Christian who was gullible and ignorant to a Skeptic who is gullible and ignorant.



Oh, PLEASE. If I say now that "the Berlin Wall remains destroyed to this day" it's only 17 years and the usage is perfectly correct. Matthew is datable to the 50s or 60s AD -- 20-30 years. That's more than sufficient time to use "to this day".



Well, YOU sure can't, as gullible as you appear to be in swallowing whole what you read and get in low rent Skeptical sources! :hehe:






Examine and consider the following Scripture; the Apostle Paul’s words from the book of Acts.:




Oh good grief, this one is going to be as funny as a Bozo the Clown episode.....:

Oh Gee Whiz Buffalo BOB, do Christian Apologists score extra points by being rude and sarcastic.




The way the Apostle Paul tells the story, contradicts the way the story is told in the Gospels where Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus, buries Jesus’ body..:




That would be rather funny, Nicky baby, since Luke, who wrote Acts, reports the very story on whch Joseph buries Jesus' body...:

Since neither the Gospel according to Luke , nor the book of Acts, identify the writer, it is only Christian speculation that credits Luke as the writer of Acts and the Gospel according to Luke. Since editing was a Christian practice, as you yourself admit, in a previous post, it is very possible that the Gospel according to Luke was edited to bring it into agreement with the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In any event, whoever wrote Luke and Acts was not an eye-witness by his own admission and could have written the account of Jesus’ burial in the gospel according to what he received from one oral source, and written the account in Acts from information he received orally from the Apostle Paul.
BTW I’m not “Nicky baby” . My full name is Nicholas Trevor Hallandale. But you can call me Nick or Hallandale.




Maybe you need to resolve the issue by understanding the practice of representaive speech. The collective acts of these people resulted in the laying of the body in the tomb. Therefore it is rightly said that "they" did it.

Of course, read your way, Luke is obviously saying that tens of thousands of people at once literally carried Jesus' body into the tomb and so on. Wow, I've heard of crowds doing strange stuff, but that's ridiculous!

I guess you also think that when John says Pilate scourged Jesus, it means old Pilate himself rolled up his sleeves, picked up the whip, and went to town, huh?

Congratulations -- you emerge as yet another person who has made the transition from a Christian who was gullible and ignorant to a Skeptic who is gullible and ignorant....:


There you go again…. You put up a straw man and then knock him down. I’m sure that all the Jews of Jerusalem and their leaders did not collectively go and dispose of Jesus’ corpse. Since it was the Passover season, undoubtedly they hired a couple of gentiles with a donkey and a cart to haul away Jesus’ carcass.



But we must consider the fact that the Gospels, and most assuredly, Matthew’s Gospel were written many years after the execution of Jesus. The following Scripture attests to the late date of Matthew’s Gospel.
Matthew 28:15 (King James Version)
15So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
“””and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”””
This phrase is a dead giveaway, showing that Matthew’ gospel was written a long time after the events that it purports to portray. .




Oh, PLEASE. If I say now that "the Berlin Wall remains destroyed to this day" it's only 17 years and the usage is perfectly correct. Matthew is datable to the 50s or 60s AD -- 20-30 years. That's more than sufficient time to use "to this day".....:

I agree…..”to this day” could mean as short a time as 20-30 years. But this 20-30 year time frame has always bothered me. Even when I was a Christian fundamentalist, I was troubled by this delay in publishing the gospels. According to Christianity, the death and resurrection of Jesus is the most important event in human history. What took Jesus’ followers so long to publish the story of this miraculous event. Didn’t Jesus tell them to make disciples of all nations? Why did it take them 20-30 years? Did Jesus' followers wait just long enough so that no witnesses would be around to contest their fairy tale?



I can understand, how after many years of oral transmission the story can get garbled, enhanced, and distorted. How can we separate the facts from the legend and really know what happened???




Well, YOU sure can't, as gullible as you appear to be in swallowing whole what you read and get in low rent Skeptical sources!


Are you a short fat guy who is losing his hair and can’t get laid?

Inappropriate sexual reference.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Quote removed - OBPThat wasn't necessary.

[jpholding]

Looks like little Nicky isn't as sweet as he wanted us to think he was. :hehe: Prepare to be Edited by a Moderator!


Oh Gee Whiz Buffalo Bob, do Christian Apologists score extra points by being rude and sarcastic.

Yep, especially to deceptive little buffalo chips. :lol:



Since neither the Gospel according to Luke , nor the book of Acts, identify the writer, it is only Christian speculation that credits Luke as the writer of Acts and the Gospel according to Luke


Oh, PLEASE, Nicky, do get your snifter out of Spong's patoo and do some REAL homework once in a while! The evidence for the authorship of Luke -- internal and external - is far superior to that of documents like Tacitus' Annals that NO ONE questions. Luke is identified in the title as the author - just as in the Annals, Tacitus is so identified.

Maybe you can show us what your criteria are for determining the authorship of an ancient document, and then explain to us why Tacitus authored the Annals but Luke didn't author Luke-Acts.

Or maybe you're too ignorant to do that, and are just blowing smoke. :hehe:


Since editing was a Christian practice, as you yourself admit, in a previous post, it is very possible that the Gospel according to Luke was edited to bring it into agreement with the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

It's also possible that flying green monkeys are coming out of your butt, as Randel Helms would put it, but I bet you don't use that as an argument that they actually ARE.



In any event, whoever wrote Luke and Acts was not an eye-witness by his own admission and could have written the account of Jesus’ burial in

Aw, gee, Nicky Wicky, dat too bad. Because now you just twashed almost ALL written history, cuz there's no way that eg Tacitus was "an eye-witness" to stuff like that happened in the reign of Tiberius, which means we just gotta throw out ALLLLLL he wrote that he didn't actually see with his own two peepers. Plus even modern books on guys like Lincoln: El Trasho. They weren't there to see Lincoln do NUTTIN.

I mean really, do you sit up at night thinking up this sort of stupidity, or do it only during the day?


BTW I’m not “Nicky baby”

You are now.



There you go again…. You put up a straw man and then knock him down. I’m sure that all the Jews of Jerusalem and their leaders did not collectively go and dispose of Jesus’ corpse.

In that case, congratulations! You just abandoned your argument. Want a towel to cry in?



I agree…..”to this day” could mean as short a time as 20-30 years. But this 20-30 year time frame has always bothered me. Even when I was a Christian fundamentalist, I was troubled by this delay in publishing the gospels.

Well isn't that just toooooo bad. News flash, Nicky baby: This was an era in which 90-95 percent of the people were illiterate. That means that orality was the primary way of transmitting information. It also means that there's no big deal over taking 20, 30, even 40 years to publish a gospel. You're just a typical graphocentrist with the self-centered idea that something important just HAS to be written down. In fact, Nicky Baby, given the laborious nature of writing, and the expense of it in the first century, the disciples would have been fools to spend too much time making copies instead of preaching (and making copies that only a few people could read, at that!).

Good night man, if you had been in charge the disciples would have been passing out Gospels to illiterate people! I guess you must be the guy who designed that billboard that said ILLITERATE? CALL THIS NUMBER.

So now you didn't defend any of your arguments, all you did was switch to others. Brilliant defenses!

How stupid, guy. Be more stupider. :hehe:











This user is on your Ignore List.

Great POINT! :thumb:

[Nick Hallandale]

That wasn't necessary.



All right, time to take the gloves off.

He threatened me. "Don't grab hold of the ears of a wild dog unless you want to get bit"

[jpholding]

He threatened me. "Don't grab hold of the ears of a wild dog unless you want to get bit"

How about the ears of a deluded little flea? :hehe:

[Nick Hallandale]

Prepare to be Edited by a Moderator!"

So you want to start a fight and now you run home crying to Momma.

[jpholding]

So you want to start a fight and now you run home crying to Momma.

Rules are rules, little one. The one who breaks them admits that he can't win.

[lao tzu]

Nick,

I find that assuming the best intentions of new posters will occasionally cause me to be in error, but often enough acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. This, however, is not justification to ignore clear evidence of misrepresentation. It has been demonstrated that your positions on this board do not align with your positions elsewhere. All of us are subject to changes of position as our philosophies develop, but to leave these contradictions unaddressed can only make your position untenable.

It could be argued that JP Holding also misrepresents himself here, as this is not his real name. But there is an important difference between use of a pseudonym and the opposition of what certainly appear to be simultaneous claims of theism and nontheism. I suggest you address this issue.

Understand that on most issues of god-belief, as a nontheist I will naturally find myself opposed to the poster who writes under the name JP Holding. This is not license to reject his positions out of hand. Even an incorrect position can be logically consistent.

I concur with LA. While JPH, as I previously noted, is not "cute and fuzzy", a game of one-upmanship in insult, especially as it moves into sexual subtexts unsuitable for a family board, is unnecessary. I would add that it is also unwise, and betrays a lack of care in considering your environment.

As ever, Jesse

[Tophet]

Nick,

You said,



May 25, 2006, 03:39 PM
Re: The blundering filming of atheist film maker Brian Flemming
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1502327&postcount=22
I have never debated anyone before.

Then, how is it you have at least 168 posts at a debate forum called Debating Christianity & Religion?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3148&start=10
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: COULD Jesus Die for Your Sins?

Nick Hallandale
Apprentice
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Total posts: 168
Location: Fort Pierce, Fl
Age: 64
Gender: Male




I have gone back over Greenleaf's rules and it is not the rules themselves that are objectionable, it is his interpretation of those rules that I object to.

What a cop-out. The truth of the matter is you can’t handle Greenleaf’s arguments. His arguments are based on the law. You don’t even address his arguments. You simply ignore them.



It is his interpretation of those rules that I object to.
Why do you object? You don’t say. Upon what basis do you object? Do you object because you object? That’s circular reasoning. Do you object because your pride and ego can’t handle the truth of his statements?

You don’t defend your position regarding Greenleaf at all. Instead you throw up another argument. Why don’t you address Greenleaf’s arguments? What is it about the law that frightens you so?

When it comes to the law, Greenleaf has credibility. You don’t.


So is the Bible Genuine?

Why ask that question when Greenleaf gave you the answer? You said,



I have gone back over Greenleaf's rules

Therefore you should already know the answer. Why don’t you know the answer? Is it because you have reading difficulties? Or is it because you actually didn’t read Greenleaf’s rules? Or is it because you’re not interested in the answer? If you’re not interested in the answer, why ask the question? Is this a sign of rational thinking?


I wonder how they could have understood and transmitted accurately anything that Jesus supposedly said.

If you read Greenleaf then you would have your answer. Please explain why you were unable to ascertain what Greenleaf said.


I can understand, how after many years of oral transmission the story can get garbled, enhanced, and distorted.

And your proof is what, wishful thinking? Tell us, using the standards of legal evidence, the proof of your allegation. If you don’t do this in your next post on this thread, you concede you don’t know what you’re talking about.


How can we separate the facts from the legend and really know what happened???

If you read Greenleaf then you would have your answer. Why do you ask a question if you already have the answer?


Since neither the Gospel according to Luke, nor the book of Acts, identify the writer, it is only Christian speculation that credits Luke as the writer of Acts and the Gospel according to Luke.

Really? Name the contemporary eyewitness who denies Luke wrote the gospels of Luke and Acts. Explain why you ignore the Ancient Documents Rule.


Since editing was a Christian practice, as you yourself admit, in a previous post, it is very possible that the Gospel according to Luke was edited to bring it into agreement with the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

And your proof is what, wishful thinking? Tell us, using the standards of legal evidence, the proof of your allegation. If you don’t do this in your next post on this thread, you concede you don’t know what you’re talking about.


In any event, whoever wrote Luke and Acts was not an eye-witness by his own admission

Really? Cite the chapters and verses. Do so in your next post, or concede you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Per Greenleaf and the law, Luke’s testimony is legally acceptable. Tell us why you ignore the standards of the law.


and could have written the account of Jesus’ burial in the gospel according to what he received from one oral source, and written the account in Acts from information he received orally from the Apostle Paul.

What do you learn from Acts 20:5, 21:1-18? What do you learn from Colossians 4:11 and Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11?


So you want to start a fight and now you run home crying to Momma.

Who’s crying? You haven’t supported your position against Greenleaf and the law. Why? Tell us in your next post on this thread. If you don’t, you concede defeat. There is no need to waste time with someone who can’t or won’t defend their position.

[Nick Hallandale]

Nick,

I find that assuming the best intentions of new posters will occasionally cause me to be in error, but often enough acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. This, however, is not justification to ignore clear evidence of misrepresentation. It has been demonstrated that your positions on this board do not align with your positions elsewhere. All of us are subject to changes of position as our philosophies develop, but to leave these contradictions unaddressed can only make your position untenable.

It could be argued that JP Holding also misrepresents himself here, as this is not his real name. But there is an important difference between use of a pseudonym and the opposition of what certainly appear to be simultaneous claims of theism and nontheism. I suggest you address this issue.

Understand that on most issues of god-belief, as a nontheist I will naturally find myself opposed to the poster who writes under the name JP Holding. This is not license to reject his positions out of hand. Even an incorrect position can be logically consistent.

I concur with LA. While JPH, as I previously noted, is not "cute and fuzzy", a game of one-upmanship in insult, especially as it moves into sexual subtexts unsuitable for a family board, is unnecessary. I would add that it is also unwise, and betrays a lack of care in considering your environment.

As ever, Jesse

Dear Jesse,
I apologize to you if I have offended you.
I was in error to include any "sexual subtexts "
I have been on several other forums but I have never participated in a formal debate.
I have been a Christian my whole life. Several years ago I discovered that Christianity is a fake and I have since done my best to expose it as a fraud.
I believe that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified and said many of the things in the Gospels. I don't believe that he was resurrected. Paul, however was the first in a long line of Christian crooks who have been fleecing the sheep for 2000 years.
I believe that there is a GOD. I believe that at some time in the future there will be a reward for those that obey their conscience. I believe that the Bible is a good book with lessons for life, but it is not the word of God. It is the work of men.
As for JP Holding, when he said he was "taking the gloves off," it meant that he would try and get me. I had already seen how he was trying to bully me so I responded.
When I started on this forum I was trying to take Jesus' advice...
Matthew 10:16 (King James Version)
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
I tried to be like a dove, but when I was attacked, I became a serpent.
I am sorry that I upset you and any other good people on this forum.

[lao tzu]

Dear Nick,

The consistent error I try to correct among nontheists is the unsupportable assumption that an argument against belief that does not make allowances for the believer is counterproductive, a mistake I am all too guilty of on occasion.

We humans are subject to reasoned argument, but at our roots, we are convinced by emotion. When an association is made between ill manners and religious opinion, it is the religious opinion that suffers. As such, I would never suggest to JP that he should temper his abrasiveness. Indeed, I enourage it, for it eliminates the need to wield a stick myself.

The evidence against superstitious beliefs is sufficient, but not compelling in itself when it must compete against the emotional needs of a community. What can you bring to the table that can offset a promise of eternal life in paradise, no matter how vain? I believe there is a glory in the complexity of the natural world, and in seeking out its secrets, which pales into insignificance the facile pastels of theistic beliefs.

Similarly, an examination of the growth, evolution, syncretism and extinction of religions is almost incomparably more satisfying than a monomania directed toward any one of them, whether in support or opposition. But to benefit from this examination, it is necessary that one maintain personal and intellectual integrity.

Flemming's film is a schoolyard taunt where it could have been a call to discovery. And like many another adolescent tantrum, its intensity fails to disguise its lack of depth. I suggest you avoid following this path. Leave that ground to your opponent and you will gain the advantage.

As ever, Jesse

[Nick Hallandale]

Dear Nick,

The consistent error I try to correct among nontheists is the unsupportable assumption that an argument against belief that does not make allowances for the believer is counterproductive, a mistake I am all too guilty of on occasion.

We humans are subject to reasoned argument, but at our roots, we are convinced by emotion. When an association is made between ill manners and religious opinion, it is the religious opinion that suffers. As such, I would never suggest to JP that he should temper his abrasiveness. Indeed, I enourage it, for it eliminates the need to wield a stick myself.

The evidence against superstitious beliefs is sufficient, but not compelling in itself when it must compete against the emotional needs of a community. What can you bring to the table that can offset a promise of eternal life in paradise, no matter how vain? I believe there is a glory in the complexity of the natural world, and in seeking out its secrets, which pales into insignificance the facile pastels of theistic beliefs.

Similarly, an examination of the growth, evolution, syncretism and extinction of religions is almost incomparably more satisfying than a monomania directed toward any one of them, whether in support or opposition. But to benefit from this examination, it is necessary that one maintain personal and intellectual integrity.

Flemming's film is a schoolyard taunt where it could have been a call to discovery. And like many another adolescent tantrum, its intensity fails to disguise its lack of depth. I suggest you avoid following this path. Leave that ground to your opponent and you will gain the advantage.

As ever, Jesse

Dear Jesse,
You are right.
I would like to warn everyone about Christianity if they will listen.
Unfortunately, I have let emotion rule.
I will use my brain rather than responding with anger in the future.
Thanks

[jpholding]

I have been a Christian my whole life. Several years ago I discovered that Christianity is a fake and I have since done my best to expose it as a fraud.

Anti-evangelists like you are like raw meat to me. I even eat serpents raw.

People like you who do halfway homework and then go spreading around misinformation do not see their own hypocrisy. If your judgment was so poor as a Christian, why is it any better now?

The gloves will come off if, rather than trying to obscure your errors, you admit them, and then stop spreading them around and approach the subjects instead with an understanding that you do NOT have an adequate level of knowledge and are therefore in no position to play the role of anti-evangelist.

As it is, that you mis-represented yourself as still a Christian makes it likely we won't see that.

[Lazy Agnostic]

As it is, that you mis-represented yourself as still a Christian makes it likely we won't see that.This coming from a man (you are a man, aren't you) who goes into a forum which discusses the movie---disguised as a woman who supports JPHolding. I've long suspected you post under more than one identity; you've demonstrated that level of dishonesty is not beneath you.

[Darth Executor]

This coming from a man (you are a man, aren't you) who goes into a forum which discusses the movie---disguised as a woman who supports JPHolding. I've long suspected you post under more than one identity; you've demonstrated that level of dishonesty is not beneath you.

It's not much of a disguise if everyone on tweb who knows JP would instantly recognise it's him, especially when he told us that's what he's gonna do. :ahem:

[Lazy Agnostic]

It's not much of a disguise if everyone on tweb who knows JP would instantly recognise it's him, especially when he told us that's what he's gonna do. Did he tell the participants in that forum he was diguising himself as a woman who supports JPHolding? Then it's still dishonesty.

[Darth Executor]

He disguised himself as a cartoon mutant bunny woman to be more specific. Does he really have to tell them he isn't one? I'd think you'd hold your fellow non-theists in higher regard LA.

[Mountain Man]

He disguised himself as a cartoon mutant bunny woman to be more specific. Does he really have to tell them he isn't one? I'd think you'd hold your fellow non-theists in higher regard LA.
Wait, what's all this about then?

[Darth Executor]

Wait, what's all this about then?

JP posted on the Beast (I think) forum role-playing Sheila Rangslinger and got banned.

[Teallaura]

JP posted on the Beast (I think) forum role-playing Sheila Rangslinger and got banned.


:lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

:lmbo:

Brian Fleming: What? Your not a real Boomerang-throwing Rabbit-Girl from another planet? I've never felt so decieved in my entire life! GET OUT! :bawl:

[lao tzu]

JP posted on the Beast (I think) forum role-playing Sheila Rangslinger and got banned.

Well, at least it wasn't the prom.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Nick, I suggest you offer to debate J.P. Holding on the topic "The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is as certain as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln." If Holding refuses then ask him to concede that it's because he believes the assassination of Lincoln to be more certain than the resurrection of Jesus and ask him to suggest a replacement for "the assassination of Abraham Lincoln" that has an acceptably high probability such as "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon" and debate that if you are willing.

Of course, you should rely heavily on the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" criterion.

John Powell

[Darth Executor]

Well, at least it wasn't the prom.

:lmbo:

[Mountain Man]

Of course, you should rely heavily on the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" criterion.
Good advice. Keep those evidentiary goal posts moving and you'll never have to admit defeat. :ahem:

"[T]he reason to believe the [Resurrection] claim is mistaken is because it's an extraordinary claim with merely ordinary evidence. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1019800#post1019800)"
-John Powell

:doh: Note the unwitting admission, folks: The Resurrection claim is supported by evidence!

[jpholding]

JP posted on the Beast (I think) forum role-playing Sheila Rangslinger and got banned.

Correct. Under the pretense of Sheila being a "sock puppet"....even though Flemming's own cited definition from Wikipedia says that that is an ADDITIONAL account created by a user, not a single account.

LA wins a second Screwball for the day.




Nick, I suggest you offer to debate J.P. Holding on the topic "The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is as certain as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln." If Holding refuses

I wouldn't, nor on the Rubicon thing (which I have discussed extensively).

[Lazy Agnostic]

Correct. Under the pretense of Sheila being a "sock puppet"....even though Flemming's own cited definition from Wikipedia says that that is an ADDITIONAL account created by a user, not a single account. And what do you think is established by this bit of captiousness---that what you did is not wrong?

When it was discerned that Sheila was actually you posing as someone who supports YOU, they said you were welcome to register as JPHolding but that the Sheila ID had to go. You refused.

You've demonstrated a willingness to be dishonest in this way; you can't expect readers to not wonder how many other IDs are you diguised as someone else who supports YOU.

[Jnthn]

And what do you think is established by this bit of captiousness---that what you did is not wrong?

When it was discerned that Sheila was actually you posing as someone who supports YOU, they said you were welcome to register as JPHolding but that the Sheila ID had to go. You refused.

You've demonstrated a willingness to be dishonest in this way; you can't expect readers to not wonder how many other IDs are you diguised as someone else who supports YOU.
Let me get this straight: Someone posting on a forum under the nom de plume "Lazy Agnostic" is berating someone else for using an obviously fake name?

Is that the best you can offer?

J

[lao tzu]

Let me get this straight: Someone posting on a forum under the nom de plume "Lazy Agnostic" is berating someone else for using an obviously fake name?

Is that the best you can offer?

J

Hmm. Even "JP Holding" is a fake name, as far as that goes. Nor do I believe the above qualifies as an effort to either get things straight or assay the offering. The point I glean from LA's post is ...


.. they said you were welcome to register as JPHolding ...

Is this true? If so, JP was not banned. Banning implies a loss of posting privileges.

On the other hand, Sheila is not much of a disguise to anyone familiar with JP's cartooning. It would be difficult to see it as a serious effort to create a sock puppet, JP's clintonian parsing of the wikipedia definition notwithstanding.

There's another well known phrase for a stick figure. It's called a straight man. This is the comic's sidekick who appears incapable of recognizing a joke, and so becomes the butt.

As ever, Jesse

[John Powell]

Good advice. Keep those evidentiary goal posts moving and you'll never have to admit defeat. :ahem:


POWELL:
It is not my intention to keep moving the goal posts. That tactic is one I discourage and try to avoid.


MOUNTAIN MAN:
"[T]he reason to believe the [Resurrection] claim is mistaken is because it's an extraordinary claim with merely ordinary evidence. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1019800#post1019800)"
-John Powell

:doh: Note the unwitting admission, folks: The Resurrection claim is supported by evidence!

POWELL:
That concession was intentional. I rarely say other than what I mean to say. I disagree with my fellow skeptics who argue that there is no evidence for things like God or the resurrection.

What you fail to acknowledge, Mountain Man, is that the mere presence of evidence does not necessarily justify belief. Depending on the high extraordinariness of the claim, there is a correspondingly high standard below which the evidence is insufficient to justify belief.

IF someone were to claim that Joseph Smith had golden plates given to him by an angel of God which he used to produce the Book of Mormon and the evidence was the signed testimonials of 11 men contained in the printed copy of the book who claimed they saw the golden plates and 3 of them also testified to seeing an angel testify to the correctness of Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon, THEN would that justify you believing the claim?

The claim is extraordinary. It has evidence (the signed testimonials). So, why wouldn't you follow the easy-to-abuse principle "claims require evidence" and believe the claim? Because the evidence is not of sufficient quality or quantity to justify you believing a claim as extraordinary as that.

Understand?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL (to Nick Hollander):
Nick, I suggest you offer to debate J.P. Holding on the topic "The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is as certain as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln." If Holding refuses


JPHOLDING:
I wouldn't, nor on the Rubicon thing (which I have discussed extensively).


POWELL:
If you mean that you wouldn't refuse to debate either of those topics then why don't you offer to debate Nick on the Lincoln / Jesus comparison?

If you mean that you wouldn't agree to debate either of those topics then please offer to Nick---someone who we might have the pleasure of seeing you debate---an acceptable replacement for the comparison. I think most of us would rather see a formal debate between you two rather than so much of this informal mudslinging. Perhaps your schedule is currently too full.

BTW, I don't see your explanation for why you wouldn't debate those topics (assuming that's what you meant by "I wouldn't") other than the odd explanation that you've already discussed the Rubicon matter extensively as if that's a better reason to NOT debate than TO debate the matter.

Also, I didn't see your concession. Will you concede that it's more probable that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated and that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon than that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected?

Thanks.

John Powell

[Lazy Agnostic]

Let me get this straight: Someone posting on a forum under the nom de plume "Lazy Agnostic" is berating someone else for using an obviously fake name?I'm not posing as someone other than me who is supposedly supporting me.

[Jnthn]

I'm not posing as someone other than me who is supposedly supporting me.
Let me say this s-l-o-w-e-r for the hard of understanding: Unless a certain Mrs Agnostic popped out a babby called Lazlo ("Lazy" to friends) you are hiding behind a false name on this forum.

If you like, I can FedEx a portion of Clue from the European Common Sense Reserve straight to you. You seem somewhat...lacking...in that department.

J

[jpholding]

POWELL:
If you mean that you wouldn't refuse to debate either of those topics then why don't you offer to debate Nick on the Lincoln / Jesus comparison?

If he wants. But it was Flemming he propped for here first.


BTW, I don't see your explanation for why you wouldn't debate those topics (assuming that's what you meant by "I wouldn't")

I meant I wouldn't refuse.

[jpholding]

Wow. LA seems to think Sheila is REAL. :hehe:

[jpholding]

On the other hand, Sheila is not much of a disguise to anyone familiar with JP's cartooning. It would be difficult to see it as a serious effort to create a sock puppet, JP's clintonian parsing of the wikipedia definition notwithstanding.



What's clintonian here? One word makes the critical difference: "ADDITIONAL". I am not asking for any special meaning to it.

A sock puppet requires a puppet AND a puppeteer, dewd. :rasberry:

But at least you had the sense Eddie the mod didn't. Sheila is definitely NOT "much of a disguise" given that she's to me what Mickey was to Walt.

[lao tzu]

A sock puppet requires a puppet AND a puppeteer, dewd. :rasberry: Is Sheila an independent creature, Mr. JPuppeteer Holding? Or does it depend on the meaning of what "is" is?

:fencing:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If you mean that you wouldn't refuse to debate either of those topics then why don't you offer to debate Nick on the Lincoln / Jesus comparison?


JPHOLDING:
If he wants. But it was Flemming he propped for here first.


POWELL:
There may be merit to a Flemming-film-based debate, but I don't think as much as to a debate on this matter that relates to the historicity of Jesus.



POWELL:
BTW, I don't see your explanation for why you wouldn't debate those topics (assuming that's what you meant by "I wouldn't")


JPHOLDING:
I meant I wouldn't refuse.


POWELL:
Excellent.

Hey, Nick, will you debate James on this topic?

John Powell

[Mountain Man]

You've demonstrated a willingness to be dishonest in this way; you can't expect readers to not wonder how many other IDs are you diguised as someone else who supports YOU.
Oh, dang, you're onto me. Him. You're onto him. I meant to write "him". Honest.

[Mountain Man]

What you fail to acknowledge, Mountain Man, is that the mere presence of evidence does not necessarily justify belief.
I would amend your statement to read "the mere presence of claimed evidence does not necessarily justify belief." Obviously, there has to be some assurance that the evidence in question is trustworthy.


IF someone were to claim that Joseph Smith had golden plates given to him by an angel of God which he used to produce the Book of Mormon and the evidence was the signed testimonials of 11 men contained in the printed copy of the book who claimed they saw the golden plates and 3 of them also testified to seeing an angel testify to the correctness of Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon, THEN would that justify you believing the claim?
It would depend on the trustworthiness of the evidence. For instance, do the claimants in question have any reason to lie or be mistaken?

Incidentally, this would be the first question to ask for any claim that is primarily supported by testimony. Why do you think lawyers spend a great deal of time establishing the credibility of their witnesses before they ask them a single question pertaining to the case?

[John Powell]

POWELL:
What you fail to acknowledge, Mountain Man, is that the mere presence of evidence does not necessarily justify belief.


MOUNTAIN MAN:
I would amend your statement to read "the mere presence of claimed evidence does not necessarily justify belief." Obviously, there has to be some assurance that the evidence in question is trustworthy.


POWELL:
Your suggestion is ill advised because it does not properly reflect my meaning.

Of course, if the stuff doesn't help the person come to a conclusion then it doesn't count as evidence to that person.



POWELL:
IF someone were to claim that Joseph Smith had golden plates given to him by an angel of God which he used to produce the Book of Mormon and the evidence was the signed testimonials of 11 men contained in the printed copy of the book who claimed they saw the golden plates and 3 of them also testified to seeing an angel testify to the correctness of Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon, THEN would that justify you believing the claim?


POWELL:
It would depend on the trustworthiness of the evidence.


POWELL:
As long as it's evidence, Mountain Man, then why does it have to reach some specified quality standard?


MOUNTAIN MAN:
For instance, do the claimants in question have any reason to lie or be mistaken?


POWELL:
Yes, but so what? The writers of the Bible had reasons to lie or be mistaken. So do scientists.

You're admitting that there's evidence for the Mormon claim, Mountain Man, but you're criticizing the virtue of the evidence. That sounds like you're using the ECREE principle.


MOUNTAIN MAN:
Incidentally, this would be the first question to ask for any claim that is primarily supported by testimony. Why do you think lawyers spend a great deal of time establishing the credibility of their witnesses before they ask them a single question pertaining to the case?


POWELL:
It's NOT because the jury doesn't believe the witness's testimony is material, but because it's important in court to be extra sure of that.

Why is it that you don't bother asking a Wal-Mart employee those kinds of questions before you ask her where to find such-and-such and then you go where she says believing such-and-such will be where she said? I'll tell you: ECREE and it's not that important to establish her credentials.

John Powell

[Tophet]

POWELL:

Of course, you should rely heavily on the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" criterion.

John Powell

John,

Please tell use where/when this principle has been used in a court of law. Please cite the court cases.

[jimbo]

Hello,

In regard to the "sock puppet" incident: "Holding" went onto another discussion forum under the alias "Sheila Rangslinger" and posted messages in which he referred to "JP Holding" in the third person. He did this knowing that many if not most of the people there did not know "Sheila Rangslinger's" real identity. These people were not familar with "Holding's" cutesy cartoon drawings of anthropomorphic woodland creatures that he uses as avatar's. Here is what the moderator wrote:

"Wait a second... Someone named J.P. Holding has been coming here using a pseudonym, and posting 30 messages a day in support of...J.P Holding? Is there even a question about whether we should let him get away with this?"

Here (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1552) is a forum where this subject is discussed.

Brooks

[John Powell]

John,

Please tell use where/when this principle has been used in a court of law. Please cite the court cases.

POWELL:
I googled the following using as key words:

"extraordinary claims" court

I'm confident you can find more if you try.

http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/newwomyn.html


Stephen Barrett, M.D.
I served as an expert witness in the case. On November 19, 2001, at a hearing on its merits, an affidavit I had prepared was admitted into evidence [4] and I testified that the device was not recognized by experts as safe and effective for its intended purpose. My affidavit stated (in part):

. . .

14. It is a basic principle of science that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


POWELL:
Cheers.

John Powell

[Mountain Man]

As long as it's evidence, Mountain Man, then why does it have to reach some specified quality standard?
Because untrustworthy evidence doesn't exactly count as evidence in favor of a claim, now does it?


You're admitting that there's evidence for the Mormon claim...
No, I'm admitting that there's claimed evidence. Whether or not the evidence is trustworthy is another matter.


That sounds like you're using the ECREE principle.
Not at all.


Why is it that you don't bother asking a Wal-Mart employee those kinds of questions before you ask her where to find such-and-such and then you go where she says believing such-and-such will be where she said? I'll tell you: ECREE and it's not that important to establish her credentials.
I couldn't tell you the number of times I've been steered wrong by a Wal-Mart employee. Perhaps a more rigorous questioning process is needed? :wink:

[jpholding]

Hello,

Nothing to do with your life these days, huh? :lol:

I don't suppse YOU would care to debate the merits of Flemming's film, eh, Tricycle Boy? :hehe:


These people were not familar with "Holding's" cutesy cartoon drawings of anthropomorphic woodland creatures that he uses as avatar's.

What is the avatar possessing in this sentence, please?

[jpholding]

Is Sheila an independent creature, Mr. JPuppeteer Holding? Or does it depend on the meaning of what "is" is?


It doesn't matter. The definition of "sock puppet" means one must have an ADDITIONAL ACCOUNT. That means more than one account. :doh:

[Sparko]

I find it completely ironic that the people complaining about JPH using an alias on a board are using one here. I don't think anyone here is really named Jimbo (he even signed his post Brooks! he must be a 'sock pupppet'!!)

Using a different name on a forum board is Standard Operating Procedure and is called an ALIAS not a sock puppet. A sock puppet would be someone who uses two accounts or more to stick up for each other.

There is nothing wrong with signing up on a board and not using your real name. JP Holding is not his real name either, folks. His real name is not open for discussion because we value our member's privacy.

If Farrell Till wanted to sign up on Theologyweb as "Weasel Man" and didn't want anyone to find out, we would be fine with that. In fact, we would moderate anyone who tried to expose his true identity if he didn't want it revealed. He could even talk about himself in the third person if he wanted to to protect his identity.

But just to counter what 'Brooks' said above, 'Shiela' never pretended to NOT be JPH. In fact in about the 4th posting on that board someone asked what authority 'she' had to post for JPH and 'she' freely gave out a link to the tektonics page where JPH said he was going to go post on Flemming's board as Sheila and invited anyone who read that to join him there.

So we are asking you to STOP dragging this stuff about another board onto this board. JPH did nothing wrong there or here.

[John Powell]

I find it completely ironic that the people complaining about JPH using an alias on a board are using one here. I don't think anyone here is really named Jimbo (he even signed his post Brooks! he must be a 'sock pupppet'!!)


POWELL:
Just to prove you wrong, here I am complaining about JPH using an alias.

So there! :poke:

John Powell
The same yesterday, today, and forever.

[Mountain Man]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The only reason certain skeptics get so caught up in trying to discredit JP personally is because they are entirely incapable of discrediting his arguments.

[John Powell]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The only reason certain skeptics get so caught up in trying to discredit JP personally is because they are entirely incapable of discrediting his arguments.

POWELL:
I'm not one of those. Any personal discrediting I do isn't because I'm incapable of discrediting his arguments.

John Powell

[Sparko]

Again, I am asking everyone to drop this silliness before it gets shut down officially.