Message to Stinky: Great rebuttal of Xavier's arguments. It will be interesting to see if he replies. Aside from Xavier, you and Steven Carrwork have adequately shown rational minded readers on a number of occasions just how ridiculous James Holding is as a would be Christian apologist. Thanks for your continued help.

Sorry, Stinky Poo, but that old "selective editing" charge won't work except on the few gullible Skeptics around who kiss the behind of Lord Till.

Well, it wouldn’t get old if you would stop doing it.

Uhh. Yeah Im the one who sidetracks by ignoring large parts of posts by never getting back to them all right.

Well JP, if you would just admit that my use of the word argument was acceptable, then we could get back on subject and discus them.

If you think I despair over you giving up, check threads around here. The number of times I have the last word is astroniomical.

You are quite right. I don’t know of many people that can stick it out with you. Here are weeks gone by, and we’re still arguing of the use of the word argument. I have provided more than enough evidence to prove you wrong, you have done nothing but stamp your feet and yell, NO I’M NOT! I am sure that you will have the last word here also. I have proved my point, you have not even done anything but repeat your unfounded opinion, I doubt I’ll continue much longer. Then you will have another "last word" to crow about.

The fact that you're getting so sensitive about it and saw a need to mention it is a sure sign that you are getting frustrated, annoyed, and frightened.

Frustrated, yes, annoyed, yes. Frightened? You’ve got to be kidding! Your megalomania is getting out of control. I am just as frustrated, annoyed, and frightened as I am when dealing with a two year old throwing a tantrum. Why shouldn’t I mention it JP? You like to think yourself a scholar, and yet, you resort to childish tricks like that. Are we in middle school here that your attempt to make fun of my name has any value? Is this how scholars conduct themselves? You can do nothing here except cry, and call names, that anyone, even gullible Christians take you seriously is sad.

So, prove me wrong, not by gymnastics, but by presenting an argument Stanton was arguing against.

There is no need. I have given you ample proof that an accepted use of the word argument includes the passage from Stanton. This is basic stuff. I have given you proof from basic writing classes. If you had ever taken one, you would have not made the stupid mistake of claiming otherwise. You have done nothing but squealed that I’m wrong. Come on JP, give me some proof that I’m wrong. It should be easy. Show me an academic source that says an argument can ONLY be between two people. Show me an academic source that shows how Stanton’s quote was NOT an argument. Do SOMETHING other than crying, screaming, and name calling. If I wanted to debate a child, I could go elsewhere.

Originally posted by Stinky

Talking to Christian apologists is always so pleasant. Nice attitude your worldview has given you.

Wouldn't say that my worldview informs all of my behaviour, but we do have some fine examples of harsh language.

Totally irrelevant, no one in this conversation is contesting that a person named Jesus existed.

We're chatting about the historical relevance of the Gospel texts. These ALL provide corroboration that various historians saw the accounts are accurate witnesses to the events they describe...

# Thalius

We don’t have any corroboration from Thalius, we have a claim from Julius Africanus that Thalius wrote something about a darkness and earthquake, but that’s all

It's much more complicated than that I'm afraid. You see the comment comes in a passage on the crucifixion of Christ in Julius's history. He remarks about Thalius's remarks ON THE SAME EVENT. What does this entail?

# Josephus

An obvious Christian interloption, probably out of desperation to have SOMETHING.

Too bad that modern historical scholarship doesn't agree with you:

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, page 113-114

A final passage in Josephus, the so-called Testamonium Flavianum (AN 18 3.3.), devotes a full paragraph to Jesus. The passage clearly contains Christian interpolations, and many critical scholars formerly regarded the entire passage as spurrious. Recent scholarship however, while recognizing the additions of sentiments impossible for Josephus to hold, has been more favorably disposed toward the hypothesis that the passage contains the [root] of a passage about Jesus written by Josephus himself. It appears in the section of his text dealing with the way in which Pilate behaved badly in regards to popular Jewish desires.

"At that time, there appeared a man Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who recieve the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah....

"And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And until this day, the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions (indicated here by italics), the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian. Josephus asserts that Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus' writing.

---

© source where applicable

# Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)

Pliny says nothing about Jesus. His letter, some 80 odd years after Jesus death says nothing except that Christians existed, nothing we don’t already know.

We've got Christians worshipping same guy as a god... What the letter tells us is that there is already a large contengent of believers (enough that Pliny noticed) and details their belief system which includes references to Christ.

# Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)

Same here, writing 80 to 90 years after the event, he knows Christians exist, big deal.

Try again:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius:

# A fragment of Tacitus, with implications for the existence of the "Nazarene"

So there is no consensus on any of this. But what I find really interesting is that the writer appears to claim that the Christiani. were a temple based, anti-Roman, Jewish sect, and it was only "after the overwhelming defeat of Israel and the Jewish resistance in the 70's the name "Christiani" was used largely to designate Pauline Christianity". This is an interesting idea.

Aye on that one...

# Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)

Could the Chrestus that was instigating trouble in 49A.D. be Jesus?

49 AD? Where'd you get that?

Anywho, who else might have Suetonius been talking about?

# Lucian (mid-2nd century)

[/u]Yea, some 150 years later, Lucian had nothing new to say, We KNOW that there were Christians by this time.

Good Try:

"next after that other, to be sure, whom they (the Christians) still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world."

# Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3)

150 years after the fact, he knows nothing except that there are Christians.

He mentions Christ in tandem with Moses. Do you think he was talking about something other than the person?

# Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).

Finally, someone that actually mentions the life of Jesus! AT THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY! It is clear that he is refuting the gospel stories, stories that had been in circulation for at least 50 years,(I sure some would claim longer,) He corroborates nothing else. If we are to accept his writing as accurate history, we should accept that the miracle claims of Christians are false, just as he also says.

He mentions the texts and uses them as a basis of witness to refute the stories at hand. This shows that the documents existed and we thought to be accurate by the majority of the people at the time. Otherwise, why would Celsus write his lousy apologetic text for paganism?

# Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
# Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)
Your kidding me with these two. The first is probably not even talking about Jesus, and is certainly not accurate history to begin with.

He is he talking about then:

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.

The second may not be talking about the same Jesus, and even so, it certainly does not match the gospel stories.

R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress."

Such-an-one is common Jewish reference to Jesus at the time of the writing.

"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'"

Hrmn... How many other people could they be talking about?

"And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this! R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Woe unto him who maketh himself alive by the name of God." (Sanhedrin 106a)

"Maketh himself alive by the name of God" -- Why would you 'woe' someone who did that? Perhaps, this is a reference to the Resurrection?

So Xavier. None of these sources "corroborate" anything other than the fact that a religious sect calling themselves Christians existed at least as early as 100A.D. There is nothing here that gives any extra evidence to the gospel stories, no corroboration of miracles, nothing but the fact that some people believed these things. I could write a story about Joseph Smith and the Mormons, doesn’t mean their claims are true.

This is rather amusing... Take your time this time. Think through the ACTUAL implications of the texts. ALL of them have implications for the historacy of the material presented in the New Testement.

Yours,
Xavier

Hello Johnny.

Message to Stinky: Great rebuttal of Xavier's arguments. It will be interesting to see if he replies. Aside from Xavier, you and Steven Carrwork have adequately shown rational minded readers on a number of occasions just how ridiculous James Holding is as a would be Christian apologist. Thanks for your continued help.

Of course he will reply, and he will further attempt to sidetrack the discussion, just as JP will.(actually I see that he already has as I was wrting this reply), I actually would like to get back to the subject of first century skepticism. This argument is a good example of typical apologetics. In order to plead a special case for their myth, the apologist uses the same devises as holocaust or moon landing deniers. They twist the evidence there is, they make absurd conclusions that are opposite of what evidence they do supply indicate. In short, they build a case on nothing but their fevered desire to prove the unprovable. I get frustrated sometimes because I forget that the goal of the apologist is not to find the truth, but to defend the faith. If the two are at odds, out goes the truth. But how can you make them see their error? JP has been arguing for over a week that my use of the word argument was incorrect. I have provided more than enough evidence to prove him wrong, and yet, he still continues with his unsupported assertions. Look at the conversation with Xavier. We were discussing the J of A story, he claimed to have external support for it, he had none. He then claimed that he meant that he had external support for Luke, he had none. What he finally posted was evidence, all written long after the fact, that a man named Jesus existed, and that his followers started a new religion. I really think the problem is, is just as with holocaust deniers, and others, ANY evidence that even slightly supports what they want to believe automatically PROVES their entire assumption. The web of "could be’s" and "possibilities" becomes so thick that it is difficult extract the truth. The artical by Miller is a prime example. There is not much there that is not actually true, it is the conclusions that he jumps to that are absurd. For instance, wwhen he quotes Stanton,



"In antiquity miracles were not accepted without question. Graeco-Roman writers were often reluctant to ascribe miraculous events to the gods, and offered alternative explanations. Some writers were openly skeptical about miracles (e.g. Epicurus; Lucretius; Lucian). So it is a mistake to write off the miracles of Jesus as the result of the naivety and gullibility of people in the ancient world."


"In antiquity miracles were not accepted without question" This sentence is really meaningless. Does he mean that NO ONE in ALL OF antiquity NEVER accepted a miracle without question? What does "without question mean? Surely some questions were asked about miracle claims at some time, but it says nothing about what it would really take for any protion of the population living in the first century ANE to accept a miracle claim. Should someone spend weeks rebutting such a nebulas statement?

"Graeco-Roman writers were often reluctant to ascribe miraculous events to the gods, and offered alternative explanations. Some writers were openly skeptical about miracles (e.g. Epicurus; Lucretius; Lucian).

The above is a true statement, as far as it goes, but does not lead to the conclusion that "So it is a mistake to write off the miracles of Jesus as the result of the naivety and gullibility of people in the ancient world." How many of these writers were reluctant to ascribe miracle events to the Gods? Was this a major position among all writers of the time? (Of course, even all his examples are not from the time he’s talking about.) What does it say about other writers? What about Jewish writers? Egyptian? Syrian? Do these writers reflect the views of the majority? What do they say about the willingness of the common man to readily accept miracle claims? One of the writers he provides as evidence contradicts his conclusion, Lucian, although a Skeptic himself, claims that there were many gullible people at the time, and included his opinion the Christians were among the most gullible, he portrays them as fools ripe for the picking for any unscrupulous fellow. This is a simple apologist trick. Most people that read apologies are Christians that have begun to have doubts about their faith. They want reassurance. They read a passage such as Stanton wrote, and think, well, there’s my proof. They won’t generally look further. Especially after reading the whole piece. If you don’t examine it carefully, it can seem convincing. If you read an account of how the holocaust never happened, and look no further, it can also seem convincing. Then there’s people like us. How do you even start deconstructing such a large amount of BS? There is so much wrong with that first quote, that I haven’t even started with all the problems with it, and the paper goes on and on. This is why JP likes to say, address the ENTIRE argument, not just one piece. Look how busy he’s kept me with this one piece, and he hasn’t really addressed it, he has sidetracked the conversation. If I attempted to address the entire paper at once, I don’t think I could even fit it in one post. There are also difficulties such as how much more gullible is someone that accepts a miracle like the resurrection on the word of someone else, than someone that demands to see an empty tomb first? I mean, I guess you could say the second was SOMEWHAT more skeptical, but not much.

But it gets more complicated. Let’s say that a jew is shown the empty tomb. He was skeptical enough to demand proof of the resurrection, what would he say now? Stanton provides Epicurus, Lucretius, and Lucian as examples of the typical first century view. Now completely ignoring the absurdity of this, what if it was correct? Well, as these were the first proto-naturalists, I would think that such a person would search for a naturalist explanation, perhaps Jesus was never buried there, perhaps he didn’t actually die, perhaps his followers stole the body. But JP disagrees, when discussing the snakebite story, he claims that these skeptical people wouldn’t look for a natural explanation.

Stinky,
Now if a skeptic saw this snake bite event, they would have said, hey, that’s strange, that guy must be immune to these snakes.
JP,
No, that is what a materialist or naturalist would say. Not a "skeptic".

So JP disagrees with Stanton, these "skeptics" would not look for a natural explaination.

When asked about skeptics and skepticism, JP offeres the following.

"A skeptic with a lower case s is a person skeptical of any thing at all. Any person is a skeptic and has been at one time or another. warcraft3 here calls himself a skeptical Christian for example



skepqtiqcal also scepqtiqcal Audio pronunciation of "skeptical" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skpt-kl)
adj. 1. Marked by or given to doubt; questioning: a skeptical attitude; skeptical of political promises." When they doubted something, they were skeptical of it. Gosh this is hard.


What does he mean here? His definition is useless. "Any person is a skeptic and has been at one time or another." so where does that leave us at the tomb? Is the typical Jew going to look for a natural explanation? It seems that Stanton would have us believe that, but JP disagrees. If they weren’t looking for a natural explanation, what alternative could there be? I would have to assume none, as JP seems to think that outside of any natural explanation, that this "skeptic" wouldn’t be looking for, there is no other supernatural explanation, therefore our "skeptic" would be forced to accept the resurrection story. Of course, that only leaves us right back where we started, that we know today that when a natural explanations is available, it’s POSSIBILITY MUST be at least considered. If these people were not considering natural explanations, their supernatural bias makes their acceptance of the miracle a foregone conclusion. So that brings us to the next problem, most Jews did not accept the resurrection story. Why is this? Where they skeptical in some other way? Was Stanton more accurate than we think, and most Jews laughed off the empty tomb since there were several natural explanations for the emptiness of the tomb? Of course this whole thing leaves out the very possible answer being that there never was such a tomb, and the whole thing was a story early Christians made up, perhaps that’s why most Jews rejected the story. Perhaps that’s why no one knows where this tomb actually was.


It’s this convoluted argumentation that makes it hard to pin the apologist down, look at some earlier posts.

While discussing Stanton’s claim that "In antiquity miracles were not accepted without question" Steven points to the virgin birth miracle,

"How could people have scrutinised the claim of what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary?"


JP answers with "How could Stevie not see the apple he thinks is an orange? How many people could have scrutinized the claim of what Titus said to his subordinate commender? Getting the point, Stevie Weevie?"

Ignoring the spelling errors and the juvenile attempt at humor, you see what Holding is doing here? HE is the one trying to compare apples to oranges. No one cares what Titus said to his subordinate commander. The subject is Did people accept miracle claims without question? Or more properly, with out verifiable evidence, and yet, this is EXACTLY the case we have here. Mary’s family, and really, entire town must have accepted AT HER WORD ONLY that God had made her pregnant, not some man she had been sleeping with. Now I admit that I have an anti-supernatural bias, but really, anyone that would believe this story, is flat out gullible. And of course, we’re still assuming that any of this occurred, or even that any of these people even existed.

It goes on and on this way, continually diverting from on point to another, any time someone gets close to pointing out their absurd arguments, supporting one bad assumption with several others, which in turn are each supported by several other bad assumptions. Try to talk to someone that doesn’t believe the holocaust occured, or that the moon landings were faked, or that aliens are abducting thousands of people every year, you’ll be amazed at the parallels.

And of course, you’ll never get any of them to admit they’re wrong, even on the simplest things.

Xavier,

We're chatting about the historical relevance of the Gospel texts. These ALL provide corroboration that various historians saw the accounts are accurate witnesses to the events they describe...

No they don’t. They provide AT BEST evidence that Christians existed, and believed that there founder was a man called Jesus, who was put to death under Pilate. In fact, under most circumstances, more than enough to conclude that this man existed and was put to death. But they say NOTHING about how this story evolved. How the gospels accounts came about, or even if they were aware of the gospel accounts. You would like to claim that since people 50 o 100 years after the supposed events took place accept that there was such a man, that therefore they knew of and believed all the miracle stories. This is obviously false as none of them were Christians, and most derided Christians for their belief.

Stinky:

So Xavier. None of these sources "corroborate" anything other than the fact that a religious sect calling themselves Christians existed at least as early as 100A.D. There is nothing here that gives any extra evidence to the gospel stories, no corroboration of miracles, nothing but the fact that some people believed these things. I could write a story about Joseph Smith and the Mormons, doesn’t mean their claims are true.

Xavier:

This is rather amusing... Take your time this time. Think through the ACTUAL implications of the texts. ALL of them have implications for the historacy of the material presented in the New Testement.

Implications? Possibly. Corroboration? No. Again, all you’ve shown is that s sect existed, that believed that their leader was killed and raised again. You’ve given good evidence that some writers believed that he existed, and was killed. Beyond that, nothing.

If you would like to discuss these sources further, start a new thread. Perhaps you could title it "Independent confirmation of the miracle stories of the gospels" or something similar.

Thanks,
Stinky

Your hand wave is dulely noted... Just as I thought.

I'm done here.

Yours,
Xavier

Your hand wave is dulely noted... Just as I thought.

I'm done here.

The fact that you were wrong is duely noted.

Thanks,
Stinky

Xavier to Stinky: This is rather amusing... Take your time this time. Think through the ACTUAL implications of the texts. ALL of them have implications for the historacy of the material presented in the New Testement.

Johnny: Well, the problem here is "All of them.." First let's look at the word "all." If Xavier means all four of the Gospel writers agreeing with each other that Jesus was buried in J of A's tomb and that he rose from the dead, that is no more significant than it would be if four Mormon writers agreed with each other, or any other four writers of various religious texts. What is the magic number here? Four Gospel writers? What if there were only three? How about two? How about only one? I guess Xavier would conclude that if there were ten Gospel writers, no one should bother to question their writings at all.

Now let's look at the word "them." Who was "them?" The actual names of the Gospel writers is unknown, and they all wrote in the third person, suggesting that none of them were eyewitnesses to what they reported. Was their information second hand, third hand or even possibly fourth hand? Who actually told the Gospel writers their stories? My, my. In a court of law, this kind of testimony would be immediately thrown out of court by the judge.

It is important to note the possibility that Gospel writers could have borrowed from each another in some cases. I am not an expert in this area, but maybe Stinky could help me on this one.

It is important to note the possibility that Gospel writers could have borrowed from each another in some cases. I am not an expert in this area, but maybe Stinky could help me on this one.

Sorry Johnny, I'm not an expert in this area either. I'd reccomend Peters Kirby's Early Christian Writing site though.

Johnny: It is important to note the possibility that Gospel writers could have borrowed from each another in some cases. I am not an expert in this area, but maybe Stinky could help me on this one.

Stinky: Sorry Johnny, I'm not an expert in this area either. I'd reccomend Peters Kirby's Early Christian Writing site though.

Johnny: Thanks for the recommendation. I'll take a look at it. I do know that some skeptic Bible scholars have suggested that Matthew and Luke might have borrowed from Mark and Q. Unless the issue of possible borrowing can reasonably be ruled out, it cannot logically be assumed that multiple internal attestations are independent from one another. Regarding external evidence, you have already adequately stated to Xavier that there is none of any value.

Originally posted by Smelly

Well, it wouldn’t get old if you would stop doing it.

It would get some crediblity if it actually had any validity.

Well JP, if you would just admit that my use of the word argument was acceptable, then we could get back on subject and discus them.

I see. Any good excuse in a hailstorm, eh?

You are quite right. I don’t know of many people that can stick it out with you. Here are weeks gone by, and we’re still arguing of the use of the word argument. I have provided more than enough evidence to prove you wrong, you have done nothing but stamp your feet and yell, NO I’M NOT!

Spin it as you wish. I have provided ample evidence that your "argument" for "argument" is nothing but spin-doctoring and liberal application of linguistic imagination that if abused as you do would make any simple assertion into an "argument". You will get away with nothing. Not a single detail-point. I will repeat my point as long as you repeat yours that I have repeatedly defeated.

Frustrated, yes, annoyed, yes. Frightened? You’ve got to be kidding!

Why? Do you think you were seriously right about what you said?

Why shouldn’t I mention it JP? You like to think yourself a scholar,

I do? Where do I say that? Or is that another fiction you picked up while snuffling around in Farrell Till's Hall of Delusions?

Are we in middle school here that your attempt to make fun of my name has any value? Is this how scholars conduct themselves?

It's how countless purveyors of challenge-riposte have conducted themselves for centuries. That you and your modern snot-nosed ilk consider yourselves too good for it and arbitrarily set rules about it is your own problem. I suppose Jeremiah was being "childish" when he turned the name of the King of Babylon into, "Nabo protects the mule".

Let me do a jimbo here for these final words:

There is no need. I have given you ample proof that it is not an accepted use of the word argument to include the passage from Stanton. This is basic stuff. I have given you proof from basic analogies and defeated your twisted defintions. If you had ever taken kindergarten, you would have not made the stupid mistake of claiming otherwise. You have done nothing but squealed that I’m wrong. Come on Smelly, give me some proof that I’m wrong. It should be easy. Show me an academic source that says a simple assertion can be argument. Show me an academic source that shows how Stanton’s quote was indeed an argument. Do SOMETHING other than crying, screaming, and blubbering. If I wanted to debate a child, I could keep this up for a few more weeks.

Oh yes.

So JP disagrees with Stanton, these "skeptics" would not look for a natural explaination.

There you go again! Arbitrarily and circularly defining "skeptic" as someone who MUST be a naturalist. That game again and again and again. It just never ends.

What does he mean here? His definition is useless.

And it's THE SAME ONE that the dictionary gives!

"Any person is a skeptic and has been at one time or another." so where does that leave us at the tomb? Is the typical Jew going to look for a natural explanation?

No, you cheese dip -- a typical Jew is going to look for an explanation OTHER THAN THE ONE CHRISTIANS GIVE IT! Their best option did happen to be amenable to a naturalist -- the stolen body idea -- but had it been an option to say, "Satan stole it" they would have been glad to have it, too! (Heck, they DID use that for his healing miracles; but it wouldn't work on this one, because it would mean, in line with their apocrypha, that Jesus was on a par with Moses!)

Of course, that only leaves us right back where we started, that we know today that when a natural explanations is available, it’s POSSIBILITY MUST be at least considered.

Why? Just because you take naturalism as a foregone conclusion? It's back in the same circle again, with you insulting those stupid bone in the nose ancients for not being as smart as you and being a naturalist.

So that brings us to the next problem, most Jews did not accept the resurrection story. Why is this? Where they skeptical in some other way?

YES! 1) They did not think Jesus worthy of the vindication that the resurrection implied; 2) they believed that all men would be resurrected at the end of the age, so that a single resurrection before that was nonsense to them! KAPISH? If you had even an ounce of relevant knowledge in this area, you wouldn't constantly embarrass yourself like this.

Of course this whole thing leaves out the very possible answer being that there never was such a tomb,

Aw hell yes. And why not include "the very possible answer" of the Roman Piso theory, and that Joseph of A. was hopped up on cocaine. Sure, take the lazy way out when the evidence fails you.

Perhaps that’s why no one knows where this tomb actually was.

That's in serious doubt, actually, but I guess the Roman invasion of 66-73 doesn't mean much to you.

HE is the one trying to compare apples to oranges. No one cares what Titus said to his subordinate commander.

COME ON! That's so desperate it smells. "No one cares" isn't an answer to the point that in terms of historical confirmation, both the words of Gabriel AND the words of Titus are equally "inaccessible" to historical scrutiny! It's this kind of idiocy that EARNS you the contempt you get from me!

The subject is Did people accept miracle claims without question? Or more properly, with out verifiable evidence, and yet, this is EXACTLY the case we have here.

So what? We all have to accept "AT HIS WORD" what Josephus reports about Titus. It's only this artificial dichtomy you keep erecting that makes any issue of difference, and it is just that, completely artificial, based on a prior worldview! And you show your ignorance further:

Mary’s family, and really, entire town must have accepted AT HER WORD ONLY that God had made her pregnant, not some man she had been sleeping with. Now I admit that I have an anti-supernatural bias, but really, anyone that would believe this story, is flat out gullible.

Anyone who would think you were capable of speaking with authority on this subject is even more gullible that you imagine! The social conditions of the period were such that a girl like Mary would be under the constrant watchcare of her guardians -- precisely in order to avoid the scandal and disgrace of an illegitimate birth! That means that inevitably, her pregnancy WOULD be investigated, and man after man would be examined and rule out. So much for "gullible"! Now why don't you explain to us how your thesis is falsifiable and therefore actually worth consideration? If God actually did make her pregnant, how would your (guffaw) worldview be able to admit it?

And of course, we’re still assuming that any of this occurred, or even that any of these people even existed.

Oh heck yeah. You just go ahead and post for a Christ-myth; I'll tear you up some more! Save the pretty speeches for someone in Iceland who cares. I'm already "talking to someone that doesn’t believe the holocaust occured, or that the moon landings were faked," or the equal thereof, and the excuses made time and time again by you are indeed amazing parallels. Though not even UFO abductees ever tried to define a "UFO" in terms of an automobile to prove they were in a UFO!

And of course, you’ll never get any of them to admit they’re wrong, even on the simplest things.

Like making "oops" into a possessive?

Stinky: You (James Holding) are quite right. I don’t know of many people that can stick it out with you.

Johnny: That is true, but I don't know of many Christians that can stick it out with Farrell Till either. Till has demolished Holding on more than one occasion, and so far Holding has refused to take him up on his latest debate challenge. One reason is that he is deliberately avoiding Farrell Till is because he knows that Till is quite good at debating Christians. Another reason is that Till insisted on formal debate rules where all arguments from both sides are presented. Holding is well-known for sometimes selecting only the arguments from opponents that he prefers, and for obvious reasons. If Holding agrees to debate Till under a fair set of rules on a mutually agreed upon topic, I will donate $1,000 to the 'Feed the Children' organization that is run by a Christian, half in advance and the balance at the end of the debate.

Originally posted by Johnny Rotten

Johnny: That is true, but I don't know of many Christians that can stick it out with Farrell Till either. Till has demolished Holding on more than one occasion, and so far Holding has refused to take him up on his latest debate challenge.

Excuse me, Johnny Boy?

It is Till who:

*ran from TWeb and a debate with me, with his tail between his legs, muttering some nonsense about needing "guidelines" he never asks for on his little email discussion set and which in any event, already existed in TWeb's formal rules, other than stupid stuff like, "no logical fallacies allowed"
* has failed to produce replies to at least two dozen essays on my site directed to him, repeatedly starting new topics while old ones gathered dust, and has now not responded to anything by me in over 6 months

So if Till runs like a dog from here, then screams up some new "challenge" and says I won't take it, just who in the Tartarus do you think you're fooling with this tripe?

Holding is well-known for sometimes selecting only the arguments from opponents that he prefers, and for obvious reasons.

Give three examples of arguments I skipped in which 1) it was not a case of me not disagreeing with the argument 2) I had not addressed it before. Go on. I'm waiting.

If Holding agrees to debate Till under a fair set of rules on a mutually agreed upon topic, I will donate $1,000 to the 'Feed the Children' organization that is run by a Christian, half in advance and the balance at the end of the debate.

Why don't you donate the money anyway and do it right now, you frinkin' cheapskate? I don't care if you donate it to a non-Christian group. How callous and insensitive of a jerk can you be, Johnny Boy, letting kids starve while you wait for your ego massage? That's it. Write Santa and ask him to get you a conscience and some common sense for Christmas. You've been missing both for way too long now.

Originally posted by jpholding

Why don't you donate the money anyway and do it right now, you frinkin' cheapskate? I don't care if you donate it to a non-Christian group. How callous and insensitive of a jerk can you be, Johnny Boy, letting kids starve while you wait for your ego massage? That's it. Write Santa and ask him to get you a conscience and some common sense for Christmas. You've been missing both for way too long now.

It's not like we as Christians are desparate for a thousand bucks, it's for the starving children. Don't drag charity into some kind of debate; if you ever intended to donate to the poor you would've done so without such a silly reason as this.

Originally posted by Stinky

Once again, another outstanding post by JP. Not only did he fail to support his absurd position, he misrepresented the evidence I provided. Here is a good example of the dishonest tactics JP uses.

First JP cuts the quote, here is what he posted,

" Identify the specific position the author takes on a particular issue and"

Then he says

"There's your two parties -- you, and the author.:

Gosh, why are you complaining about Holding changing your quotes? Holding even denies his OWN quotes.

Holding wrote
'Wiser and better read scholars like Caird note that the language of hyperbole is no different than a passage from Vergil's Fourth Ecologue, which speaks of "summers of snakeless meadow, unlaborious earth and oarless sea" as expected benefits of the imperial rule of Augustus. According to Skeptic X the Fundaliteralist, then, Vergil thinks that Augustus was going to go on a nationwide snake extermination campaign, spread a lot of fertilizer to make agriculture easier, and invent the boat motor. This is the absurdity we are reduced to if we insist upon reading ancient hyperbole with pedantic literalism.

Now Holding denies he ever attributed 'summers of snakeless meadow to Vergil.

Deny, deny , deny what is written in black and white. That is the tactics of Holding.

Here is Holding's denial of what he wrote :-

'In answer to the charge, however: Caird did not attribute the quotation to anyone; his full paragraph notes Is. 11:1-9 and that it has been "rightly compared with Vergil's Fourth Eclogue, the Pollio, which for all its air of enchantment ('summers of the snakeless meadow, unlaborious earth and oarless sea'), is an elegant piece of court flattery…" and gives no credit to Tennyson or Vergil for the quote - not that it matters, since the point is the same regardless, and Skeptic X is spreading only paranoia when he tries to spin this out as a case of citing Vergil to impress readers....'

Gosh, even his denial makes clear that he and Caird DID attribute the lines to Vergil....

Such is the mentality of apologists like Holding that they can attempt to deny even what they themselves write, so it is child's play to them to deny what others have written.