There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[headheart]

.... hearsay isn't considered evidence by a court of law .....

Shhh (please folks, don't answer this question) It is just for Vansmack51: When is hearsay admissible as evidence in a court of law?

[headheart]

.... we dismiss their claims of the supernatural?

Here's another one, just for Vansmack51: 'We' who?

[headheart]

Must...resist....urge....to....troll...



























ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) Y u so mad? Chill out!

Are you say that there are actually real trolls on this forum?
























Surely you mean this sort?

[Rational Gaze]

Here's another one, just for Vansmack51: 'We' who?

Vansmack51, Tassman, and bertatberts of course.
tin-foil-hat.jpg

[Vansmack51]

So, anyone who disagrees with you must be unbelievably dumb.

Is that so only with respect to religion, or does it apply to all subjects on which you have opinions?-

Just religion.

[Der Kanzler]

Why?

Ever read any argumens, or are you just repeating what you've heard other atheists on reddit or wherever you hang out say?

...and you claim to be rational...

[headheart]

Why?

Ever read any argumens, or are you just repeating what you've heard other atheists on reddit or wherever you hang out say?

...and you claim to be rational...

Got whipped on you-tube and came here to practice being a better promoter of ZGKA.

[headheart]

Vansmack51, Tassman, and bertatberts of course.
tin-foil-hat.jpg

I used to see these guys around town a few years ago and could not figure out what they were until I met the gang on 'you-tube'

[Vansmack51]

Why?

Ever read any argumens, or are you just repeating what you've heard other atheists on reddit or wherever you hang out say?

...and you claim to be rational...

All theistic arguments are fatally flawed. On this thread I meticulously refuted several theistic arguments such as the First Cause Argument. I refuted the claim that Josephus is a reliable historian. I refuted the argument that the gospels are based on historical events and people. Even Lilpixie admitted there is no evidence to support any of the events or the existence of any of the major figures described in the gospels. What other arguments would you like to see refuted?

[headheart]

What other arguments would you like to see refuted?

Refute your ego.

[Hamster]

Legendary Bible Scholar Vansmack refutes entire bible industry. "We're ruined" says William Lane Blomberg

[Teluog]

William Lane Blomberg . . . . . now that is hilarious.

[Tassman]

These are noble thoughts and I am sure that many who post here would agree with that. Right?
However, you seem to have completely missed my point.
What are your beliefs about the Bible and Christianity, in particular Jesus Christ. When I see that you have sweated a bit in a reply, I'll consider replying to you

How very gracious of you.

Tempting though it might be to “sweat a bit” and thus “earn your reply” (sarcasm), I will stick to the point. The discussion has NOT been about my belief re the bible and Jesus. I am listed as "non-theist which should give you a clue about my beliefs.

What IS under discussion is the issue of academic freedom for scholars engaged in academic research.

The “noble thoughts” you admire are from Harvard University’s Mission Statement, which encourages academic excellence through “free expression, discovery and in critical thought to create, to challenge, and to lead……”

This is in direct contrast with the Mission Statements of institutions such as Dallas Seminary or Talbert, which preempts such freedom of enquiry as per the following Mission Statement: “Talbot School of Theology is committed to biblical inerrancy. By biblical inerrancy, we mean that the Bible is without errors of any kind in its original manuscripts. Biblical inerrancy is an essential part of our ministry training and helps define our view of biblical authority”.

These are the limitations imposed by the institutions where many apologist scholars, such as Habermas, Witherington, WL Craig, Daniel B Wallace and Craig Blomberg, teach and write the books quoted by evangelical Christians as authoritative. But it needs to be noted that the conclusions reached by non-apologist biblical scholars, such as Dr Bart Ehrman or Dr Gerd Ludemann, are very different indeed. One can only ask why.

[bertatberts]

Refute your ego.

Vansmack51 has no need to refute his ego, all the evidence he presented refutes all theist claims. You don't seem to realise that evidence supersedes, opinion.

<Sarcasm>

There is a reality outside of your mind

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[seanD]

How very gracious of you.

Tempting though it might be to “sweat a bit” and thus “earn your reply” (sarcasm), I will stick to the point. The discussion has NOT been about my belief re the bible and Jesus. I am listed as "non-theist which should give you a clue about my beliefs.

What IS under discussion is the issue of academic freedom for scholars engaged in academic research.

The “noble thoughts” you admire are from Harvard University’s Mission Statement, which encourages academic excellence through “free expression, discovery and in critical thought to create, to challenge, and to lead……”

This is in direct contrast with the Mission Statements of institutions such as Dallas Seminary or Talbert, which preempts such freedom of enquiry as per the following Mission Statement: “Talbot School of Theology is committed to biblical inerrancy. By biblical inerrancy, we mean that the Bible is without errors of any kind in its original manuscripts. Biblical inerrancy is an essential part of our ministry training and helps define our view of biblical authority”.

These are the limitations imposed by the institutions where many apologist scholars, such as Habermas, Witherington, WL Craig, Daniel B Wallace and Craig Blomberg, teach and write the books quoted by evangelical Christians as authoritative. But it needs to be noted that the conclusions reached by non-apologist biblical scholars, such as Dr Bart Ehrman or Dr Gerd Ludemann, are very different indeed. One can only ask why.

Most likely because the latter has more pessimistic emotional investment in their analysis than the former. An emotionally wounded partner of a breakup would display more pessimism in their analysis of their former lover than someone’s analysis of the current lover they’re still on good terms with. Both are affected with bias to a degree, both have emotional investment, but we’d naturally expect the analysis of the former to be more adversely affected with bias than the latter.