Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior

Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior March 29, 2013

History records many dying-and-rising saviors. Examples from the Ancient Near East that preceded the Jesus story include Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Baal. Here is a brief introduction.

Tammuz was the Sumerian god of food and vegetation and dates from c. 2000 BCE. His death was celebrated every spring. One version of the story has him living in the underworld for six months each year, alternating with his sister.

Osirus was killed by his brother Set and cut into many pieces and scattered. His wife Isis gathered the pieces together, and he was reincarnated as the Egyptian god of the underworld and judge of the dead. He was worshipped well before 2000 BCE.

Dionysus (known as Bacchus in Roman mythology) was the Greek god of wine and dates to the 1200s BCE. The son of Zeus and a mortal woman, Dionysus was killed and then brought back to life.

Adonis (from 600 BCE) is a Greek god who was killed and then returned to life by Zeus.

Attis (from 1200 BCE) is a vegetation god from central Asia Minor, brought back to life by his lover Cybele.

In Canaanite religion, Baal (Baʿal) was part of a cycle of life and death. Baal and Mot are sons of the supreme god El (yes, one of the names of the Jewish god). When El favored the death god Mot over Baal, the heat of the summer took over and Baal died. He was resurrected when his sister-wife killed Mot.

All these gods:

  • came from regions that were close enough to the crossroads of Israel (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Asia Minor) for the ideas to have plausibly made it there,
  • were worshipped well before the time of Jesus, and
  • were of the dying-and-rising sort.

This is strong evidence either that the gospel writers knew of (and could have been influenced by) resurrecting god stories from other cultures or that these stories influenced the Jesus story when it was told from person to person.

Is it possible that Judea at this time was a backwater, and the people were unaware of the ideas from the wider world? That seems unlikely. The book of 2 Maccabees, written in c. 124 BCE, laments at how Hellenized the country was becoming. It says that the new high priest installed by Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes “at once shifted his countrymen over to the Greek way of life.” He “introduced new customs contrary to the Law” and “induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat.” The book complains about “an extreme of Hellenization and increase in the adoption of foreign ways” and the youth “putting the highest value upon Greek forms of prestige.”

In fact, the gospels themselves report that the idea of dying and rising again was a familiar concept. Jesus in the early days of his ministry was thought to be a risen prophet.

King Herod heard of [the ministry of Jesus], for His name had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.” But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has risen!” (Mark 6:14–16)

One Christian website does a thorough job attacking poorly evidenced parallels between Jesus and these prior gods. For example, was Dionysus really born to a virgin on December 25? Did Mithras really have 12 disciples? Was Krishna’s birth heralded by a star in the east? The author offers $1000 to anyone who can prove that any of these gods’ lists of parallels are actually true.

I’ll agree that there are strained parallels. One early work that has been criticized for too many claims and too little evidence is The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves (1875). The recent “Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ” by Acharya S also seems to be reaching, in my opinion.

I don’t have the expertise to weigh in on these many issues, so let’s grant the complaints and dismiss the many unsupportable specific parallels. What’s left is what really matters: that the Jesus story arose in a culture suffused with the idea of dying and rising saviors.

Apologists raise other objections.

Many of these gods actually came after Jesus. That’s why the list above only includes dying-and-rising gods who are well known to have preceded Jesus. There are many more such gods—Mithras, Horus, Krishna, Persephone, and others—that don’t seem to fit as well. In fact, Wikipedia lists life-death-rebirth deities from twenty religions worldwide, but I’ve tried to list above the six most relevant examples.

But Jesus really existed! He’s a figure from history, unlike those other gods. Strip away any supernatural claims from the story of Alexander the Great, and you’ve still got cities throughout Asia named Alexandria and coins with Alexander’s likeness. Strip away any supernatural claims from the Caesar Augustus story, and you’re still left with the Caesar Augustus from history (and a month in our calendar named after him). But strip away the supernatural claims from the Jesus story, and you’re left with a fairly ordinary rabbi. The Jesus story is nothing but the supernatural elements.

Most of those gods were used to explain the cycles of the seasons. Jesus isn’t like them. Yes, Christianity is different from all the other religions, but so is every other religion. If Christianity weren’t different from one of the earlier religions, it would just be that religion.

In another post I explore the Dionysus myth more fully to show the parallels with the Jesus story. That post also notes how Justin Martyr (100–165 CE) not only admitted to the similarities but argued that the devil put them in history to fool us.

Okay, they’re all myths, but the Jesus story is true myth. This was the approach of C.S. Lewis, who said, “The story of Christ is simply a true myth; a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference, that it really happened, and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s Myth where the others are men’s myths.”

So you admit that the Jesus story indeed has many characteristics of mythology but demand that I just trust you that it’s true? Sorry, I need more evidence than that.

And the throw-in-the-towel argument:

Just because Christianity developed in a culture that knew of other resurrecting gods doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t the real thing. Granted. But “you haven’t proven the gospel story false” isn’t much of an argument. Those who seek the truth know that proof is impossible and try instead to find where the evidence points.

And here’s where the evidence doesn’t point: that humans worldwide invent dying-and-rising saviors … except in the Jesus case, ’cause that one was real!

I found that God never began to hear
my prayer for liberty until I began to run.
Then you ought to have seen

the dust rise behind me
in answer to prayer.
— Frederick Douglass

(This is a modified version of a post originally published 4/15/12.)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

"GW2: Does this hypothetical God have a body? It depends what is meant by "body." ..."

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture
"That was my thought too. But he has God on his side so he can ..."

What Is a “Real Man,” According ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Lycan

    There is one problem with all this. The first line says.

    “History records many dying-and-rising saviors.”

    However as fall as I can tell none of these tammuz, osiris, dionysus,adonis, attis, and baal are not Saviors. So the very premise of this argument is false.

    God bless everyone.

    • Pofarmer

      Pedantry, the sure sign of a strong argument.

      • Lycan

        That’s not a minor detail. It would be like me making a list of “great warriors” and then not naming any actual great warriors in the list.

        I mean the title of the article is called “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”

        Yet he names no other saviors in the list. That would be like me making a list names “Ernie Davis one of many football players who died young.” and then not mentioning any other football players who died young but instead mentioning basketball players in the list.

        That’s not a minor issue it’s supposed to be the point of the article and somehow the actual list has nothing to do with the supposed point.

        • Pofarmer
        • Lycan

          Have you read some of these supposed comparisons? Some of them are a clear result of the author trying to make one appear like the other.

          “Hera tries to kill Heracles as an infant by sending two serpents after him, yet Heracles survives by strangling them. This parallels Herod’s slaughter of the innocents in an attempt to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:13-16).”

          No it doesn’t. Two serpents being sent at a boy does not even compare to the massive slaughter of every child 2 and under.

          I’m going borrow someone else’s comment since his or her answer I think is just as good or better than an answer I could have come up with.

          “SirThinkALot

          4 years ago

          #4

          Most of these alleged similarities are WAY too broad/vauge to be meaningful…

          And some are just plain made up. For example Horus and Romulous were NOT virgin born. Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris(some versions of the tale say Osiris was dead when he was concieved, but Isis still….yea). Romulous’ mother was raped by Mars.

          Also, in the case of Krishna and Zoroaster, while worship of them pre-dates Jesus, most of the legends identified in this article dont appear until after Christianity reached their respective areas….

          Oh and the December 25 date is meaningless in reference to Jesus, as the Bible never identifies this as his birthdate and in fact implies that it was in the spring.

          Read my blog: http://sirthinkalotsthoughts.blogspot.com/
          PSN name: SirThinkALot”

          So the list itself really doesn’t show anything and is filled with made up facts and comparisons that really don’t compare.

        • Greg G.

          But the theme of a powerful entity trying to kill a baby is still there. The theme is common. It would be either the exact same story or there will be variations. Even the Terminator movies follow the theme where the machines go back in time to prevent the birth of their future enemy.

          We see same theme in the story of Moses as a baby. I think Matthew used Josephus’ account of the Moses story to form the nativity story.

          In Matthew 1:18-25, there is a dream and a pregnant wife like the dream of Amram, Moses father, in Antiquities of the Jews 2.9.3. This dream is not told in the Exodus account.

          Matthew 2:1-18 follows AJ 2.9.2 with Jesus in place of Moses. The Exodus 2 account says the killing of the babies was fear of the number of the Jews while Josephus and Matthew give a fear induced by prophecy as the motivation for the killing. The wise men and foreknowledge likely come from AJ 17.2.4. Matthew 2:19-22, Joseph has another AJ 2.9.4 dream about Archelaus replacing Herod, which can be found in AJ 17.11.4.

          The Exodus author wrote on the theme of the powerful killing babies. Josephus altered it, perhaps he knew the story well enough and had some embellishments so that he didn’t need to read Exodus. Matthew altered the Josephus and added some OT quotes.

          It seems that there are a limited number of themes that interest humans and storytellers revisit them often.

        • Lycan

          “But the theme of a powerful entity trying to kill a baby is still there.”

          However that’s a terrible comparison it would be like saying that Martin Luther Kings killer borrowed the idea from JFK’s kill since both were shot with guns. It’s too broad of a comparison.

        • MNb

          No, it isn’t. It’s like saying that neither MLK’s killer nor JFK’s one is unique. Which seems entirely correct to me.

        • Lycan

          Wrong because it’s comparing two very different ways to kill someone and trying to pawn them off as similar. It would be like me writing a story where a prince avoids death by two great bears. Then 50 years later claiming that someone copied my story when they had a king avoid death during a slaughter by a fifty foot troll. Any judge would immediately throw that out because even though both situation involve someone of royalty avoiding death the situations are clearly not even remotely similar.

        • MNb

          Killing: one person deliberately causing the death of another. Exactly what happened to both MLK and JFK. So neither event is unique. The fact that two different methods were used (though there are similarities here as well; both were shot) doesn’t change that.

          I don’t know who borrowed the story from whom. I never made any such claim and am not interested. So this “50 years later claiming that someone copied my story” is irrelevant. What I maintain is that Jesus is not unique – not anymore than any other messias claimant nor any other dying and rising character. Your comment does nothing to contradict this.

          “Any judge would immediately throw that out”
          No judge will throw anything out because we’re not in courtroom and matters like these are not settled by legal trials. Judges don’t have any authority on the content of science, philosophy and religion. You’re not very good at straightforward thinking, are you? You are very fond of authorities.

          Plus I suspect that judges would be interested in the similarities of your two examples indeed, because precedent. But I’m not a lawyer.

        • Lycan

          “Plus I suspect that judges would be interested in the similarities of your two examples indeed, because precedent. But I’m not a lawyer.”

          Actually it still would be thrown out because the comparisons are too broad. It’s happened before with harry potter the chamber of secrets and despite many similarities and evidence that the author of harry potter the chamber of secrets had access to another book (Willy the Wizard) the court still threw it out.

          So if these cases were brought before a court (Which they have in the past, such as in the Monkey trial). The comparisons would most likely be considered too broad.

        • MNb

          Good job addressing the least relevant point and neglecting the rest.
          Jesus is not unique.

        • SansDeus

          I’ll just paste what I already replied to you with in another thread:

          Did you look any of them up?

          Tammuz
          Tammuz was mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14 (predates Jesus)
          http://www.britannica.com/topic/Tammuz-Mesopotamian-god

          the myth ends with Inanna decreeing that Tammuz and his sister may alternate in the netherworld, each spending half of the year among the living.

          His own name, Dumu-zid, and two variant designations for him, Ama-ga (Mother Milk) and U-lu-lu (Multiplier of Pasture), suggest that he actually was the power for everything that a shepherd might wish for: grass to come up in the desert, healthy lambs to be born, and milk to be plentiful in the mother animals.

          Sounds like a savior to me.
          http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/tammuz.html
          Also claiming Tammuz dies for half the year and is resurrected for the other half.

          Osiris
          http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm

          At this time the Egyptians were barbarous cannibals and uncivilized. Osiris saw this and was greatly disturbed. Therefore, he went out among the people and taught them what to eat, the art of agriculture, how to worship the gods, and gave them laws. Thoth helped him in many ways by inventing the arts and sciences and giving names to things. Osiris was Egypt’s greatest king who ruled through kindness and persuasion.

          She magically re-assembled Osiris and resurrected him long enough to be impregnated by him so that she could give birth to the new king Horus.

          Sounds like a resurrected savior to me.

          Dionysus
          http://www.greekmythology.com/Other_Gods/Dionysus/dionysus.html

          Hera, still jealous of Zeus’ infidelity and the fact that Dionysus was alive, arranged for the Titans to kill him. The Titans ripped him to pieces; however, Rhea brought him back to life

          Dionysus was also one of the very few characters able to bring a dead person back from the underworld.

          Maybe not a “savior”, but died and came back, reborn/resurrected whatever. The point being that the concept wasn’t new when the Jesus myth came around.

          Adonis
          http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Adonis

          The name Adonis derives from Semitic origin and is a variation of the Phoenician Adon meaning “Lord.” The theonym Adonis also bears striking resemblance to Adonai, one of the names used to refer to Yahweh, the singular God of the ancient Israelites.

          Despite his natural human mortality, it is said that Adonis was resurrected by Zeus following his earthly death. Thus, the concepts of death and resurrection are tied to the myth of Adonis, which foreshadowed the central role of resurrection in the religion of Christianity.

          Referred to as Lord and resurrected.

          Baal
          http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html

          The cult of Baal celebrated annually his death and resurrection as a part of the Canaanite fertility rituals.

          The ordinary people ardently worshipped this sun god too because their prosperity depended on the productivity of their crops and livestock.

          Wasn’t the nicest god when you read the entire thing and is also referenced in the bible several times (as also being Beelzebub). But the story still predates Jesus with resurrection. And if you provide food so people can survive, then maybe you can be counted as a savior.

        • Lycan

          Okay none of these even sound remotely close to being saviors. None of them focused on saving anyone in any of these stories.

          suggest that he actually was the power for everything that a shepherd might wish for: grass to come up in the desert, healthy lambs to be born, and milk to be plentiful in the mother animals.

          Sounds like a savior to me.”

          How does that sound like a savior? Where does it mention him saving anything?

          “She magically re-assembled Osiris and resurrected him long enough to be impregnated by him so that she could give birth to the new king Horus.

          Sounds like a resurrected savior to me.”

          She reassembles him so she can have sex with him and be impregnated? What does any part of that show him even remotely as a savior?

          “Rhea brought him back to life…
          Dionysus was also one of the very few characters able to bring a dead person back from the underworld.”

          Not even close.

          Also these stories are so different that saying that Christianity copied them is like saying that baseball copied football and then using reasons like “Oh they both involve running and balls.” These comparisons aren’t just being stretched their being bent over backwards then broken apart and reassembled and they still don’t remotely look similar to story of Jesus in the gospels.

          Also none of those for myths mention that the main character set out to save anything.

        • SansDeus

          1. a person who saves, rescues, or delivers: the savior of the country.
          2. (cap.) a title of God, esp. of Jesus.

          “Title of a god” – Since most of these figures are considered to be “gods” they meet that definition alone.

          If you have starving people who can’t provide for themselves and someone comes along to feed them. Yeah.. You can call them a savior. You’re saving the lives of people who would have otherwise died of starvation.

          She reassembles him so she can have sex with him and be impregnated? What does any part of that show him even remotely as a savior?

          That’s the resurrection part. You skipped the entire part of Osiris bringing agriculture and laws to a lawless civilization of cannibals. Actions worthy of being called savior.

          If Dionysus can bring someone back to life from the underworld. Yeah, that makes them a savior.

          Also these stories are so different that saying that Christianity copied them is like saying that baseball copied football and then using reasons like “Oh they both involve running and balls.” These comparisons aren’t just being stretched their being bent over backwards then broken apart and reassembled and they still don’t remotely look similar to story of Jesus in the gospels.

          I get it, you really, really want Christianity to be correct and unique and the first of it’s kind.

          The whole point is, it’s not the first story of someone being resurrected. The concept goes way further back, especially among god like figures. The comparison is more along the lines of Cricket and Baseball. They both have bats and balls but are played differently. Even in your example they both keep score, involve many players, and they’re still sports. It’s not comparing anything out of line.

          You’re looking for an exact match and are unwilling to even recognize that older religions contain similarities to your own.

          If you’re being picky about the term savior, I would consider Norman Borlaug more of a savior than any of the myths covered. His contributions to genetic research, specifically in the cultivation of high-yield, drought resistant plants have been estimated to have saved over a billion people, not in a spiritual intangible sense, but literally entire populations of people. Oh and unlike all of the other mythical figures, there’s evidence to his existence and contributions. Look him up. If you act quickly maybe you can become the first Normanite.

        • Greg G.

          It is not like the idea of resurrection of the dead would have been foreign to first century Jews:

          Elijah resurrected the son of the widow of Zarephath
          1 Kings 17:17-24

          Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman
          2 Kings 4:35

          Dead Elisha resurrects a dead man in a grave
          2 Kings 13:21

          Ezekiel resurrects a multitude from bones
          Ezekiel 37

        • Lycan

          “”Title of a god” – Since most of these figures are considered to be “gods” they meet that definition alone.”

          Actually the second definition doesn’t say it is a title of a god but a title of God. Referring to the one and only God. So none of the others meet the criteria based on that definition.

          “The whole point is, it’s not the first story of someone being resurrected. The concept goes way further back, especially among god like figures. The comparison is more along the lines of Cricket and Baseball. They both have bats and balls but are played differently. Even in your example they both keep score, involve many players, and they’re still sports. It’s not comparing anything out of line.”

          Yes but that doesn’t mean that in my example that one copied the other. Also baseball and cricket have a lot more similarities that most of the myths mentioned in the list have with Christ. You were just able to mention much more comparisons with baseball and football than Any of the myths listed have with Christ.

        • MNb

          “Actually the second definition doesn’t say it is a title of a god but a title of God.”
          Same difference.

          “Referring to the one and only God.”
          Many jews, christians and muslims worship a different one and only God. The God you believe in is just another abrahamistic god.

        • Lycan

          It’s actually our perception of God that varies however God Himself never changes.

        • MNb

          “God Himself never changes.”
          That’s nothing but your variable perception.
          Immanuel Kant won’t save you.

        • Lycan

          No it clearly says that in the Bible more than once. God never changes.

          So as I said it is our perception of who God is that differs among Christians sometimes. It’s like how two people may think differently on a event. The event itself didn’t change it is simply peoples’ perception on the event that differs.

        • MNb

          I don’t care what the Bible says. It doesn’t have any authority. “God Himself never changes” remains nothing but your variable perception, no matter how often you deny it. You perceive a never changing god – with your brains. It doesn’t follow that god never changes indeed.

          “The event itself didn’t change”
          That is and remains only your perception. Immanuel Kant won’t save you, no matter how often you repeat this.
          Plus it’s a false analogy. The event you’re talking about is material. Your god isn’t. Quite a crucial difference.

        • Lycan

          And you’re getting this information from where? If you aren’t getting it from the Bible then I’m curious as to where you are getting you’re information.

        • MNb

          Information about god? From you of course – and from all the other believers.
          Plus I do derive information from the Bible. What I reject is “the Bible says this hence it’s true”. Again: the Bible doesn’t have any authority.

        • Lycan

          “Again: the Bible doesn’t have any authority.”

          What are you basing this on?

        • MNb

          It’s a book written by ignorants, who had no idea what was beyond their small world and worse: were not interested in what was beyond their small world. So you get gems like Hebrews 1:10 ” the foundation of the earth”, which is a totally meaningless phrase. The contemporary Greeks had already known this for a few centuries.
          The morals are badly outdated. 1 Peter 1: “ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”. Many christians revel in the Sermon of the Mount, but that one als sucks.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/05/fisking-the-sermon-on-the-mount/

          The climax of course is Revelation. So many christians say it’s a difficult book to understand. It isn’t as soon as you realize that it’s the product of an overheated fantasy.
          That’s the long answer.

          The short answer: I’m not a christian and hence see no reason why the Bible is special.

        • Lycan

          “The morals are badly outdated. 1 Peter 1: “ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”. Many christians revel in the Sermon of the Mount, but that one als sucks.”

          1 Peter 3:1 “3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;”

          Peter claims that the wives can win over their husbands if their husbands don’t believe the word. The ending actually shows that husbands listen to their wives which is strange at that time since the wife should have based on the culture at the time be seen and not heard.

          “The short answer: I’m not a christian and hence see no reason why the Bible is special.”

          So you admit that it is based on your perspective.

        • MNb

          “Peter claims that the wives can win over their husbands if their husbands don’t believe the word.”
          Yeah. Typically Petrus doesn’t claim that the husbands can do the same. Apparently he didn’t think it necessary to do so. That’s exactly why it’s badly outdated.

          “So you admit that it is based on your perspective.”
          Of course. Thanks to science and smart people writing about ethics my perspective is less unreliable that that of the authors of the Bible though. And I sincerely hope that in 4000 CE my views will be as badly outdated as the Bible is now.
          That’s called intellectual progress. Clinging to the Bible is called stagnation. It isn’t a coincidence that many christians rather long for an imaginary past iso trying to improve things here and now. Christians who do the latter (there are many of them as well; I know several personally) typically don’t cling to the Bible.

        • Lycan

          ” Christians who do the latter (there are many of them as well; I know several personally) typically don’t cling to the Bible.”

          There are many of us who do.

        • MNb

          Yes – christians like you cling to badly outdated morals.

        • Lycan

          Oh right because todays morals are so much better. That’s why there are more slaves now than there ever have been in human history, or why there are so many unwanted pregnancies, and so many families falling apart.

        • You could see this several ways. There are more Christians now than ever before … and yet there are more slaves, too. Looks like Yahweh doesn’t much care.

          Or you could take the opposite approach: per capita, there have never been fewer slaves.

          You don’t care about unwanted pregnancies. If you did, you’d be advocating for thorough sex education in public schools plus easy access to contraceptives to minimize unwanted pregnancies.

        • Lycan

          Actually the only real way to ensure you won’t get pregnant is abstinence. Condoms are only about 97% effective and no birth control method is completely safe. (I know about four women I believe that got pregnant while their tubes were tied. )

          Also if your going to go by capita then there are probably fewer Christians then their have been in the past since there are more people on earth than there probably ever have been. About 1 billion Christians out of 7 billion people means only about 14% of the worlds people are Christians. So if you want to by capita then that probably is a much lower percentage than there was when there were much fewer people on earth.

        • Right. Abstinence as a imagined condition works great. Abstinence as a policy works terrible. We know–we’ve tried.

          Christianity is at about 31% of the world population and holding steady. I suspect that’s way up from, say, 1000 years ago. Looks like lots of Christians doesn’t bring divine help. In fact, this all looks like a world with no god at all.

          http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/04/PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsOverview_projectedChange640px.png

        • Lycan

          What are they basign this prediction on.

          “Right. Abstinence as a imagined condition works great. Abstinence as a policy works terrible. We know–we’ve tried.”

          What are you basing that on? I’m 26 and I’ve been abstinent and I know of many other people who have claimed abstinence as well. Abstinence is the only guarantee. All other forms of birth control have flaws and a chance of not working.

        • You’re sitting at the adults table. Act like it.

          If one is actually not having sex, yes, I agree that there will be no pregnancies as a result. To actually walk the walk, on the other hand, is very difficult. If abstinence works for you, that’s fine. The problem is when you pretend that teaching that to teens will actually keep them from screwing.

          As I said before, we’ve tried it. You know the maps of red and blue states? The red states tend to be the ones that teach naive policies like abstinence only. And the red states tend to be the ones with far higher teen pregnancies.

          Any questions?

        • Lycan

          Also strangely enough statistics seem to show that the UK in 2002 had the highest use of contraceptives and yet they also have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates.

          “To actually walk the walk, on the other hand, is very difficult. If abstinence works for you, that’s fine. The problem is when you pretend that teaching that to teens will actually keep them from screwing.”

          Just because something is difficult is no excuse. Life’s not about doing just what’s easy. Anyway my school taught both contraceptives and abstinence. You can’t blame cake because people are fat.

          Also you should check out this chart.

          Source: http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#

        • Just because something is difficult is no excuse.

          Translation: Just because something doesn’t work is no reason to discard it.

          Uh, yes it is. We’ve tried abstinence-only education. It doesn’t work.

          Do you care about abortion or not? I doubt it.

          Here’s how you can cut U.S. abortions in half in 5 years: teach whatever sex education curriculum has been shown to work best and make contraceptives easy to get.

          I presume your problem is that you don’t like more teens fucking. That doesn’t bother me, but if it bothers you, console yourself that that would be the way to reduce abortions.

          If you truly can’t anticipate what I’ll say about that page’s claim, “The most effective way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence,” try to remember what I’ve already been over.

        • Lycan

          Did you completely ignore the chart that shows that 18 of 100 people are likely to get pregnant while using a male condom but only 8 out of 100 while practicing abstinence.

          Here’s the statistics on it:Uh, yes it is:http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#

          Also in regards to abortion. If one get’s pregnant simply don’t abort the baby. There are many more options than that.

        • That’s not what the chart says. It says that abstinence is perfect. And, of course, it is–provided you actually use it. And therein lies the problem.

          Search with terms like, “red blue states teen pregnancy” and you’ll find charts like the one below.

          If one get’s pregnant simply don’t abort the baby. There are many more options than that.

          Homework: look up the stats for the percentage of births to unmarried U.S. women that end up in an adoption.

          http://sites.stedwards.edu/psyc230701-group3/files/2012/11/state-info-mapA_626px-1pqzra3.jpg

        • Lycan

          “Homework: look up the stats for the percentage of births to unmarried U.S. women that end up in an adoption.”

          2% but that’s the women’s fault. Don’t do the crime (5-10 minutes) if you can’t do the time (The rest of your life with a child).

          Also your map more so seems to show that southern cultured states tend to have more teen pregnancy.

          Yeah you were right about the chart with the abstinence. Sorry about that.

          However male condoms (Which I believe is the most commonly used form of contraceptives) seems to result in more unwanted pregnancies (18 out of 100) than many think. I mean 18 out of 100 people in the US would still most likely result in a high teen pregnancy rate. I never said in this conversation that we shouldn’t teach sex ed. I just think that people need to also be taught that abstinence can work. And as the chart shows it is the only completely effective way to avoid STD’s and unwanted pregnancies.

        • Don’t do the crime (5-10 minutes) if you can’t do the time (The rest of your life with a child).

          You’re so naïve, I’m wondering if you’re a Poe. Where’s the hidden camera?

          Apply that thinking to car accidents, and I’ll at least see you as not hypocritical.

          Also your map more so seems to show that southern cultured states tend to have more teen pregnancy.

          Conservative sex ed policies lead to bad results. Where’s the difficulty?

          However male condoms (Which I believe is the most commonly used form of contraceptives) seems to result in more unwanted pregnancies (18 out of 100) than many think.

          So you’re agitating for better sex ed and convenient access to the best contraceptives? Good for you!

          I never said in this conversation that we shouldn’t teach sex ed.

          Once again, not the topic. We’re talking about the best sex ed, regardless of any conservative or religious toes we step on. You want the best for America’s children, I hope.

          I just think that people need to also be taught that abstinence can work.

          Cuz that pleases you or because that is part of the best sex ed program?

          And as the chart shows it is the only completely effective way to avoid STD’s and unwanted pregnancies.

          Yeah, I get it. Not shooting guns makes them perfectly safe. Problem is, that advice doesn’t seem to actually be resulting in zero people getting shot. Can you believe it?

        • Lycan

          “car accidents”

          Um not the same thing. I think you meant driving. Because the accident itself relates more to the pregnancy itself, not the sex. So would you walk through a mine field if you didn’t have to?

          “Once again, not the topic. We’re talking about the best sex ed, regardless of any conservative or religious toes we step on. You want the best for America’s children, I hope.”

          The best sex ed would be to teach children that none of the contraceptives out there are 100% safe. (In fact many of them have a much higher rate of failing than I think most people know) and that abstinence is the only truly safe way. Like I said my school taught both. They also had multiple sex workshops.

          “Yeah, I get it. Not shooting guns makes them perfectly safe. Problem is, that advice doesn’t seem to actually be resulting in zero people getting shot. Can you believe it?”

        • So would you walk through a mine field if you didn’t have to?

          Nope. No upside.

          How about you? You thinking of driving again? There are accidents, y’know.

          The best sex ed would be to teach children that none of the contraceptives out there are 100% safe. (In fact many of them have a much higher rate of failing than I think most people know) and that abstinence is the only truly safe way.

          Here’s an idea: let’s leave the specifics to the experts, OK?

          There’s a black box called “the best sex ed,” vetted by the scientific consensus. Doesn’t much matter what’s in it—whatever it is, it’s the route to minimize unwanted pregnancy. Are you game? Do you want to apply this program to America’s public schools?

        • Lycan

          “Nope. No upside.”

          Doesn’t matter, the whole point was that just because there is a risk doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do something. The point I was making with the minefield was that there are certain risk in our lives that we admit we wouldn’t take. So the argument that it’s dumb not to have sex because there is a risk doesn’t make sense since there are many other risk in our lives that we purposely avoid because we deem them not worth the risk.

        • MNb

          “I’m 26 and I’ve been abstinent ”
          You are not representative for the rest of the world. The statistics I provided you don’t lie.
          You just don’t want to know – just like those christians who didn’t want to look through Galilei’s telescope.

        • Lycan

          You’re right but the statistics show that countries like Switzerland and Denmark which have really high percentage of people claiming to be Christians have some of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates.

        • Ron

          “Actually the only real way to ensure you won’t get pregnant is abstinence.”~Lycan

          Sure, and the only real way to ensure you won’t:

          – die in a car accident is to stop driving and avoid all roadways;
          – die in a plane crash is to stay out of airplanes;
          – slip in the bathtub is to avoid bathtubs;
          – fall from heights is to avoid heights.

          Or you can mitigate the risks while enjoying the benefits of engaging in these activities.

        • Lycan

          The chances of getting pregnant while using contraceptives is surprising higher than the any of those things.

          http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#

          There’s a chart at the end of this link.

          http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html

        • … which avoids the issue (I’m seeing a trend with you).

          Yes, we all agree that driving a car isn’t identical to having sex. We’re talking about the downsides of either. You accept the downsides of car driving (and are happy to have society help make accident victims whole) but have an unrealistic attitude toward the downsides of sex.

          If you must take this inconsistent approach to please your god, that’s fine, just don’t try to impose that on the rest of society.

        • Lycan

          Yet would you walk through a minefield if you didn’t think you had too? The whole point actually is that you measure what risk. Is 5-10 minutes of pleasure really worth the chances of having to take care of a child for the rest of your life?

        • “Would you walk through a minefield if you didn’t have to? Then why get in that car, my friend?”

          Helpful logic, thanks.

          Is 5-10 minutes of pleasure really worth the chances of having to take care of a child for the rest of your life?

          What planet are you from? Most everybody, teenagers in particular, like to fuck. I mean, sometimes they’re really, really drawn to it. It’s programmed in them. Your “but it’s only 5-10 minutes of pleasure” is laughably naive.

        • Lycan

          Not really. Talk to almost any teen who’s gotten pregnant and they’ll tell you the amount of pleasure they got out of the sex wasn’t worth it.

        • I’m sure that’s true. Doesn’t help illuminate the issue, however.

        • Lycan

          Actually it does, since the true issue is how sex is taken so casually nowadays that it hides the true risk and possible consequences behind the act itself. I mean the media in a large part shows sex as being no big deal but fails to mention most of the time the consequences that could result from 5-10 minutes of sex.

        • Sex is fun; people are drawn to sex. To say, “Hey, this isn’t a big deal! Just don’t have sex!” is like saying, “Don’t complain to me that you got in a car accident–you knew the risks. Next time, avoid cars!”

          In hindsight, the pregnant girl might indeed think that the results were hardly outweighed by the benefits. As would the person in the car accident.

        • Lycan

          “Nearly two-thirds of teens that have had sexual intercourse say they regret it and wish they had waited, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. ”

          Source: http://connectwithkids.com/boy/

          Seems more like social pressures draw teenagers to sex as opposed to the actual sex itself.

        • Ron

          Indeed! But I think it still supports my point regarding the mitigation of risks. The reduction in traffic fatalities, for example, is attributable to advanced safety features (seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones, etc.) and improved driver training. Flight safety has improved for similar reasons. And the evidence shows that the risks of pregnancy can also be mitigated through better education regarding the use of contraceptives.

          It should also be noted that the efficacy of an abstinence only policy drops precipitously once the will power to remain celibate erodes; which occurs rather frequently, according to this report.

        • Greg G.

          The more one thinks about not having sex, the more one thinks about having sex.

        • Lycan

          Actually with abstinence according to statistics, condoms result in more pregnancies than people failing when deciding to be celibate.

          Source:http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#

        • Lycan

          By the way welcome to the conversation.

        • MNb

          Ah, christian apologists and hard facts never go together well.

          “That’s why there are more slaves now than there ever have been in human history.”
          I’m pretty sure even the christians in the country where I live, Suriname, will think you silly.

          “why there are so many unwanted pregnancies”
          The amount of unwanted pregnancies in secular countries like Denmark and The Netherlands are significantly lower than in highly religious states like Louisiana, ie those that cling to your badly outdated morals.

          http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2012/2012-3663-wm.htm

          In case you can’t read diagrams either: about 5 per 1000.

          http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/report_teen_pregnancy_down_in.html

          That’s 30 per 1000 – ie 6 times as high. Most important factor: religiosity. Your religiosity.

        • Lycan

          “The amount of unwanted pregnancies in secular countries like Denmark and The Netherlands are significantly lower than in highly religious states like Louisiana, ie those that cling to your badly outdated morals.”

          Technically you can’t compare countries to states in that sense. Also we were talking about morals not what people do.

          Morals or principles are different what people. You can’t blame good morals because people that should be following them don’t. If no sex was had before marraige there would be much fewer unwanted pregnancies.

        • We’re comparing two societies. What’s wrong with comparing Denmark with Louisiana?

          As for morals, Christianity correlates with far worse unwanted pregnancies. Do you draw no conclusions from that?

        • Lycan

          “As for morals, Christianity correlates with far worse unwanted pregnancies. Do you draw no conclusions from that?”

          I’m not sure what you mean by that. With the comparison I was talking about numbers. The comparison is done more fairly if you’re comparing the rate based on capita and not simply numbers alone.

        • Yes, obviously you compare per capita numbers so that the different population sizes aren’t a problem.

          And … ?

        • Lycan

          That’s the point you can’t compare based on just numbers (Which the article you linked to me seems to have.) Because per capita I don’t believe the United States is the #1 in God believing.

        • Here’s the chart. It’s low tech–notice the U in the top-left corner. The US is the most religious of the countries in the study. Find the full study here.

        • Lycan

          Yeah but the US is also pretty high up there on sexual education in schools.

          Also I actually never said I was against sexual education in schools. I’ve known where babies come from since I was 5.

        • I’m talking about best-practices, most-effective sex education plus easy access to contraceptives. Is that what you want, too?

        • Lycan

          The US has all those. Condoms are pretty cheap in the US. Also I believe most if not all the public schools teach sex education. Yet the US and the UK (another country where contraceptives are used a lot) have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world. All I am saying is that the statistics don’t seem to support the argument that knowledge and access to contraceptives results in lower teen pregnancy rates.

        • Stay on the fucking topic. I’ll try one more time: do you want the best-practices, most-effective sex education taught in U.S. public schools? Do you want easy access to contraceptives nationwide?

          If no, then don’t tell me you have any interest in lowering abortion rates.

        • Lycan

          You stay on topic. The US has all those things you said (sex ed taught in most schools, easy access to many contraceptives) and yet they have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates. So explain how a country that in general is pushing all you just said has one of the highest rates and I’ll answer your question.

        • I guess those questions are too uncomfortable to answer so you’ve got to advance different questions.

          They seemed pretty straightforward to me, but OK.

        • Lycan

          If you have noticed I have answered your question. You seem to keep ignoring the statement. All the things you have asked in the question in general US has and yet their teen pregnancy rates are still one of the highest out of all the other countries.

        • You answered the questions? Then it’s my bad for being too stupid to understand them. So (for my benefit), let’s try again: Do you want the best-practices, most-effective sex education taught in U.S. public schools? Do you want easy access to contraceptives nationwide?

          No essays, please, just yes or no.

        • Lycan

          Yes. However as I have said the US already has easy access to contraceptives, and sex education taught in most public schools (twelve times as much). This doesn’t seem to be leading to a lower teen pregnancy rate.

          Also research shows that some abistence only programs have positive short term and long term effects.

          “Denny and Young (2006) recently analyzed “Sex Can Wait,” an abstinence-only sex education program. The 5-week program contains upper elementary, middle school, and high school components. Compared to controls, students showed many positive short-term and long-term benefits. An increase in sexual knowledge was displayed by all elementary and high schoolers, both elementary and middle school students reported less participation in sexual intercourse during the previous month, and high schoolers showed a greater intent to remain abstinent than the control group.”

          Source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

        • And yet the elephant in the room remains the fact that high teen pregnancy correlates with abstinence-only education in public schools.

        • Lycan

          Actually the state with the least teen pregnancies has.

          “New Hampshire, on the other hand, requires comprehensive sex education in schools that includes abstinence and information about condoms and contraception.”

          Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/

        • And that is relevant to your boner for abstinence-only sex ed how? Or are you just changing the subject?

        • Lycan

          When did I ever say I supported abstinent only sex ed programs?

          Also it shows that the best sex ed programs teach that abstinent is the only truly safe way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

        • That your position is squishy should alert you that your position needs to be made solid and consistent.

          For this conversation, I’m assuming (based on what you’ve said) that you and I care about nothing but the health of America’s children. I don’t care about abstinence. If an abstinence-only program is shown to be the best, great! Apply that everywhere it’s been shown to work the best. And if abstinence is never used, great! And if (as I suspect, but this is irrelevant) abstinence is a part of the best program, great!

          That you keep bringing up the a-word makes clear that you have an agenda and your goal is not to provide an environment that reduces unwanted teen pregnancies to their minimum.

          That kinda makes me the one who’s eager to take practical steps to reduce abortions. .

        • MNb

          “I’m assuming (based on what you’ve said) that you and I care about nothing but the health of America’s children.”
          Your assumption is refuted by Lycan him/herself. He/she gives priority to christian prudishness – he/she wasn’t even willing to watch the entire Norwegian video, ‘cuz – gasp! – nudity. Also he/she is concerned that European sex ed programs encourage teens to have sex. That’s a decisive reason not to apply them.

        • Lycan

          “That your position is squishy should alert you that your position needs to be made solid and consistent.”

          I think it’s more the assumption that because I am a Christian I support abstinence only programs. I wasn’t even the first to mention those programs in this conversation.

          “That kinda makes me the one who’s eager to take practical steps to reduce abortions. .”

          The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.

          “That you keep bringing up the a-word makes clear that you have an agenda and your goal is not to provide an environment that reduces unwanted teen pregnancies to their minimum.”

          actually the biggest way to prevent teenage pregnancy seems to be to change the attitude about sex itself. When 33% of teenagers in the USA admit that they only had sex because they felt pressure to do so and two thirds out of all teenagers in a study (I showed you before) admit that they wish they had waited to have sex. One of the biggest problems isn’t the use of contraceptives (since about 89% of teens are currently using them) it’s the attitude about sex itself that needs to change. Especially in teens.

        • I think it’s more the assumption that because I am a Christian I support abstinence only programs. I wasn’t even the first to mention those programs in this conversation.

          I won’t bring up abstinence if you won’t.

          The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.

          Aren’t you cute! Or maybe naïve. You think making abortion illegal will mean that there are no abortions? Get a clue.

          Cut abortions in half in 10 years. Roll out the most effective sex education programs to all students across the country (effective = fewest unwanted pregnancies). Make contraceptives available.

          America is far from the country with the lowest unwanted pregnancy rate; we have much room for improvement.

        • Lycan

          “Aren’t you cute! Or maybe naïve. You think making abortion illegal will mean that there are no abortions? Get a clue.”

          Never said all but I think it would cut about maybe even as high as 80% of abortions. Furthermore if life begins at conception this technically doesn’t matter. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t advocate killing thousands of kids because the population was high or because many women and men didn’t want to deal with the consequences of their actions, but if life begins at conception this has been happening for years. Have you ever watched an abortion from the inside?

        • I’ll accept that life begins at conception. So what? Slugs and mosquitoes are also alive.

          I’ve seen abortion stills, but I don’t think I’ve seen a video. You say it’s gross? I’ll bet. Lots of medical procedures are, and yet we endure them for the benefit they provide.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.

          Are ya serious? Because we all know that prohibition works, right?

        • Pofarmer

          I’m constantly reminded how oblivious to reality these numbnuts are. Wish it was easier on my phone to link go Libby Annes post on “How I lost faith in the pro-life movement.”

        • Pofarmer

          Thank you.

        • Lycan

          Oh so we should make murder legal because a country has a high murder rate? Or we should make theft legal because a city has a high carjacking rate? Or we should make rape legal because making it illegal hasn’t stopped thousands of people from being raped in the past?

          Welcome to the conversation.

        • Murder is wrong; abortion isn’t. Murder kills a person; abortion doesn’t.

          If abortion is to happen, let’s take a harm-reduction approach and make it safe. Remember Kermit Gosnell–that’s what you’re going for if abortion becomes illegal.

        • Lycan

          “Murder is wrong; abortion isn’t. Murder kills a person; abortion doesn’t.”

          Based on what? How do you really know when life begins? How do you know each abortion isn’t a murder? Because the law says it isn’t? Abortion came about more as an act of convenience not scientific knowledge. I mean some abortions have been legalized as early as 1939. They definitely didn’t have the genetic expertise back then to show that life began at birth. We still don’t have that today and yet people are fine with simply accepting that life begins at birth, without any actually hard evidence to show this.

          Actually the Kermit Gosnell incident really shows the hippocracy with this issue.

          quote “Mayor Michael Nutter (D-PA) said, “I think it’s quite clear that, if these allegations are true, we’ve had a monster living in our midst”

          So the doctor kills the baby perhaps a few seconds after he or she is born and he’s a monster. Yet a doctor kills the same baby before he or she is born and it’s acceptable. It doesn’t make sense. What difference is there from an infant in the mother’s womb to a few seconds later that would cause life to suddenly enter the infant. What the Gosnell case showed is how the law itself doesn’t make sense. Basically people are trying to say that life begins at birth with almost no evidence to show this.

        • How do you really know when life begins?

          How do you know each abortion isn’t a murder? Because the law says it isn’t? Abortion came about more as an act of convenience not scientific knowledge. I mean some abortions have been legalized as early as 1939. They definitely didn’t have the genetic expertise back then to show that life began at birth. We still don’t have that today and yet people are fine with simply accepting that life begins at birth, without any actually ha rd evidence to show this.
          Actually the Kermit Gosnell incident really shows the hippocracy with this issue.
          quote “Mayor Michael Nutter (D-PA) said, “I think it’s quite clear that, if these allegations are true, we’ve had a monster living in our midst”
          So the doctor kills the baby perhaps a few seconds after he or she is born and he’s a monster. Yet a doctor kills the same baby before he or she is born and it’s acceptable. It doesn’t make sense. What difference is there from an infant in the mother’s womb to a few seconds later that would cause life to suddenly enter the infant. What the Gosnell case showed is how the law itself doesn’t make sense. Basically people are trying to say that life begins at birth with almost no evidence to show this.

        • How do you really know when life begins?

          How is this relevant?

          Anyway, I assumed we were on the same page on when life begins.

          How do you know each abortion isn’t a murder?

          I don’t. A single cell could indeed be equivalent to you on every relevant metric … but it sure doesn’t look like it.

          They definitely didn’t have the genetic expertise back then to show that life began at birth.

          Life begins at birth. So what? Slugs are alive, too.

          Actually the Kermit Gosnell incident really shows the hippocracy with this issue.

          Amen to that, brother. The filthy, underground Kermit Gosnell world is precisely what the anti-abortion crowd is pushing us toward.

          So the doctor kills the baby perhaps a few seconds after he or she is born and he’s a monster.

          Why talk about third-trimester abortions? Aren’t first-term abortions far, far more common? Sounds like your focus is misplaced.

          Say … you don’t suppose that, like me, you see a spectrum of personhood, with a single cell not being a person, a 2-month-old fetus kinda being one, and an 8.5-month fetus pretty much 100% being one?

        • Lycan

          “Amen to that, brother. The filthy, underground Kermit Gosnell world is precisely what the anti-abortion crowd is pushing us toward.”

          Actually it shows the hippocracy involved with pro choice.

          “How is this relevant?”

          That is the only true issue. If life begins at conception than every abortion is a murder. If we claim it’s okay than that would make a mother killing her baby after birth okay.

          ” 2-month-old fetus kinda being one”

          A 2 month old fetus has survived outside the womb before.

          “Why talk about third-trimester abortions? Aren’t first-term abortions far, far more common? Sounds like your focus is misplaced.”

          I wasn’t talking about third trimester abortions, babies born due to a complication in the abortion have survived outside the womb earlier than third trimester and if a doctor were to kill that baby when it comes out he would go to jail for murder.

        • Actually it shows the hippocracy involved with pro choice.

          I don’t see that. Show me.

          That is the only true issue. If life begins at conception than every abortion is a murder.

          A human zygote is alive, so killing it is murder. A rat is alive, so killing it is murder.

          Do I have that right?

          If we claim it’s okay than that would make a mother killing her baby after birth okay.

          Not in my mind. I see a spectrum of personhood—0% as a cell and 100% as a newborn.

          I wasn’t talking about third trimester abortions, babies born due to a complication in the abortion have survived outside the womb earlier than third trimester and if a doctor were to kill that baby when it comes out he would go to jail for murder.

          How new are you to this discussion?

          Sit down and let me share a few basics. You see, learning they’re pregnant for some women is one of the most wonderful bits of news in their entire lives. And for other women, it’s one of the worst. It’s rarely in the middle. Your killing the zygote or fetus in the first case would be murder. In the second case, it could be a desperately wanted abortion.

          See the difference?

        • Lycan

          “Not in my mind. I see a spectrum of personhood—0% as a cell and 100% as a newborn.”

          What are you basing that on?

          “Your killing the zygote or fetus in the first case would be murder. In the second case, it could be a desperately wanted abortion.”

          No. What does the babies mother wanting the baby have to do with when life begins?

          “I don’t see that. Show me.”

          My point was after a botched abortion even though the baby is still the same amount of months developed as he/she was a few minutes earlier before exiting the womb, if the doctor kills it after exiting he is charged with murder, but if he/she kills the baby just a few minutes earlier before even though the baby is still at the same point in development it’s not considered murder.

        • MNb

          And how serious are you?

          “The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.”
          Nope. That’s purely theoretical. In practice it works the other way round, as all but one (Sweded) European countries show. Legalizing abortion tends to reduce abortions.
          But we already know that concerning such issues your christian morals always preval.

        • Lycan

          You do realize you basically said nothing relevant to the actual the argument there right?

        • MNb

          How is “in practice it works the other way round” irrelevant to your argument, which is not practical but theoretical?
          I’m curious what kind of goofery you will pull off this time.

        • Lycan

          The statement you replied to was

          “Oh so we should make murder legal because a country has a high murder rate? Or we should make theft legal because a city has a high carjacking rate? Or we should make rape legal because making it illegal hasn’t stopped thousands of people from being raped in the past?”

          You didn’t answer any of the questions in the statement. I admit that your point does have to do with legalizing abortion. However you made a statement without linking any evidence in it.

        • adam

          “The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.”

          And yet we have REAL numbers on REAL countries about what would REALLY DOES reduce abortions.

        • Lycan

          Explain to me how making abortion illegal woulnd’t lower abortion rates. Also The Creator has the right to destroy the creation. Humans seem to be okay with this unless it’s them.

        • The Creator has the right to destroy the creation.

          Bullshit. If I build a sand castle, I get to destroy it because I’m the creator … and because it’s just sand. I don’t get to destroy a person. Ditto for God.

          If it’s wrong for people to do, it’s wrong for God.

        • Lycan

          “Bullshit. If I build a sand castle, I get to destroy it because I’m the creator … andbecause it’s just sand. I don’t get to destroy a person. Ditto for God.

          If it’s wrong for people to do, it’s wrong for God.”

          Somehow your logic at the beginning proved my point, and then at the end you pulled a 180 with some the most backward logic I’ve ever seen.

          That’s like saying if man built robots it’s wrong for man to destroy the robots because humans made a law that humans can’t destroy robots. Doesn’t make sense. You putting humans at the same level of their Creator which really doesn’t a bit a sense.

          That ending statement really was probably the most backward statement I’ve ever seen.

        • Somehow your logic at the beginning proved my point, and then at the end you pulled a 180 with some the most backward logic I’ve ever seen.

          It troubles you when I say that living things should be protected from harm more than sand castles? You might want to double check that.

          That’s like saying if man built robots it’s wrong for man to destroy the robots because humans made a law that humans can’t destroy robots. Doesn’t make sense.

          Gibberish. The only part I recognized was the “doesn’t make sense” part, and I agree with you there.

          You putting humans at the same level of their Creator which really doesn’t a bit a sense.

          Fuck the Creator. God makes moral laws that are binding on people … but not on him? What’s his excuse?

          Here again, if your religion gives your god a pass, what does that say about your religion? Satan would create the same religion—how do you know you’re not worshipping him?

          That ending statement really was probably the most backward statement I’ve ever seen.

          Yeah, that was a bit crazy on my part. To expect that the omniscient, omni-benevolent creator of the whole fucking universe to act morally. My bad.

        • Lycan

          “Fuck the Creator. God makes moral laws that are binding on people … but not on him? What’s his excuse?”

          I don’t even get how you come to this conclusion. You’re trying to bring the creator of the universe down to our level.

          He created us He has the right to destroy us. The logic is that simple. We as humans create many things and we believe we have the right to destroy them because we created them. We believe we have the right to destroy life we didn’t even create, such as plants, and animals.

          Yet you somehow don’t seem to understand that the Creator of the universe has a right to destroy creation?

          Basically what you’ve just said is that humans have no right to destroy any kind of life, including plants, and animals, or germs for that matter.

        • I don’t even get how you come to this conclusion. You’re trying to bring the creator of the universe down to our level.

          You’re the one who believes in objective morality, right? Take an objectively correct moral command. That would be binding on all humans. But you’re saying that it’s not on God? What sense does that make?

          And I need to understand more here. If God isn’t bound by the moral laws that bind us, which laws do bind God?

          He created us He has the right to destroy us. The logic is that simple.

          Yes, very simple. Also barbaric. “God can destroy any human, just for laughs. The creator can do whatever the fuck he wants.” Is this one of the moral rules that apply to God?

          When you scratch your head sometime and wonder how atheists could possibly have any quibble with the stuff Christians believe, think back on this statement of yours.

          We as humans create many things and we believe we have the right to destroy them because we created them.

          Yes, good point. Except for people. Weird that it doesn’t work that way for God, isn’t it? I guess he’s just an asshole.

          Yet you somehow don’t seem to understand that the Creator of the universe has a right to destroy creation?

          My moral sense says that a god who does whatever the fuck he wants isn’t moral.

        • Lycan

          “Yes, very simple. Also barbaric. “God can destroy any human, just for laughs. The creator can do whatever the fuck he wants.” Is this one of the moral rules that apply to God?”

          When has the bible ever shown God destroying humans’ just for laughs?

          Also you seemed to have ignored my statement that humans believe they have the right to destory life that they didn’t create. Why do we have that right?

        • When has the bible ever shown God destroying humans’ just for laughs?

          Do you say that God can kill humans for any reason? Said another way, that if God kills someone, he by definition has moral justification?

          Also you seemed to have ignored my statement that humans believe they have the right to destory life that they didn’t create. Why do we have that right?

          I assume you’re talking about raising livestock and poultry to kill and eat. Yes, that’s an unpleasant aspect of society. I have no easy solution.

        • Ignorant Amos

          When has the bible ever shown God destroying humans’ just for laughs?

          Job’s family, slaves and animals?

        • Excellent! I’d forgotten that one.

          And remember that God gave Job new children to replace the dead ones. So no problem, since children are interchangeable.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Only right and proper since Job provided all the entertainment and also got God the win over his sidekick the devil.

          Besides, they were all just extra’s to the yarn anyway. a.k.a. crewman No. 6 and thus expendable.

        • Greg G.

          If Job’s family didn’t want to die in the story, they shouldn’t have worn red shirts.

        • Dang! You beat me to it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Didn’t ya ever see “The Robe”…dodgy colour shirt to wear…always was…

          http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Posters/R/Poster%20-%20Robe,%20The_03.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed. Once yer part of the away team ya know yer fucked.

        • Greg G.

          Mr. Spock, Mr. Sulu, Ensign Monsterbait, meet me in the Transporter Room.

        • Crewman 3rd Class Cannon-Fodder didn’t make it to the transporter room in time.

        • Greg G.

          He was supposed to bring an old tricorder.

        • Children as redshirts–ouch.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They were Job’s children, but were they children?

        • Greg G.

          At some time they were.

        • MNb

          In the time Job was written they probably were, and women as well, given the mortality rates and large families back then. The mother of my ex-wife had 17 children; two died prematurely and two were adopted by other families. The oldest few quit young, even before my ex-wife (the last one) was born. It was never a big deal. And that’s mid 20th Century.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He created us He has the right to destroy us. The logic is that simple. We as humans create many things and we believe we have the right to destroy them because we created them. We believe we have the right to destroy life we didn’t even create, such as plants, and animals.

          The logic is fucked.

          One creator has the right to destroy whatever it created.

          A different creator doesn’t have the right to destroy what it created.

          It isn’t that simple at all.

          Evidence of the first of the creator’s you posit is non-existent.

          http://nicktumminello.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/quote-forgotten-were-the-elementary-rules-of-logic-that-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-christopher-hitchens-237619.jpg

        • Lycan

          “One creator has the right to destroy whatever it created.

          A different creator doesn’t have the right to destroy what it created.”

          What? What different creator?

        • MNb

          The creators of a new building by no means have the right to destroy that building. The creators of your car haven’t the right to destroy your car either. Indeed, the logic is that simple.

          Oh – and ususally the two parents have created the zygote, you know, by having sex. According to you they hence have the right to destroy it, for instance by means of an abortion. Your arguments aren’t even coherent.

        • Lycan

          The creation is different. The owners of a car have the right to destroy it. The owners of a building also have the right to destroy it. When the creators pass on something to someone else (the new owners) they give up that right, but until they do they have the right to destroy what they created.

          The fetus question I answered earlier.

        • Ron

          In my city, property owners must obtain a demolition permit prior to razing a building. And owners of heritage buildings are legally obligated to leave them standing and maintained.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Exactly. Even a car must be disposed of within proper regulatory authority…heck, nowadays just about everything I can think of has regulation applied in how it’s destruction takes place, at least that is the case in the more responsible parts of the world.

          So, like with abortion. A double standard applies. God the creator can destroy what it likes when it likes, a position that even humans know is not conducive to the real world and our place in it.

        • MNb

          “The fetus question I answered earlier.”
          And in my previous comment I showed that it is incoherent with your “right to destroy” argument.

        • adam

          “He created us He has the right to destroy us. The logic is that simple.”

          Since it is OBVIOUS that parents create fetuses, they have a right to destroy them, and they create children, so they should have the right to destroy them as well, even when they are full grown adults…

          at least by your TWISTED logic…

        • Lycan

          Actually parents didn’t create everything from nothing. They also don’t create fetuses in that sense, they had sex and the result is a baby. God created the universe. If a man create’s a.i. he has the right to destroy a.i.

        • You’ve entered the realm of SciFi.

          Suppose there were an AI that was indistinguishable from a human (maybe it’s just a voice interface to software in a computer). I suppose you do have to say that man can destroy that AI without any moral consequences. Your hands are tied, and you’ve got to come up with some handwavey justification for why God can drown millions of people.

          But how far does this extend? Is there nothing that man can create/build that it would be immoral to destroy?

          If “don’t kill” isn’t part of God’s moral code, what is? Give me the moral rules God follows.

        • adam

          ” They also don’t create fetuses in that sense, they had sex and the result is a baby.”

          Yes, parents create babies, unless you can demonstrate that they come from somewhere else.

          “God created the universe.”

          Imaginary beings from human STORIES dont create ANYTHING, except in the IMAGINATION of gullible people.

          ” If a man create’s a.i. he has the right to destroy a.i.”

          Man creates real intelligent children…

          But it takes belief in imaginary gods to create such cruelty as you talk about. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7c5d688b7138d8ab4e0b2272ecaaa85a6ff869bbd13511df46d34b550dd2720.png

        • adam

          ” Also The Creator has the right to destroy the creation. ”

          Abortion is just bible ‘god’s’ ‘will’ so why be concerned?

          IF you REALLY want to reduce abortions, why not do what has been done in countries where abortion HAS been reduced?

        • adam

          “Explain to me how making abortion illegal woulnd’t lower abortion rates. ”

          Explain to me how making drugs illegal didnt lower drug use rates.

        • Lycan

          They have. Make a drug legal (like marijuana) and you will see and have seen the rate increase. Therefore making something illegal would decrease the rates.

        • adam

          “They have. Make a drug legal (like marijuana) and you will see and have seen the rate increase.”

          NO, like with alcohol, making them illegal increased their use and ABUSE.

          Marijuana was used for thousands off years without significant problems to users and society UNTIL AFTER illegalization, alcohol abuse spread during prohibition.

        • Lycan

          Did it increase it’s use?

          There’s no way to actually prove that alcohol consumption increased during prohibition.

          “In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition. The reason was simple enough — people like Al Capone didn’t pay taxes on their product and thereby report their production to the government. Licensed saloons became illegal speakeasies, and many common citizens took advantage of the high sales price of illegal booze by secretly manufacturing booze in their own bathtubs. That’s one of the major problems with all drug prohibitions — they greatly reduce the ability to make accurate judgments about the problem. There is no good way to count the number of illegal dealers, or the people who are secretly making gin in their own bathroom. Therefore, to make such a judgment, we have to rely on a number of indirect indicators.”

          Source: http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

        • adam

          You really should have read your own sources, it makes you look deceptive when you post deceptive posts.

          “The Short Answer:

          Alcohol consumption rose to record levels during alcohol prohibition.

          National alcohol prohibition began in 1920. Apparent alcohol use fell from 1914 to 1922. It rose thereafter. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar
          alcohol-related offenses were already above the pre-prohibition records.Consumption by women and children increased dramatically.”

          http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

        • Lycan

          The long answer.

          “In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition. The reason was simple enough — people like Al Capone didn’t pay taxes on their product and thereby report their production to the government. Licensed saloons became illegal speakeasies, and many common citizens took advantage of the high sales price of illegal booze by secretly manufacturing booze in their own bathtubs. That’s one of the major problems with all drug prohibitions — they greatly reduce the ability to make accurate judgments about the problem. There is no good way to count the number of illegal dealers, or the people who are secretly making gin in their own bathroom. Therefore, to make such a judgment, we have to rely on a number of indirect indicators.”

        • adam

          “The Short Answer:

          Alcohol consumption rose to record levels during alcohol prohibition.

          National alcohol prohibition began in 1920. Apparent alcohol use fell from 1914 to 1922. It rose thereafter. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar
          alcohol-related offenses were already above the pre-prohibition records.Consumption by women and children increased dramatically.”

          http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

        • adam

          Besides, your ‘god’ doesnt care about abortion, if YOU believe that YOUR ‘god’ controls the universe, IT triggers MOST abortions

        • Lycan

          Triggers? God gave man free will. What we decide to do with it is our own fault.

        • adam

          Triggers, YES, almost all abortions are natural, or the will of ‘god’ as you would say.

          So, you dont even understand what free will means?

          Where is the free will of the rape victim?
          Where is the free will of all those people the character ‘god’ mass murdered?

          You are equating totalitarianism as free will…..and it’s not.

        • Lycan

          You seem to not know what free will is.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Wrong again. Marijuana has been semi legal in The Netherlands since a few decades; usage stabilized. The big problem is marijuana tourists from neighbouring countries, where it is illegal indeed.
          But of course you don’t let the facts get in the way of your christian morals.

        • Lycan

          Actually I was talking about when it was made legal in certain states. Not semi legal.

        • MNb

          Ah sorry, my bad, I forgot that christians like you are only capable of binary thinking.

        • Lycan

          Seriously semi legal and legal cannot be compared. Marijuana being made legal for conventional use makes a big difference than it being made legal only for medical use.

        • Ron

          Where’s the harm in smoking cannabis purely for pleasure?

        • Pofarmer

          You need to search and research a little bit about what actually reduces abortion rates. There was a recent study done in St. Louis about it. You can Google it. I agree attitudes about sex need to change, but declaring sex an abomination won’t do it. Maybe we could take some cues from Europe where they have lower teen Pregnancy rates, lower abortion rates, and generally better attitudes about sex?

        • Lycan

          “declaring sex an abomination won’t do it.” Not sure if anyone ever really declared sex an abomination. Well making abortion illegal would obviously lower abortion rates.

          Welcome back by the way.

        • Pofarmer

          If you actually read the link that Bob kindly provided from Libbey Annes blog, you would find out that countries where abortion is illegal, say Argentina, have very nearly the same abortion rates as countries where it is not. That’s the problem with just declaring something “obvious” pesky numbers and stuff get in the way.

        • Lycan

          Let me ask you this.

          If a country has a high murder should they make murder legal?

          If a country has a high theft rate should they make stealing legal?

        • Why are we on this tangent? The point is that your Pollyanna idea that illegal abortion means no abortion is flawed.

        • Pofarmer

          Thats an interstingly loaded question. Because you know what reduced murder and theft in the U.S.? RoevWade. But, frankly, of you have an issue,myou do what is effective to address those issues. Making abortion illegal does not effectively address it, and the statistics from countries where abortion is illegal bear this out, if you would bother yourself to look at them.

        • Lycan

          Actually I did look it up.

          However i can’t find any actual rates. The studies seem to just keep saying that making abortion illegal doesn’t lower the rates but then where are the rates. I looked at four different articles and none of them seem to show the actual rates. If you have something since you did bring the topic up perhaps you can link it and I’ll look into it.

        • Pofarmer

          “Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. -” See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html#sthash.e9hdrHxt.dpuf

          http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

        • Lycan

          First off thank you for finding some data on this.

          Secondly, it’s an unfair comparison. The article even seems to point this out without knowing it.

          “• Both the lowest and highest sub regional abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is generally legal under broad grounds. In Western Europe, the rate is 12 per 1,000 women, while in Eastern Europe it is 43. [1] The discrepancy in rates between the two regions reflects relatively low contraceptive use in Eastern Europe, as well as a high degree of reliance on methods with relatively high user failure rates, such as the condom, withdrawal and the rhythm method”

          So basically the article points out that the abortion rate will be much higher where there are more unwanted pregnancies, and uses this as a sort of excuse for Eastern Europe (which has the highest rate of all the mentioned places in the article). So it seems that illegal abortion doesn’t increase the rates. If there are a lot more pregnancies there will most likely be a lot more abortion

          What we really need to do is compare two countries with similar access to contraception and where one abortion is legal and the other isn’t.

        • Pofarmer

          “What we really need to do is compare two countries with similar access to contraception and where one abortion is legal and the other isn’t.”

          You more than likely aren’t going to find that, for fairly obvious reasons.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What we really need to do is compare two countries with similar access to contraception and where one abortion is legal and the other isn’t.

          How could that even be done reliably, given that in the country that abortion is illegal the stat’s will be unavailable or skewed?

          We could look at abortion rates between Northern Ireland, where it is illegal, and the rest of the U.K., where it is not. But the problem again is reliable data. Women leaving Northern Ireland to facilitate abortions, or procuring illegal procedures, are not advertising the fact.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Statistics

          http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-irelands-record-abortion-figures-shock-28478137.html

          http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/10/08/recent-statistics-on-abortion-uk/

        • I thought the point was that you said that making abortion illegal will eliminate (or almost eliminate) abortions. Then someone pointed out that places where it’s illegal sometimes have a quite high abortion rate.

          Are we on the same page that making abortion illegal doesn’t eliminate it?

        • adam

          “However i can’t find any actual rates. ”

          So like with YOUR ‘god’, you have no actually data that you make YOUR wild-assed CLAIMS about.

          You just MAKE UP your claims out of IGNORANCE, and seem proud of it….

        • Lycan

          I’m sorry adam, do you have any data to support the other side of this claim?

        • adam

          What ‘other’ side?

          That leprechans and Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns dont exist?

        • Charleigh Kimber

          The practical way to cause thousands of women to die and thousands more to be maimed, resulting in future health complications and/or sterility, while simultaneously ensuring that many thousands more women and children would be forced into poverty and suffer and die from situations arising from said poverty, would be to make the procedure illegal.

          FIFY

        • Lycan

          Wrong abortions illegal in my country and this doesn’t happen. Also if life begins at conception should this really matter? I mean you would kill thousands of kid just because a lot of them are in poverty. If life begins at conception then that’s what people are doing.

        • I agree that life begins at conception. And the zygote still starts out as a single cell. So what? You can’t even see it without a microscope.

          If you think that’s precious, great. Don’t impose your views on everyone else.

        • Lycan

          I’m not imposing my view I’m expressing it. If I’m imposing my view than in all your blogs so are you.

          “I agree that life begins at conception.”

          Not sure if that was sarcasm but if it wasn’t then wouldn’t you technically be condoning murder?

        • I’m talking about imposing as when you impose your views by law. Do you want to reduce the number of clinics that do abortions? Do you want to overturn Roe?

        • Lycan

          Welcome to the conversation by the way.

        • MNb

          Technically we totally can compare countries to states in that sense. American states have legislation, cultures, political systems, just like countries.

          “not what people do.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Here is what you wrote:

          “many unwanted pregnancies,”
          Pregnancies are totally the result of what people do.

          “You can’t blame good morals because people that should be following them don’t.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          So you don’t care how people put your morals in practice. You don’t care about the amount of teen pregnancies as long as the morals are good.
          Hey, my standard is simple. I don’t like teen pregnancies. So I prefer morals that actually result in a lower amount of teen pregnancies. You don’t – as long as the morals are good. And good morals mean your morals.
          You have no idea how bad this looks on you. “Screw pregnant teens” is all you say. You’re not interested in helping other people. Imposing your badly outdated morals on them is more important to you.
          That’s one of the several things I dislike about christianity so much.

        • Lycan

          “So you don’t care how people put your morals in practice. You don’t care about the amount of teen pregnancies as long as the morals are good.”

          I was just pointing out you can’t blame good morals when people don’t follow them.

          “You don’t – as long as the morals are good. And good morals mean your morals.”

          Actually good morals mean good morals in general. Teen pregnancy wouldn’t happen if no one had sex before marraige.

          “You’re not interested in helping other people. Imposing your badly outdated morals on them is more important to you.”

          You still haven’t shown how the morals are badly outdated. You want less teen pregnancies. If no one had sex before marraige there would most likely be know teen pregnancies.

          Besides the countries with the lowest teenage pregnacy rates both have a high percentage of people claiming to be Christians. The people of Switzerland predominantly claim Christianity.

          Source: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/05/blank/key/religionen.html

          The Netherlands have about 47% people claiming Christianity.

          Source:http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Religion/Religions

          While Denmark which is a country you mentioned as being secular has a whopping 98% of it’s people claiming Christianity.

          Source:http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Religion/Religions

          So technically that explains why countries like Denmark and Switzerland and even the Netherlands may have such a low teenage pregnancy rate.

          “Technically we totally can compare countries to states in that sense. American states have legislation, cultures, political systems, just like countries.”

          Actually the reason why the rates shouldn’t really be comparable is not because of politics or legislation it’s because of numbers.

          Lousiana only has about 4.65 million people. While Denmark has about 5.614 million, while the Netherlands has about 16.8 million people. That’s why even when comparing countries rates are usually shown per capita so that it’s more fair because a country that has 300 million people would more than likely have a higher crime rate than a country with only 300,000 people if capita were not included in the rate.

        • So technically that explains why countries like Denmark and Switzerland and even the Netherlands may have such a low teenage pregnancy rate.

          Teen pregnancy is correlated with religiosity–the more Christian, the more teen pregnancies. I’ve written more here.

        • Lycan

          Then how come Denmark a country where 98% of the population claims Christianity has such a low teen pregnancy rate. Same thing with Switzerland. High percentage of the population claiming Christianity and low teenage pregnancy rate.

        • Seriously? You think “Christianity” to the typical Dane means the same thing in practice as it does to the typical resident of Louisiana or Mississippi?

          The Americans are the ones who put “I’m a Christian” in their top 3 personal attributes, and you see what that does to social metrics like teen pregnancy.

          Praise the Lord.

        • Lycan

          Actually the point doesn’t make sense. I mean Denmark has more people claiming Christianity per capita than Louisiana does. So you can’t really compare the two and then say something like “See this shows that teen pregnancy happens in areas where there are more Christians.”

        • Just ignore what I said and double down on your original position? Not a great way to make friends.

          I’d repeat my original comment, but why bother? You’d just ignore it again.

        • Lycan

          The original point of Mnb still doesn’t make sense. You don’t compare two places that contain a high amount of people proclaiming Christianity and then claim the morals themselves are outdated.

        • You want a monologue. When you want to engage in an adult dialogue, read the thread and, y’know, engage with it.

        • Lycan

          You can try to avoid it all you want. Technically all he did was show that having a nation where the majority of people may be more dedicated to their Christian faith and following the principles within will lead to lower teen pregnancy rate.

        • Are you too stupid to understand the issue? Or are you trying to slide away from an uncomfortable issue?

          When you say, “Are you a Christian?” in different societies, the Yes and No answers can’t be compared. The Danish “I’m a Christian” doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as the Louisiana “I’m a Christian.”

          Making sure two things are comparable is kinda rule #1 before comparing them.

        • Lycan

          Hey you agreed with the basketball analogy. All I’m saying is that it didn’t make sense to compare those two countries and then say “See following Christian morals leads to more unwanted pregnancies”.

        • I have no idea where you’re coming from if you don’t respond to my questions or statements.

          it didn’t make sense to compare those two countries and then say “See following Christian morals leads to more unwanted pregnancies”.

          I’d express it: following Christian wishful thinking rather than the approaches shown to be most effective leads to more unwanted pregnancies.

        • Lycan

          “I’d express it: following Christian wishful thinking rather than the approaches shown to be most effective leads to more unwanted pregnancies.”

          You keep seemingly putting words in my mouth. I was just trying to point out that the comparison and the ending statement didn’t make sense.

        • Susan

          having a nation where the majority of people may be more dedicated to their Christian faith and following the principles within will lead to lower teen pregnancy rate.

          Or you could compare their policies on sex education and the availability and affordability of contraception with the policies of countries that lack those things.

          If you’re suggesting that they’re just having less sex because they’re good christians, provide the data to back it up.

        • Lycan

          In the US contraception is both available and affordable and that doesn’t seem to stop the rate of teen pregnancies going up. Also sex education seems to be taught in most schools there.

          “If you’re suggesting that they’re just having less sex because they’re good christians, provide the data to back it up.”

          Never said that. I was simply saying it didn’t make sense to compare an area that has a higher amount of people claiming to be Christians which has a low teen pregnancy rate than another area that has a lower amount of people proclaiming Christianity with a higher teen pregnancy rate and then saying. “See following Christian morals leads to a higher pregnancy rate”

        • Also
          sex education seems to be taught in most schools there.

          You’re just willfully ignorant now. Sex ed isn’t a commodity like water, where it’s all the same. Many conservative states have sub-par sex ed, deliberately, because it pleases their religious beliefs. They care more about that than having the most effective programs.

        • Lycan

          Comprehensive sex educational programs receive twelve times as much federal funding as abstinent only programs. So given that evidence most schools in the US teach comprehensive sexual education. The major attribution to the difference in Denmark’s teen pregnancy and the Us is the attitude toward sex itself.

          Susan Rose did a study on the differences of how sex is treated in Denmark and the US.

          The whole study can be seen here: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

          What she found was that ”
          In interviews, Rose discovered Danish teens talked about sex in terms of mutual pleasure, while their American counterparts spoke in terms of achievement and adequacy.”

          So one of differences is that in the US sex seems to be looked at as some kind of achievement. In fact 33% of teens in the US are said to have been pressured into having sex. While 24% are said to being pressured into doing things they don’t want to do.

          “In a recent study of teen dating, the Kaiser Family Foundation polled more than 1,800 teens and young adults. One-third of adolescent boys said they feel “a lot” or “some” pressure to have sex, whereas less than one-quarter of girls said they feel that way.”

          Source: http://connectwithkids.com/boy/.

          In fact the study also showed that

          “Nearly two-thirds of teens that have had sexual intercourse say they regret it and wish they had waited, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.”

          So it seems that the major differences between Denmark and the US that is affecting the teen pregnancy rate, is the attitude toward sex

          Since both countries have easy access to contraceptives and sex education being taught in most schools that cannot be a major reason for the difference in teen pregnancy rates.

        • Lycan

          Welcome to the conversation by the way.

        • MNb

          Technically all I did was assuming that you are smarter and more honest than you actually are.
          Denmark has excellent sex education, easily accessible contraceptives and legal abortion.

          http://denmark.angloinfo.com/family/teenagers/teens-sexual-health/
          https://www.reddit.com/r/Denmark/comments/19rej5/birth_control_while_living_in_denmark/
          http://copenhagen.angloinfo.com/information/healthcare/pregnancy-birth/termination-abortion/

          Very, very much unlike Louisiana with its dedication to christian faith.

          “following the principles”
          I’m not going to judge whether obligatory sex education, easily accessible contraceptives and legalized abortion are principles within the christian faith or not. These three measures are not withing your christian principles, which, I’m happy to repeat, are badly outdated.

          So to cheer you up a bit:

          http://www.condomking.eu/worlds-best-ril-form

        • Lycan

          Denmark has excellent sex education, easily accessible contraceptives and legal abortion. The United States in general have all these and yet have one of the highest unwanted teen pregnancy rates in the world. The UK also has all these (In fact on the chart I showed you UK had the highest use of contraception among women and yet they still have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates.)

          Also in what comment did I ever say that I was against sex ed in schools?

          Also what does legal abortion have to do with the pregnancy rate. We are talking about pregnancy, not birth rate.

        • Denmark has excellent sex education, easily accessible contraceptives and legal abortion. The United States in general have all these and yet have one of the highest unwanted teen pregnancy rates in the world.

          Sounds like we’re not comparing apples to apples.

          Also in what comment did I ever say that I was against sex ed in schools?

          Do I understand you to be saying that you’re eager for all U.S. public schools to adopt the best (based on results) sex ed program, regardless of where abstinence fits in?

        • Lycan

          Abstinence fits into the best sex ed programs. If there is no mention of abstinence in the program then it’s not the best sex ed program as failing to warn students that the only method of true protection is abstinence shows a failure in the program.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Good job not answering BobS’ question.
          Also excellent circular logic. “Abstinence fits into the best sex ed programs; if it isn’t part of it the program is a failure; hence abstinence fits into the best sex ed programs.”

          But you’re right – abstinence is part of Dutch sex ed. It takes about two minutes to say “hey kids, not having sex guarantees you not getting pregnant.”

          However that’s not the point. All the other subjects are extensively explained. How do you put a condom on? How does an intrauterine device work? What are the pros and cons? What is the chance you’ll still get pregnant? I all learned it when I was a young teen. Public libraries had entire shelves devoted to books on these and related subjects. I read many of them. So when as a stupid teen I had sex with my girlfriend we knew exactly what to do: not bragging, not feeling ashamed, but visiting my doctor and ask for emergency contraception (in Dutch called Morning After Pill). We both felt free to tell our parents. They were annoyed, not because we had had sex, but because we had been stupid.

          Now tell me that it works that way in Louisiana (repeat repeat: I’m not talking the USA in general! I’m not talking the USA in general!) and I’ll call you a liar.

          So let me rephrase BobS’ question. Do you support introducing a sex ed programm similar to the Swiss, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian ones in Louisiana?
          It seems you’re reluctant to answer that question. I guess that’s what you’re a dishonest christian for.

        • Lycan

          I already answered his question.

          New Hamsphire includes abistenence in their sex education and they have the lowest teen pregnancy in the US.

          “Now tell me that it works that way in Louisiana (repeat repeat: I’m not talking the USA in general! I’m not talking the USA in general!) and I’ll call you a liar.”

          Of course you’re not talking about the USA as a whole, that would go against your point, since the USA is considered secular and yet has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world.

          Also I keep telling you it’s not only the sex education (as I showed you in the source I linked). The attitude of sex itself differs in the two countries.

          Source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

        • MNb

          “I already answered his question.”
          Then I missed it. Now you can either be so kind to repeat it or be so unkind not to do so, which will also make you look dishonest. My bet is the latter, but make me happy and show that I’m wrong. Again:

          Do you support introducing a sex ed programm similar to the Swiss, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian ones in Louisiana?

          “New Hamsphire includes abistenence in their sex education.”
          I already wrote that I don’t mind including abstinence. I mind exclusive abstinence in sex ed. You’re slow to understand.

          “since the USA is considered secular and yet has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world.”
          Yup – slow to understand. That’s because of states like Louisiana, who let your christian views inspire their sex ed programs.
          New Hampshire also educates using contraceptives etc. – not dissimilar to Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland. If all American states had sex ed like New Hampshire teen pregnancy (and also abortion) rates would not deviate very much from the ones in those three countries.

          “The attitude of sex itself differs in the two countries.”
          Yeah, but that only reinforces my point, silly. Thanks to your particular brand of christianity (a bigot one) Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake caused nipplegate. Nudity in Danish and to a lesser extent in Dutch media (I don’t know about Swiss ones) is no big deal. Have you watched that Norwegian video already? Can you imagine such a video in Louisiana?
          It’s typical that you don’t answer this question either, raising the suspicion that you’re dishonest a bit more.

        • Lycan

          “Yup – slow to understand. That’s because of states like Louisiana, who let your christian views inspire their sex ed programs.”

          Actually even New Hampshire has a poor teen pregnancy rate. Compare it to Denmark and it looks terrible. Sure compare it to the rest of the US and it looks good but if you were right and these sex ed programs lead to a much lower teen pregnancy rate then New Hampshire’s would be at least close to Denmark’s and it’s not. There are actually a lot of other factors that lead to a low teen pregnancy rate.

          I think I answered the other questions in the other comment.

        • I have little interest in your evaluation of what’s efficacious. Let’s leave that to the statisticians. I don’t care what the actual program contains; I just want the most effective (as shown by prior experience) programs taught.

        • Lycan

          I showed the statistics. Technically the biggest thing seems to be the parents. Both Denmark and US teens wished their parents talked to them more about sex.

          Source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

          My dad was pretty open about that with me (which I’m thankful for).

        • Dys

          However, a sex-ed program that does little but promote abstinence as the only viable method of protection (while casting aspersions on the other options available) is dishonest and worthless.

        • Lycan

          Actually “Denny and Young (2006) recently analyzed “Sex Can Wait,” an abstinence-only sex education program. The 5-week program contains upper elementary, middle school, and high school components. Compared to controls, students showed many positive short-term and long-term benefits. An increase in sexual knowledge was displayed by all elementary and high schoolers, both elementary and middle school students reported less participation in sexual intercourse during the previous month, and high schoolers showed a greater intent to remain abstinent than the control group.”

          Source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

          Welcome to the conversation.

        • What?? Who cares about abstinence-only programs?

          Didn’t you already admit that you want American public school students to get the best program (based on evidence of performance) possible, regardless of what it teaches?

          I sense some backpedaling.

        • Lycan

          Just making a point that not all abstinence only programs have negative results. Also as shown in the same study not all comprehensive sex programs produce positive results in every area.

        • You and I, who put the health of America’s children ahead of dogma and agenda, don’t much care about the specifics of the most effective program; we just want it implemented, remember?

        • Lycan

          I care about effectiveness. You’d want to see how effective a program is before implementing it I hope.

        • You’re not qualified to evaluate effectiveness. You simply want a qualified authority to tell you that, of the many approaches, the one proven most effective will be rolled out in America’s public schools. Would you want anything less?

        • Lycan

          Not really. I tend to look into things myself. I’m not one to really just trust the “qualified” authority. If I care about an issue I’ll usually check out the facts for myself.

        • If you like to learn about this stuff, that’s great. My point is that the bottom line is what the statisticians conclude about the effectiveness.

        • Lycan

          And if that bottom line were to say that abstinent only teachings are the most effective would you be fine with that?

        • Obviously! How many times must we go over this? The point is effectiveness!

          Now–how about you? Do you say the same thing?

        • Lycan

          Yes, So again if the bottom line showed that abstinent only programs were the most effective would you be for or against them?

        • ?? You just asked that stupid question. And I just answered it.

          Pay attention.

        • Lycan

          Sorry about that, I must have missed the answer there.

        • My question from a prior comment remains: “Now–how about you? Do you say the same thing?”

        • Dys

          A single study on a single program does not refute what I said.

          And if you read the conclusion of the link you provided, you’ll see that the source you quoted agrees with me.

          While some of the studies found positive effects of abstinence-only education, the overwhelming data support the teaching of comprehensive sex education.

        • Lycan

          No but it does prove it can be done and that it is not foolishness. Even if something only works once, it still shows it can work. Also the study concluded that comprehensive sex education receives twelve times as much federal funding as abstinent only programs which obviously would result in comprehensive having overwhelming data to support the teaching of comprehensive sex education.

        • MNb

          “The United States in general …..”
          I was talking Louisiana in particular, so shrug.

          “Also in what comment did I ever say that I was against sex ed in schools?”
          Make me happy and say you support it. You’ll get a thumb up. But I seem to remember that you advocated abstinence propaganda and abstinence propagandists usually oppose sex ed in schools.

          I brought up legal abortion to show you that the morals of Danish, Dutch and Swiss christians are not the same as yours. If they are – and you support easily accessible contraceptives, sex ed and legal abortion you’ll get three thumbs up from me.

          I mean stuff like this:

          http://www.frontaalnaakt.nl/archives/noorse-dokter-corrie-knijpt-in-piemels-en-betast-vaginas-op-tv.html

          Enjoy the video! I understand the language (it’s Norwegian) as little as you do. It’s school television.

        • The game Lycan is playing is that he’s happy to support sex ed. The problem is, that’s an ambiguous term. It varies widely throughout the U.S. In some places, it’s evidence based (we’ll use the techniques that have proven themselves, through studies, to be the most effective). In other places (curiously, all strongly conservative and Christian), it teaches an abstinence only approach and thinks that teaching safe sex will only encourage teens to screw.

          Point is, nail Lycan down on what specifically he’s willing to support. When he says, “I totally support sex ed,” as he’s done many times, it may not be what you think it is.

        • MNb

          That’s why I gave that link to the Norwegian video. Have you watched it? It’s funny.

        • Lycan

          Um the United States also has legal abortion so I still don’t get your point on morals.

          “If they are – and you support easily accessible contraceptives, sex ed and legal abortion you’ll get three thumbs up from me.”

          If these lead to lower teen pregnancies than the US should technically be on the top of the list. Since about 82% of teens in the US are currently using contraceptives.

          Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

          So let’s look at the differences between the countries since sex ed (comprehensive sex education programs recieve twelve times as much federal funding as abstinence programs. So in other words most public schools in the US seem to be teaching comprehensive sex education) and ease of access to contraceptives doesn’t seem to lower the teen pregnancy rate.

          Susan Rose did a study on the differences of how sex is treated in Denmark and the US.

          The whole study can be seen here: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

          What she found was that ”
          In interviews, Rose discovered Danish teens talked about sex in terms of mutual pleasure, while their American counterparts spoke in terms of achievement and adequacy.”

          So one of differences is that in the US sex seems to be looked at as some kind of achievement. In fact 33% of teens in the US are said to have been pressured into having sex. While 24% are said to being pressured into doing things they don’t want to do.

          “In a recent study of teen dating, the Kaiser Family Foundation polled more than 1,800 teens and young adults. One-third of adolescent boys said they feel “a lot” or “some” pressure to have sex, whereas less than one-quarter of girls said they feel that way.”

          Source: http://connectwithkids.com/boy/.

          In fact the study also showed that

          “Nearly two-thirds of teens that have had sexual intercourse say they regret it and wish they had waited, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.”

          So it seems that the major differences between Denmark and the US that is affecting the teen pregnancy rate, is the attitude toward sex.

          Since both countries have easy access to contraceptives and sex education being taught in most schools that cannot be a major reason for the difference in teen pregnancy rates.

        • MNb

          “Um the United States also has legal abortion”
          I’m still talking Louisiana in particular and not the USA in general, so shrug.

          http://statelaws.findlaw.com/louisiana-law/louisiana-abortion-laws.html

          “so I still don’t get your point on morals.”
          Then you either don’t want to or are stupid. I wrote it explicitely:

          I brought up legal abortion to show you that the morals of Danish, Dutch and Swiss christians are not the same as yours.

          “the US should technically be on the top of the list”
          I’m still not talking the USA in general but Louisiana in particular. There are huge differences within the USA. As BobS has pointed out the states in the North-East, which have legislation similar to Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland, also have much lower rates of teen pregnancies and abortion.

          “Since both countries have easy access to contraceptives and sex education being taught in most schools.”
          I am still not talking the USA in general but Louisiana in particular. And Louisiana does not have easy accessible contraceptives. Sex education is not part of the curriculum in most Louisiana schools.

          Plus non of your links support abstinence only policy like you did.
          You’re dishonest or you’re stupid – or both.

        • Lycan

          When did I ever say I supported abstinence only policy?

          So I’m going to assume you didn’t read any of links. Since this one http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education clearly showed that certain abistenant only programs like

          ” Denny and Young (2006) recently analyzed “Sex Can Wait,” an abstinence-only sex education program. The 5-week program contains upper elementary, middle school, and high school components. Compared to controls, students showed many positive short-term and long-term benefits. An increase in sexual knowledge was displayed by all elementary and high schoolers, both elementary and middle school students reported less participation in sexual intercourse during the previous month, and high schoolers showed a greater intent to remain abstinent than the control group.”

          “I’m still not talking the USA in general but Louisiana in particular. There are huge differences within the USA. As BobS has pointed out the states in the North-East, which have legislation similar to Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland, also have much lower rates of teen pregnancies and abortion.”

          Actually the states in the North East which have legislations similar to Denmark don’t even come close to comparing to Denmark’s low teen pregnancy rate. New Hamshire comes the closest and even it has a teen pregnancy rate that is more than 5 times higher than Denmark’s. If you’re right about Denmark then technically these states should have the same or a much close teen pregnancy rate.

          Source: http://www.livescience.com/45355-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state.html

        • MNb

          “When did I ever say I supported abstinence only policy?”
          Oh, it’s totally possible that I misunderstand you. That happens all the time on internet. Exactly that is the reason why I keep on asking you two questions:

          1. Can you imagine that Norwegian video being broadcasted in Louisiana?
          2. Do you support a sex ed program in Louisiana similar to the Swiss, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian ones?

          The only reason for not answering those questions is that you dishonestly want to maintain your point – whatever that point is. Make me happy and show me wrong.

          Indeed I didn’t even read the rest of your comment. Why would I, if you don’t even answer those two simple questions or are too unkind to repeat your answers?

        • Lycan

          “1. Can you imagine that Norwegian video being broadcasted in Louisiana?2. Do you support a sex ed program in Louisiana similar to the Swiss, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian ones?”

          I don’t remember you asking me these specific questions before. (Also I stopped watching that video once the nudity was shown. I don’t need to see that.)

          1. I can’t imagine that video (at least the parts I watched) being shown to kids in the United States at all.

          2. Could you go a little further into details about the sex ed programs in those countries? Is abstinent a must in the teaching or are they encouraging teenagers to have sex? Things like that I need to know before answering that second question.

        • Susan

          Is abstinent a must in the teaching or are they encouraging teenagers to have sex?

          False dichotomy.

        • Lycan

          Not really if you don’t have abstinence as a part of the teaching you are in a sense encouraging sex. Like if I don’t have a healthy alternative at a party I am in a sense encouraging people to eat unhealthy at the party.

        • Encouraging sex? Who cares? Your goal is minimizing abortions, right? If teens screw like rabbits but the net result is significantly fewer abortions, you’re happy.

        • Susan

          our goal is minimizing abortions, right?

          No. If it were, they would approach things differently.

          I know.

          It was a rhetorical question.

        • I agree with you, but I thought that Lycan had claimed that minimizing abortions was his primary goal. I’m trying to hold him to that–or get him to admit that teens sexing is just as bad a problem in his mind.

        • Susan

          I agree with you, but I thought that Lycan had claimed that minimizing abortions was his primary goal.

          Understood. I just didn’t think Lycan would answer the question directly so I answered it for him.

          I have yet to encounter a theist who claims minimizing abortions is their primary goal advocate for strategies that would most effectively accomplish that goal.

        • I’ve also experienced this problem. If abortion is the holocaust that they imagine, they should be eager for just about any solution, including teens screwing in the streets, that will significantly reduce abortions. That they also want to control premarital sex reveals their agenda.

          Lycan’s dancing around the abstinence issue tips his hand.

        • Lycan

          Not really. Like I said when two thirds of teens in the study I mentioned earlier admit that they wish they had waited to have sex and 33% of American teens admit that they only had sex because they felt pressured to do so. We have a real problem on the attitude of sex as a whole.

        • So after all that, we’re not on the same page. I want whatever sex ed + contraceptive availability will minimize abortion, and you don’t.

          It’s clear which one of us is focused on reducing abortions.

        • Lycan

          You seem to be ignoring the studies done. I was simply pointing out the attitude towards sex and how the US really has a messed up general attitude toward it and that your theory that everyone enjoys/wants sex is flawed based on the studies done.

        • Susan

          if you don’t have abstinence as a part of the teaching

          Apologies. I took “Is abstinence a must?” as meaning “Must one be abstinent?”

          I don’t know of any comprehensive sex education program that doesn’t include abstinence as a choice.

          Is that what you meant?

        • MNb

          No. He/she is worried about encouraging teen sex, because the idea of young people having a good time in bed offends his/her particular version of christianity. Then rather higher rates of teen pregnancies.

        • Lycan

          Exactly. Abstinence is a big part of any sex ed program. The students have to know that the only guaranteed way to minimize unwanted pregnancies and STDs is to avoid having sex at all until marriage. Thank you for the apology.

        • Students have to know that the only guaranteed way to minimize unwanted pregnancies and STDs is to avoid having sex at all until marriage

          Thank you! And the only way to avoid car accidents is to never get in a car!

          Why do you get this but so many other people don’t?! I mean, how hard a concept is this?

        • Lycan

          Actually not the same comparison since a car can hit you while you are walking even though you’ve never been in a car. While if you’ve never had sex it is very unlikely that you are to contract any STD’s or unwanted pregnancies.

        • Don’t want to get hit as a pedestrian? Then don’t be a pedestrian.

          Yep, that is indeed analogous to your “Don’t want to get pregnant? Then don’t have sex.”

        • Lycan

          “Don’t want to get hit as a pedestrian? Then don’t be a pedestrian.

          Yep, that is indeed analogous to your “Don’t want to get pregnant? Then don’t have sex.””

          Actually no since you can even get hit by a car while in your house. (Car’s have rammed into buildings before). So even if you’re not a pedestrian you can still get hit by a car.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And women can get pregnant without having sex, but that would be silly pants and milking the analogy completely to death don’t ya think?

        • Lycan

          Amos you may have joined in late, but earlier I tried to point out the level of risk of getting into car accidents while driving is a lot lower (and I mean a lot) than the risk of getting pregnant after having sex. I was basically told the level doesn’t matter just that it could happen. So I’m basically trying to use that logic against them/him.

        • You’re changing the subject because this comparison undercuts your position.

          The point was that we patch up someone who was in a car wreck even though they willingly got into the car, knowing the risks.

          I suggest we also patch up someone who has an accidental pregnancy even though they willingly had sex, knowing the risks.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Actually not the same comparison since a car can hit you while you are walking even though you’ve never been in a car.

          WTF has that got to do with what Bob said?

          “And the only way to avoid car accidents is to never get in a car!”

          While if you’ve never had sex it is very unlikely that you are to contract any STD’s or unwanted pregnancies.

          Going back to your first sentence about being hit by a car even though you’ve never been in one, You can be an abstinent, virtuous, no sex until marriage kinda gal and still end up pregnant. Or has no one ever become pregnant or contract an STD through rape either…right?

          Would you listen to yerself with all this nonsense?

        • Lycan

          “WTF has that got to do with what Bob said?”

          He said “”And the only way to avoid car accidents is to never get in a car!”

          That’s wrong since you can get into a car accident without ever getting in a car.

          “Going back to your first sentence about being hit by a car even though you’ve never been in one, You can be an abstinent, virtuous, no sex until marriage kinda gal and still end up pregnant. Or has no one ever become pregnant or contract an STD through rape either…right?”

          Notice what I said.

          “While if you’ve never had sex it is very unlikely that you are to contract any STD’s or unwanted pregnancies.”

          Then you would still have had sex if raped. I never said consensual sex I said if you’ve never had sex then it is very unlikely that you are to contract any STD or unwanted pregnancies.

          Getting raped is still having sex it’s just not consensual.

          Welcome to the conversation.

        • MNb

          Ah – now it’s suddenly a big part. How big? 90%? More? And how? Making the teens write down “Thou shall not have sex before marriage” a thousand times?

        • Lycan

          By simply mentioning that abstinence is the only safe way makes it a big part. Because it basically sets abstinence against every form of birth control and puts it into a category all by itself.

        • Abstinence-only programs don’t work. If not for that small flaw, they’d be great.

        • Lycan

          You keep saying that and yet the evidence points in a different direction. Because by making a statement that blatant it would mean that even if it does work only once in one area your statement is wrong and I’ve already shown you one case where an abstinent course did provide positive results.

        • You keep saying that and yet the evidence points in a different direction.

          You’ve seen the map of red/blue states, with the red states (y’know–the ones with abstinence only sex ed programs) having far worse stats on unwanted pregnancy. What’s this new evidence?

          even if it does work only once in one area your statement is wrong

          Your focus on abstinence-only programs reveals your bias. You say you want the best programs … but you really want abstinence-only programs regardless of whether they’re the best or not.

          Don’t lie–baby Jesus is listening.

        • Lycan

          You seem to have missed my point. When did I ever say I wanted abstinent only programs. I’m focusing on your statement that they never work to show you how making a blatant statement like that only requires one abstinent program in one place to work for the statement itself to be wrong. That’s all I’m pointing out. Saying they hardly ever work, or something like that may be more accurate. That’s all I’m saying.

        • I’m focusing on your statement that [abstinence-only programs] never work

          You’re confused. I never said that.

          And I’m telling you this for the second time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Can you point to a successful abstinence only program that has been successful?

          The vast majority of Americans support abstinence from sexual activity for school-age children, especially younger adolescents. Yet, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, currently being taught in many schools, are at odds with what most Americans want schools to teach. The public supports a broad sex education curriculum that stresses abstinence as the best way to avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) but that also conveys complete and medically accurate information about contraception and condoms.

          Despite these strong public preferences, the federal government has invested more than $1.5 billion in state and federal dollars since 1997 into prescriptive abstinence-only and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that are, at best, ineffective and wasteful and, at worst, misleading and dangerous to America’s youth.

          http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health

        • MNb

          See what I mean? You think your christian morals more important than minimizing rates of teen pregnancies.

        • Lycan

          Well New Hamsphire and Denmark both have abstinent teachings in their sex ed so it shows that it is necessary in any successful sex education.

        • Not the issue. Your only plausible position is that America’s children be taught the most effective sex ed (effective = minimizes unwanted pregnancies).

          That program might have no abstinence, nothing but abstinence, or something in between–it doesn’t matter. We’re going for most effective, so stop using the a-word.

        • Lycan

          Actually it is the issue since it does show that the most effective programs do contain abstinence teachings.

        • I’ve never said otherwise.

        • MNb

          Irrelevant for the fact that you think your christian morals more important than minimizing rates of teen pregnancies. It referred to “encouraging sex”, an idea that disgusts you. Same with the nudity in that Norwegian video.
          Nobody objects including abstinence in sex ed.

        • Lycan

          “Same with the nudity in that Norwegian video.”

          So are you saying that all comprehensive sex programs in the United States are inadequate? Because if you recall I said I couldn’t see that video being shown in any United States school.

        • Lycan

          Also MNb when two thirds of the teens in a study admit that they wish they had waited to have sex and when 33% of teenagers in the US admit that they only had sex do to the pressure to do so, then yes sex is not something that should be encouraged among teens. Especially teens who more than likely cannot handle the consequences that may arise from such actions.

        • MNb

          Thanks.
          Your answer to 1 admits that sex ed in Louisiana, where teen pregnancy rates are higher than in those four European countries, is substantially different. And your refusal to watch nudity tells us that you think christian prudishness more important than effective sex ed.
          2. Your counterquestions confirm that you give christian prudishness priority to reducing teen pregnancy rates, despite all your previous attempts to weasle out of this.
          That’s all I wanted to know.

          You prefer extra teen pregnancies to effective sex ed.
          So thanks again and bye.

        • Lycan

          Denial is strong in you it appears.

          “Your answer to 1 admits that sex ed in Louisiana, where teen pregnancy rates are higher than in those four European countries, is substantially different. And your refusal to watch nudity tells us that you think christian prudishness more important than effective sex ed.”

          So you admit that all of the US sex ed is worse than Norwegians?

          2. Yet you refused to answer my questions.

        • you admit that all of the US sex ed is worse than Norwegians?

          I assume that it is, but the stats should help us out here. What do they say?

        • Lycan

          I was just trying to point out that he seemed to have twisted my answer that I didn’t think that that tape would be allowed in any US school to be only referring to Louisiana. So basically he was saying that the whole US had worse sex educational courses than Norway since my answer was something like I couldn’t see that tape being shown in any US school. Norway is pretty low on the teen pregnancy scale though.

        • Right–Norway has great teen pregnancy stats. They’re not prudish about sex, and if showing adult genitals will help kids understand the sexually mature bodies they now have, they’ll do it.

          I don’t have much respect for American prudishness (violence is OK on TV but bare boobs are not), but that’s a tangent.

        • Lycan

          I don’t have much respect for American prudishness (violence is OK on TV but bare boobs are not), but that’s a tangent.

          So are you saying that boxing and every other physical sport should be taken off television? Or are you saying that pornography should be allowed on basic cable?

        • MNb

          So for you it’s either no nudity at all or full blown pornography?
          Pathetic fale dilemma, that says a lot about your poor christian morals.

        • Lycan

          The point is that the two aren’t comparable in that regard.

        • MNb

          Shrug. You have told me what I wanted to know. You prefer extra teen pregnancies to effective sex ed.

        • Lycan

          ” You have told me what I wanted to know. ”

          Translation: You heard what you wanted to hear and ignored the rest.

        • Lycan

          Well thank you for the conversation.

          God bless you.

        • Ron

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-kANR1vJkM

          (Note: except for the narration the documentary is in English.)

        • MNb

          “You still haven’t shown how the morals are badly outdated.”
          I have. Your christian morals lead to higher rates of teen pregnancies than mine when put in practice.

          “You want less teen pregnancies. If no one ….”
          If.
          If my father had been king I would have been his successor.

          “The people of Switzerland predominantly claim Christianity.”
          Irrelevant. Christians totally can be secular; the vast majority of European christians is. But let me give you an example of secularity from your own history:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/09/the-kim-davis-discussion-must-include-jfk/

          “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”
          JFK.
          And until this day that’s the attitude of almost all believing European politicians, in stark contrast to yours. Yup – almost all believing European politicians and teachers are more or less OK with sex education at schools and easily available contraceptives.

          “That’s why even when comparing countries rates are usually shown per capita”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          I gave the rates per 1000. Scroll upward and check for yourself. Divide those rates by 1000 and they are per capita. Perhaps you can’t do it? Or perhaps you don’t understand that when you divide those rates by 1000 the Louisiana ones just remain 6 times as high as Dutch ones?
          Thanks, I hadn’t met this blooper yet. OK, I’ll spell it out for you.

          Netherlands: 5 per 1000. That’s 0,005 per capita.
          Louisiana: 30 per 1000. That’s 0,03 per capita.
          Still 6 times as high.

          The conclusion is simple. Your morals, when put in practice, result in more teen pregancies than mine. Hence my conclusions above are correct, no matter how often you deny them.
          My bet is that you’re not honest enough to face the facts and admit it. ‘Cuz god.

        • Netherlands: 5 per 1000. That’s 0,005 per capita.

          Louisiana: 30 per 1000. That’s 0,03 per capita.

          Still 6 times as high.

          After you divide them both by 1000, it’s still 6 times higher? Wow–who’d’ve guessed?

          Ain’t math marvelous!

        • Lycan

          Why are you comparing Louisiana instead of the United States itself.

          “”The people of Switzerland predominantly claim Christianity.”Irrelevant. Christians totally can be secular; the vast majority of European christians is. But let me give you an example of secularity from your own history:”

          No it does make a difference. Because with a high Christian population would lead hopefully to Christian morals in the society.

          In any case the statistics show that countries like Switzerland and Denmark have a low teen pregnancy rate and a high percent of the population claiming Christianity.

          “I have. Your christian morals lead to higher rates of teen pregnancies than mine when put in practice.”

          No you haven’t shown that yet. See that’s like saying a law that says murder is illegal is responsible for the high murder rate in a country. Basically your blaming the morals when people obviously don’t follow them. If the law of the country says don’t steal and the country has a high theft rate you can’t blame the law for that. You keep saying what people do but you have yet to show that Christian morals are to blame.

          Also you seemed to have ignored the Denmark comment.

          “And until this day that’s the attitude of almost all believing European politicians, in stark contrast to yours. Yup – almost all believing European politicians and teachers are more or less OK with sex education at schools and easily available contraceptives.”

          Yet the country in Europe which in 2002 had the most percentage of contraception use has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates.

          Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193123.html

        • a
          high Christian population would lead hopefully to Christian morals in the
          society.

          Right. And when you look at the US or (for higher Christian numbers) just a particularly Christian state, you find that the social metrics suck when compared to less religious societies. Ouch–so much for Christian morals.

        • Lycan

          Denmark and Switzerland still have a high population claiming Christianity and they extremely low pregnancy rates per capita.

        • “I’m a Christian” means something different in Denmark than in Louisiana.

          Really, this isn’t that hard a concept.

        • Lycan

          Your missing the point. Mnb said the morals themselves were outdated and basically wrong. Yet he provided a country where about 98% of the population claims Christianity and then compared it to Louisiana which actually contains less people per capita proclaiming to be Christian then Denmark does. That definitely doesn’t show how the morals themselves are wrong.

        • Having a real hard time sticking with the facts, I see.

          You need to avoid picking and choosing the facts you want to believe are relevant. No, your mischaracterization isn’t helpful.

        • Lycan

          Seriously man if someone comes up to you and says “the countries with more basketball players commit more crimes) and then shows you one country with a high crime rate and a high amount of basketball players and then another that has an even higher amount of basketball players but one of the lowest crime rates. I’m pretty sure you would agree that the comparison doesn’t assert the argument at all.

        • Agreed. But not an analogy to what we’re talking about.

        • MNb

          Uh oh, I missed this one. It’s a beauty.
          Whether 98% of the Danish are christians remains to be seen, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re right. The point is that those Danish christians are as secular as President Kennedy, BobS and me. Denmark has legalized abortion (also gay marriage btw) and has excellent sex education. It also has low rates of abortion and teen pregnancy – much, much lower than Louisiana.
          Christians totally can be modern and secular. Heck, abortion in The Netherlands was legalized with the active cooperation of a christian party:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Appeal

          The party doesn’t object sex education either.
          Christian politicians in Louisiana however do. Because of their christian morals, which are not the same as the christian morals of most Danish and Dutch folks. The Bible based morals (and I’m not saying the morals of CDA aren’t) of those Louisiana politicians are badly outdated. They are the same as yours and hence, because you refuse to follow the examples of Dutch and Danish christians, you are co-responsible for the high abortion and teen pregnancy rates in Louisiana.

        • I heard on a podcast that 51% of French people declare themselves Catholic, but half of those don’t believe in God.

          Seems to me that the meaning of “I’m a Christian” varies based on the culture. Lycan doesn’t want to hear that.

          EDIT: Here’s the source on the 51%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_France

        • Lycan

          “The point is that those Danish christians are as secular as President Kennedy, BobS and me. ”

          You’re basing this on what? You have no idea whether they are that secular. Also once again in what comment did I say I was against sexual education? I’ve known where babies come from and how they get there since I was 5. I never once said I was against sex education in this comment chain.

        • I’ve read articles written by ex-Christians who say that they’d read the Bible a dozen times as a believer but only without their God goggles did they see what the Bible was really saying.

          I’ve written more:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/02/polytheism-in-the-bible/

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/10/combat-myth-the-curious-story-of-yahweh-and-the-gods-who-preceded-him/

        • Lycan

          “8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

          9 For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”

          “In a recent post, we’ve recently seen where Yahweh loses a fight with the Moabite god Chemosh (2 Kings 3:27).”

          2 Kings 3:27King James Version (KJV)

          27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.”

          Where does any of that seem to happen in that verse?

          Also in regards to the Isrealites being polytheist

          Psalm 96:4-5King James Version (KJV)

          4 For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.

          5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.”

          So when they talk about other gods what the really mean are the idols that the other nations worship.

        • MNb

          From you and other believers of course. You write “god himself never changes”. Hence it’s the way you look at god – which is exactly the definition of perception.

          As for “It’s like how two people may think differently on a event.” being material: those people observed that event, ie used their senses and afterwards their brains. Senses and brains are material. The things they observed were material. Your god is defined (again confirming that your god is nothing but the product of your perception) as an immaterial entity, beyond time and space and such.

        • Lycan

          “Your god is defined…
          …as an immaterial entity, beyond time and space and such.”

          All the more reason why it would be difficult to try and understand God and why people would have such different perceptions of Him.

        • MNb

          All the more reason not to believe.Thanks for confirming that “god himself never changes” is just your perception.

        • The traits of God change through the Bible. Say that that’s fallible people misunderstanding if you want, but then you’ve got the unenviable task of winnowing out the true parts.

        • Lycan

          Actually His traits don’t. If you look at the Bible from beginning to the end you would realize that people change but God remains the same.

        • God walks in the Garden. God drops by for a beer with Abraham.

          Then Moses can only get a peek at him.

          In the NT, we’re told that no one has seen him (wrong, of course, if the OT is to be believed).

          And so on. The Old Testament documents the change in beliefs from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism. I’ve written more on this, if you want to look up that post.

        • Lycan

          “Then Moses can only get a peek at him.”

          Actually Moses did not see God’s face. He saw God’s back.

          “God drops by for a beer with Abraham”

          What verse are you getting this from?

          “In the NT, we’re told that no one has seen him (wrong, of course, if the OT is to be believed).”

          Can you link the verse that says that please.

        • MNb

          “Actually Moses did not see God’s face. He saw God’s back.”
          So Moses did get a peek. You’re contradicting BobS by confirming what he wrote. Good job.

          “What verse are you getting this from?”
          And we have yet another christian who lacks the imagination to recognize a metaphor when it’s not from the Bible.

          Gen 17:1 “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.”
          Gen 17:1a “And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.”
          Gen 17:1b “And now thou will fetch Me a chalice of mead, so that we can have a drink to my covenant. Because formulating covenants makes Me thirsty, hence My covenant needs to be sealed by enjoying a well brewed mead.”

        • I gotta do your homework?

          Actually Moses did not see God’s face. He saw God’s back.

          “the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.” (Ex. 33:11)

          “God drops by for a beer with Abraham”

          What verse are you getting this from?

          Gen. 18:1: “Now the LORD appeared to him [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre”

          “In the NT, we’re told that no one has seen him (wrong, of course, if the OT is to be believed).”

          Can you link the verse that says that please.

          “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son” (John 1:18). See also 1 Tim. 6:16.

          It’s frustrating when you’ve got to ask the atheist for help with the Bible, I’m sure.

        • Rudy R

          It doesn’t get any better with the person I’m debating with right now, who, as a Catholic, believes the Church condones contraception.

        • Let sleeping dogs lie?

        • adam

        • SansDeus

          Actually the second definition doesn’t say it is a title of a god but a title of God. Referring to the one and only God. So none of the others meet the criteria based on that definition.

          “Referring to the one and only God.” Which one? The one of your religion or one of the others that proclaims to have the one and only god?

          Regardless, they meet the other definition. I suggest you like to take up the “one and only god” argument with a polytheist.

          You were just able to mention much more comparisons with baseball and football than Any of the myths listed have with Christ.

          I’m not convinced that you read up on any of the examples. Or you’re looking for something that contains all of the attributes of christianity, instead of noticing the bits and pieces were taken from others that are older.

        • Lycan

          “I’m not convinced that you read up on any of the examples. Or you’re looking for something that contains all of the attributes of Christianity, instead of noticing the bits and pieces were taken from others that are older.”

          I know some of osiris and attis.

          “I’m not convinced that you read up on any of the examples. Or you’re looking for something that contains all of the attributes of Christianity, instead of noticing the bits and pieces were taken from others that are older.”

          Also I simply said you’ve mentioned more comparisons with baseball and football than any of the myths listed have with Christ. Which is the truth.

        • The other dying-and-rising gods didn’t just do it for laughs. It had consequences that benefited people.

          But if you’d rather read “dying and rising gods” instead of “saviors,” perhaps that would address your concern.

        • Lycan

          I was more pointing out that you named it that and that is your first sentence and then you mention no other saviors. I’m just saying technically the title should be changed because that alone shows a massive difference between Jesus Christ and these myths. Also technically attis rising again doesn’t seem to have been added to the legend until about the 4th century which would have been after Christ rose again.

        • MNb

          Let me be charitable. OK, so Jesus is a unique combination of a dying-and-rising god and a messias claimant. It’s the combination that makes him unique. So what? Look a bit closer and you’ll find unique features attributed to the other dying-and-rising gods and also unique features regarding the other messias claimants as well.
          My answer: the Ancients were totally capable of inventing some new stuff now and then. If anything you only have shown that BobS is a bit sloppy, not that he’s wrong. Intolerable for a scientific analysis, but this is just another blog.

        • Lycan

          I was actually just pointing out that the title itself is misleading. Also Attis rebirth doesn’t seem to be added to the legend until after Jesus rose again so it makes me wonder how accurate the list really is.

          God bless you.

        • MNb

          The title is not misleading. BobS writes about what Jesus doesn’t make unique.

          “God bless you.”
          Thanks, but no thanks.

        • Lycan

          It is misleading since none of the idols mentioned are Saviors.

        • MNb

          OK. Then it should have been “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Idol.”
          That’s what christians do with him – turning him into an idol.

        • Lycan

          Actually what the title does is try to limit the wonder of Christ story. Saying Jesus is just one more dying savior attempts to avoid the obvious difference between what Christ did and what these myths claim to be. The fact that He died for our sins makes Him a Savior. Which is an obvious difference between him and the myths since none of the idols mentioned in the myths are saviors. I think perhaps the author may not have wanted to show that argument because that would be a clear difference between Jesus Christ and the myths listed on the list.

        • MNb

          There is no wonder in the christ story, so there is nothing to limit.

          “attempts to avoid the obvious difference”
          Of course. Because the article is about the similarities. Do you enjoy kicking in open doors?
          So yes, the christ story is special. Like I already wrote: take a closer look and you’ll notice that every single dying and rising divine character story is special.

          “The fact that He died for our sins”
          Sin is a meaningless concept. Jesus did not die for our sins. Jesus – or rather his fans, like you – claim(ed) that he died for our sins. That’s not the same at all.

          “none of the idols mentioned in the myths are saviors”
          I already granted you that. Yup, you enjoy kicking in open doors. So I happily repeat:

          OK. Then it should have been “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Idol.”
          That’s what christians do with him – turning him into an idol. With your comment you confirmed that, so thanks.

        • Lycan

          “Of course. Because the article is about the similarities. Do you enjoy kicking in open doors?”

          So are you saying the article is supposed to mislead people then?

          Also I was referring more to the end of the article where “Apologists raise other objections.”

          “Sin is a meaningless concept”

          Based on what?

        • MNb

          How is pointing out similarities misleading?

          Sin is a meaningless concept because there is no god. Hence he/she/it can’t be displeased.

          Of course you will contradict this: “There is a god! The Bible says so! And the Bible is divinely inspired!”. That’s a combination of a circular argument and an argument from authority. I already pointed out that the Bible doesn’t have any authority. Why would I accept the superstition of ignorant people who lived 2000+ years ago?

        • Lycan

          ” I already pointed out that the Bible doesn’t have any authority. Why would I accept the superstition of ignorant people who lived 2000+ years ago?”

          Technically you just stated that first part without really backing it up.

          Also are you saying that everyone in the past was ignorant? Are you saying that Confucius, Aristotle, Galileo were all ignorant?

          “How is pointing out similarities misleading?”

          The same way a prosecutor may try to mislead the jury by only pointing out the similarities between two different cases. It can make the jury believe that the two cases are almost identical.

          Back to the argument when there are more differences than similarities focusing only on the similarities may make people think the stories are identical.

          Also when you have a section called “Apologists raise other objections.” Then seemingly only mention the objections that the author can argue against.

        • MNb

          “Are you saying that Confucius, Aristotle, Galileo were all ignorant?”
          Yes. What’s more – you and I are ignorant as well. Still we know a bit more that those three.
          Confucius and Aristoteles didn’t know about the Americas for instance. Neither of them knew how to keep an airplane in the air.
          I am saying even a bit more. Exactly because of this reason we should not accept anything from them (and the Bible) at face value. Unlike the Bible at least two of them (Aristoteles and Galilei) did the right thing: enabling us to check their claims. We can repeat the experiments done by Galilei. As for Aristoteles:

          http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-aristotle-maintained-that-women-have-fewer-teeth-than-men-although-he-was-twice-married-it-never-bertrand-russell-160328.jpg

          “The same way a prosecutor may try to mislead the jury by only pointing out the similarities between two different cases. It can make the jury believe that the two cases are almost identical.”
          False analogy.
          1. This is not a courtroom. There is no jury.
          2. BobS makes clear that he’s talking about the similarities and doesn’t hide that there are differences.

          So your argument is wrong.

          “Then seemingly only mention the objections that the author can argue against.”
          This is plain ill will. You’re showing your own evil character here; apparently this is what you would (want to) do.
          It’s of course the other way round. BobS made a list of objections and answered them, which is a common and decent thing to do. As he’s not perfect the list might be incomplete, which is why there is a comment section giving for instance you the opportunity to raise objections.

        • Lycan

          “2. BobS makes clear that he’s talking about the similarities and doesn’t hide that there are differences.”

          I have raised objections but he seems to only be answering the ones he’s comfortable with. I wrote several lines explaining how he seems to have gotten some of the myths wrong and he still hasn’t addressed them.

        • I’m listening. Show me what concerns are unanswered.

        • Lycan

          “”To repeat from my previous comment, which you ignored: If all the other dying-and-rising stories are false, why imagine that Jesus is the exception?”

          First off as I’ve stated before it seems that attis’ rebirth wasn’t added to the legend until after Christ rose again. So it would seem that the attis cult copied Christians in that regard.

          adonis seems to have the same story. It seems that there was no mention of his rebirth until at least the second century.

          with baal it still seems debatable whether he died in the first place.

          with osiris

          “Jonathan Z. Smith in the article “Dying and Rising Gods” for the Encyclopedia of Religion (1987) relates the myth like this: Osiris is murdered, his body is dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body are recovered and rejoined, and the god is rejuvenated. However, he doesn’t return to his former mode of existence but rather journeys to the underworld where he becomes the powerful “lord of the dead.” “In no sense can Osiris be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern; most certainly it was never conceived as an annual event.”

          Source:http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Dionysos

          Also there is a list of the sources the guy used at the bottom and there are a lot.

        • What source says that the Attis legend came after Christianity?

          My favorite is Dionysus. Take a look at that one.

          And is your point that there were zero myths of dying and rising gods before 1CE?

        • Lycan

          My point is that four out of the five myths you mentioned seem wrong.

          Oh the Attis source I linked earlier and also I think the article mentions it.

        • Spectrum

          So by your reasoning, we shouldn’t trust anything that historians say either, as they can’t be trusted. They ( historians ) weren’t present when events took place, so the events are of little credible value.

          Really ? So we should throw out all the books on the history of – everything ?

        • MNb

          I wasn’t aware that Confucius, Aristoteles and Galilei were historians of the 20th and/or 21st Century.
          Neither am I aware that they ever appeared in a courtroom say last 300 years.
          In fact I’m not aware of writing anything about historians at all in my previous two comments. So pardon me – but what the heck are you talking about?!

        • Spectrum

          I wasn’t saying THEY were historians, I was speaking generally about the reliability or otherwise of past events and personalities.

        • MNb

          Then your comment is totally irrelevant, because I wasn’t.

        • Spectrum

          Not “totally irrelevant”. You don’t get the analogy I was making.

        • Spectrum

          “….I already pointed out that the Bible doesn’t have any authority….”.

          What uninformed garbage. You don’t have the authority to declare that. Not when there are more knowledgeable people in the subject who can show otherwise….

          Take your pick ; https://www.google.com/search?q=does+the+bible+have+authority&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

        • Dys

          It’s authoritative to Christians, because they already buy into the premise. Non-believers and non-Christians don’t, so it doesn’t. It doesn’t really matter how many Christian theologians you pick – they can’t demonstrate the bible is authoritative either, because it eventually leads back to trying to prove God exists, which no one’s ever been able to do.

        • Spectrum

          Prophecy alone, is a powerful persuader of the bible’s authority.

          ( quote ) “….Many religious books claim to be divinely inspired, but only the
          Bible has evidence of supernatural confirmation. We have seen that
          Jesus, being God incarnate, affirms the inspiration of the Bible.
          Another evidence of supernatural confirmation is the testimony of
          prophecy. The biblical authors made hundreds of specific prophecies of
          future events that have come to pass in the manner they were predicted.
          No book in history can compare to the Bible when it comes to the
          fulfillment of prophecy.

          Here are some examples. Ezekiel 26, which was written in 587 B.C.,
          predicted the destruction of Tyre, a city made up of two parts: a
          mainland port city, and an island city half a mile off shore. Ezekiel
          prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city, many nations
          would fight against her, the debris of the city would be thrown into the
          ocean, the city would never be found again, and fishermen would come
          there to lay their nets.

          In 573 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre. Many
          of the refugees of the city sailed to the island, and the island city
          of Tyre remained a powerful city. In 333 B.C., however, Alexander the
          Great laid siege to Tyre. Using the rubble of mainland Tyre, he built a
          causeway to the island city of Tyre. He then captured and completely
          destroyed the city.

          Today, Tyre is a small fishing town where fishing boats come to rest
          and fisherman spread their nets. The great ancient city of Tyre to this
          day lies buried in ruins exactly as prophesied. If we were to calculate
          the odds of this event happening by chance, the figures would be
          astronomical. No, it was not by coincidence.{2}

          Here’s another example. There are nearly one hundred prophecies made
          about Jesus in the Old Testament, prophecies such as His place of birth,
          how he would die, His rejection by the nation of Israel, and so on. All
          these prophecies were made hundreds of years before Jesus ever came to
          earth. Because of the accuracy of the prophecies, many skeptics have
          believed that they must have been written after A.D. 70—after the birth
          and death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. They have thereby
          tried to deny that they are even prophecies.

          However, in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These scrolls
          contained the book of Isaiah and other prophetic books. When dated, they
          were found to be written from 120 to 100 B.C.,{3}
          well before Jesus was born. It would have been an incredible
          accomplishment for Jesus to have fulfilled the numerous prophecies. Some
          say these prophecies were fulfilled by chance, but the odds against
          this would be exceptionally large. It would take more a greater leap of
          faith to believe in that chance happening than in the fact that Jesus is
          God and these prophecies are divinely inspired.

          The record of prophecy is thus evidence for the unique and supernatural origin of the Bible….”. ( end quote )

          More reasons why the bible is authoritative ; https://www.probe.org/authority-of-the-bible-a-strong-argument-for-christianity/

        • Dys

          The supposedly fulfilled prophecies are a rather weak evidence. Most of them have to be creatively interpreted in order to even come close, including the one for Tyre.

          In other words, a person’s likelihood in accepting them as fulfilled is tied more to whether they already believe in biblical inerrancy and the authority of the bible than the actual accuracy of the prophecies.

          The prophecy for Jesus’s birthplace is particularly bad, considering the events that were supposed to place his family in Bethlehem didn’t occur. Which gives the impression that the birth narrative is an invention rather than history.

          So presuppositionalism has far more to do with accepting the prophecies as fulfilled rather than their real accuracy.

        • Spectrum

          Prophecy is but one proof of the bible’s authority. Please read the rest of them.

        • Dys

          Except it’s not proof. And the situation is as I’ve already described it – you can’t demonstrate that the bible has any authority other than what people put into it.

          It’s essentially circular reasoning – you already believe it’s the inspired, perfect word of God, so that’s how you judge it. Step outside of that presupposition, and the cracks start becoming incredibly apparent.

        • MNb is an idiot for arguing that the Bible has no authority, but you’re empowered to say that it does? If MNb isn’t anointed with clairvoyance, why should we imagine that you are?

        • Spectrum

          Of course I’m empowered. As Christians we are given authority to preach the gospel “to all the nations”. The authority is God’s Truth via the scriptures. We are exhorted to share His Truth with all the non believers, to lead them to salvation and eternal life. That is fundamental Christianity in action.

          MNb is not qualified to say the bible has no authority because he / she is an atheist and does not know the Truth of God, nor the knowledge and understanding that comes from the study of scripture. He is arguing from a position of ignorance, as so many unbelievers do. Hence why we are ridiculed and mocked by them.

          As far as the credibility of the bible itself as an authoritative source is concerned, prophecy alone, is a powerful persuader of it. Here was my response to Dys….

          ( quote ) “….Many religious books claim to be divinely inspired, but only the
          Bible has evidence of supernatural confirmation. We have seen that
          Jesus, being God incarnate, affirms the inspiration of the Bible.
          Another evidence of supernatural confirmation is the testimony of
          prophecy. The biblical authors made hundreds of specific prophecies of
          future events that have come to pass in the manner they were predicted.
          No book in history can compare to the Bible when it comes to the
          fulfillment of prophecy.

          Here are some examples. Ezekiel 26, which was written in 587 B.C.,
          predicted the destruction of Tyre, a city made up of two parts: a
          mainland port city, and an island city half a mile off shore. Ezekiel
          prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city, many nations
          would fight against her, the debris of the city would be thrown into the
          ocean, the city would never be found again, and fishermen would come
          there to lay their nets.

          In 573 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre. Many
          of the refugees of the city sailed to the island, and the island city
          of Tyre remained a powerful city. In 333 B.C., however, Alexander the
          Great laid siege to Tyre. Using the rubble of mainland Tyre, he built a
          causeway to the island city of Tyre. He then captured and completely
          destroyed the city.

          Today, Tyre is a small fishing town where fishing boats come to rest
          and fisherman spread their nets. The great ancient city of Tyre to this
          day lies buried in ruins exactly as prophesied. If we were to calculate
          the odds of this event happening by chance, the figures would be
          astronomical. No, it was not by coincidence.{2}

          Here’s another example. There are nearly one hundred prophecies made
          about Jesus in the Old Testament, prophecies such as His place of birth,
          how he would die, His rejection by the nation of Israel, and so on. All
          these prophecies were made hundreds of years before Jesus ever came to
          earth. Because of the accuracy of the prophecies, many skeptics have
          believed that they must have been written after A.D. 70—after the birth
          and death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. They have thereby
          tried to deny that they are even prophecies.

          However, in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These scrolls
          contained the book of Isaiah and other prophetic books. When dated, they
          were found to be written from 120 to 100 B.C.,{3}
          well before Jesus was born. It would have been an incredible
          accomplishment for Jesus to have fulfilled the numerous prophecies. Some
          say these prophecies were fulfilled by chance, but the odds against
          this would be exceptionally large. It would take more a greater leap of
          faith to believe in that chance happening than in the fact that Jesus is
          God and these prophecies are divinely inspired.

          The record of prophecy is thus evidence for the unique and supernatural origin of the Bible….”. ( end quote )

          More reasons why the bible is authoritative ; https://www.probe.org/authorit

        • Aram

          If you’re going to copy/paste your nonsense over and over, you really should sort out the Disqus formatting before you walk away. Not that it’s worth reading, but would be easier to read if someone felt inclined.
          You’re welcome.

        • Spectrum

          It’s not “nonsense”. But yes, thankyou, that would be helpful. I do find it annoying too. Where do I find out how to format it so that it reads properly, then ? I’ve just checked under “Get Help”, but didn’t see anything relevant.

        • Aram

          It’s nonsense because you forget the most important point of all. The New Testament was written after the Old.
          Think about it.
          As for formatting, just paste and then edit/re-line your post. Takes a bit longer but makes less people hate you 😉

        • Spectrum

          But why does it do that ? No other sites change the formatting other than Disqus. I have re-lined other posts of mine, but it becomes too much of a hassle after a while.

          Disqus – if you’re reading this – get your act together !

        • Aram

          Probably it does that to encourage original thought and interaction.

        • Spectrum

          So it has happened when you have copied and pasted too ? I thought it might be a fault with my browser or something. It’s a relief to know that I’m not the only one having this frustration.

        • Aram

          It’s only frustrating if you copy/paste ALL the time.

        • Aram

          As for your Ezekiel prophecy copy/paste, I’d say this site did a thorough debunking. Enjoy.

          http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.de/2012/04/ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-failed.html

        • Spectrum

          Ah, you’re copying and pasting too ! Double standard ?

        • Aram

          It’s a link. Calm yourself.

        • MNb

          “The authority is God’s Truth via the scriptures.”
          Exactly! As there is no god it follows logically and directly that that authority is exactly zero.
          Thanks.

          “He is arguing from a position of ignorance …”
          In the previous quote you told me all I need to know to reach my conclusion. That’s why I thanked you.
          The authority of the Bible depends on god’s truth.
          There is no god hence there is no such thing as god’s truth.
          Hence the Bible doesn’t have any authority.
          Very nice of you that you confirm my conclusion.

        • Spectrum

          According to you there is no God. You can’t KNOW this. It’s merely your belief, just like mine which believes there is. You base your counter argument on this ? Actually there IS NO argument present in that at all. Just your opinion. Which has no more worth than my own.

          Then you have the audacity to smugly congratulate yourself for this outstanding victory of logic. You’re deluded.

        • According to you, there are no unicorns. You can’t know this. It’s merely your belief, just like mine which is that they do exist.

          Our positions are symmetric.

        • MNb

          Hard to understand how logic, works, no?

          “congratulate yourself …”
          I didn’t. I just showed you where “the Bible doesn’t have any authority” comes from – ie on what assumption it was based.

          “Just your opinion.”
          I never claimed it was more. You claimed with that long list of links of yours that the authority of the Bible was established by scholars. You blamed me for not putting enough effort in truth seeking. Now you say it’s just about opinions. But unsurprisingly you are as dishonest as almost every single apologist so now you prefer to forget that little issue – which you were bleating around with your very first comments on this blog.
          Hence now you find out that it doesn’t work you are blaming me for what you did. Quite the asshole are you, aren’t you?

          “just like mine which believes there is.
          And hence that long list of links of yours is based on the same quicksand as mine, according to you. That remark of yours about “truth seeker” has become even more hypocritical. You wanted to send me on a quest for truth based on “just like yours which believes there is” – what you call merely an opinion.
          Quite the asshole are you, aren’t you?

          “You can’t KNOW this.”
          Depends on what you mean with “to know”.
          But that has nothing to do anymore with the authority of the Bible. If we can’t know whether there is a god or not the Bible doesn’t have any authority either – the very postulation you wanted to dispute and which you scorned me for, but now implicitely accept.
          Quite the asshole are you, aren’t you?

        • Who died to leave you one of the Twelve?

          Read the Great Commission bit in Matthew—the disciples were given superpowers for their mission. If you weren’t, then I think you’re not a recipient of the Great Commission.

          As for Christians given authority and boneheaded atheists not, keep in mind that Christianity is insanely fractioned. There are 42,000 denominations. Take just about any opinion you have—either theological or moral—and you can find another Christian who disagrees with you.

        • MNb

          “You don’t have the authority to declare that.”
          Yup, I have. See, I’m not even baptized. Hence the links you provided are irrelevant to me.
          Take the first link.

          “The strongest argument for the divine inspiration of the Bible is the testimony of Jesus.”
          Jesus was a human being like you and me, so if this is the strongest argument there is no argument at all. It’s that simple.

        • Spectrum

          So you stopped after the first link ? You’re a real seeker of the truth, aren’t you ?

        • MNb

          Have you read Koerbagh, Baron d’Holbach, Thomas Paine, Jeremy Bentham, Michael Bakunin, Piotr Kropotkin, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, Bertrand Russell, Anton Constandse, Richard Feynman, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Graham Oppy, Herman Philipse, Hector Avalos and Maarten Boudry?
          No?
          Then your belief system is not the result of a quest for truth either and your comment only shows your hypocrisy.
          If you think one link of that long list relevant to me, explain me in one or two sentence why and provide it. Then I’ll read it. Until then I am going to dismiss it as the cheap rhetorical trick it is.

          But there is more. See, I have read several more of your comments as well. Your line of thinking is nothing but

          1. There is a god;
          2. That god provides Truth (whatever that means);
          3. That Truth is reflected in the Bible;
          4. Hence the Bible is authoritative.

          Even when neglecting the plain errors here my point is very simple and hasn’t changed since you entered this blog:

          There is no god.
          Hence the Bible (understood as reflecting “God’s Truth”) does not have any authority.

          That’s sound logic and no amount of theist scholars can change that. That quest you want to send me on is a waste of time unless one of those links provides me with a good reason (evidence or argument) to accept that there is a god.
          The Bible is not a good reason.

        • Ron

          Ok. From Bible.org we read:

          Christianity is based on the Bible which Christians accept as their final authority because they believe it to be inspired by God. Thus, our first topic for study is the basis for this belief. Why do Christians believe the Bible to be a Book inspired by God? Our answer is found in the Bible itself.

          This graphic illustrates the circular logic:

          http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/7/78/Bible_cycle.jpg/780px-Bible_cycle.jpg

        • Very adept! You’ve caught them in their lie (or bullshit).

        • adam

          Sin?

        • Lycan

          What’s the basis for that.

        • adam

          The ‘bible’

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu
        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s hard to know where to start with the mindwankery at that Christian apologetics site. It’s pumping out bilge to the gullible and rhubarbs are drinking it down like it is going out of fashion.

          Here’s a question for ya?

          Which one of the 45,000+ Christianities is the true one then…or will it be one of the new versions that will pop up at an average of 2 per day?

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Are you an Atheist or do you only have a problem with the multiple versions of Christianity?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Irrelevant.

          The problem isn’t mine, it’s Christianity’s.

          That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. …~John 17:21-26

          That together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. ~Romans 15:6

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          So you are a Christian (or at least someone that understands the faith)? I ask this to know where you stand. I am a Christian, what are you?

        • Greg G.

          Only the versions that are wrong but can’t keep it to themselves.

        • adam

          BS Apologetics

        • Why is that article interesting? It has a list of “fulfilled prophecies,” which are nonsense, and then a list of stuff the Bible claims about Jesus, for which there’s no good evidence.

          If you can sell this lemon better that I just did, go for it.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          I understand you are an Atheist, I have no problem with that. But don’t you think blanket (and maybe proud) statements like “which are nonsense” and “for which there’s no good evidence” can only be made by someone with complete, infallible and universal knowledge of everything? Are you that person?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why are you here talking rubbish?

          It doesn’t require infallibility or omniscience to detect nonsense or see that something is an assertion without good evidence.

          If you got off your lazy arse and did the research you might discover just what a lot of nonsense without good evidence that fuckwit at CARM is pumping out to you gullible lot.

          For example, the first fulfilled prophecy on the list, the virgin birth being foretold in Isaiah 7:14 is complete bollocks, i.e. nonsense without evidence.

          Matthew here is quoting the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which does indeed say that the woman conceiving is a PARTHENOS, a word that by Matthew’s day typically meant “woman who has never had sex.” Sometimes the word simply means “young woman.” And that is definitely what the original Hebrew of Isa. 7:14 says, where the Hebrew word for “young woman” (ALMA) is used, rather than the word for “woman who has never had sex” (BETHULAH).

          https://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-born-of-a-virgin-in-matthew-and-luke/

          The whole virgin birth trope is a result of a mistranslated word from Hebrew into Greek. Read the context in Isaiah to see just what nonsense it really is…it is set out at the link above.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          You are responding to my question to Bob Seidensticker which is different from what I asked you. Again I want to know your position in all of this. Is your beef with what appears to be inconsistencies in the Christian faith or are you here to say that indeed there is no God. Can you answer me simply?

        • Michael Neville

          Most atheists don’t say “there are no gods”, we say “we don’t believe in the existence of gods.” The two statements are not identical.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are responding to my question to Bob Seidensticker which is different from what I asked you.

          So what? This is an open forum and anyone is free to reply to any comment they wish.

          Again I want to know your position in all of this. Is your beef with what appears to be inconsistencies in the Christian faith or are you here to say that indeed there is no God. Can you answer me simply?

          I thought I did…it is irrelevant, but since you think it will make a difference.

          I don’t believe in the existence of any gods because the preponderance of evidence is so weak and unconvincing for any of them, that I live my life accordingly. It is the same for my belief in the existence of fairies.

          I also have a problem with the definition of the word god vis a vis the list of attributes adherents claim. The word is incoherent and meaningless given that list, which is cherry picked by the theist to suit one particular argument, then cherry picked again differently to suit a different argument.

          Now, with regard my “beef” with the Christian faith and the actual inconsistencies. Well I do get miffed when arseholes are trying to make me follow what they perceive their god wants, against my will. Especially when those arseholes haven’t the first idea about their own faith and where it really came from.

          We think your religion is philosophically inconsistent. We think your religion is completely unsupported by either evidence or reason. And many of us — probably most of us — think your religion fucks people up. ~ Greta Christina

          http://academic.laverne.edu/~ear/ls/Foundations/Reading_Room/GretaChristina_Complete.pdf

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Ok, sorry I’m just getting back to you on this…You say that there is no proof of God (or gods). Can I ask you if you have proof that there is no God?

          In case you don’t understand, for example I say there’s a cup on my table and you say there is no proof of it, now I’m asking you to prove that there is no cup on my table.

          Please state your proof that there is no God.

        • epeeist

          Can I ask you if you have proof that there is no God?

          In IOK-1 there is an unnamed planet on which there is a race of free-floating, sentient gasbags. They have been around longer than us and know that their god exists and that all others are simply made up.

          Prove that they, and their god, do not exist.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu
        • Pofarmer

          Who does the creator owe it’s intelligence too?

        • epeeist

          Which doesn’t even come near to rebutting the claim I made, never mind refuting it.

          Where is your proof that the god of the sentient gas bags does not exist?

        • Pofarmer
        • Greg G.

          Please state your proof that there is no God.

          Define God. I can prove that some types of gods do not exist.

          For a being to qualify as a god, it has to have a certain amount of power. Julius Caesar was once the most powerful person on Earth and claimed to be a god but he was not. An alien could have powers that would awe us but it wouldn’t mean it was a god. So the minimum power to be a god will be sufficiently powerful to accomplish whatever suffering can accomplish.

          Another required feature is benevolence. If it is sadistic or uncaring, we should not consider it a god. A benevolent god should never allow unnecessary suffering.

          If a being meets the first criteria, then all suffering is unnecessary as any outcome of suffering could be accomplished by that being. But suffering exists, so unnecessary suffering exists.

          Therefore, we know there is no being that is both capable of preventing suffering and willing to do so. That rules out the existence of all concepts of omnipotent, omnibenevolent gods.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Thanks Greg for you attempt to define God but your opinions do not define God only what you think God should be. That in my opinion is a proud assumption that you’re in a position of complete and infallible knowledge.

          So what happens if God doesnt fit you definitions, does that mean God doesnt exist? Or should that mean that that Being is not God?

          In your defiitions I detect some desire to find a Being that posseses those qualities and that if you find them in anyone you would agree you’ve found God.

        • Greg G.

          I didn’t say I could disprove all gods. Many, probably most, theists believe in a tri-omni god. I showed that gods that are claimed to be both omnipotent and benevolent do not exist.

          If you have a god that is less than omnipotent to get around this disproof, you could worship my dog that is benevolent but not omnipotent. If your god is omnipotent but not benevolent, why worship it? If your god is neither, omnipotent nor benevolent, why call it a god?

          Those are not my definitions. You ate detecting the desires of theists.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You say that there is no proof of God (or gods).

          Nope. I prefer to use the word evidence. The evidence for any god is so weak that I have no reason to believe in the existence any of them.

          Can I ask you if you have proof that there is no God?

          That’s not how it works. Which god are you talking about? Do you have evidence that there is no gods excepting your favorite? Give me a working definition of the god you are talking about and then we can talk about why such an entity is incoherent and superfluous to reality?

          In case you don’t understand, for example I say there’s a cup on my table and you say there is no proof of it, now I’m asking you to prove that there is no cup on my table.

          Are you naturally so stupid, or do you have to practice?

          Cups and tables exist. I’ve got examples of them right here in my own house. But you are right, there is only your word for it. I can’t demonstrate you aren’t lying, but get this, it ain’t up to me to prove the negative, it is up to you to demonstrate the positive. It is your claim that there is a cup on your table, therefore onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat, so pah!

          You see, I don’t claim there is no gods, I don’t even claim there is no “proof” for gods. I claim it is so negligible that it is on a par with the evidence for all other supernatural nonsense asserted, so it gets as much respect, that is,none.

          Please state your proof that there is no God.

          Please state your “proof” that there is no Space Ponies, Snowflake Fairies, Leprechauns, Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Flying Spaghetti Monster?

          Please state your “proof” that the is no Zeus, Wotan, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Xenu, Brahma, or take your pick from the list at the link below…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

        • Greg G.

          Are you naturally so stupid, or do you have to practice?

          Practice makes perfect.

        • epeeist

          Practice makes perfect.

          Nah, only perfect practice makes perfect.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Greg G.

          Not when it comes to practicing stupid. One has to be somewhat not stupid to know the difference between stupid and not stupid. Perfectly practicing stupid means you have to perfectly practice not stupid simultaneously. A stupid person would be right by chance sometimes but perfect stupidity would require the effort of a high intellect.

          Or am I just being stupid?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Some of these god-bots must really put a lot of time into it in that case.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          So, in effect you have no evidence that God does not exist, while you have ‘negligible’ evidence that God exists?

          I have already said I am a Christian so the God in the Bible is Who I refer to here.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So, in effect you have no evidence that God does not exist,…

          Is it a reading comprehension issue you are dealing with?

          I have no evidence that a purple teapot is not orbiting Venus, and neither do you.

          I have no evidence that any number of things do not exist, and neither do you.

          In the absence of this “no evidence”, one doesn’t get to assert whatever bullshit fuckwittery that happens to float their boat, as existent. Wise up.

          …while you have ‘negligible’ evidence that God exists?

          I don’t have any evidence, it’s not my evidence. It is the excuse for evidence put forward by the holy rollers that is so pathetic, it is negligible afaic…and therefore it is unconvincing. It’s you folk that think it’s evidence.

          I have already said I am a Christian so the God in the Bible is Who I refer to here.

          Right then, answer my last question….

          What is your “proof” that there is no of “the other gods in human history”, apart from your particular flavour of the Christian god?

          Please state your “proof” that the is no Zeus, Wotan, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Xenu, Brahma, or take your pick from the list at the link below…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

          It shouldn’t be that hard by your thinking.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Let me try to summarise your position on this matter: Christians are idiots for believing that God does exist and every evidence/proof they have provided is totally stupid YET you’re unable to give ONE shred of evidence that God doesnt exist?

          Does it not follow logic that if there is no good evidence of existence of God there should be ample evidence of God’s inexistence?

          Dear sir, you are the one sounding truly foolish in this conversation.

          The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, …
          Ps 14:1, Ps 53:1

        • Ignorant Amos

          YET you’re unable to give ONE shred of evidence that God doesnt exist?

          I can’t understand why this is so difficult. Why do you disbelieve in all the gods that are and have ever been, apart from your own? When you figure that one out, then you’ll understand why I think it is stupid to believe in your particular one out of the choice of thousands.

          Does it not follow logic that if there is no good evidence of existence of God there should be ample evidence of God’s inexistence?

          This is why you are a moron.

          “Does it not follow logic that if there is no good evidence of existence of Space Ponies there should be ample evidence of Space Ponies inexistence?”

          “Does it not follow logic that if there is no good evidence of existence of Snowflake Fairies there should be ample evidence of Snowflake Fairies inexistence?”

          “Does it not follow logic that if there is no good evidence of existence of [insert preferred supernatural rubbish here] there should be ample evidence of [insert preferred supernatural rubbish here] inexistence?”

          Moronic…isn’t it?

          Dear sir, you are the one sounding truly foolish in this conversation.

          Don’t call me sir, I worked for a living. And you keep thinking that ya clown.

          The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, …
          Ps 14:1, Ps 53:1

          Which one ya feckin ejit….and be specific?

        • Pofarmer

          And I give you.

          https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

          Knock yerself out.

          YET you’re unable to give ONE shred of evidence that God doesnt exist?

          I don’t believe your “evidence”. What’s so hard about that?

          And I see you didn’t answer IA’s question.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Sorry sir, you only knocked ‘yerself out’:

          “Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific
          progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the
          origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or
          any other supernatural involvement.[2]
          This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up
          by good reasons. While we don’t have the final answers, I will attempt
          to explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately
          understand the universe without involving God in any way
          .”

          That’s from the link you provided.

          Your evidence on the inexistence of God is some guy’s hope that one day science will have all the answers?

        • adam

          “Your evidence on the inexistence of God is some guy’s hope that one day science will have all the answers?”

          No, the evidence that ONLY science has ever answered any real questions.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/831e274b356c03b8778b1d9672b8ab244560e2fda7a4cd57b0436d5bda02694f.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          Seeing as how science is where answers have traditionally come from…………..

        • BlackMamba44

          Matthew 5:22 (NIV)

          22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[a][b] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

        • Greg G.

          My imagination can come up with many things that cannot be disproved. That does not mean those things actually exist. For example, there is a very small asteroid orbiting a star in a galaxy two billion light years from here, and that asteroid is not only in the shape of a human, it looks exactly like me. Neither of us can disprove its existence because I carefully contrived it to be undisprovable. Gods are like that, too.

          Your burden of proof is to show how to distinguish an imaginary god from an existent god.

        • The burden of proof is on the Christian–they’re the one making the remarkable claim. Show us that God exists (or that that’s where the evidence points).

          I can’t prove no god, but I do have lots of arguments that point to that conclusion. If you’re curious, I suggest you click the All Posts tab at the top and browse some of the posts.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          I’m grateful for your frankness that you cant prove God doesnt exist. With all your arguments, none have given you the assurance that there IS NO Almighty Being that created everything in known existence. THAT on its own is a powerful point to consider, don’t you think?

          Now moving forward, without God, what do you think man is? What’s the origin of mankind, of nature?

          In a universe without God, where do you think everything in existence came from?

        • epeeist

          With all your arguments, none have given you the assurance that there IS NO Almighty Being that created everything in known existence.

          Let’s see what Bertrand Russell has to say on the subject:

          I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.

          So, where is your proof that Zeus, Hera and Poseidon do not exist?

          THAT on its own is a powerful point to consider, don’t you think?

          No, all it points to is someone who either has little or no knowledge of logic, or has no compunction about deliberately trying to illicitly shift a burden. Your claim that your god exists, your burden to demonstrate this is so.

          Now moving forward, without God, what do you think man is?

          Why should we move on until you have demonstrated that your god exists?

        • Philmonomer

          I’m grateful for your frankness that you cant prove God doesnt exist. With all your arguments, none have given you the assurance that there IS NO Almighty Being that created everything in known existence. THAT on its own is a powerful point to consider, don’t you think?

          God could have created the universe, and then walked away. Under that scenario, the universe would look exactly the same as if a No-God process got the Universe started.

          So, I don’t see any point in considering it, as it would have no practical effect on us.

          Furthermore, every time in the past when we’ve said “God did it” to explain a natural process that we don’t understand, we’ve turned out to be wrong. We are almost certainly wrong here to say (again) “God did it.”

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Mmm, an interesting POV you’ve got there! But consider that what we call natural is actually supernatural originally.

          Think of anything (object or occurence) we consider natural/normal today, the very first of its kind was supernatural.

          If an object, who made the first one? If an occurence, who caused it? We live in a universe of cause and effect, dont we?

          Whoever/Whatever started it all, is God.

        • Philmonomer

          We don’t know the “cause” of the Big Bang (if it even had a “cause,” using our understanding of cause and effect).

          if we’ve learned anything about Cosmology over the last 300 or so years, we’ve learned that our “intuitions” about it probably aren’t correct.

          All we know right now is that there was an expansion event a long time ago. What there was “before” that (if “before” is even a meaningful word) is unknown.

          Saying “God did it” is a remarkable claim.

          If an object, who made the first one? If an occurence, who caused it? We live in a universe of cause and effect, dont we?

          Well, we live in a Universe of cause effect. However, 1) how do you know cause and effect exists outside the Universe? (under your understanding, something outside the universe “caused” the universe to come into existence) and 2) cause and effect exist for us, as we understand it, in this “middle” world we live in (between the very very big and the very very small). It is possible that our understanding of cause and effect in this middle world doesn’t actually apply to the very very big or the very very small. Indeed, the big bang was both at the same time.

          Whoever/Whatever started it all, is God.

          I have no idea how you can know this.

        • epeeist

          But consider that what we call natural is actually supernatural originally.

          It is? You can of course substantiate this assertion.

        • adam

          “But consider that what we call natural is actually supernatural originally.”

          Why?

          There is no evidence of anything supernatural.

          “Whoever/Whatever started it all, is God.”

          So what was your God’s first thought?

          Where did your “God” get such ability from?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b85c139d187be51d3fe0c0c77bcc2e185955505da1a61a389655083966df2057.jpg

        • Dys

          If an object, who made the first one? If an occurence, who caused it?

          Jumping straight to a “who” is an unwarranted assumption.

          Whoever/Whatever started it all, is God.

          “God”, in the sense you’re using it here, is largely a useless word with far too much baggage to be meaningful.

          It could be the case that there was always something, and that ‘nothing’ is impossible, removing the need for a first cause.

        • adam

          “With all your arguments, none have given you the assurance that there IS
          NO Almighty Being that created everything in known existence. THAT on
          its own is a powerful point to consider, don’t you think?”

          No, it is a childish and STUPID point

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6597272c55aa1dd14b2602406d98ba576903e53dce5800dd7f26a6fb2ca9728c.jpg

        • Dys

          With all your arguments, none have given you the assurance that there IS NO Almighty Being that created everything in known existence.

          You’re putting words in people’s mouths. There’s a difference between assurance and proof. Science doesn’t prove things, yet it provides a reasonable assurance that can be relied upon.

          THAT on its own is a powerful point to consider, don’t you think?

          Another powerful point to consider is that there is no proof for the existence of god. Making claims of absolute certainty on the topic irrational and unreasonable.

        • No, that is not at all a powerful point. Do you believe in all things you can’t disprove?

          Now moving forward, without God, what do you think man is? What’s the origin of mankind, of nature?
          In a universe without God, where do you think everything in existence came from?

          You know about what science says on these things, don’t you? Evolution? Big Bang?

          And where science has no answer, I just say, “I don’t know,” just like science. It would be crazy to pretend confident knowledge where I have none.

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Oh but I believe it is! For you to disprove irrefutably the existence of God (mind you I’m a Christian, so I’m always referring to the God of the Bible here), you not only have to successfully counter every evidence, no matter how tiny, that point to God’s existence (namely a universe of design full of gazilions of specific forms and obvious functions), but MORE CRUCIALLY you must supply proof of Gods’s inexistence.

          That is the atheist’s ‘nirvana’. ONLY at that point can you can say indeed that there is no God. But if you cant provide even a single evidence of God’s inexistence, that ‘neglible’ evidence of God’s existence becomes VERY SIGNIFICANT!

          Then come to Evolution and Big Bang, even if everything science has assumed on these theories (and thats all they’ll always be – theories that keep being adjusted) are correct, can science also tell us what was before then?

          In a universe of cause and effect, Who/What produced the first cell? Who/What caused the first chemical reaction? Who/What decided the form and composition of the first atom?

          The truth is you cant answer those questions without thinking of a ‘God’ figure.

          I put it to you that evolution, big bang or whatever else that gave rise to the universe as we know it have an initiator – that initiator is God.

          Atheists ironically are the people who demonstrate the greatest faith – it takes greater faith to believe all in existence just came to be VOILA! without a cause agent than to believe all of this came by a thinking Creator Being

        • Pofarmer

          We don’t have to counter anything. You have to prove your point.

          Do I need to supply proof of Thor’s nonexistence?

          Cosmologists don’t talk in terms of cause and effect, they generally talk in terms of probability, not causality.

          The truth is you cant answer those questions without thinking of a ‘God’ figure.

          yeah, you actually can, you should read some books on it.

          Who initiated God?

        • For you to disprove irrefutably the existence of God . . .

          We’ve been over this. I don’t attempt to do this.

          That is the atheist’s ‘nirvana’. ONLY at that point can you can say indeed that there is no God.

          We’ve been over this, too. I don’t say there is no God; I simply say that that’s where the evidence points.

          But if you cant provide even a sing le evidence of God’s inexistence, that ‘neglible’ evidence of God’s existence becomes VERY SIGNIFICANT!

          And this also applies for Shiva and Quetzalcoatl and Xenu? And Bigfoot and Nessie and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Because you can’t prove that they don’t exist, you must believe in them? Or at least lose sleep because they might exist? Is this how you live your life?

          In a universe of cause and effect, Who/What produced the first cell? Who/What caused the first chemical reaction? Who/What decided the form and composition of the first atom?

          Some questions are stupid, and some are unknown by science. Why bring them up? Because I can’t answer them means what?

          The truth is you cant answer those questions without thinking of a ‘God’ figure.

          Interesting. So when science does find out where life came from, you’re going to stop being a Christian?

          I put it to you that evolution, big bang or whatever else that gave rise to the universe as we know it have an initiator – that initiator is God.

          You put it to me . . . without evidence. Useless.

        • Further, the bit in Isaiah 7 says, “The virgin shall bear a son.” OK–what’s surprising about that? Most females are virgins before they have sex. The prophecy was that this virgin would have sex, then conceive, then bear a son. Big deal.

        • Michael Neville

          I can’t speak for Bob but I know, for a fact, that there is no good evidence for gods (note the plural, there’s more than your favorite deity). This is based on three things: (1) If there was good evidence theists would be proclaiming it loudly; (b) Every single bit of evidence presented to us is either fallacious or doesn’t actually “prove” anything; and (iii) Theists’ reliance on faith.

          Aquinas’ best argument, the First Cause, doesn’t show there’s a god, let alone Yahwehjesus. It argues that the universe has an origin. Nothing supernatural needed for the universe to happen. And while he hides it well, Tommy’s Prime Mover argument is based on special pleading and question begging, which are logical fallacies.

          If theists had real evidence then you couldn’t find enough ten-foot poles to keep faith away. “We don’t need faith, we have evidence!” is the cry we never hear. But you rely on faith because not only don’t you have evidence but you know you don’t have evidence. Hence the appeal to faith.

          Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Does the reality of supernatural occurences count for evidence of God (or gods)? Or do you say ‘science’ has answered every supernatural/paranormal event recorded?

        • epeeist

          Does the reality of supernatural occurences

          Before you can claim “supernatural occurrences” you need to demonstrate that the “supernatural” exists and what properties it possesses. Once you have done this we can then attempt to determine whether there are such things as “supernatural occurrences”.

          Or do you say ‘science’ has answered every supernatural/paranormal event recorded?

          And of course this is simply begging the question.

          Let us ask, of all the things that were explained by evocation of the “supernatural” how many are now explained naturally? Conversely, how many things that were explained naturally are now explained “supernaturally”?

        • Chukwuka Amamchukwu

          Are you Michael Neville? I asked him so let him respond if you don’t mind.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You really haven’t grasped the concept of open forum discussion, have you?

        • Greg G.

          epeeist is letting Michael Neville respond. He couldn’t stop him if he wanted to. If you want to have a private conversation, do it through private channels.

        • Michael Neville

          Got any examples of “supernatural” or “paranormal” occurrences? I mean things that will pass careful examination and aren’t, as usually happens, obvious bullshit. Remember Carl Sagan’s aphorism “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Also remember that you’re the one who’s trying to sell your supernatural and/or paranormal occurrences to me and I’m the one who decides if it is obvious bullshit or not. Right now, especially for paranormal happenings, it’s all obvious bullshit. But your obvious bullshit may be different.

          So what ya got?

        • Greg G.

          Does the reality of supernatural occurences count for evidence of God (or gods)?

          Or do you say ‘science’ has answered every supernatural/paranormal event recorded?

          Do you have any accurately described events where all natural causes have been eliminated?

        • I used those terms as shorthand. Those are my conclusions, and I go into detail in posts about those topics. I simply didn’t want to rehash that in a 5000-word comment here.

        • Lycan

          By the way Jesus is not an idol. He is our Lord and Savior.

        • MNb

          Special pleading. You only write that because you worship him. BobS doesn’t and neither do I. When looking from the outside Jesus is nothing special.
          Exactly by writing “He is our Lord and Savior” you turn that person into an idol, whether he was called Jesus or Kim Il Sung.

        • adam

          Of course your Jesus is an idol.

          idol Merriam Webster
          noun ˈī-dəl
          : a greatly loved or admired person

          : a picture or object that is worshipped as a god

        • Spectrum

          Jesus explicitly CONDEMNED idolatry. So how could He be one Himself ? Think before you type.Or better still, read the bible and at least make a pretense of understanding it.

        • adam

          ” So how could He be one Himself ?”

          Because people like YOU create it in your own mind.

          I HAVE red the bible, you should too.

        • Spectrum

          You may have read the bible, anyone can do that. But you evidently haven’t ABSORBED much of it. Or you wouldn’t be claiming Jesus to be an idol in the biblical sense of the meaning.

          The definition of idol that you provided in your previous post applies to FALSE idols – false Gods – of which there were a number – that seduced the Jews of ancient Israel into adopting pagan practices that led them away from their God and consequently to be cursed by Him.

        • Dys

          Considering the prophecies in the OT and the difficulties in making Jesus fit them, it’s certainly plausible that Jews could consider him a false idol.

        • Spectrum

          The ancient Israelites knew what they were doing when they started following pagan practices and worship. They had been warned by God not to do so as He declares that He is a “jealous God”, and that if they did, they would be alienated from Him and be punished.

          If you are interested in understanding the great sin of idolatry see this ; http://commontruth.com/Idolatry.html

        • Dys

          None of which deals with what I said. Good job missing the point.

        • Spectrum

          That was an information statement pertaining to the topic at hand, not a reply to the question. I HAVE replied to that, as you will notice.

        • You may have read the Old Testament, but I wonder if you’ve absorbed some of the outrageous stories of Yahweh’s excesses. What do you do with all that? Does this not point to mythology instead of a loving god worthy of worship?

        • MNb

          Jesus was a true human and a false god. All gods are false.

        • Spectrum

          Thanks for confirming what I said.

        • adam

          “But you evidently haven’t ABSORBED much of it.”

          I understand the purpose of its mythology and propaganda.

          Revealed ReligionTM leaves no other option that everyone that ‘believes’ that they get ‘revealed’ creates that ‘revelation’ from their own experiences and DESIRES, hence ‘faith’ REQUIRES wishful thinking and the creation of each individual ‘god’ in each individual mind. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c090313104e9af06fc68663a303baee3a51ab2423404403d69f77cf4c77a368.jpg

        • avoid the obvious difference between what Christ did and what these myths claim to be.

          Yes, the Christ story is different. In fact, they’re all different.

          That Palestine was suffused with dying-and-rising god stories makes that element of the Jesus story look borrowed. If all the other dying-and-rising stories are false, why imagine that Jesus is the exception?

        • Lycan

          I was actually talking about how none of the myths mentioned are Saviors. Which is a pretty big difference.

        • Not really. That they’re dying and rising is the enormous common trait.

          To repeat from my previous comment, which you ignored: If all the other dying-and-rising stories are false, why imagine that Jesus is the exception?

        • Lycan

          “Not really. That they’re dying and rising is the enormous common trait.”

          Then why label the article “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”

          Then mention no other Saviors?

          “To repeat from my previous comment, which you ignored: If all the other dying-and-rising stories are false, why imagine that Jesus is the exception?”

          First off as I’ve stated before it seems that attis’ rebirth wasn’t added to the legend until after Christ rose again. So it would seem that the attis cult copied Christians in that regard.

          adonis seems to have the same story. It seems that there was no mention of his rebirth until at least the second century.

          with baal it still seems debatable whether he died in the first place.

          with osiris

          “Jonathan Z. Smith in the article “Dying and Rising Gods” for the Encyclopedia of Religion (1987) relates the myth like this: Osiris is murdered, his body is dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body are recovered and rejoined, and the god is rejuvenated. However, he doesn’t return to his former mode of existence but rather journeys to the underworld where he becomes the powerful “lord of the dead.” “In no sense can Osiris be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern; most certainly it was never conceived as an annual event.”

          http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Dionysos

        • Then why label the article “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”

          Then mention no other Saviors?

          And we’re back to square one. If you want to use the title, “Just one more dying and rising god,” then do so. And then refute the argument.

          Are you saying that every one of these gods’ cults copied the Jesus story? If not, then I presume you agree with the main point that the Jesus story did arise in a culture suffused with the idea of dying-and-rising gods.

        • Lycan

          “And we’re back to square one. If you want to use the title, “Just one more dying and rising god,” then do so. And then refute the argument.”

          You seemed to have evaded the question. My question still remains why did you call your title that and then name no other Saviors?

          “Are you saying that every one of these gods’ cults copied the Jesus story? If not, then I presume you agree with the main point that the Jesus story did arise in a culture suffused with the idea of dying-and-rising gods.”

          I’m sorry but did you really just ignore the rest of the comment where I show how some of the myths didn’t rise again and how at least two don’t seem to be added to the myth until after Christ rose again?

        • You seemed to have evaded the question. My question still remains why did you call your title that and then name no other Saviors?

          I’ve addressed the question, you didn’t like it for some reason, and now I’m bored by the question.

          It’s off topic. If you want to address the actual subject of the post, that would be fine.

          I’m sorry but did you really just ignore the rest of the comment where I show how some of the myths didn’t rise again and how at least two don’t seem to be added to the myth until after Christ rose again?

          I don’t have time to go back to re-research the facts of each of those gods, so let me see if there’s anything interesting here. I’m saying (again) that the Jesus story arose in a culture in which the idea of a dying-and-rising god was already present. Do you agree?

        • deb

          You refer to “facts” but you can’t prove any of them. You have no proof for any of your statements, just your belief. And that’s the whole point: your belief can’t be backed up by any facts that can be tested or observed. Your desire to claim what you have no evidence for, doesn’t make your religion true. You MUST have irrefutable proof, something that Christianity doesn’t have, any more than those others. It’s NOT a fact that this jesus person existed or that he died for sins. There is no difference between him and the other myths–one myth is no more true than the other myths. A myth is untrue, by its very definition, and just claiming that jesus is true doesn’t make it so. PLEASE!!

        • Lycan

          I already proved the facts to the author with the actual greek history, not wikipedia. The actual history showed that the only one that makes a somewhat proper comparison is Baal. The others fail when you take their original stories. Also you don’t have to have irrefutable proof or you would delete most likely hundreds of people from history which don’t have irrefutable proog that they existed.

          God bless you.

        • deb

          Yes, you most certainly do have to have irrefutable proof. No one with any common sense is going to go with something that doesn’t have that. And yes, that requirement may delete many “figures of history”, but that burden is on you as a believer, not me. And besides, so what? If you’re real, there shouldn’t be a problem. And you didn’t answer my point about “facts”. It is NOT a proven statement, or “fact” that your savior existed, or even that he died, or even that he died for sins. I think I was very clear in stating that in my earlier post. But of course you have no answer to that, so you jump to something else. You just need to admit that you have no proof, that you call things “facts” when they’re not, and you’re just going to keep claiming things that you just want to be true. At least then you’d be telling the truth.

        • Lycan

          No I don’t. Because many people taught in history do not have irrefutable proof that they exist. Yet we still teach them in history class. Historians only need a good amount of evidence to declare that it’s most likely someone existed. Most Historians have already said there is enough outside biblical evidence to his existence. So I don’t have a burden in that. That’s already been shown.

        • Greg G.

          The extra-biblical accounts are way too late to be of value. The gospels are based on Mark which is based on the literature of the day, most of it was already centuries old. The early epistles only speak of Jesus in terms of the already centuries old Jewish scriptures, not supporting the itinerant teacher, preacher story line. So it is not just the lack of evidence for a real Jesus, there is evidence that the idea was manufactured. The early epistle writers apparently thought Jesus was the Suffering Servant from Isaiah who lived and died back then and they were expecting him anytime.

        • Lycan

          No they aren’t. As long as an account comes within 100 years it is credible because it takes 200 years to make a legend.

          God bless you.

        • Susan

          it takes 200 years to make a legend.

          Citation needed.

        • Lycan

          Citation was given earlier in a previous conversation. I’ll have to take some time to look for that.

          God bless you.

        • Susan

          Citation was given earlier in a previous conversation. I’ll have to take some time to look for that.

          I didn’t see a specific citation for that claim. If it was you who gave it, you can find it easily by clicking on your Disqus account, accessing your history and finding the citation.

          Then, just right click on the time link and click “copy link address”. Then, “paste” into a comment box in your reply.

          If you have any questions about that, I and others here will provide help.

        • Lycan

          This was a long discussion, but thanks for the tips.

        • Susan

          This was a long discussion, but thanks for the tips.

          Then, we can dismiss your claim that a citation was made earlier. You could cite it again or link to your original citation.

          You’ve done neither.

          So, no citation. Just an unsupported claim.

          Go back where you came from and see if they can send us an honest christian. (on the subject of christianity).

        • Pofarmer

          Oh look. Lee Strobel.

          Fuck.

        • Ouch. They’ve brought in the big guns. I think I’ll just curl up and cower until the barrage of really good pro-Christian evidence is over.

        • Lycan

          Oh Im sorry Susan I think I may be thinking of a different discussion under this same article. I’ll try and find it or something else like it.

        • Susan

          I think I may be thinking of a different discussion under this same article. I’ll try and find it or something else like it.

          Sure. Or you could just provide a citation in real time that supports that assertion.

          If you do neither, we can just dismiss your claim.

        • Lycan

          I’ll get it Susan have some patience.

        • Susan

          I’ll get it Susan.

          An unsupported claim, three requests for citations and nothing so far.

          Have some patience.

          No impatience. We’ll take your claim seriously when you can support it.

          Until then, it has bullshit status.

        • Lycan

          Sorry Susan couldn’t find the old source, here’s one though.

          Lee Strobel quote “I had wanted to believe that the deification of Jesus was the result of legendary development in which well-meaning but misguided people slowly turned a wise sage into the mythical Son of God….But while I went into my investigation thinking that this legendary explanation was intuitively obvious, I emerged convinced it was totally without basis. What clinched it for me was the famous study by A.N. Sherwin-White, the great classical historian from Oxford University, which William Lane Craig alluded to in our interview. Sherwin-White meticulously examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world. His conclusion: not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth.2”

          Source:http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml

        • Pofarmer

          Uh Huh.

          That doesn’t work on a story that is fiction to begin with.

          How long did it take for the deification of Romulas?

          Or Mithras?

          Sathya Sae Baba accrued legends during his own lifetime, as do many contemporary sages.

          I’ve heard it said that a Southern Baptist faith healer in the 1960’s actually caused eyes to be formed on a couple of twins waiting in line for his services before he even saw them.

          Etc, etc, etc.

          It’s a shit argument.

          And in the case of Strobel, from a shit for brains.

          Get a clue.

          Tell you what. Using the same methods that are being used here, disprove the existence of Rhett Butler.

        • Lycan

          I don’t know who any of those people are you mentioned. Some legends.

        • Pofarmer

          I have no words

        • epeeist

          I have no words

          In another post I referred to Clement and Ameribear as “not very bright”, they are outstanding geniuses compared to this one.

        • Pofarmer

          Just careening right along. Oblivious.

        • Perhaps it’s a medical condition. Lycan is “wolf” in Greek. If he suffers from lycanthropy, maybe all that howling at the moon keeps him from getting his rest.

        • Michael Neville

          Your ignorance is evidence of nothing but your ignorance. Remember that google is your friend.

        • Lycan

          Yes but if you have go through legends that seemingly most people haven’t heard of are they really legends?

        • Michael Neville

          Just because YOU haven’t heard of these people doesn’t mean that others share your ignorance. I’d heard of all of them years ago. And you have never heard of Romulas and Remus, the legendary twins who invented Rome (hint: Rome was named after one of them)?

        • Greg G.

          Yes.

        • Pofarmer

          If a thought rattles around in Lycan’s empty head does it make a sound?

        • Ctharrot

          Well, not so fast. Let’s follow this line of reasoning.

          If there’s a legendary ancient account that Lycan hasn’t heard of, it isn’t a legend. If an ancient account isn’t just a legend, it must be true. So all of the ancient accounts Lycan hasn’t heard of are true.

          Marcus Aurelius really summoned rain to hydrate his troops, and lightning to obliterate his Quadi foes. Gautama Buddha came out of his mother’s womb speaking like an adult. Pliny’s description of headless African men whose faces were in their torsos was accurate. Etc.

        • Lycan

          No, because for something to be a legend it has to be known usually by the masses. It can’t just be a small group of people.

        • Greg G.

          How small? A whole culture could know about a legend but another culture wouldn’t. But I don’t think a whole culture has to know the legend for it to be a legend.

        • Lycan

          I do at least when you compare to Christ who is known around the world. You see anyone can start a story but getting people to believe and spread it around makes it a legend. If only one or a few people know something that’s not a legend.

        • Greg G.

          There can be widespread legends and regional legends.

          There are many incompatible religions. Most people have a belief in a religion. No religion is held by a majority. That means most people are wrong about religion. Take in one of them and it breaks down into sects, cults, and denominations, so most of the believers of any religion are wrong, too.

          So humans have a tendency to be wrong about religion, but they only apply that to other religions. Many religions are based on legends attributed to a real person and some are based on pure legend.

          Edit due to my phone browser becoming slooooowww to respond to keystrokes. Continuing from a laptop.

          What we have for Jesus is some epistles written by people who inferred that there was a Jesus from the Jewish scripture as they only speak of him in OT references and allusions. Then we have gospels that used the literature of the day to create a story of that Jesus set in the first half of the first century.

        • Weird. I get told to pay attention when I bring up Sherwin-White, and yet (as I guessed) this was indeed the source.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/06/oral-tradition-and-the-game-of-telephone-a-n-sherwin-whites-famous-quote-craig/

        • Lycan

          You got told to pay attention cause you mentioned the paper, not because of Sherwin White.

        • Greg G.

          Lycan came back because deb replied to a 3 year old post. Maybe he meant it was from the earlier time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not so easy to find after three years, especially if one is a regular commenter on Disqus.

          Still, a Google search should throw something up…but Lycan is buying into an apologetic….so obviously citing bullshit.

          Evangelical apologists, citing Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White, argue that the gospel of Mark’s account of the empty tomb cannot be legendary because the time between the event (circa 30 CE) and its being recorded in Mark’s Gospel (circa 60-70 CE)is too short. But is 30-40 years really too short a time for legend to develop? I don’t think so. We have an example of such a development in the 20th century.

          I can point to my favourite go-to modern example
          of Bravo Two Zero… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_Two_Zero

          I can punt to numerous anecdotes of incidents throughout my military that have gained multiple legendary embellishments.

          As for non-existent characters that were deemed to exist, but are just legends…within less than a century of creation…Ned Ludd and John Frumm spring to mind.

        • Greg G.

          And if the events of the Gospel of Mark never happened, then there is no time period but from when the story was set. But that criterion would be grounds for thinking Forrest Gump was a historical figure.

        • Susan

          Maybe he meant it was from the earlier time.

          In which case, (if it was supposed to be simple for me to find, he could have easily found it and copy-pasted it).

          If it wasn’t easy for him to find, he could have just linked to a more recent source that supported his claim.

          He did neither.

          Then, (after friendly requests, and feet to fire), he gave us Lee frickin’ Strobel.

        • Pofarmer

          This is the dumbest argument ever. It simply assumes the whole thing wasn’t fiction to begin with.

        • Susan

          This is the dumbest argument ever.

          I’m not even worried about his argument, which is so scattered that it’s not worth bothering about.

          I’m just calling him on a single claim.

          Which he hasn’t supported, but he’s pretending he supported somewhere earlier.

          When are they going to send us an honest christian?

        • Pofarmer

          Honest? At this point it would be nice to find one who’s knows something beyond shallow apologetic arguments. It sucks when we have to do their work for them.

        • Ignorant Amos

          it’s poppycock. Whatever citation is produced, the factual evidence rebuts it.

          Richard Carrier uses the example of Roswell as analogous to the Jesus yarn in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave

          https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Tomb-Jesus-Beyond-Grave/dp/159102286X

          Carrier has moved a good deal further along the legend spectrum since that book back in 2005 mind you.

          A blog citing Carrier…

          I think the Roswell legend is an excellent analogy. There was 31 years between the time of the event (1947) and the first legendary embellishment (1978). Since 1978, the legend has grown to enormous proportions. If Mark was written circa 60 CE, that would be about 30 years from the time of the death of Jesus (circa 30 CE). So if the Roswell story can be embellished in less than 30 years in modern times, why couldn’t the story of Jesus be embellished in ancient times? It would have been much easier for the story to take on legendary elements in ancient times.

          The relevant passage from Carrier can be read at the blog…
          http://formerfundy.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/how-long-does-it-take-legend-to-develop.html

        • What Susan said.

          If you’re referring to the A.N. Sherwin-White analysis, I critique that here:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/06/oral-tradition-and-the-game-of-telephone-a-n-sherwin-whites-famous-quote-craig/

          tl;dr: no, it doesn’t take 200 years. You can find stuff in the newspaper that’s wrong about what happened yesterday.

        • Lycan

          I said a legend BOB. Pay attention.

          God bless you.

        • A.N. Sherwin-White is talking about legends. Pay attention.

          Gesundheit.

        • Lycan

          You mentioned the paper which has nothing to do with the argument, hence the pay attention.

        • You’re talking about the development of legends? Sherwin-White is talking about that.

          But you’ve got a relevant scholarly source? Then give it to us. I’m paying attention to your evidence-less claim.

        • Joe

          Are legends credible?

        • Lycan

          I never said they were credible read it again. I said “As long as an account comes within 100 years it is credible because it takes 200 years to make a legend.”

          God bless you.

        • ?? Give us the reference. As it stands now, your claim is evidence-free bullshit.

        • Joe

          Ah, the magic 200 year milestone.

        • epeeist

          Ah, the magic 200 year milestone

          I understand it was actually a 207 year milestone (or perhaps a 203 year milestone, anyway whatever it takes to fit your presuppositions).

        • I think it was 2 generations in A.N. Sherwin-White, not 2 centuries.

        • Susan

          Are legends credible?

          When I were a boy…

        • Greg G.

          A century time limit is not a criterion for credibility. Even ancient historians discussed their sources, the credibility of the source, and why the historian favors one over the other. Luke assumed that he used eyewitness sources but it is obvious that his sources are Mark, Matthew, John (mostly to be refuted), the Old Testament (particularly Deuteronomy for Luke 10 to 18:14 where he departed from the Markan outline), and Josephus as the major sources.

          Tacitus was certainly not going through 80 year old scrolls from Jerusalem to see that that Pilate had executed somebody named Christus, nor Jesus. If he had, he would likely have got Pilate’s rank correct. He more likely got his information from somebody who read the Gospel of Luke, particularly Luke 3:1 that puts it in the time of Tiberius and is the only gospel source that gives Pilate’s first name.

          All of that information is found in Antiquities of the Jews, which Luke relied heavily upon for the parts of the gospel that doesn’t come from Mark and Matthew, and even more in Acts, along with Josephus’ autobiography. Mark, OTOH, appears to rely only on Wars of the Jews, which discusses Pilate without his first name.

          All of the other extra-biblical sources appear to be directly or indirectly dependent on the fiction of the gospels.

        • Lycan

          What about Tiberius he died in 37 AD.

        • Greg G.

          What about Tiberius he died in 37 AD.

          Wars of the Jews 2.9.1 tells that Tiberius took over when Augustus died and ruled for 57 years, 6 months, and 2 days.

          Wars of the Jews 2.9.2 says Pilate was sent to Judea by Tiberius.

          Antiquities of the Jews 18.2.2 tells of Tiberius’ death.

        • Lycan

          Tiberius was Roman emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD.

        • Greg G.

          That is correct. Sorry, I misread the Josephus passage. I was ready for bed and was too tired to look up the Antiquities parallels. The sentence started out to be about Tiberius and I got impatient waiting for the sentence to get back to him.

          But when the Roman empire was translated to Tiberius, the son of Julia, upon the death of Augustus, who had reigned fifty-seven years, six months, and two days, both Herod and Philip continued in their tetrarchies;…

          Antiquities of the Jews 18.2.1 mentions that Herod and Philip had their own tetrarchy. Antiquities of the Jews 18.2.2 gives the account of Tiberius replacing Augustus, then he sent Gratus as governor who set Caiaphas as high priest, then he sent Pontius Pilate.

        • Lycan

          And not sure what that has to do with anything? Sorry maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say.

        • Greg G.

          I mentioned several things in the Tacitus quote comes from Luke 3:1 and much of the Luke 3:1 information comes from Antiquities of the Jews. You focused on Tiberius. I misread a passage from Josephus that got the length of his reign wrong so I corrected it. Thank you for pointing out the error.

        • Lycan

          It’s cool.

        • epeeist

          As long as an account comes within 100 years it is credible because it takes 200 years to make a legend

          We can therefore conclude that King Arthur was real.

        • Pofarmer

          And Rhett Butler.

          I’d still like to see one apologist disprove Rhett Butler using the same criteria they use fo their favorite magical character.

        • epeeist

          And Rhett Butler

          Indeed. What they never seem to do is to realise how their favourite “argument” for Jesus can equally well be applied elsewhere.

        • Joe

          Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.

        • MR

          And Paul Bunyan. They still have Babe sightings in the backwoods of Washington.

        • We see Babe the Blue Ox with Sasquatch riding on his back here in Washington all the time.

        • Lycan

          His account came long after he supposedly lived around 600 A.D.

        • epeeist

          His account came long after he supposedly lived around 600 A.D.

          So you are discounting Nennius, Gildas and Bede?

        • Lycan

          Who are they?

        • epeeist

          Who are they?

          Gildas and Nennius I might give you, though they are easy enough to look up. However a supposed Christian who hasn’t heard of the Venerable Bede?

        • Lycan

          Because I’m a Christian I have to know all the saints? Also with Gildas and Nennius what does that have to do with Author’s story coming out around the 7th century. Nennius wasn’t even around until the 9th century.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No they aren’t. As long as an account comes within 100 years it is credible because it takes 200 years to make a legend.

          Such absolute nonsense.

          Do you not know what an urban myth is ffs?

          Alexander the Great was legendary within a generation of his own lifetime.

          Richard Stoneman is the world’s leading expert on the legends written about Alexander the Great. In this splendid book he has traced those myths across cultures and through time.

          Stoneman’s purpose is not to write another biography of the historical Alexander, but to explore the legends of Alexander written after his death. These legends all descend from the so-called Alexander Romance, a Greek text written some 20-30 years after Alexander’s death (323 B.C.). They were written in Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, German, French, and many other languages in antiquity, the middle ages, and the early modern and modern periods. In sum, the book argues that each legend presented Alexander in a way that met the needs and outlooks of the narrating culture (Egyptian, Persian, Arabic, Byzantine, etc.).

          http://origins.osu.edu/review/alexander-great-life-legend

          God bless you.

          Cram it!

        • Lycan

          Using Alexander the Great doesn’t help the argument, since he actually did exist.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Try and stay focused.

          Nice cherry pick by the way.

          The argument I’m addressing is that of legend, or myth, and how long a period time it takes in which such can take to arise. Your assertion of more than 100 years is silly pants nonsense apologetics. It has been demonstrated as factually erroneous.

          But anyway, let’s run with your half hearted rebuttal for the sport of it.

          The story of Jesus, for the sake of argument, might well be modelled on a geezer that was really bimbling about Galilee and Jerusalem at some time during, or before, the first century. Fine, but the supernatural stuff and more, that we find in the NT, is legendary and mythical embellishment. It can’t be demonstrated as anything more than that and can be shown to be theological bells and whistles incrementally added to a yarn over time.

          If you want to claim that Jesus was a nobody that no one worth talking about was impressed enough to write anything about at the time, but was later mythologised and became legend. No problem, knock yerself out. But if you are going to claim that there was a first century person running about Palestine doing all sorts of wondrous miracles as that of a universe creating deity. A miracle himself no less. Something more than an obscure individual that others hung the clothing of all sorts of Jesus’s upon, then you better get yer sleeves rolled up, because you’ve got your work cut out for you.

          Which of the many Jesus’s do you believe in? Scholars posit all manner of Jesus’s and use scripture to support their hypotheses.

          Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

          Christianity had a good, long run. But we are long past the point where it’s reasonable to be agnostic about the so-called “Jesus of Faith.” It’s ridiculous to pretend the lack of historical corroboration of the spectacular Gospel events, let alone the New Testament’s own fundamental contradictions, aren’t a fatal problem for Jesus the divine Son of God.

          Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/01/will-the-real-jesus-please-stand-up/#ewFwBdd9gZ7RlsOF.99

          That I find the whole edifice untenable and there is a problem in demonstrate that Jesus was similar to other god-men of the ancient world and created out of whole cloth from an amalgam of previous Hellenistic-Judean mythology is another argument. One which I’m well prepared to go down that road of, if ya want?

        • Lycan

          We’re talking about legends that are not based on real people. The others seemingly are trying to show how Jesus may not have existed and how a legend could have still not only been created but believed by the mass majority so quickly. You want to talk about the other part then we can do that somewhere else.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We’re talking about legends that are not based on real people.

          Try reading for comprehension. I was specifically taking umbrage with this error you made.

          “No they aren’t. As long as an account comes within 100 years it is credible because it takes 200 years to make a legend.”

          Whether based on a real person, or a made up person, this assertion is factually incorrect.

          The others seemingly are trying to show how Jesus may not have existed and how a legend could have still not only been created but believed by the mass majority so quickly.

          A non sequitur to my getting involved. Way to go in ignoring most of both comments and focusing on a non-argument.

          So, then if you want to talk about characters that didn’t exist who were myth and legend and believed to be real people in history, look to those other characters I mentioned. Or the god-man Romulus who had a whole biographical background created for him and written about in a bona fide historian no less.

          You want to talk about the other part then we can do that somewhere else.

          I’ll take that as you have no answer here and your assertion that…

          “No they aren’t. As long as an account comes within 100 years it is credible because it takes 200 years to make a legend.”

          …is a loada ballix, since you’ve used a red herring in obfuscation, to avoid a direct response?

        • Lycan

          My simple point was that that’s not what this discussion was about. If you want to talk about that we can do that elsewhere like a private discussion or something.

        • Ignorant Amos

          My simple point was that that’s not what this discussion was about.

          Are you some kind of a Dime Bar?

          You made an erroneous assertion. You entered it into the conversation in order to support your argument. Ergo, making it fair game.

          And it actually is part of this discussion.

          Now answer the rebuttal honestly and shame the Devil.

          Can further legend and myth get started within a century of a legend and myth story being written? Of course it can. And it is actually in evidence.

          My favourite go-to analogy with the Jesus yarn is Sherlock Holmes.

          The fictional character of Sherlock Holmes was tour de force of a detective, encrypting the most unsolvable cases with flora-world easiness. Rest all, as they say, is history – bequeathed by a heap of lies.

          Most Common Myths Surrounding Sherlock Holmes

          http://www.leisuremartini.com/common-myths-sherlock-holmes/

          If you want to talk about that we can do that elsewhere like a private discussion or something.

          Why would I want to do something like that?

          More to the point, why would you?

        • Lycan

          I have no problem with discussions. I’m just trying to stay on topic here.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And since it is your point I was addressing, it must be you who went off topic.

          Bob is fairly flexible on tangents. You will know when you, or I for that matter, has crossed the line.

          Now why not address the point and quit pishing about like the dopey clown that you are?

        • Lycan

          I’m addresing the point because it’s not on topic. We’re talking whether a legend could form that quickly from someone who didn’t exist. You are talking about people who existed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your inability to read is shocking.

          You focused on one character in my comments. Try again a bit harder.

          John Frum, Ned Ludd, Romulus, Sherlock Holmes didn’t exist.

          Whether they existed or not, is academic to your silly nonsense that legend takes at least a century, or two generations, is complete horseshit. I gave you the evidence to back me up. You are ignoring it and looking the eejit into the bargain. It’s embarrassing.

          Btw, the mythical Alexander the Great didn’t exist either, ya Dime Bar.

        • Lycan

          Are you not listening to me? I’m not ignoring your evidence. I’m saying it’s not on topic. Even the mythical Alexander the Great didn’t exist, the non mythical one did. Were talking about if a legend could form and be believed by a lot of people in a short amount of time from someone who didn’t exist.

        • Greg G.

          How would one determine a real first century person from a mythical first century person using the most cutting edge second century technology?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It is you that is struggling to comprehend ya Muppet.

          No they aren’t. As long as an account comes within 100 years it is credible because it takes 200 years to make a legend.”

          The word should be myth, but whatever.

          https://www.diffen.com/difference/Legend_vs_Myth

          Whether or not the legend/myth is about real people, as in Alexander the Great, or fictional characters, like Ned Ludd, is irrelevant to the point. You are talking shite either way. It doesn’t take 200 years, nor even 100 years, nor even 50 years, for legends to be created. It can start in the supposed lifetime of the character, especially if that character is made up, because it is a fucking defacto legend to bigin with, ya moron.

          The point you were originally contending was the extra Biblical accounts. There is no evidence to support the non-canonical Christian texts from the first hundred years as anything other than made up nonsense. Hence their exclusion from the NT. The non-Christian references are later forged interpolation, as in Josephus, 70 years after the alleged event. Or even later references to followers of a Christ. They are all too late. No one is denying that there was a Jewish culture in the first century with a messianic figure at it’s centre called Jesus. By the time of the non-Christian references, the legend was in full swing. That’s why Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman, a rabid Jesus historist, states these references to Christ are useless in the Jesus historicity argument, because they are too late.

          So my point is on topic and you are still wrong either way. Give it up already ffs.

        • Lycan

          Whatever helps you sleep at night.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bwaaahahahaha….you just got pwnd…now go back under that rock of asininity that ya crawled out from under. Dime Bar.

        • Lycan

          You’ve already lost this debate, and it’s sad.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Funny thing that, you are demonstrably wrong, but I’ve lost the debate.

          You have supported nothing you have said. It’s all conjecture.

          Wise ta fuck up.

        • Greg G.

          You keep hand-waving 2nd century manuscripts but the only one you have mentioned shows that the missing text cannot be in agreement with the text we have received for the passage. Remember that own goals count against you.

        • What about all those noncanonical gospels that are within your 200-year limit? Are they legend-free?

        • Lycan

          Don’t know, never read them.

        • ?? How can you not know? You just gave us Lycan’s First Law, “it takes 200 years to make a legend.” Don’t you believe your own claim?

        • Lycan

          We’ll stick with 2 generations, I can’t find the article I had before that I believe stated 200 years.

        • You can stick with whatever silly ideas you want. I suggest you read my post to see why at least that authority is invalid.

        • Lycan

          I already read on it and historians seem to be split on whether it’s true or not. Also I brought up Lee Strobel’s quote not A.N. Stewerts.

        • I brought up Lee Strobel’s quote not A.N. Stewerts.

          What fun. Half of my effort is turning your mush into coherent thoughts.

          You mean A.N. Sherwin-White? You did indeed bring up Sherwin-White, because the quote of Strobel has him referring to Sherwin-White as an authority! (You seem to be doing just fine in your project of public humiliation, but I’ll help in my own small way by giving the link to that comment of yours about Strobel: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3826166022 .)

          To add to the amusement, the link you give is from a skeptic, not a Christian, so even that person isn’t on your side of this question.

          So after all that, I guess we are both looking at Sherwin-White’s comment. And (if you’ll pardon my repeating myself) I’ve written a post about that, making clear that his writings provide no comfort to the apologist. Since this topic is of interest to you, you might want to read it.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/06/oral-tradition-and-the-game-of-telephone-a-n-sherwin-whites-famous-quote-craig/

        • Lycan

          “To add to the amusement, the link you give is from a skeptic, not a Christian, so even that person isn’t on your side of this question.” Exactly. Even the skeptic agrees that the historians are split on that issue.

        • Nope. Historians aren’t split on the issue.

        • Lycan

          Yes they are even the link I sent you from the skeptic not the Christian shows they are mixed on this.

        • Did it? I don’t remember that. Show me what historians (not Christian apologists) are divided over.

          Next, justify your “it takes 200 years to make a legend,” or even what I believe you’ve retreated to, “it takes 2 generations to make a legend.”

        • Lycan

          You didn’t read the article?

        • I did read it. It was a resource for that post I pointed you to. I just haven’t read it today. Nor am I motivated to.

          But I’ve made your argument enough today. You can do it now. That is, if there is indeed an argument in there.

        • Pofarmer

          “Because many people taught in history do not have irrefutable proof that they exist. “

          Who?

          “Most Historians have already said there is enough outside biblical evidence to his existence. “

          Even Bart Ehrman says this isn’t the case. Point to a “historian” that isn’t a theologian first.

        • Lycan

          Your going to use Bart Ehrman who’s misquoting Jesus has already been seemingly shown to be wrong simply by the number of old manuscripts found of the new testament? There’s only 40 words that are currently being argued with in the new testamant.

        • The number of manuscript copies of the NT isn’t that impressive.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/03/25000-new-testament-manuscripts-big-deal-2/

        • Lycan

          It’s still the most we have of any book.

        • OK. And like the post says: big deal. The focus should be on the hundred or so oldest ones. I don’t care if the NT is the best attested. That’s still insufficient evidence to support the remarkable claims in the gospels.

          http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/crossexamined/files/2013/11/Graph-of-NT-manuscripts.jpg

          Add to this the gap from original to our oldest copies, which is, chapter by chapter, about 200 years for Matthew.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/08/how-long-from-original-new-testament-books-to-oldest-copies-bible-reliability/

        • Lycan

          Who’s talking about supporting the remarkable claims? I was talking about Bert. You can’t really claim that later on historians changed the New Testament when you have many old manuscripts that prove you wrong. I wasn’t talking about backing up the claims.

        • Talk about Bart Ehrman all you want. I’m talking about your claim about the development of legend.

          You can’t really claim that later on historians changed the New Testament when you have many old manuscripts that prove you wrong.

          Huh? I’m talking about the gap between originals and our oldest manuscripts, which casts doubt on the reliability of the text.

        • Lycan

          But they don’t, it doesn’t matter the gap. If the text are the same then they obviously weren’t changed.

        • Show me. Compare our oldest copies with the originals to prove your point.

        • Lycan

          The oldest copy I believe comes from an Egyptian tablet. Not sure if it’s the oldest but it’s pretty old.

        • Huh?

          Let me try again. You say that the gap between original authorship and our oldest copies is unimportant. You’re saying that the text was unchanged during that long time period? I’m asking for evidence of this. Show me the original for some book of the NT so we can compare that with our oldest copies.

        • Lycan

          The guy showed the old text in the link you sent but here it is.

          “The Earliest Manuscripts
          Manuscripts from the pre-constantinian period include portions of every New Testament book with the exception of 1st and 2nd Timothy and John’s third epistle. The best attested book is John’s Gospel, with 16 manuscripts dated from A.D. 125 to the start of the fourth century5. In all, 67 manuscripts are dated to this period3. Of these, at least ten are dated to the second century (including the turn of the 2nd/3rd), possibly as many as twelve or thirteen. Taking the more liberal number of these second century manuscripts, the text represented in these thirteen manuscripts contains part or all of 43% of all New Testament verses6.”

          Source: https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Earliest-New-Testament-Manuscripts

        • As I said, there’s an enormous gap (200 years on average, going chapter by chapter, for Matthew) between originals and our best copies. This is a very shaky foundation on which to build any important claim, particularly the claim Christians say is the most important of all.

          The post I gave you has all this in detail. Here it is again:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/08/how-long-from-original-new-testament-books-to-oldest-copies-bible-reliability/

        • Lycan

          That’s less then a 100 year gap. 125AD when Jesus was crucified on 30AD.

        • I’ll type slower cuz you don’t read good.

          Our oldest copy of Matthew chapter 1 is papyrus P1, which dates from the year 250. The gap between original and our best copy for that chapter is 170 years.

          For Matt. 2, it’s P70, also from 250. For Matt. 3, we have P64 and P67 both from the year 200. For Matt. 4, it’s P101.

          And so on. You’ll argue that these aren’t complete copies of those chapters. That’s true, but let’s just be generous.

          Average all those time gaps, and you get 199 years for Matthew. Luke and John are a little better, and Mark is a little worse.

          Now that you have a small understanding of the issues, let’s go back to the problem.

          I said, “I’m talking about the gap between originals and our oldest manuscripts, which casts doubt on the reliability of the text.”

          And then you said, “But they don’t, it doesn’t matter the gap. If the text are the same then they obviously weren’t changed.”

          Do you want to keep that answer, “it doesn’t matter”? Or do you want to update it?

        • Lycan

          I’m talking about the gap between the old text and now. I think you misunderstood me. I also showed you a source that showed an old manuscript from 125AD.

        • Papyrus P52 is said to be the oldest fragment of the NT, and some date it to 125. But then some date it to the third century, as I recall.

          If you’re making a point based on this, I can’t imagine what it is. Explain.

        • Lycan

          My point now is when you make a date its usually a range because almost no date can be exact, so we don’t know whether it’s from 199Ad or 125AD.

        • Why stop at 199? It’s possible that P52 is later than that.

          And we’re back to an enormous gap between originals and our best copies of the NT books during which unknown hanky panky could’ve happened to the text.

        • Greg G.

          P52 is dated by paleography, which is making the judgement by the style of handwriting. It is the least precise method yet the older end of the date range is the one that Christians consistently cite.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52#Greek_text

          The passage comes from John’s version of the trial of Jesus before Pilate. It shows that it had about six verses per page (though chapter and verse divisions were not invented at the time). But it shows that there is not enough room for the complete passage of John 18:37 as we have it, which testifies to the unreliability of ancient manuscripts.

        • epeeist

          Papyrus P52 is said to be the oldest fragment of the NT, and some date it to 125. But then some date it to the third century, as I recall.

          I was in John Rylands library today, the display case for the fragment says 2nd or 3rd century.

        • Very cool! I’ve never been there, though I’ve seen Codex Sinaiticus in the London Library. It’s remarkably well preserved.

        • epeeist

          It is worth a visit if you are ever in Manchester, it is a beautiful building:

          https://cdn.theculturetrip.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/john-rylands.jpg

          Mind you the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry which is just around the corner is also worth a visit:

          https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/35781430875_307007851d_b.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          I was visiting a friend for the weekend in Rochdale just before Christmas and I’d planned to get into the centre, but the bad weather put the kayboosh on that idea. Hopefully I’ll get back before the year is out and get a visit.

        • Pofarmer

          I’d do a little “We’re not worthy” salute Wayne and Garth style but I’m too lazy to look for the GIF.

        • epeeist

          I also showed you a source that showed an old manuscript from 125AD.

          Manuscript? John Rylands library in Manchester holds the P52 fragment which is dated to around 125CE. Here is it’s catalogue entry.

        • Lycan

          yes it’s not complete.

        • Greg G.

          The text of P52 shows that it is from John 18 but the one of the lines of the text could not possibly have been the text of the passage we have received. So if it is from the early first century and it is consistent with the original manuscript, then it shows an example of the change we are talking about in later manuscripts. If it is not consistent with the original, it illustrates how unreliable the early copies were. If it is a later copy, then it is an example of the changes we are talking about.

          P52 undercuts the textual reliability argument any way you look at it.

        • Lycan

          Yes about 40 words of the NT are under debate. I admitted that.

        • Lycan

          Wait you’re implying without evidence simply speculation. Like your line here “Keep in mind the challenge we’re dealing with by considering some of the earliest fragments of the New Testament. Papyrus P75 has some fragments of Luke from around 200 CE. Papyrus P46, from about the same date, has some of Paul’s writings. These are our earliest copies of those books, and yet they’re separated from the originals by well over a century. How do we know that they made it through that Dark Ages period—during much of which those books were considered by Christians to be merely important works, not sacred or inspired scripture—without detectable change? Are our earliest manuscripts a fairly complimentary set of traditions simply because they happened to be the viewpoint that survived, with competing ones ignored and not copied or even deliberately destroyed?”

          So now speculation beats evidence?

        • You’ve got evidence? Great! Show us this never-before-seen evidence that proves that there were no significant changes during the centuries-long dark period between originals and our best copies.

        • Lycan

          That’s my point we don’t that evidence, due possibly to as you say the dark ages. We have to use what we have.

        • You’re kind of a waste of time, aren’t you? You said, “So now speculation beats evidence?” When I showed you that that was ridiculous, you come back with, “That’s my point we don’t that evidence.”

          Yeah, we don’t have evidence. I’m a skeptic of the claim that we have a reliable NT because there is no evidence that proves this. This leaves us with a very questionable NT since we have a centuries-long gap between originals and best copies. We don’t know how many errors the NT has or where they are.

          You can even go wider and say that since the canonization process was a manmade process, the books that are in and the books that are out are based on no objectively correct algorithm.

        • Lycan

          I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. We don’t have that evidence, the earliest manuscripts we have are possibly around 125AD, can’t go based on what we don’t have.

        • Greg G.

          That date is aggressive. But if correct, it shows parts of six verses and shows that what we have for one of those verses cannot be what was on the page, so it makes the text we have appear less reliable. If the scrap is more realistically dated to the third century, then it does not present as big of a problem for you.

        • Greg G.

          But those 40 words only go back to the tenth or twentieth or hundredth copy of a sequence of copies, not to the original. The early sequence of the line of copies would have been done by amateurs who had no idea their copies would lead to canonized scripture so they would not have thought it important to make it exact.

          If you make a handwritten copy of a document, it is likely to have errors, especially if the original text is written without spaces between words. The copy made from the copy will have more errors, if two copies are made from the second copy, and a sequence of copies made from each of the pair of copies, the best you could possibly do is get back to the second copy but you could not resolve the introduced errors.

          But the fact that there are 40 disputed words proves that no divine magic was involved in preserving the text and it it was not preserved, it is irrelevant if it was originally inspired, so the religious argument falls on that point.

          But despite a few dozen words, it is still apparent that the early epistles are not about an itinerant preacher/teacher nor the teachings of any such person. They only talk about someone who died for sins, was buried, and got resurrected, which comes from Isaiah 53 and Hosea 6, not from first-hand information. How could anyone have known that a particular death was for the transgressions of others? Everything the early epistles say about Jesus can be found in the OT scriptures, including what Paul says about the coming of the Lord.

          If there was no first century Jesus, then it explains why so many miracles in the gospels are so similar to the miracles of Elijah, Elisha, and Moses with elements from the Homeric epics and why the three main sidekicks of Jesus have the same names as the three mentioned in Galatians 2:9.

        • Lycan

          They actually go back to possibly 125AD, so that’s pretty old. “But the fact that there are 40 disputed words proves that no divine magic” Not true because it’s still the least amount of disputed words of any ancient document.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t know of any divine documents that have even one disputed word. Such a corruption would disqualify it as a divine message.

        • Lycan

          I didn’t say divine, I said ancient. What I meant though was that most of the mytholygies (as shown earlier in this argument) have different versions of the story told where they tell very different stories. Such as Attis as shown that his story was changed later on to include resurrection when the original one didn’t have it.

        • Greg G.

          I didn’t say divine, I said ancient. What I meant though was that most of the mytholygies (as shown earlier in this argument) have different versions of the story told where they tell very different stories.

          Have you read the different stories in the pre-canonical Christian literature? After canonization, the rate of changes in the writings was reduced. So most of the changes to the texts came before canonization. Which means the earliest changes are lost to us because we do not have the original manuscripts. There are 40 disputed words in the known manuscripts but an unknown number in the earliest copies.

          Attis received his resurrection story right when resurrection accounts were becoming a thing in Greek religions.

          We can see it appearing in the Hebrew scripture:

          Isaiah 26:19-21a
          19 Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise.
              O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
          For your dew is a radiant dew,
              and the earth will give birth to those long dead.
          20 Come, my people, enter your chambers,
              and shut your doors behind you;
          hide yourselves for a little while
              until the wrath is past.
          21a For the Lord comes out from his place…

          Daniel 7:11a
          11a I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking….
          Daniel 7:13a
          13a As I watched in the night visions,
          I saw one like a human being
              coming with the clouds of heaven….
          Daniel 12:2
          12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

          Isaiah 25:8a
          8a he will swallow up death forever.

          That is where Paul got his eschatological ideas:

          1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
          15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.

          He borrowed the same ideas for 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21.

          The Jews also used some of this. Compare what Josephus says the Pharisees believed with Danial 12:2:

          Jewish Wars 2.8.14
          They [Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, – but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

        • Lycan

          So Paul read the old scriptures and saw how Jesus fulfilled them.

        • Michael Neville

          Or Paul read the scriptures and said that Jesus fulfilled them. Remember that just because someone says something doesn’t make it factual.

        • Lycan

          Doesn’t make it false either.

        • Greg G.

          Reading a metaphor as a historical person who “died for sins, was buried,” and “was resurrected” and was coming back during his generation because all this was revealed to his generation, and that the prophecy did not occur during that generation, nor any generation since, does make it false.

        • Lycan

          No, instead realizing that someone fulfilled that.

        • Greg G.

          Someone came down from heaven, resurrected a bunch of dead people, and changed a bunch of live people into immortals? When did that happen?

        • Lycan

          You know when it happened and that last part it continues to happen every day.

        • Greg G.

          I’m talking about the one Paul was talking about that is supposed to be after the one you are apparently referring to.

          Even the Jews who defended Jerusalem to the bloody end against the Romans were waiting for the Messiah. That is what motivated them to stay.

        • Lycan

          And? What does that have to do with anything? We know that many of the first Christians believe the second coming was coming soon.

        • Greg G.

          The Messiah idea had been around for a couple of hundred years, going back to Hasmonean times, as seen in the book of Daniel. The early Christians were just another sect of Messianic Judaism but they thought there was a Jesus who lived a long time before who died, was buried, and got resurrected in heaven to intercede for sins but was coming back really soon. Paul had a different idea that would play better with Gentiles. After the war, some Christians got the idea that Jesus had existed just before the war.

          Ephesians 3:2-9
          2 for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given me for you, 3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, 4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: 6 that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God’s grace that was given me by the working of his power. 8 Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;

          The writer of Ephesians says it came from revelation, that it is significant to them that it came to their generation and not earlier generations, and the mystery had been hidden for ages.

          Let’s review what Paul says about where the revelations come from.

          Romans 1:1-2
          1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,

          Romans 16:25-27
          25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever! Amen.

          1 Corinthians 2:7
          7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.

          Paul says the revelations come from the scripture that were written long ago but “now disclosed” and not “now fulfilled”.

          They thought the fact that they were reading a new interpretation the ancient texts that the Lord was making a revelation to their generation that had not been seen before, so they inferred it as a sign that the Messiah was coming to their generation.

          The Hasmoneans had thought it would happen during their generation. Probably no generation has passed without some Christian expecting or hoping the Lord would come during their lifetime. People look in the scriptures for an excuse to believe it will happen for them.

        • Lycan

          Seems like he’s saying the prophecies are now fufilled in those verses.

          disclose
          dɪsˈkləʊz/Submit
          verb
          past tense: disclosed; past participle: disclosed
          make (secret or new information) known.
          “they disclosed her name to the press”
          synonyms: reveal, make known, divulge, tell, impart, communicate, pass on, vouchsafe, unfold; More
          allow (something hidden) to be seen.
          “he cleared away the grass and disclosed a narrow opening descending into the darkness”
          synonyms: uncover, expose to view, allow to be seen, reveal, show, exhibit, lay bare, bring to light; rareunclose
          “exploratory surgery disclosed an aneurysm”

        • Greg G.

          Paul never wrote the word “disclosed”, remember?

        • Lycan

          You just said he did. You even bolded it.

        • Greg G.

          I bolded what he said in that translation. Here are other translations.

          http://biblehub.com/romans/16-26.htm

          If you are going to attack a word, at least look up what was actually written. Remember that a word can be used to mean different things but it does not mean all possible meanings and words in one language may not have identical counterparts in other languages.

        • Lycan

          “reveal1
          rɪˈviːl/Submit
          verb
          past tense: revealed; past participle: revealed
          make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others.
          “Brenda was forced to reveal Robbie’s whereabouts”
          synonyms: divulge, disclose, tell, let out, let slip, let drop, let fall, give away, give the game/show away, blurt (out), babble, give out, release, leak, betray, open up, unveil, bring out into the open; More
          cause or allow (something) to be seen.
          “the clouds were breaking up to reveal a clear blue sky”
          synonyms: show, display, exhibit, disclose, uncover, expose to view, allow to be seen, put on display, put on show, put on view, bare; More
          make (something) known to humans by divine or supernatural means.
          “the truth revealed at the Incarnation””

          Still pretty similiar to fufilled. Disclose is even one of the synonyms.

        • Greg G.

          The word is “φανερωθέντος.” Strong’s Concordance has:

          I.to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way

            A.make actual and visible, realised

            B.to make known by teaching

            C.to become manifest, be made known

            D.of a person

              i.expose to view, make manifest, to show one’s self, appear

            E.to become known, to be plainly recognised, thoroughly understood

              i.who and what one is

          To make manifest means that it has become clear to them what the meaning of the texts is.

        • Lycan

          “visible, realised” love how you ignored those parts of the definition.

        • Greg G.

          The next phrase is “through the prophetic writings is made known”, not “as witnessed by humans,” so your twist doesn’t apply. Read for comprehension and pay attention to context. Prepare yourself for “I never knew you.”

        • Yes, they did. And the Bible quotes Jesus making that claim.

          Whoops. I guess even gods can be wrong.

        • epeeist

          Doesn’t make it false either

          Take a simple case, a roulette wheel. If you bet on a single number how many ways are there to be wrong and how many ways to be right?

        • Lycan

          Amazing you actually unknowingly defended my case. WOW. Thank you.

        • epeeist

          Amazing you actually unknowingly defended my case. WOW. Thank you.

          What, for pointing out that there are many ways to be wrong and only a single way to be right.

          One thing amongst the many others that you don’t seem to understand is that if you are making an ontological commitment, in this case that the gospels are true, then you have to provide justification for your claim.

          So far I have seen nothing from you that shows that the gospels actually contain the facts of the matter.

        • Lycan

          And Biblical truths along with that.

        • epeeist

          And Biblical truths along with that

          What are these “biblical truths” of which you speak?

        • Lycan

          Matthew 7:13 “”Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

        • Michael Neville

          So what makes the Bible truthier than the Vedas or the Quran or the Book of the Dead? You have to remember you’re talking to atheists. We think the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible isn’t any more truthful than the Lord of the Rings.

          Also don’t quote miscellaneous Biblical verses that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It just makes you look silly.

        • Lycan

          Did you read his initial comment about roulette?

        • Michael Neville

          Yes. It has nothing to do with why the Bible has more truth than any other “holy” book nor does it have any relevance to the quote from Matthew you threw out for grins and giggles.

          So I ask again, what makes the Bible truthier than the Vedas or the Quran or the Book of the Dead? This time I would like a real answer instead of a non sequitur.

        • Lycan

          You have yet to show me where any of those books contain that verse or something like what he said.

        • Greg G.

          If that verse was wrong, having that verse or something like it in the other writings would disqualify them. If they lack such a wrong verse, then they are still in the running.

        • Michael Neville

          I’ve already said that the verse you quoted doesn’t mean shit to the discussion the adults and you are having. And I’m getting pretty fucking tired of you blowing off my question about why is the Bible more truthful than any other “holy” book. So stop jerking me around and give me a real answer to a real question and don’t give me any more shit about a nonsensical Biblical quote that doesn’t have anything to do with the question I’ve asked you three times now.

        • Lycan

          But comparing it to the other “holy books” and I have yet to see you back up your claim. Remind me of the question please.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that you had the reading ability of a concussed garden slug. That must make it really difficult writing on blogs and message boards when you don’t know what the other person is saying. No wonder you toss out meaningless Biblical quotes instead of answering simple, straight forward questions.

          The question is (and please, take notes so you can refer to them when you finally decide to make an answer instead of mindlessly babbling about non-consequentials):

          So what makes the Bible truthier than the Vedas or the Quran or the Book of the Dead?

        • Lycan

          “So what makes the Bible truthier than the Vedas or the Quran or the Book of the Dead?” I gave the verse and no one was able to show me in any of those other books a similar one, even when I asked, so yeah the balls in yalls court.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re failing to give the relevance of why that particular verse is so important? I don’t know and, quite frankly, don’t care if a similar sentiment was given in any other “holy” book. Who, besides you, gives a rat’s ass about that silly notion?

        • Lycan

          My simple point is that if they have similar verses you’d be able to show me at least one.

        • Michael Neville

          Which has nothing, as in not a damn thing, to do with why you claim the Bible is truer than the Quran or the Vedas. A Muslim could pull some ayah from the Quran or a Hindu could pull a random passage from the Upanishads and challenge you to find a duplicate in the Bible and it would be as completely meaningless as your simplistic “point”.

          Since we’ve got that nonsense (and yes, I do mean that your “point” is complete and utter nonsense) out of the way, do you have any reasonable reason for thinking the Bible is truer than any other “holy” book?

        • Lycan

          “A Muslim could pull some ayah from the Quran or a Hindu could pull a random passage from the Upanishads and challenge you to find a duplicate in the Bible and it would be as completely meaningless as your simplistic “point”.”

          Yet you can’t seem to find one.

          “do you have any reasonable reason for thinking the Bible is truer than any other “holy” book?”

          Yes, as there are many archaeological discoveries that support biblical events.

          https://listverse.com/2016/11/04/10-archaeological-discoveries-consistent-with-biblical-passages/

        • Michael Neville

          I’m not going to look for a random verse in some book just because you think it has some relevance to a question you have yet to answer to my satisfaction. You’re the one making claims about the Bible, I’m asking you to justify those claims.

          When the first part of your “archeological discoveries” talks about a fictitious, imaginary, never-happened flood then I know you don’t have evidence to support your claim about the truthfulness of the Bible. Do you want to try again, this time with REAL evidence?

        • Lycan
        • Michael Neville

          Again you’ve given a “source” that talks about the Noachian flud as if it had happened. In reality it’s just a story that shows how nasty and sadistic your favorite god is. It’s fiction.

          Your other source says that Magdala was a real town. Big deal. That doesn’t say anything about some woman who supposedly came from there. Spiderman lives in New York City. I know New York City exists and I’ve even been there. Does that mean Spiderman exists? The other two archeological “finds” are equally as meaningless. I know that there was a place called Judea which was populated in the 1st Century CE. That doesn’t mean that the Biblical Jesus ever existed.

          I realize that as a Christian apologist it’s difficult for you to be honest but just try it for once. Just admit that you can’t show that the collection of myths, fables and lies you call the Bible has any more truth in it than any other “holy” book.

        • epeeist

          Spiderman lives in New York City. I know New York City exists and I’ve even been there. Does that mean Spiderman exists?

          Well obviously: If Spiderman exists then he lives in New York; New York exists; therefore Spiderman exists.

          (Brought to you by that classical piece of logic, if A then B; B; therefore A)

        • Greg G.

          We have evidence for many of the events in Gone with the Wind so that proves that it was true and Rhett Butler was a historical person.

          Events in the Spiderman accounts occur in New York City so we can be certain that somebody achieved remarkable powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider.

          There are stories about Clark Kent growing up in Kansas so that attests to the existence of Superman.

          What Maier mentions at the first link were probably observed by the ancient Jews or were recorded in Babylonian history books that were available to them during the Exile when the history of the Jews was made up. The Genesis events never happened but there were similar stories in the myths of nearby cultures.

          Jerusalem held many festivals that drew people from all over the region. Anybody who had visited there once could have known about the Pool of Siloam. The existence of the pool does not provide evidence that Jesus healed a blind man with spit. Vespasian used propaganda to promote himself. There were tales of him healing a blind man with spit in Egypt when Mark and John wrote about Jesus performing spit miracles. But Matthew and Luke omitted the spit miracles. There are no stories of spit miracles in the epistles or Christian literature written before Vespasian became emperor but there are stories of them in the stories afterward.

          So your evidence for the truth of the Bible is even better for evidence of how the Bible stories were invented.

        • What’s your point? That the Bible sometimes says things that are verifiably accurate by archaeology? I’ll agree with that: the Bible mentions Jerusalem, and that is indeed a place.

          Is that all you’re saying? Or are you making bigger claims for the Bible?

        • Greg G.

          It’s a stupid challenge. You have to show that they are false. You have to provide the saying from each that proves it is false. You provided a verse to imply that you are on the narrow road and I provided one that shows that even if you think you are on the narrow road, you might not be on the narrow one.

        • Greg G.

          If they have similar verses, it would mean they are wrong for the same reason the Bible is wrong. You have to show they are wrong based on what they say, not what they do not say.

          ETA: You may have to read the texts to understand them. Wouldn’t it be a shame if you latched onto the first religious text that came your way without investigating the texts of other religions and the first one was wrong?

        • Lycan

          Nah but he claimed he could find them in any of the “holy books”. I’m simply asking him to back up his claim. Why does that seem to be so difficult.

        • Greg G.

          Nah but he claimed he could find them in any of the “holy books”. I’m simply asking him to back up his claim. Why does that seem to be so difficult.

          No, he didn’t. He said, “So what makes the Bible truthier than the Vedas or the Quran or the Book of the Dead?”

          MN’s replies in this thread before you demanded that he show that they had something like that verse (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3832399380 ) are at the following links where he nowhere said they contained anything like that verse:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3830963773
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3831870669
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3832390989

          Did he say it in another comment? Please show us. If you get emails of replies, it should be easy to find by searching for his name. I understand that you are very active in this forum and it is possible that you are having trouble keeping different conversations straight. But you are making claims about what other people said where it appears that the person never said it and you are claiming that you were talking about things that nobody else was talking about.

          If you find the comments that can back up your claims, you can click the timestamp above the comment and the address in the URL line will change to that particular comment. You can then copy the address and paste it into the combox.

          How do you know what the original manuscript of Matthew didn’t say:

          Matthew 7:21-23 (NRSV)21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not lie to atheists in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

        • Lycan

          “A Muslim could pull some ayah from the Quran or a Hindu could pull a random passage from the Upanishads and challenge you to find a duplicate in the Bible and it would be as completely meaningless as your simplistic “point”.”

          I think I was referring to when he said this and replying for him to find a verse like the one I quoted.

        • Greg G.

          Where is the link where he said that? How long ago did he say that?

          I told you how to get the link to a post. Here it is again:

          If you find the comments that can back up your claims, you can click the timestamp above the comment and the address in the URL line will change to that particular comment. You can then copy the address and paste it into the combox.

        • Lycan
        • Greg G.

          Thank you. You did it right.

          Here are the four comments you made in the sequence before that comment:

          You have yet to show me where any of those books contain that verse or something like what he said.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3832399380

          But comparing it to the other “holy books” and I have yet to see you back up your claim. Remind me of the question please.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3832468501

          “So what makes the Bible truthier than the Vedas or the Quran or the Book of the Dead?” I gave the verse and no one was able to show me in any of those other books a similar one, even when I asked, so yeah the balls in yalls court.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3833448695

          My simple point is that if they have similar verses you’d be able to show me at least one.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3833477437

          The first one listed was the response to MN’s challenge of what makes the Bible “trutheir” than the other religious writings. MN never said what you thought he said. I realize you have made a lot of posts to many people and received many replies. You should either apologize and answer his challenge or apologize and concede his point.

        • Lycan

          Um you didn’t post them like I did. I want to see the order.

        • Greg G.

          Click on the link you gave and scroll up to see the sequence. It’s that easy.

        • Lycan

          “So what makes the Bible truthier than the Vedas or the Quran or the Book of the Dead? You have to remember you’re talking to atheists. We think the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible isn’t any more truthful than the Lord of the Rings.

          Also don’t quote miscellaneous Biblical verses that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It just makes you look silly.”

          That he said before.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, he did. So why were you asking for something from them that was like that Bible verse?

          You misread it. Admit it and move on. Or drop it.

          In one of the first set of interactions with you, I misread a statement from Josephus when I was sleepy. I admitted that I misread it. It is no big deal.

          You have derailed the conversation from a discussion about Christianity and the Bible to you arguing that you are inarticulate. You would rather point out that you are stupid than to admit that you were wrong.

        • Lycan

          Yes and I’ve admitted I was wrong about Dionysus. Not wrong for asking someone to show me evidence when he comes into a conversation (I was originally talking to epiesst) and starts claiming like it doesn’t makes the Bible truthier without showing any evidence.

        • Greg G.

          I haven’t seen Dionysus discussed recently.

          This is a public forum. Anybody can comment on any other comment they see. Nobody is obligated to respond but a person is judged by their behavior.

          MN’s point is that old religious texts say lots of different things. Most have some true statements, some false statements, and statements that cannot be determined, which is usually intentional because it’s the only way a religion can last. You should have tried to understand his point and said you saw his point from the get-go, instead of misreading it and making absurd demands to backup what he never said.

        • Lycan

          And all I asked him was to give me an example. How am I wrong for that?

        • Michael Neville

          Because, you simplistic pedant, you’re twisting my words to fit the argument you want me to make instead of answering the question that I have asked you several times. The particular verse you pulled out of your ass the Bible has zip point shit to do with the question I keep asking you and your insistence that I show you parallel sections from other “holy” books has nothing to do with whether or not you can show how the Bible has more truth than any other book.

          I’m getting quite annoyed with your fatuous, DISHONEST attempts to dodge the question I’ve asked you. I’ll give you another try to answer my question. Don’t throw any silly, meaningless, DISHONEST questions back at me, don’t give me some nonsensical, meaningless, DISHONEST verses, give me an honest answer to my question.

        • Greg G.

          You asked for an example of something he never claimed existed. You wanted an example of them saying what that verse of the Bible said.

        • Lycan

          “A Muslim could pull some ayah from the Quran or a Hindu could pull a random passage from the Upanishads and challenge you to find a duplicate in the Bible and it would be as completely meaningless as your simplistic “point”.”

          So never claimed it existed huh.

        • Greg G.

          No, read what you quoted. You were asking him to show you a Bible verse from the other religious writings. He was trying to illustrate to you that your challenge was stupid.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A Muslim or Hindu could pull some random passage from their Holy texts and challenge you to find something they believed was a slam dunk astute example that they had the true religion.

          The random passage is meant to parallel your random passage. MN isn’t claiming he could do it, he is claiming that in a hypothetic discussion with a Muslim or Hindu, the Muslim or Hindu could just as easily present to either you, or MN, what they believed was an impressive passage as evidence of the truthfulness of their position. A passage that wouldn’t impress you, just like yours doesn’t impress us like it impresses you.

          It basically amounts to The Outsider Test for Faith…try it. Honestly.

          Ya know all the stuff about other folks religions that you consider bat shit crazy woo woo nonsense, but the adherents of those religions believe demonstrates the truthfulness of their religions, well they and us, believe that about the bat shit crazy woo woo nonsense you believe demonstrates the truthfulness about yours.

          Hemant Mehta does a condensed version.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr6xeLjuDmI

          Or the extended version by the author himself, John Loftus…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVoFIdeH2ME

        • Lycan

          “MN isn’t claiming he could do it, he is claiming that in a hypothetic discussion with a Muslim or Hindu, the Muslim or Hindu could just as easily present to either you, or MN, what they believed was an impressive passage as evidence of the truthfulness of their position.”

          But if they can do it, he should be able to do it easily especially since he thinks himself intellectually superior to religious people.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are really toiling with this concept, aren’t ya?

          How can MN provide an impressive passage from a scripture he, and you, doesn’t think is very impressive?

          Let me again try and help you grasp the concept.

          There is an Ahmadiyya Muslim posting here on Cross Examined that goes by the moniker of Sparkling Moon. He quotes passages ad nauseam …huge tracts in fact, that he sincerely believes demonstrates the truthfulness of his particular believe system. Here is an example of his nonsense.

          The task for which God has appointed me is that I should remove the malaise that afflicts the relationship between God and His creatures and restore the relationship of love and sincerity between them. Through the proclamation of truth and by putting an end to religious conflicts, I should bring about peace and manifest the Divine verities that have become hidden from the eyes of the world. I am called upon to demonstrate spirituality which lies buried under egoistic darkness. It is for me to demonstrate by practice, and not by words alone, the Divine powers which penetrate into a human being and are manifested through prayer or attention. Above all, it is my task to re-establish in people’s hearts the eternal plant of the pure and shining Unity of God which is free from every impurity of polytheism, and which has now completely disappeared. All this will be accomplished, not through my power, but through the power of the Almighty God, Who is the God of heaven and earth. ~ The messiah Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

          He sincerely believes that this sort of thing is evidence he has the one true faith. Just as you believe in yours. Why is he wrong and you are right?

          No one here is convinced. You are not convinced, otherwise you’d convert. But for him, and millions like him, he has the one true faith and he has the texts of his leader to prove it. That’s the point Michael is making. You citing your bullshit is no more impressive than Sparkling Moon, or any other non-Christian religidiot for that matter, citing his unimpressive bullshit. You are not impressed by the truth value of his scripture, anymore than we are impressed with your claim.

          The question Michael is asking you is what reason should anyone accept your nonsense anymore than Sparkling Moon’s nonsense? Until you can demonstrate you have anything more than wishful thinking, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and circular reasoning, then all claims to the truthfulness of your faith is that of any faith and can be treated with the same distain. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Hindu, yadda, yadda, yadda,…it’s all bull crap until you can demonstrate otherwise. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

          Now answer the fucking question Michael asked of you and that you are at great pains to go to in body swerving.

        • Lycan

          How does his passage show through life though, as the roulette argument does?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Holy fuck, do you train to be so asinine with just the one head?

          I never said it does. Again, you can’t see the forest for the trees.

          I said that other non-Christian religious folk quote their irrelevant scripture in thinking it demonstrates the Truth of their faith. It doesn’t. What the actual pish is that is in the scripture is irrelevant.

          Your “through life” and “roulette argument” are mindwankery. We care not a jot for it anymore than you care for the mindwankery of Ron L. Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, or Sparkling Moon’s messiah Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. None of it demonstrates the truth value of the claims being made by the claimants.

          You have been asked to demonstrate why your nonsense is any different to the nonsense of other religions. Your tactic in avoiding the answer is to claim the words are different. We don’t care. The believers in the words think the words in their text demonstrates the truthfulness of their claims. They all believe their own words are special. We know you believe your words are the most special, they all think the same. You have been asked to show what makes your particular word salad is more special than anyone else’s word salad, but all you done is obfuscate in order to avoid the answer.

        • Lycan

          Yet you have not shown me how your example is shown through life.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We shall show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. (Quran, 41:53)

          [This is] a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], that they (i.e. people) might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded. (Quran, 38:29)

          And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying (out of ignorance, conjecture and assumption). (Quran, 6:116)

          And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live (i.e. some people die and others live, replacing them) and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, “Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful.” Say, “Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt.” But most of the people do not know. (Quran, 45:24-26)

          Or do those who commit evils think We will make them like those who have believed and done righteous deeds – [the evildoers being] equal in their life and their death? Evil is that which they judge [i.e. assume]. And Allah created the heavens and earth in truth and so that every soul may be recompensed for what it has earned, and they will not be wronged. (Quran, 45:21-22).

        • Michael Neville

          No, you simplistic pedant, that was NOT what I was saying and I would appreciate it if you did not twist my words to fit the argument you want me to make instead of the question that I have asked you several times. The particular verse you pulled out of your ass the Bible has zip point shit to do with the question I keep asking you and your insistence that I show you parallel sections from other “holy” books has nothing to do with whether or not you can show how the Bible has more truth than any other book.

          I’m getting quite annoyed with your fatuous, DISHONEST attempts to dodge the question I’ve asked you. I’ll give you another try to answer my question. Don’t throw any silly, meaningless, DISHONEST questions back at me, don’t give me some nonsensical, meaningless, DISHONEST verses, give me an honest answer to my question.

        • Lycan

          What do you mean that wasn’t what you were saying. That’s a quote from what you said. How am I twisting your words when I simply copied and pasted?

        • Michael Neville

          You quote me and then you DISHONESTLY ignore what I continuously ask you about the truthfulness of the Bible and instead you DISHONESTLY insist that I show you where a completely random Biblical verse has parallels in other books.

          I know from past experience that you Christian apologists are dishonest debaters but I expect some subtlety in your duplicity. Quoting me and then disregarding what I wrote is dishonest on its face, especially when I tell you the fucking verse you pulled out of your ass has nothing to do with the simple question I keep asking you. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you but maybe you’re stupid as well as dishonest.

        • Lycan

          ” Quoting me and then disregarding what I wrote is dishonest on its face, ” I didn’t disregard what you wrote. I simply asked you to provide an example to back up your claim. Which is what your asking of me. So are you just as dishonest as you claim me to be??

          I also already partly answered your question. The simple answer is life shows it to be true.

        • Michael Neville

          But I didn’t make any claims, you motherfucker, I asked a question. Only a stupid person or a dishonest person would change my question into a claim. So which are you, stupid or dishonest? Note, you slimy piece of maggot infested hog feces, that these choices are not mutually exclusive.

          As for your incredibly simplistic, stupid and dishonest answer “life shows it to be true”, you’ve got to be shitting me. That’s not an answer, it’s meaningless bafflegab or, to put it more formally, a non sequitur. Give me a real answer or admit that you can’t. Since honesty is foreign to your lying ass, what both of us know is you can’t show that the Bible is true.

        • Lycan

          “Which has nothing, as in not a damn thing, to do with why you claim the Bible is truer than the Quran or the Vedas. A Muslim could pull some ayah from the Quran or a Hindu could pull a random passage from the Upanishads and challenge you to find a duplicate in the Bible and it would be as completely meaningless as your simplistic “point”.”

          So you never made that claim?

        • Michael Neville

          Okay, I made the claim that the Biblical quote had nothing to do with you answering the question I asked. Since the words “truth”, “Bible” and “answer” are not in that quote, I think I’m justified in saying that you’re trying to bullshit your way out of answering my question. If you disagree, then you have to show that your bullshit does actually have something to do with whether or not the Bible has more truth than any other “holy” book.

          In other words, asswipe, you’re unable to answer my question and DISHONESTLY trying to make it my fault that you can’t. Typical Christian apologist tactic.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lycan is a knuckle-dragging Dime Bar.

        • Lycan

          No, I answered your question. You didn’t like the answer so you didn’t accept it. I think trying to avoid backing your claim cause you can’t. If you can’t that’s fine.

        • Michael Neville

          No, it’s not that I don’t like the answer, it’s that it makes no sense. Tossing out a random Biblical verse and then challenging me to find parallel verses in other “holy” books is not an answer, it’s an evasion. And then saying the Bible is true because of “life” is just another evasion.

          So I ask again, how is the Bible more true than any other “holy” book? A Muslim would say the Quran is more true than the Bible, why do you think the Muslim is wrong? A Hindu would say the Vedas are more true than the Bible, why do you think the Hindu is wrong? BE SPECIFIC!

          And you still are a dishonest motherfucker, pretending that I haven’t backed my claim when I’ve done it several times.

        • Lycan

          “And you still are a dishonest motherfucker, pretending that I haven’t backed my claim when I’ve done it several times.”

          Show me those several times because their not in this chat.

        • Michael Neville

          Have I not said, repeatedly, that a random Biblical verse does nothing to show the Bible is more true than any other “holy” book? That is backing up my claim, despite your DISHONEST whines that it doesn’t.

          If you want to pretend that your favorite verse does make the Bible true then it’s up to you to show it. Whining that I can’t show parallel verses in other books does not prove anything other than your basic dishonesty.

          Tell me, why are you so fucking dishonest? Is it part of Christianity to be dishonest or are you just dishonest by nature?

        • Lycan

          I was specific with epieest when I gave him the 5 step answer to the question. We had a discussion about the roulette and everything. I already answered you question. Life shows it to be true always eventually. As the Bible says you know a prophet is speaking the true when it comes to pass.

          “A Muslim would say the Quran is more true than the Bible, why do you think the Muslim is wrong? A Hindu would say the Vedas are more true than the Bible, why do you think the Hindu is wrong?”

          I was talking about that statement. You never backed that up.

        • Michael Neville

          The only “answer” I’ve seen from your dishonest ass is a random Biblical quote tossed out without any justification for you giving it and a non sequitur that “life” shows the Bible’s truthiness. I have not read your “5 step answer” so you can just give it again.

          Do you think that a Muslim would not say the Quran is more true than the Bible or a Hindu would not say the Vedas are more true than the Bible? If you think that you’re not only dishonest but stupidly dishonest. No, I will not “back up” something that is obvious on its face and it’s just one more case of your basic dishonesty that you insist I do.

        • Lycan

          “Do you think that a Muslim would not say the Quran is more true than the Bible or a Hindu would not say the Vedas are more true than the Bible?”

          Duh

          “No, I will not “back up” something that is obvious on its face and it’s just one more case of your basic dishonesty that you insist I do.”

          Thanks for admitting that.

        • Michael Neville

          So now that we’ve settled that I do not have to back up the obvious, what’s your evidence that the Bible is in any way, shape or form in the least bit true? If you tell me “life” then we’ll both know you’re just bullshitting and don’t have an answer.

        • Ignorant Amos

          His reliance on this unsubstantiated Matthew 7:13 bullshit and therefore life as some sort of magic incantation without showing it, like it is some kind of slam dunk argument for the truthfulness of his woo-woo, is flabbergasting.

          He can’t grasp the concept that other religious eejits get all gooey eyed with their own scriptures in exactly the same way.

        • Lycan

          I’ve already answered you and in the 5 steps, I answered epeeist. How do you know which is the better worker. The results will show.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m not epeeist and so you haven’t answered ME. As to “how do you know which is the better worker” appears meaningless. It’s possibly just another attempt by you to pass off your complete and utter inability to answer my question.

          I have tried for several days to get you to answer a simple question, i.e., how do you know the Bible is true? You’ve obfuscated, introduced irrelevancies, tried to make it my fault you can’t answer the question, pretended you have answered the question but haven’t, and otherwise gone out of your way to fail to answer my question. Which is why I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re dishonest. Nothing, and I mean not a damn thing, has given me any reason to revise my estimation of your dishonesty.

        • Lycan

          You butted in our conversation from the beginning. You could read my answer to his question.

        • Lycan
        • Ignorant Amos

          Life shows it to be true always eventually. As the Bible says you know a prophet is speaking the true when it comes to pass.

          You need to demonstrate this, just saying it is so, doesn’t count.

          You would expect nothing less of the same assertion made by a non-Christian.

          All religious people claim life show’s it to be true…they just can’t back it up either.

          Muslims cite the same prophecies, why are you not a Muslim?

          Demonstrate a single prophecy that has come to pass that cannot be explained by a more rational explanation.

        • Lycan

          eepiest already demonstrated it with the roulette argument.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No, that’s not what he done at all. He was demonstrating you haven’t a clue what the fuck you are talking about. You are about as dense as it gets. In the same way you’ve been wrong about everything else you’ve engaged in on this thread. Religion has well and truly fucked you up, big style. It’s quite pathetic to watch.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ll ask ya again.

          Demonstrate a single prophecy that has come to pass that cannot be explained by a more rational explanation?

          Or retract the bullshit assertion.

        • Lycan

          The Jews returning home after being scattered.

          https://www.therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm

        • epeeist

          The Jews returning home after being scattered.

          https://www.therefinersfire

          And how did your god do this? Why he inspired the international community to take pity on the Jews after allowing millions of them to be slaughtered in the Holocaust. Because of course there was not other way your god could have got them back there.

          And of course your god not only does this but he is complicit in dispersing all the people who lived there previously.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bwaahahah…nope.

          I actually think you believe that shit.

          Which returning home after being scattered are those prophecies talking about?

          Ya see, the history of the Jews has been about being conquered, enslaved in exile, freed from exile, returned to Palestine. It more or less says so in the first sentence in your source.

          The second sentence is a lie. Why do you never check your sources?

          mondoweiss.net/2014/07/rocket-deaths-israel/

          Then it talks about the Six Day War. The armaments used by the Israeli’s was French for fuck sake. A secular nation.

          Now, onto the prophecy bullshit.

          For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

          1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It’s true.

          2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It’s in plain words in the Bible.

          3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague “predictions” don’t count.

          4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn’t mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don’t count.

          5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don’t count.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

          Do you know what postdiction is?

          Let’s consider Isaiah.

          Within the text of the Book of Isaiah, Isaiah himself is referred to as “the prophet”,[5] but the exact relationship between the Book of Isaiah and any such historical Isaiah is complicated. The traditional view is that all 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah were written by one man, Isaiah, possibly in two periods between 740 BCE and c. 686 BCE, separated by approximately 15 years, and includes dramatic prophetic declarations of Cyrus the Great in the Bible, acting to restore the nation of Israel from Babylonian captivity. Another widely-held view is that parts of the first half of the book (chapters 1–39) originated with the historical prophet, interspersed with prose commentaries written in the time of King Josiah a hundred years later, and that the remainder of the book dates from immediately before and immediately after the end of the exile in Babylon, almost two centuries after the time of the historic prophet.

          My namesake Amos. Too vague. You probably believe Nostradamus predicted Hitler? Amos was also fiddled about with by later redactors.

          Read something about prophecies and failure.

          https://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

          And get this about the scattered Jews, they are still scattered, and they don’t have the Palestinian Levant they had before the prophecies.

          An American claiming that the US will go to war some day, or even in the next ten years, isn’t much of a prophet.

        • Lycan

          No but claiming that Americans will be scattered for a long time and then their descendants will return to their homeland is. Think of how many nations that are gone and never came back.

        • Yeah, I guess that with enough long-shot guesses, one will come true. (The very natural forces, like Jews saying, “Next year in Jerusalem” every single Passover, might’ve been a factor besides just God’s actions.)

        • Ignorant Amos

          No but claiming that Americans will be scattered for a long time and then their descendants will return to their homeland is.

          Whoooooosh!

          Way to go in missing the point of the analogy.

          Think of how many nations that are gone and never came back.

          The point is, the Jews have been exiled and returned more than once. Which time was the prophets talking about? Will it happen again? If the Jews were nationless, would the prophecy then be unfulfilled…or just waiting until the next time?

          What about the prophecies of others…no-Christians?

          Why aren’t you Muslim? The Quran is much better at than the Bible. Even prophesying the Israeli nation.

          And after him We said to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people.” (17:105)

          Creation of Israel and gathering of Sephardic, Ashkenazi and the Jews of many other different races in Israel proves the authenticity of this prophecy and hence Quran.

          That’s how easy it was to do ffs. Not impressed…check out the others the Quran…

          https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/fulfilled-prophecies-of-holy-quran/

          What about the Hindu’s and their “true” prophecies fulfilled?

          http://www.alamongordo.com/hindu-prophecies/

          Nostradamus?

          http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-nostradamus-predictions-that-have-come-true/

          The Oracle of Delphi?

          https://pythiaofdelphi.weebly.com/pythia-prophecies.html

          Science predictions?

          What about every science fiction writer whose ideas became science fact?

          https://io9.gizmodo.com/all-the-times-science-fiction-became-science-fact-in-on-1570282491

          It’s easy to see your problem in how so gullible you are ffs.

        • epeeist

          OK, a quote from your book of fables. Now show that it is true.

        • Lycan

          You already have. And for that I thank you.

        • Greg G.

          Matthew 7:21-23 (NRSV)21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

        • Lycan

          Your point?

        • Greg G.

          It says that just because you think you are pleasing Jesus, he might not appreciate it.

        • Lycan

          Still don’t get exactly what you mean. Explain it a bit more clearly please.

        • Greg G.

          It says that Jesus is going to reject people who think they are good Christians.

          Don’t worry. What you consider you is a process which is many processes performed by electrochemical processes. When your brain dies, you die. If a God thingy were to create a new set of processes to mimic the processes your brain does, it would be somebody else. The imitation version of you could be created now and you wouldn’t consider it you, not would it be you.

        • Lycan

          “It says that Jesus is going to reject people who think they are good Christians.” I understand that because if you don’t follow God’s will are you really a Christian? I mean if you worked for a company but never followed the bosses orders you’d be fired.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus isn’t talking about not following orders in that passage. He is talking about people whose faith appears to be rewarded throughout life so that they think they are doing right with Jesus. Maybe your prayers are making Jesus madder and madder. Maybe your church’s prayers are making Jesus madder.

        • Lycan

          You seem to be putting a lot of words in people’s mouths here.

          “He is talking about people whose faith appears to be rewarded throughout life so that they think they are doing right with Jesus.”

          Show me where the passage says that.

        • Greg G.

          Show me where the passage says that.

          Matthew 7:22. It is right in the middle of the passage I quoted. How could you miss it? People thought they were doing impressive things in Jesus name so they expected to be accepted by Jesus only to have the rug pulled out from under them when it’s too late.

          You seem to have been taught to read the Bible for inspiration and not for comprehension. Don’t be satisfied with the positive spin. Think it through.

          You don’t know what the original said. Instead of “casting out demons,” the original might have been something you do everyday. Maybe the original has Jesus explaining that he didn’t know them because they failed to cast out demons in his name.

        • Lycan

          22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

          Ah now I get it. See you said rewards and to me rewards meant blessings they received in this life.

          “24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”

        • Greg G.

          I said the people were rewarded with blessings throughout their life so they think Jesus is telling them they are doing things to his satisfaction.

          That’s the thing about confirmation bias. No matter what you try to do, you remember the successes more than the failures. It is just how the brain works and you need to be aware of it to at least reduce its negative effects. Some behaviorists had some pigeons caged and the set the feeders to dispense a seed at random intervals. When they came back after the weekend, the birds were doing all kinds of crazy things like spinning around or standing on one leg because a few times the machine happened to dispense a seed when they happened to do that. Their memory of the success was stronger than the failures. It’s why so many different religions think prayer works.

        • Lycan

          So are you saying they were looking more at the rewards as opposed to how they actually lived their life?

        • Greg G.

          The verse says they were casting out demons in Jesus’ name. If they thought they were successful, it would feel like a reward that Jesus approved of them.

          But since the demon-theory of disease never worked and has been completely replaced by the germ-theory of disease, Jesus may have been using that as a hypothetical substitute for something you do that you think are getting blessings from Jesus.

          Remember the story in Genesis 3 about the talking serpent? Christians believe the serpent was actually Satan. So why did God punish serpents if it was Satan. God owes serpents an apology. So what if Satan is casting out demons in Jesus’ name wearing a Lycan costume. If God punished serpents for what Satan did in serpent form, maybe Jesus will be fooled, too, and say he never knew you because he mistook Satan in a Lycan outfit was you.

        • Lycan

          Christ was never fooled, no matter how many times they tried. Also demon casting out in the Bible was different than diseases and they make that pretty clear.

        • Greg G.

          Are you denying that the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan? If it was Satan, why did God punish serpents? If God punished serpents for what Satan did, how do you know YahwehJesusHolyghost won’t be fooled by other Satan costumes?

          Satan is called a serpent in Revelation which leads most Christians to think the serpent in the Garden was Satan. Revelation 12:9, Revelation 12:15, Revelation 20:2

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Skinner Box experiment. Or “operant conditioning chamber” for the technical name.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber

          It’s the reason why footballers wear the same underpants until they are thread bare, and why native Americans did rain dances.

          https://www.verywellfit.com/not-so-crazy-sports-superstitions-3120697

        • epeeist

          You already have

          I really can’t tell if this is evidence of a) evasion; b) ignorance; c) stupidity; or d) brainwashing so complete that it is impossible for anything to compete against it.

          Do you even know what is meant by “truth”? Personally I go with Tarski sentences, i.e. ‘S’ iff p, which translated into English is “A statement ‘S’ is true if and only if the proposition p is true. ”

          The canonical example is: “The statement ‘Snow is white’ is true if and only if snow is white.”

          If this is too much for you then you can try Aristotle’s formulation: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”

          In other words a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts.

          This being so, let’s see show that your statement “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” corresponds to the facts (We will ignore the first sentence since it is imperative rather than propositional).

        • Lycan

          You’ve already stated the facts with the roulette statement.

        • epeeist

          You’ve already stated the facts with the roulette statement

          But the roulette argument and your statement from the bible are not the same.

          Why not admit it, when it comes to showing that “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” is true you have nothing.

        • Lycan

          They’re dead close.

        • epeeist

          They’re dead close.

          You really are incapable of making any kind of argument let alone a coherent one aren’t you.

          Instead of making assertions let’s see you actually demonstrate that the statement “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” is true.

        • Lycan

          Do remember your roullette analogy. That only 1 or two numbers get you the win while many get you the loss. Well “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it”

        • epeeist

          It really is like arguing with Eliza.

          A repetition of an assertion is not an argument.

        • Lycan

          I really don’t understand how I can explain this any clearer. “But the roulette argument and your statement from the bible are not the same.” I’ve shown that they’re dead similar which is my argument.

        • Michael Neville

          You really don’t understand that giving non sequiturs is not the same as explaining your claims? If you had “shown” anything then people like epeeist and me wouldn’t be asking you to explain your explanations.

        • epeeist

          I’ve shown that they’re dead similar which is my argument.

          The roulette argument is very simple, it says that there is that if one makes a prediction then there is only one result that can be correct and that all other possibilities are incorrect.

          Now I am assuming (which I have to do given your inability to explain yourself) that you are making an argument from analogy. However this fails for a number of reasons:

          1. You haven’t shown that those who follow the “wide path” are destroyed.

          2. You haven’t shown that the people who follow the “narrow path” are not destroyed.

          3. While the roulette example has multiple possible results your example cuts the number of possibilities down to two. It doesn’t consider, for example, what happens to the person who refuses to take either path.

          4. You haven’t shown that even if the “narrow path” is the one that doesn’t lead to destruction that this is the path described in the bible.

          5. And finally, a logical point. The situation with the roulette wheel is an example of “contradictories”, i.e. the ball must land on one number and not in any other. In the case of religions (and paths) one of them might be true but all of them could be false.

        • Lycan

          1. Life shows that.

          2. Once again life.

          3. Everyone takes a path as choosing to do nothing is still choosing a path.

          4. It was the bible verse that said that.

          5. That’s where faith comes in. Just like trusting someone, they could be lying but you trust them.

        • Greg G.

          Life destroys everybody in the end. The Bible writers knew that. Read Ecclesiastes. The Karma believers knew it, they had to invent reincarnation to explain why good people often suffered while bad people often thrived.

          That verse you quoted is for the hard-hearted Christians to believe they will be vindicated eventually.

        • Susan

          That’s where faith comes in.

          But faith can be used to justify holding an opposite position.

          It can be used to believe a mechanic who charges you lots of money many times but never fixes your car.

          It can be used to believe a prophet whose prophecies never come true the way they said they would come true explains that that is part of the prophecy.

          You might as well have faith that your cat is the ruler of the universe.

          The significant difference being that your cat exists and almost nobody would question that.

        • Lycan

          That’s why you have to know who to put your faith in.

        • Greg G.

          That’s why you have to know who to put your faith in.

          Which you cannot know because you don’t have the original manuscripts. Jesus may never know you.

        • If you mean “trust,” then don’t say “faith.”

          Unless “faith” means something other than “trust” … ?

        • Lycan

          faith
          feɪθ/Submit
          noun
          1.
          complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
          “this restores one’s faith in politicians”
          synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
          2.
          strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
          “bereaved people who have shown supreme faith”
          synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
          “she gave her life for her faith”

        • Greg G.

          Bob S. is reminding you to not conflate definition 1 with definition 2 because Christians tend to do that a lot.
          1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something
          2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

        • Lycan

          Yes but even with the first definition there is a difference since faith is considered complete trust.

        • Greg G.

          But the first definition is completely different than the second. You have demonstrated that you will reply to a post that is clearly about one thing and later claim that you were talking about something else. You need to reestablish some credibility. Don’t say faith when you mean complete trust and later equivocate that with the latter definition.

        • Lycan

          When I said faith I meant complete trust. That’s all I’m saying.

        • Greg G.

          When everybody else was explicitly talking about the original biblical manuscripts, you claim you were referring to the oldest extant manuscripts but you only claimed that later.

        • Pofarmer

          You honestly think he knew the difference?

        • Greg G.

          I hope he can learn. He doesn’t seem as hopeless as Candy Smith.

        • Lycan

          But as you quoted I said the old ones.

        • Greg G.

          But you also used “hundred” because I was talking about manuscripts written a thousand year after the originals. So you were either talking about the originals or just posting random words that meant nothing.

        • Lycan

          I was talking about the old ones like payrus from 125AD which is less than 100 years from 30AD.

        • epeeist

          I was talking about the old ones like payrus from 125AD

          You mean the one in the John Rylands library which contains seven lines from the Gospel of John on the front and nine lines on the back? The one that the cabinet says is dated from the 2nd or 3rd century.

        • Lycan

          As Bob stated some date it back to 125AD

        • epeeist

          As Bob stated some date it back to 125AD

          Either your comprehension or recall are not particularly good or you are a liar. What Bob said in this post was:

          Papyrus P52 is said to be the oldest fragment of the NT, and some date it to 125. But then some date it to the third century, as I recall.

          So no he wasn’t stating it was definitively dated to 125CE. In fact it would seem the only person making this claim is you in this post where you state

          I also showed you a source that showed an old manuscript from 125AD.

          And of course this is wrong in another way, this is not a manuscript but the fragment of one.

        • Lycan

          as i said “some date it back to 125AD” I never said it was the definitive date.

        • epeeist

          I never said it was the definitive date.

          So even though your post says “a source that showed an old manuscript from 125AD” it doesn’t mean that the manuscript was from 125AD…

        • Lycan

          The source did say that and if you see the whole conversation Bob then replies that some date it to 125AD.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Some “scholars” want to date the Gospel According to St.John to 40-65+ AD…but that is just plain crazy.

        • epeeist

          if you see the whole conversation Bob then replies that some date it to 125AD.

          I have been back through both your profile and Bob’s. As I said above (and quoted) the single person who actually says the fragment is from 125AD is you.

          This is not a matter of debate, one can ascertain the facts of the case by looking at your profile and Bob’s as I did. That you (deliberately) misstate what Bob actually said is solid evidence for your intellectual dishonesty.

        • Lycan

          I told you the source I got did say then then Bob replied. I didn’t mistate what Bob said. I told you that he said as is above you. “Bob then replies that some date it to 125AD.”

        • Greg G.

          He also said that some date it to the 3rd century, so he was not confirming the date but disputing your confidence in it.

        • Lycan

          I never said he was confirming my date.

        • Greg G.

          You said, “I also showed you a source that showed an old manuscript from 125AD.” You said that the manuscript was from 125AD. You did not say the site dated it to then. If you did not intend to say that, then apologize for your poor wording and move on.

          Bob replied that some dated it to that date and that others dated it to the third century.

          epeeist called you on it and you replied, “as i said “some date it back to 125AD” I never said it was the definitive date.” No you didn’t, Bob said that. Your wording actually said it was from 125AD.

          epeeist called you on that and you changed your story again. If you stick to the truth, you don’t have to keep changing your story. If you misstate something, admit to it and get it over with.

        • Lycan

          Yes but I was talking about what I said then not before I talked to Bob. Ealier when I trusted the source I gave bought I thought it was the exact date. Now I realize otherwise.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Now I realize otherwise.

          Good…but learn to communicate better. Hold yer hands up earlier, so that folk know, rather than it having to be extracted through a grillin and occasioning everyone to think you actually don’t realise otherwise and then thinking you are being dishonest or weaselling.

        • epeeist

          If you misstate something, admit to it and get it over with.

          Somehow I doubt that this is going to happen. Either he is too stupid to realise what the has done or is too brazen to admit that he is a liar.

        • Pofarmer

          Because Jesus. It doesn’t actually matter because faith.

        • epeeist

          Because Jesus. It doesn’t actually matter because faith

          It’s the standard situation isn’t it – “In science if the evidence contradicts the theory then the theory is wrong; with religion if the evidence contradicts scripture then the evidence is wrong”.

          Personally I am going for stupidity with a side order of dishonesty.

        • Pofarmer

          His thinking is certainly about as muddleheaded as it gets.

        • epeeist

          The source did say that and if you see the whole conversation Bob then replies that some date it to 125AD.

          FFS, I quoted from his post which says “some date it to 125. But then some date it to the third century, as I recall”. I quoted from your post which says
          “a source that showed an old manuscript from 125AD”. Now either your reading comprehension (even of your own posts) is non-existent or you are a liar. I normally take the charitable view but in your case I am going with a complete disregard for truth.

        • Lycan

          so you chose to ignore the source that came from the same conversation.

          Source: https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Earliest-New-Testament-Manuscripts

          That was the source I gave to Bob earlier.

          “Manuscripts from the pre-constantinian period include portions of every New Testament book with the exception of 1st and 2nd Timothy and John’s third epistle. The best attested book is John’s Gospel, with 16 manuscripts dated from A.D. 125 to the start of the fourth century5 “

        • epeeist

          so you chose to ignore the source that came from the same conversation.

          Source: https://owlcation.com/human

          That was the source I gave to Bob earlier.

          Yep, saw that. However it takes nothing away from what I have said before. Your post says, without reservations, that the P52 fragment was from 125CE. Bob pointed out that while some people had dated it to 125CE others had dated it to the 3rd century. I then pointed out that the library where the fragment is located also dates it to the 2nd or 3rd century.

          In other words your definitive claim in does not stand up to scrutiny. The fragment may from as early as 125CE but equally it may from the 3rd century.

        • Lycan

          Yes, but my point was I believed the source until the conversation with Bob. And yes it does have to do with what you said before since you said “”a source that showed an old manuscript from 125AD”. Now either your reading comprehension (even of your own posts) is non-existent or you are a liar. I normally take the charitable view but in your case I am going with a complete disregard for truth.”

          Which means you didn’t look at the source I posted because as the quote showed it did show 125AD.

        • Greg G.

          No, it is a reading comprehension problem. That quote is not saying that any of the texts are dated to 125AD nor is it saying that any are dated to the end of the fourth century. It says at least one of them has a date range as early as 125AD and at least one has a date range as late as the end of the fourth century. P52 has a date range from 125AD to the end of the third century so that is where the quote gets the 125AD even though no manuscripts is dated that early with certainty.

          Most of the papyri are dated by paleography, which is based on the style of handwriting, so it cannot be precise because a writing style may last a lifetime from when it was learned.

        • Lycan

          “”Manuscripts from the pre-constantinian period include portions of every New Testament book with the exception of 1st and 2nd Timothy and John’s third epistle. The best attested book is John’s Gospel, with 16 manuscripts dated from A.D. 125 to the start of the fourth century5 ”

          “When first discovered, P52 was dated by four leading Paleographers (experts in ancient writing, particularly as it pertains to the date of writing); The first paleographer concluded P52 was from the 1st century (c. 90 A.D.) the other three dated it more conservatively to the year 125A.D.. Although paleographic dates typically have a 25 year variability in either direction, in this instance it is generally agreed that 125 should be considered the latest likely date1.”

          From the same source.

          One of the people commenting actually corrects the writer “A number of errors on this article. For example Rylands P52 is dated 125-278 CE. The display of the fragment in the museum describes it as a 2nd or 3rd century mss. Rylands P133 is a pre-constantinian mss of 1st Timothy that has a start date of 250 CE. And I think there are 19 pre 4th century Johanine mss. I’ll stop there.”

        • Greg G.

          Right. Paleography is an inexact science.

        • Lycan

          I agree immensely.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Don’t go throwing the baby out with the bathwater though. It’s a more of an exact science than no science at all.

          The fact that it is not an exact science helps this side of the argument more than it does yours fortunately.

          I direct you to an essay by Issac Asimov entitled “The Relativity of Being Wrong”…you really should read it.

          http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

        • Ignorant Amos

          One of the people commenting actually corrects the writer “A number of errors on this article. For example Rylands P52 is dated 125-278 CE. The display of the fragment in the museum describes it as a 2nd or 3rd century mss. Rylands P133 is a pre-constantinian mss of 1st Timothy that has a start date of 250 CE. And I think there are 19 pre 4th century Johanine mss. I’ll stop there.”

          Have a guess who that person commenting is?

        • Lycan

          you or bob?

        • Ignorant Amos

          };O)~

          In all fairness to B A Johnson, I see the author has added a footnote by way of revision to his 1st Timothy statement that there is no pre-4th century mss by that name.

          ^ Formerly 1st Timothy could be included in this brief list of absent books, however, a fairly recent discovery in the form of P.Oxy.5259 (now simply p133) has added a portion of 1 Timothy 3 and 4 to textual witnesses in the 3rd century A.D.

          So thanks to you, his readers will be that we bit better informed.

          Now it needs pointing out that B A Johnson, the author of the article, has already admitted a few flaws in his research methods.

          While he has contested my other two points, the possible late dating of P52 and the extra pre-4th century mss of John, I have a follow up comment in moderation explaining with evidence, why I’m not in error in my observations. Let’s just see what happens to that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The problem is that you have become the victim of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

          Here is the blurb on the author of your source…

          B. A. Johnson is an avid student of history. He endeavors to provide a series of accurate and detailed articles on the history of the Christian Church. Each article is carefully researched and its material drawn from some of the best sources and authorities on the subject. Diligent footnotes and bibliographies are provided in order that the reader may assess the weight and scope of these sources and to provide recomendations for further reading.

          A student fer fucks sake. Which would be an ad hom on my part if the rest of the blurb wasn’t a loada ballix. He doesn’t do careful or accurate research, his endeavours are pathetic. Two minutes on Google makes a mockery of his endeavours and diligence.

          Now with that in mind, let’s see what he writes about P52…

          P52 is the earliest biblical manuscript known, a very small fragment containing a few verses from the Gospel of John. When first discovered, P52 was dated by four leading Paleographers (experts in ancient writing, particularly as it pertains to the date of writing); The first paleographer concluded P52 was from the 1st century (c. 90 A.D.) the other three dated it more conservatively to the year 125A.D.. Although paleographic dates typically have a 25 year variability in either direction, in this instance it is generally agreed that 125 should be considered the latest likely date.

          So…his source for that part of the article, which you didn’t bother to check, is a book over thirty years old. Now that doesn’t make the info wrong, but in this article that you cite is so recent, less than 4 months old, not using the most recent scholarship is tantamount to lying…but then that’s Christians all over.

          The bold part is most definitely a lie. The poster epeeist, on this thread, was at the Rylands display of P52 last week in Manchester and seen it. It is described as a second or third century manuscript in the museum. You are citing an untrustworthy and amateurish source…or a liar for Jesus like yerself.

          As for the portion you cited…

          “Manuscripts from the pre-constantinian period include portions of every New Testament book with the exception of 1st and 2nd Timothy and John’s third epistle. The best attested book is John’s Gospel, with 16 manuscripts dated from A.D. 125 to the start of the fourth century5 “

          Just off the top of my head I see a glaring error. There is a fragment of 1st Timothy, Rylands P133 (AD 200-350, verses 3:13 – 4:8), that is dated pre-Constantinian. So again, untrustworthy information.

          Two wiki searches of Timothy gave me…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy_3

          …and…

          The earliest known writing of 1 Timothy has been found on Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5258, designated P133, in 2017. It comes from a leaf of a codex which is dated to the 3rd century.

          And it can be found on the list of early mss at…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

          ETA there are a hell of a lot more than 16 mss dated between 125 and the start of the 4th century.

          Your source is a Muppet.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nice quote mine.

          Bob was replying to your assertion…

          I’m talking about the gap between the old text and now. I think you misunderstood me. I also showed you a source that showed an old manuscript from 125AD.

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/jesus_just_one_more_dying_and_rising_savior_30/#comment-3828980968

          So the old manuscript from 125 AD is the source that you showed…you brought it up.

          Bob was merely confirming that there are those who punt to a an early date for P52, he wasn’t giving your assertion any veracity. You omit that he adds there are more academic sources who widen the dating into the third century.

          Papyrus P52 is said to be the oldest fragment of the NT, and some date it to 125. But then some date it to the third century, as I recall.

          If you’re making a point based on this, I can’t imagine what it is. Explain.

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/jesus_just_one_more_dying_and_rising_savior_30/#comment-3829202073

          A casual visitor not reading the whole thread will miss the bit you omitted from your quote mine and be mislead by the way you are acting. It is dishonest and very bad craic.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He meant to write 124AD to 278AD but the last bit fell off. Give him a break }8OP~

        • Ignorant Amos

          The “some” are NT scholars that want an early dating, not experts in the field of palaeography and papyrology. And when the scholarship has moved on, and uses newer evidence, it is prudent to move along with it.

          The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel

          The thesis of this paper is simple: we as critical readers of the New Testament often use John Rylands Greek Papyrus 3.457, also known as P52 , in inappropriate ways, and we should stop doing so.

          http://www.academia.edu/436092/The_Use_and_Abuse_of_P52_Papyrological_Pitfalls_in_the_Dating_of_the_Fourth_Gospel

          Which is exactly what you are doing. You are being stupid and need to learn stuff if you want anyone here to take your position seriously. When you post unsubstantiated assertions without support, you will be laughed at. If P52 can be dated into the 3rd century, and it can, then it may well not be the earliest piece of NT writing we have. Other evidence points to P52 gJohn being later.

          The terminus a quo and terminus ad quem for the Johanine gospel are set at circa 90-120 CE. But P52 could be as late as third century, which means possibly 200 years to get bastardised and all the way to Africa. You don’t get to take an arbitrary date and then build your case around it when there is an alternative at the other extreme that is every bit as possible, and in all likelihood, more probable.

          Honesty is all that is being asked of you…and a wee bit of the not-so-common sense.

        • What argument could he possibly be making that rests on a single tiny fragment being age X?

        • epeeist

          What argument could he possibly be making

          He has actually made an argument? Could you point me to the post where he does this?

        • Damn it! Looking back, I see that I can point to nothing. You’ve caught me in an error, which I now retract.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The infamous 40 words argument of the Scarlet Pimpernel variety?

          Maybe it’s because P52 has 40 words, or part thereof, between both sides…and they match the layout of a later complete mss, meaning a hypothetical “complete” P52 would match a later gJohn mss. Lycan seems very vague on the details of his argument, but chose to dive right in anyway.

        • Greg G.

          Actually the letters of the extant parts of P52 match but the layout indicates there would be about 7 or 8 letters missing that are in other versions.

          From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52 :

          There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso, and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through haplography.

          That assumes that the missing text matches up with the other texts of John 18, which I agree is probable, and that they can guess which words were missing, which I also agree is most probable.

          P90 has bits of John 18:36-19:1 and P52 has bits of John 18:37-38. The spacing of P90 is correct if it had the same text we have. So I compared them to see if the two manuscripts had overlapping text for verses 37 and 38. They did not have any matches for verse 37 but verse 38 matches in 3 places.

          ΛEΓEI AYTΩkAI TOytoΤoye

          The bold uppercase Greek letters are those that both manuscripts has and the lowercase Latin letters represent the likely missing text of at least one of the manuscripts.

          PS: I wonder if the second line is supposed to be a prophecy of Asian automobile manufacturers Kia and Toyota.

          ETA: Bold and Underlined letters for the shared letters:

          ΛEΓEI AYTΩKAI TOYTOΤΟΥΣ

        • Pofarmer

          This is just one more reason I think that parsing “Brother of the Lord” in Paul is so ridiculous. It’s a copy of a copy by someone who didn’t have any firsthand knowledge of the story, and may not have known exactly what he was copying, and yet you’re going to make 2 or 3 letters your hill to die on on the historicity of Jesus? O.K.

        • Greg G.

          I think Paul was being sarcastic whenever he called somebody a “brother of the Lord” and such because he thought they were saying or doing things using human authority that Paul thought was the Lord’s authority. He makes a big deal of it in Galatians 1:1 then points out that James sent men to Antioch. He does it again in 1 Corinthians 9:5 and brings up “human authority three verses later.

        • Pofarmer

          And I think your view is defensible. But I think that the amount of precision “biblical Scholars” claim from these texts is way overblown. These aren’t saved word documents.

        • Greg G.

          That is for sure. So many Bible Scholars are theologians trying.

        • Ignorant Amos

          KAI was a local sectarian gang’s acronym against republican/Catholics.

          It was at this time that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was born in response to accusations that councils responsible for allocating public housing were using allocation as a means of favouring their own. Community vigilante groups acted as gatekeepers to such population exchanges in public housing areas. In the early 1970s police were briefly excluded from the area by the Rathcoole Defence Association (RDA), a move that reflected a wider pattern in Northern Ireland. Resource-starved authorities could do little but stand by and re-allocate housing on the basis of squatters becoming accepted as sitting tenants. In Rathcoole this was estimated at between 200 and 250 families in mid-1972. Many Catholic families were forced out of Rathcoole to the Irish republican Twinbrook estate in Belfast to be replaced by similarly displaced Protestant families from other areas. The estate was the scene of several sectarian murders and other violent crimes during the conflict. At around this time many young disaffected young men became associated with the loyalist Tartan Gang in the estate named The Rathcoole KAI, the initials reportedly standing for Kill All Irish.

          Christianity at it’s finest.

        • Yeah, the one that Greg G recently noted is at variance from our copies of that part of John.

          I believe Lycan shoots himself in the foot.

        • epeeist

          I believe Lycan shoots himself in the foot.

          Knee, the feet went long ago.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, you said that to IA. But that is an irrelevant time interval. If anything happened in 30 AD, the important date is the time interval until it was first recorded. When you replied to me in a post where I was explicitly referring to the time from the originals, that excuse doesn’t make sense.

          It doesn’t make sense for you to even argue the points because we were saying that the agreements of the manuscripts do not go back to the originals but to a certain set of copies of copies of manuscripts. But that is not to the manuscripts we have but the copy where the lineages of texts diverged, which may no longer exist.

        • Let’s say that P52 actually was written in 125CE. What is your point?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Then gJohn can’t contain anything legendary, because 200 years…or 100 years…or two generations…or some other such pish. Checkmate atheists.

        • Lycan

          Just showing that if it is the time difference is shorter than most think.

        • Greg G.

          P52 puts most of John 18:37 in dispute because it cannot say what scholars accept it says. Either P52 proves early corruption or every other copy is corrupt. You seem to think it is your best argument but it works against you.

        • Everyone who knows what “P52” means know that 125CE is crowed by many Christians as a possible date. I’m not sure that you’re sharing anything new.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are not showing anyone here anything. We all here are better educated on this subject than you’ve demonstrated you can claim. That was obvious with that cretinous source you cited. We’ve all been doing this for quite a long time, against far superior adversaries than you. We’ve read books on the subject. Scholarly papers. Watched videos. Visited websites. Epeeist has even seen the Ryland’s Papyri catalogue number 52 in real life…at least twice as far as I’m aware, most recently last week.

          The length of time difference is irrelevant. What is the argument you are attempting to support with the shorter time difference, given that we will all, for the sake of argument, grant a 125 CE dating…earlier if it helps?

          What is it you are trying to communicate?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Define what you mean by the “old ones”?

          There are approximately 3 second century NT mss.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts#Distribution_of_Greek_manuscripts_by_century_and_category

          They are three tiny scraps of papyri.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_90

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_104

          They are as likely as not, late 2nd century.

          What is it you think we can know from these mss scraps of “old ones” vis a vis the first complete not-so-old-ones?

        • ?? You’ve just made it clear, with your two definitions of “faith” that we have no idea what you mean when you use that word! You’ve told us yourself that the word has two very different meanings.

          Sounds like you’re like the worst Christian apologists, giving yourself the option to switch definitions as it pleases you. Honest people don’t do that.

        • Lycan

          My point is that saying trust is different than the first definition as faith shows complete trust. Not switching definitions. I am telling you in that sentence when I said faith meant complete trust, which is one of the definitions.

        • I’ll type slower.

          You told us (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3834901246 ) that “faith” has 2 definitions. You didn’t reject one; you’ve left yourself the option of using either definition. Conclusion: we don’t know what “faith” means when you use it.

        • Greg G.

          Saying you have faith in God is not the same as having complete trust in God because you don’t have any way to distinguish God from any imaginary thing you could think up. Saying that “you have faith that Jesus, your Latin American lawn care specialist, will do a good job mowing your lawn” is different than saying that “you have faith that Jesus, your Lord and Savior, will do a good job mowing your lawn.”

        • Lycan

          Yeah but when I was replying to Susan I meant complete trust. That is my point.

        • Greg G.

          Her post is here:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3833798039

          So are you saying that she should have complete trust in the mechanic? The prophet whose prophecies never come true? The cat who is the ruler of the universe?

          If you are implying God is the one she should have “complete trust” in, you have switched to the second definition as you are talking about religious faith, not complete trust. That is why Bob began insisting that you use “trust” when you mean “trust” and “faith” when you mean “faith”.

          It would be easier to trust that her cat is the ruler of the universe than that God is the ruler of the universe. The hard part about trusting that the cat is the ruler of the universe but proving that the cat exists is easy. With trusting that God is the ruler of the universe starts with the same problem of showing that he is the ruler and that is the easier part. You cannot prove that the god thingy exists, so you have switched to the second definition that goes with the lack of proof.

          Since you cannot use the word “faith” intelligibly, we must insist that you do not use it as a synonym for trust. Trust is believing to the extent reason allows. Faith is believing beyond what reason allows.

        • Lycan

          I simply am saying that you have to know who to have complete trust in.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, it would have to be someone that you at least know exists.

        • Lycan

          my point exactly.

        • So “faith” is more grounded by evidence and reality than “trust” is? I doubt that’s how many people see it.

          As Greg G noted, Christians conflating the two ideas and/or switching between them is a common dishonest tactic. I hope you don’t do it. Using “trust” when you mean “belief fully grounded in evidence and changeable based on new, different evidence” (exclusively) would be helpful.

        • Greg G.

          Maybe we should start a pool for how long it takes him to say “faith is just trust in the Lord.” I pick Tuesday because I will be traveling on Wednesday and Thursday and won’t be able to keep up with posts.

        • If you mean trust, don’t say “faith” (unless lack of clarity is your goal).

        • Lycan

          The first definition means complete trust so it is a difference then simply saying trust.

        • Susan

          That’s why you have to know who to put your faith in

          Let me guess. You “know” who to put your faith in because faith.

          If you have nothing besides circular reasoning, then why are you here?

        • Lycan

          How is that circular reasoning?

        • Susan

          How is that circular reasoning?

          Because iI have faith that it is.

          Hey, I see you’re new here. You just barely missed Einstein. You would have loved him.

          You also would have loved the guy who was here a few weeks back who said:

          “If at first you don’t succeed, come back as a sockpuppet”

        • Lycan

          “Because iI have faith that it is.”

          alright then.

        • Susan

          alright then.

          Exactly.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why have you got faith that it is?

        • Lycan

          Susan said that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry…typo…should have read “isn’t”…mea culpa.

          I know she said it…she was being sarcastic. At least that’s how I read it.

          She has “faith” that the argument is circular? Now what definition of “faith” do you think she is running with?

          She doesn’t really have “faith” that it is “circular reasoning”, because “circular reasoning” is a logical fallacy and no “faith” is required for logic, hence her sarcasm.

          https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4e/1e/60/4e1e605b630685d2a8fef5c95ae04d15.jpg

          I was sarcastically throwing it back with regards to your assertion a few comments back…

          That’s why you have to know who to put your faith in.

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kKR7cTqUhus/UO7QaR8tJHI/AAAAAAAAAFo/8Vu5qc9UBhA/s1600/Circular+Reasoning.jpg

          How do you know who to put “faith” in? Why do you put “faith” in it? Where did the idea to put “faith” into this particular thing and not another particular thing, come from?

        • Lycan

          That circular argument can technically be used for many scientific processes as well though.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Feel free to pick an example of such a scientific process and demonstrate your assertion.

        • Lycan

          Water cycle, distillation and the circle of life in general.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I suggest you go learn the definition of “circular reasoning” before you make an even bigger eejit of yourself…Dime Bar.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not that new.

          Lycan was resurrected by a comment 8 days ago in reply to a 3 year old comment on a thread from years past.

          Prior to 8 days ago, Lycan hadn’t commented here for 2 years.

          Not much of a history. Seems to be into gaming, so likely a youth. Certainly comments like one anyway.

          Could be a home-schooled who isn’t allowed on the tinternet for by perhaps learning something.

        • Susan

          Lycan was resurrected by a comment 8 days ago.

          Yes. My mistake. I even recognized that in Lycan’s first few comments this week.

          Either I mistook him for another poster who was commenting around the same time or the whole thing’s just become such a big mess of blurred nonsensical goo that I’m beginning to lose my mind.

          I’m hoping it’s the former but it’s probably the latter.

        • epeeist

          Let me guess. You “know” who to put your faith in because faith

          And right on cue

          http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-content/uploads/dodgy.png

        • epeeist

          1. Life shows that

          Vacuous nonsense

          2. Once again life

          Once again, vacuous nonsense

          3. Everyone takes a path as choosing to do nothing is still choosing a path

          I didn’t have a whisky or a gin last night, this obviously means I had another alcoholic drink

          4. It was the bible verse that said that

          And why should I accept anything from your book of fables as being true?

          5. That’s where faith comes in

          So you haven’t got any justification for your position but you are going to believe it anyway because faith. Something that could equally well be said by a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, follower of Scientology or Mormonism. Why is your particular faith correct and all of these others false?

        • Lycan

          “I didn’t have a whisky or a gin last night, this obviously means I had another alcoholic drink”

          Doing nothing is still a choice man. You choose to do nothing.

          “And why should I accept anything from your book of fables as being true?”

          Your the one who showed it true with the roulette argument.

        • epeeist

          Doing nothing is still a choice man

          All your book of fables offers is a wide gate or a narrow one.

          Your the one who showed it true with the roulette argument.

          I am glad you called it an argument, because that is what it is. It shows that there is only one correct result and multiple wrong results.

          Whereas it would seem that you are either incapable or unwilling to provide any justification for your claims. Given that you have been given well sufficient time to do so I think we can legitimately simply dismiss your claims.

        • 5. If you mean trust, then don’t say “faith.”

        • Michael Neville

          That’s it? That list of non sequiturs is what shows the Bible is true? You’re kidding me. Tell me that you don’t really believe that nonsense shows anything other than that you’re an idiot without a clue.

        • Lycan

          Sorry man just look at life. Just like in most cases, the results show which one is the Real McCoy.

        • Michael Neville

          How does life show the truth in the Bible that’s lacking in the Quran or the Vedas? Be specific.

        • Lycan

          I already gave examples of Bible verses that show truth in today’s life. But let’s go with recent news. There’s a verse that basically says the evil deeds we do in the dark God will bring to the light. Look at what’s happening recently. All the people getting exposed. Like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby.

        • Michael Neville

          No, you’ve tossed out random Biblical verses without explanation. It’s obvious that you’re not going to answer the question I’ve kept asking for you for days but you’re too dishonest to say so. You may have the last word because I won’t be replying to your lying ass again. I’ve got more useful things to do like grooming my nose hair.

        • Lycan

          So you don’t like the answer even though this time i explained using recent news. So it’s not an answer apparently.

          Thank you for proving Biblical principles by the way.

        • Yeah, good point. What the hell was God doing when women were getting molested? Was he asleep on the couch?

          So much for God being the champion of free will, amirite?? “Oooh, God can’t step on the free will of the rapist, donchaknow?” In so doing, of course, they ignore the free will of the victim.

        • Lycan

          Free will given by God is clear. Men have misused their free will though.

        • Is there free will in heaven? If so, how come heaven isn’t as f-ed up as earth?

        • Lycan

          Yes satan’s fall from grace showed that there is free will. It’s not messed most likely because when people go up there they don’t have the same temptations they have down here.

        • Whatever trait heaven has that makes free will benign, God could apply to earth. But he doesn’t. What’s God’s problem?

          Y’know, it’s almost like he doesn’t even exist, and we’re all just talking about stories about God.

        • Lycan

          There is no trait. The fact that Satan fell from grace shows that.

        • So heaven is proof that humans with free will can be a great combination. Why isn’t it a great combination here on earth?

        • Lycan

          I told you why. Satan fell but he seemingly was a rarity. Why would someone rebel when there aren’t many temptations?

        • Lycan

          at least doesn’t appear to be a trait.

        • Lycan

          Sorry for the late replies btw. Was in the hospital.

        • “Results”?? You have results? Yeah, show us results that indicate that Yahweh exists and the other gods don’t while I get the popcorn.

        • It’s in the Bible, so it’s obviously true. Who can argue with that?

        • Lycan

          That’s my point Bob.

        • And my point is that no atheist finds what any book of mythology and legend says authoritative.

        • Lycan

          and?

        • Bless your heart. You have the mind of a child, don’t you?

          So don’t quote scripture to an atheist as a “truth” and expect them to agree.

        • Lycan

          I was responding to what he said about the roulette.

        • Lycan

          What I mean is he said the same thing which has shown to be true in life.

        • This verse in Matthew has been shown to be true because we can compare it against what we reliably know about the afterlife and find that it matches up?

        • Michael Neville

          So we have two choices, either Paul was saying that Jesus did all the miraculous, godlike things he was supposed to do or else Paul was making it up. Since there’s zip point zero evidence that Jesus even existed, I’m more inclined to think that the Jesus Paul wrote about was a figment of Paul’s imagination. Just like every other god is a figment of the imagination.

        • Greg G.

          Where does Paul ever say that Jesus fulfilled anything. You don’t find that in any of the epistles. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that Cephas first saw it first. He says that he saw that “Jesus died for sins and was buried according to the scriptures” and that he “was raised on the third day according to the scriptures.” Which scriptures?

          In 2 Corinthians in two places, Paul says his knowledge is not inferior to the “superapostles”. That claim can only make sense if Paul knows and the Corinthians know that the “superapostles” did not spend time with Jesus. After two chapters of referring to Cephas and James, in Galatians 3:6-14, Paul has to demonstrate to the Galatians that Jesus was crucified. Why not just tell them to ask James or Cephas?

          I think they read Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 3. Isaiah 53 has somebody being rejected, crushed, died for sins, was buried with the rest, and intercesses for sins. Zechariah 3 picks up with somebody arriving before the Lord in dirty clothes, as if crushed, then it goes on to say that the Lord would remove the guilt of the land in a single day. That person is named Joshua, but in the Septuagint that the New Testament authors used to write their Greek New Testament, he is named Jesus.

        • Lycan

          “”Jesus died for sins and was buried according to the scriptures” and that he “was raised on the third day according to the scriptures.” Which scriptures?” Hence the fulfilment.

          ” After two chapters of referring to Cephas and James, in Galatians 3:6-14, Paul has to demonstrate to the Galatians that Jesus was crucified. Why not just tell them to ask James or Cephas?”

          He’s referes to them but where does it say they were right there with him at that point in time.

          Galations 2:9 “9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”

          He refers but doesn’t say that they are right there with him during the events that occured in Galatians 3.

        • Greg G.

          ” Which scriptures?” Hence the fulfilment.

          Do you accept that 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 refers to Isaiah 53 and Hosea 6:2?

          He’s referes to them but where does it say they were right there with him at that point in time.

          He refers but doesn’t say that they are right there with him during the events that occured in Galatians 3.

          Paul mentions Cephas and James in chapter 1 and chapter 2 discussing past events. Paul is communicating by mail. The recipient could communicate with James by mail, too.

          Galatians was sent to multiple churches. The Epistle of James appears to be a response to Galatians with copies mailed to multiple churches. James disputes several points in Galatians, especially the idea that faith alone exempts one from following Jewish law. Paul responds to some of James’ arguments in Romans. Theologians bend over backwards to overlook the disagreements and claim that they are both saying the same thing. Would you like me to point out where they are debating?

        • Lycan

          Sure I’ll see the debate.

        • Greg G.

          Paul appears to be following Hillel philosophy when he said:

          Galatians 5:14 (NRSV)14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

          James responds to that by saying that Leviticus 19:18 is a good start but that one must follow the whole law:

          James 2:8-10 (NRSV)8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

          James then brings up adultery and murder, as if he thinks Paul is saying that murder is OK if you have faith.

          James 2:11 (NRSV)11 For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

          Paul appears to be responding to that by mentioning the commandments, starting with adultery and murder, which is the reverse order that the commandments appear in Deuteronomy and Exodus. Paul quotes the commandments as the appear in the Septuagint but in James order, though James paraphrases, then Paul includes two more commandment. Paul insists that loving your neighbor prevents those things and restates Leviticus 19:18.

          Romans 13:8-10 (NRSV)8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

          Paul uses Abraham as an example of faith blessing others, including Gentiles, citing Genesis 15: in verse 6 and alluding to Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; and 26:4 in verse 8

          Galatians 3:6-9 (NRSV)6 Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” [Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην] 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

          James thinks Paul is crazy. He says Abraham was justified by his works (binding Isaac) and his faith, also quoting Genesis 15:6:

          James 2:20-23 (NRSV)20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” [ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην] and he was called the friend of God.

          Paul again quotes Genesis 15:6 but thinks it is ridiculous that Abraham would be justified by works.

          Romans 4:1-5 (NRSV)1 What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” [ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην] 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.

          Notice that the version in Romans 4:3 matches the Greek in James 2:23, rather than Galatians. The Septuagint Genesis 15:6 has [καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην].

          Martin Luther said that James “was an epistle of straw.” Luther pointed out that Abraham had not even been circumcised when he justified in Genesis 15:6 so Isaac wasn’t even conceived yet, let alone bound to the altar, so James was way off in that argument.

          Paul made the case for faith alone and James would give an example of works being required. Sometimes the works were following Jewish law and sometimes it was doing a deed for the jewish nation. Paul talked about the faith of Abraham’s wife so James countered with the works of a different woman, Rahab, the prostitute who his some Israeli spies so her life was spared for selling out her friends, colleagues, and clients.

          But sometimes Paul agrees with James in the following examples:

          James 4:12 (NRSV)12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge [σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων] your neighbor?

          Romans 14:4 (NRSV)4 Who are you to pass judgment [σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων] on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

          The word “μακροθυμίας” for “patience” is used four times in the New Testament but this three word combination is used twice. So Paul agrees with James here, too:

          James 5:10 (NRSV)10 As an example of suffering and patience [καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας], beloved, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

          Romans 2:4 (NRSV)4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience[καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας]? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

        • Lycan

          “James responds to that by saying that Leviticus 19:18 is a good start but that one must follow the whole law:”

          That’s a not a debate he simply went further.

          “James thinks Paul is crazy. He says Abraham was justified by his works (binding Isaac) and his faith, also quoting Genesis 15:6:”

          Wrong, James says “20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? ”

          He doesn’t disagree with paul, he simply shows that if you have Faith your deeds will show. Like with Abraham and his son. His actions show he believed God.

          Let me give you a non biblical example. If me and my mother are teaching kids and my mother tells them “all you have to do is believe what we tell you and you’ll be fine.” and a kid who claims to believe what we tell them keeps ignoring what we are telling them and does whatever he/she wants then he/she doesn’t really believe us, because his/her deeds would show it.

          James is simply saying that the works show the Faith.

        • Greg G.

          That’s a not a debate he simply went further.

          Read for comprehension. Paul says that love your neighbor sums up the whole law. James says it does not fulfill the whole law. That is a direct contradiction. James doesn’t just mean following the ten commandments. For him, it includes all the food laws (hence the argument Paul had with Cephas in chapter 2 after the men sent by James arrived), the laws about circumcision that has Paul worked up in Galatians, and all the other laws of the 613 that Jews are said to follow.

          Wrong, James says “20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? “

          James uses the term translated as “senseless person” right in the verse! Other versions have “foolish person” and “vain man”.I thing “crazy” works as well.

          He doesn’t disagree with paul, he simply shows that if you have Faith your deeds will show. Like with Abraham and his son. His actions show he believed God.

          That’s what theologians say to try to convince themselves. James says you have to follow the whole law, as failing one point breaks the whole law (See James 2:10, quoted above). James didn’t understand what Paul was saying. In Romans, Paul spells it out that if you love your neighbor, you are not going to do those bad things.

          James also means doing good deeds. He also means doing bad things for God, like being willing to kill your child or betray your friends and neighbors.

          Now about the deeds of Abraham from Jesus and Mo (Moses is in the middle, conversing with Jesus and Mohammed):
          http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-content/uploads/dodgy.png

          Let me give you a non biblical example. If me and my mother are teaching kids and my mother tells them “all you have to do is believe what we tell you and you’ll be fine.” and a kid who claims to believe what we tell them keeps ignoring what we are telling them and does whatever he/she wants then he/she doesn’t really believe us, because his/her deeds would show it.

          James is simply saying that the works show the Faith.

          But it is better to treat people as they would prefer you treat them than listen to somebody else’s orders. You have to consider the orders one follows instead of following blindly. In the military, if a superior officer orders you to commit an unlawful act, you are required to not follow the order. That is the point Paul is making with acting out of love.

          There are an extreme number unique matching phrases between James and Romans in the mGNT. A unique matching phrase is a shared phrase between two books of the New Testament that is found nowhere else in the New Testament. We expect to find some just by chance, but the more matching phrases between the two is a sign that the two books were written by the same person, or one person was referring to the other book. The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Mark share 8 unique matching phrases. Romans and James have 38 unique matching phrases and Romans is about half the number of words than Mark. Romans shares more matching phrases with James than Matthew and Mark combined share with James, more than Luke and John combined share with James, The second chapter of James has about twice as many unique matching phrases with as James shares with Mark. James 1 and James 5 each have as many matching phrases with Romans as James has with Mark. That is way beyond coincidence would allow.

        • Lycan

          “Paul spells it out that if you love your neighbour, you are not going to do those bad things.”

          Yes but that’s contradictory. Paul simplified it. If you truly love someone you wouldn’t do many of those things to them.

          “He also means doing bad things for God, like being willing to kill your child or betray your friends and neighbours.”

          He doesn’t say that.

          Sorry, the comic doesn’t make any sense because it misses out too many key things in the story.

          You still have yet to directly answer the nonbiblical comparison which shows these don’t contradict.

        • Greg G.

          Yes but that’s contradictory. Paul simplified it. If you truly love someone you wouldn’t do many of those things to them.

          James didn’t understand it, though. That’s why Paul had to explain it in Romans.

          He doesn’t say that.

          James uses it as an example of doing what you think the god thingy wants as if it is a good thing.

          You still have yet to directly answer the nonbiblical comparison which shows these don’t contradict.

          You are trying to make an analogy based on James. James is saying that but he is arguing against Paul’s claims in Galatians. Paul is saying that they don’t have to cut the foreskin off their dicks and James is saying that they do have to do that because it is in the law. James is saying that you give alms to the poor because is says to do it in the OT so you don’t have to do it out of love, you do it because the scripture says to do it. His example of Rahab shows that he thinks it is better to please God than to love your neighbors, you should betray them so God’s warriors can kill them so you will be spared. James 2:8-9 is saying that it’s alright to do things out of love, but verse 10 is telling you that you still have to obey the laws even if you have to do the opposite despite your love.

          Your analogy shows that you did not grasp the story. To make your nonbiblical analogy fit better, don’t forget the part about the children who do not do what you and Mom say being thrown in the furnace. If you or Mom says to kick the other kid, it’s into the furnace if that kid doesn’t.

          You shouldn’t follow rigid laws like that. It damages your brain. Your sense of empathy is diminished by lack of exercise. You should consider what is best with a sense of caring about people more than trying to find some verse to go by.

        • Lycan

          “James is saying that but he is arguing against Paul’s claims in Galatians. ”

          No he’s not and James never said they had to circumcise themselves.

          “James 2:8-9 is saying that it’s alright to do things out of love, but verse 10 is telling you that you still have to obey the laws even if you have to do the opposite despite your love.”

          Wrong James never even mentions love in verse ten. He simply mentions a simple truth. Is that not true of todays laws? If you don’t ever steal but murder someone do they not throw you in jail?

          “To make your nonbiblical analogy fit better, don’t forget the part about the children who do not do what you and Mom say being thrown in the furnace. If you or Mom says to kick the other kid, it’s into the furnace if that kid doesn’t.”

          So we don’t put people in jail.

          I don’t think I’m the one who didn’t grasp the meaning behind the story.

        • Greg G.

          No he’s not and James never said they had to circumcise themselves.

          Read for comprehension. James says that if you break one part of the law you have broken the whole law. You do not know the law so you do not observe it so you break the whole law. Maybe Jesus will say, “I never knew you” for that.

          Requirement to celebrate passover.
          Exodus 12:2-11; Exodus 12:25-27; Numbers 9:1-5; Deuteronomy 16:1-8

          Who may eat passover:
          Exodus 12:43-49

          So if you fail to celebrate passover, you have broken the whole law. You must be circumcised to celebrate passover.

          Wrong James never even mentions love in verse ten. He simply mentions a simple truth. Is that not true of todays laws? If you don’t ever steal but murder someone do they not throw you in jail?

          James doesn’t mention love because it is irrelevant. You must follow the law whether you love doing something or not. Picking up sticks is perfectly fine six days of the week but on one day of the week, it is an offense that requires the death penalty. That is the law James is talking about. The penalties were death, exile, or whatever the priests could extort from you.

          So we don’t put people in jail.

          What Old Testament verse talks about jail?

          I don’t think I’m the one who didn’t grasp the meaning behind the story.

          Of course, you don’t.

        • Lycan

          “Read for comprehension” Seems like you mean read for a meaning that isn’t what he’s actually saying. Your stretching this quite far.

        • Greg G.

          You read the Bible as if the miracle stories were true. You do not read it realistically.

        • Lycan

          Because that’s what the Bible is actually saying Greg.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible actually says that a serpent spoke. The Bible actually says a prophet talked to his donkey. The Bible actually said there was night and day on Earth before there was a sun.

          Homer’s Iliad actually says Hermes (aka Mercury) could run across the surface of the water. The Bible actually says Jesus walked across the surface of the water. Do you believe one and not the other?

        • Lycan

          The history books say that, Columbus sailed the new world in 1492.

          Greek myths say that Hericules was a demigod.

          Do you believe one and not the other?

        • Of course … because one story is based on the supernatural, for which there is no well-accepted evidence.

          Or was this a trick question?

        • Greg G.

          One is plausible and one is not. I live in Columbus, not “Hericules.”

          The Jesus miracles are not plausible. The Feeding of the 5000 never happened it was based on The Odyssey where Telemauchus attended a feast when he was looking for his father plus Elijah’s Feeding of the 100 in 1 Kings 4. What about the Feeding of the 4000? Telemauchus attended two feast when he met with two kings. He walked to one and traveled by boat to the other, same as Jesus.

          Conversations are somewhat plausible but when the disciples were eating grain on the Sabbath and some Pharisees popped up to argue with them, it is not plausible. Farmers were required to leave some grain in the corners of their fields for the poor. It is not against the Sabbath to eat. It would only be wrong if they were collecting the grain, which is not in the story. Jesus should have argued that. Instead he brings up the time David at the Holy Bread on the Sabbath. But the story doesn’t say it was the Sabbath. The bread is replaced every week. So he could have eaten the leftovers without a problem. But David was lying to the priest in the story. The priest asked him where his friends were and he told him he was on a secret mission for the king when he was actually hiding from the king. If somebody asked him why he was alone, the first thing out of his mouth should not be to tell he was on a secret mission. So if Jesus was using that old Bible story to justify eating on the Sabbath, the Pharisees would only need to point out that in the next chapter, the whole town, save one man, was annihilated by the king for helping David and the Pharisees would have defeated Jesus’ argument.

          So we can do what historians do and reject the miracles and supernatural aspects of a story or we can reject the miracle stories because they are based on centuries old stories using the Greek technique of mimesis. Then we can reject the more plausible parts because they are also stories constructed by mimesis.

        • Lycan

          ” b 23 And c 1 Now it came to pass a 1 At that season b that he a Jesus went {b was going} on the {c a} b sabbath day through the grainfields; a and his disciples were hungry and began b as they went, to pluck the ears. a and to eat, c and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.”

          So they were getting the grain from the field to eat. That could count as work as on the sabbath they weren’t supposed to gather mana. (it wouldn’t even fall). So yeah plucking grain could easily be counted as work.

          “The Jesus miracles are not plausible. The Feeding of the 5000 never happened it was based on The Odyssey where Telemauchus attended a feast when he was looking for his father plus Elijah’s Feeding of the 100 in 1 Kings 4. What about the Feeding of the 4000? Telemauchus attended two feast when he met with two kings. He walked to one and traveled by boat to the other, same as Jesus.”

          Provide links please I’m not seeing the comparision on google.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

          These examples of a connection between Mark and Homer are far more dense than the two examples I detailed earlier, and cannot be explained away even by the most agile of thinkers. Consider the last case, which even has the fewest parallels relative to the other two: in the first feasts, the main characters go by sea, but in the second, by land; in the first, only men attend (even though there is no explanation in Mark of why this should be), but in the second there is no distinction; in the first, the masses assemble into smaller groups, and lie on soft spots, but not in the second; more attend the first than the second (and the numbers are about the same: 5000 in Mark, 4500 in Homer). On the other hand, in the second feasts, unlike the first, someone asks the host a discouraging question and yet the host shows compassion anyway-in Mark, this is particularly strange, since after the first miracle the disciples have no excuse to be surprised that Jesus can multiply food, so the doubting question can only be explained by the Homeric parallel; finally, in the second feasts, as opposed to the first, there are two sequential courses-bread, then meat. In both authors, the feasts serve an overt educational role: in the one case to educate the hero’s son about hospitality, in the other to educate the disciples about Jesus’ power and compassion, drawing attention to the difference in each story’s moral values. There are even linguistic parallels-Homer’s feasts were called “symposia” (drinking parties) even though that word usually referred to smaller gatherings; likewise, Mark writes that the first feast was organized by “symposia,” despite the fact that only food is mentioned, not water or wine. Several of these details in Mark, as noted, are simply odd by themselves, yet make perfect sense when we see the Homeric model, and therein again lies the power of MacDonald’s thesis.

          https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html

        • Lycan

          The stretching is real with this one.

        • Greg G.

          Believing the story is stretching.

          The themes from the Homeric epics are probably the most copied literature in the history of literature. Virgil’s Aeneid used it extensively. O Brother! Where Art Thou? is a movie that is based on the Homeric epics.

          The fact that Mark wrote in Greek, with many parallels with Homer, and at a time when Greek authors often used Homeric elements, you are going to have to do better than “stretching”.

          Most of the deeds in gMark have parallels in the literature available in the first century with OT references mixed in. That seems to be Mark’s modus operandi, to take a passage from another work and adjust it with some OT scripture to give it the Jewish context. It is remarkable that so much of aMark’s source material still exists.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is that your rebuttal…personal incredulity.

          http://vridar.info/xorigins/homermark/mkhmrfiles/index.htm

          http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

          Btw…I thought you’d like to know how near your 40 words bullshit I have been able to get near to…40 lines, 400 words.

          It comes from Norman Geisler and William Nix.

          Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.

          Page 475… A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix .

          http://normangeisler.com/from-god-to-us/

          Doesn’t help you out though…can you work out why?

        • Doesn’t help you out though…can you work out why?

          Now you’re just being cruel.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just trying to get him to do some work for his supper.

        • Greg G.

          So they were getting the grain from the field to eat. That could count as work as on the sabbath they weren’t supposed to gather mana. (it wouldn’t even fall). So yeah plucking grain could easily be counted as work.

          Read Exodus 16 about the manna. They gathered it everyday except on the sabbath. None fell and it melted by noon so there was nothing to gather on the sabbath. But they were permitted to eat it on the sabbath because twice as much fell the day before.

          Leviticus 19:9 (NIV)9 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.

          Leviticus 23:22 (NIV)22 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the Lord your God.’”

          Deuteronomy 24:19 (NIV)19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

          Deuteronomy 23:25 (NIV)25 If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain.

          These verses specifically allow the disciples to do what the story in Mark says they were doing. As long as they were just eating it and not gathering it, there would be no problem.

          Provide links please I’m not seeing the comparision on google.

          IA gave you https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html but I don’t recall whether MacDonald points out the Elisha story, which Randel Helms points out in Gospel Fictions. I said “Elijah” so I thought it was 1 Kings but it is Elisha in 2 Kings 4:

          2 Kings 4:42-44 (NIV)42 A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain. “Give it to the people to eat,” Elisha said.43 “How can I set this before a hundred men?” his servant asked.But Elisha answered, “Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the Lord says: ‘They will eat and have some left over.’” 44 Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over, according to the word of the Lord.

        • Lycan

          “These verses specifically allow the disciples to do what the story in Mark says they were doing. As long as they were just eating it and not gathering it, there would be no problem.”

          Plucking it is similiar to gathering. Sorry man it’s clear that that was counted as work. I mean even picking up sticks on the sabbath was counted as work, so plucking would definitely count as work.

        • Greg G.

          Plucking it is similiar to gathering.

          No, gathering is when you carry the grain out of the field. Plucking is similar to serving food for eating and eating on the sabbath is allowed. Nowadays, ovens are made with a sabbath setting so it will turn on itself on the sabbath so a meal can be cooked. Serving the cooked food is OK. Only flipping a switch is considered work. Some Jews remove the light bulbs inside their refrigerators because it is OK to open a refrigerator door on the sabbath but not to cause an electrical circuit to be completed. At Jewish hospitals on the sabbath, the elevators are set to stop at every floor and open the doors continuously so nobody has to push a button. In Jewish neighborhoods, the “Walk, Don’t Walk” are set to automatically change continuously at some specific intervals so observant Jews can cross the street on the sabbath without committing the sin of pushing the “Cross” button.

          They are not permitted to carry something very far to another place but they can carry things inside the place. So in Jewish neighborhoods, they put strings on all the poles so they can call everything surrounded by the string a structure so they can carry things from one house to another.

          It’s OK to eat beef (if it is kosher) and it is OK to eat cheese but some do not eat cheesburgers because of:

          Exodus 23:19 (NRSV)19 The choicest of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God.You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

          Perhaps they avoid all foods where meat and dairy are cooked together.

        • Lycan

          ” Only flipping a switch is considered work.” Then plucking definitely can be considered work.

        • Greg G.

          No more work than dipping a spoon into a bowl of soup.

        • Lycan

          or flipping a switch

        • Greg G.

          It has to do with creating a spark, as I recall. You should research it.

        • Lycan

          Sorry man no way someone could say flipping a switch is work and plucking isn’t when it takes less work to flip than to pluck. Can you show me a passage that shows that in the Jewish law plucking wasn’t considered work?

        • Greg G.

          Can you show me a passage that shows that in the Jewish law plucking wasn’t considered work?

          It doesn’t work that way. The laws say what you cannot do on the sabbath. I do know that there are exemption for preparing and serving the passover meal, though. I gave you a verses that order the farmer to leave grain for passersby and that a person could pluck grain with their hand but they could not use a sickle to their neighbors field. That makes a distinction between gathering and eating as one was legal and one was illegal.

          You need to show the verses that prohibit plucking by hand on the sabbath. If you do, I will retract my claim.

          Eating is taking a break.

          Disqus seems to have taken a break when I tried to post this and new windows aren’t logged in nor will they let me log in. Therefore this is posted several hours after I wrote it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Dime Bar knows that there was a belief that there was exceptions and plucking wasn’t always considered work…at least under one interpretation anyway…he cited Deuteronomy 23:25 and a commentary to demonstrate the fact. The poor fool is all over the place again.

        • Lycan

          I already sent you the answer to this. Did you not get it?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Plucking was indeed considered work, but was permitted under certain circumstances depending on who was doing it, when, where, and what for?

          But the plucking “work” is a different kind of “work” than the switching “work”…there was no electric switches when the Law was being formed…so it is a asinine interpretation of a dopey Law…you don’t think all “work” is the same, do ya?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yip. Creating light and heat…or extinguishing it.

        • Greg G.

          Research the Jewish position on flipping a switch.

        • Lycan

          ” c 2 But {b 24 And} c certain of the Pharisees a when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath. b why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? c Why do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day? [The Pharisees did not object to the act of taking the grain. Such plucking of the grain was allowed by the law ( Deuteronomy 23:25 ) and is still practiced by hungry travelers in Palestine, which is, and has always been, an unfenced land, the roads, or rather narrow paths, of which lead through the grainfields, so that the grain is in easy reach of the passer-by. The Pharisees objected to the plucking of grain because they considered it a kind of reaping, and therefore working on the sabbath day. The scene shows the sinlessness of Jesus in strong light. Every slightest act of his was submitted to a microscopic scrutiny.]”

          Source: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/the-fourfold-gospel/by-sections/jesus-defends-disciples-who-pluck-grain-on-the-sabbath.html

        • Ignorant Amos

          The scene shows the stupidity of the Pharisees in not understanding the Law. Or does it?

          It’s a matter of interpretation. Does Deuteronomy 23:25 negate the Shabbos Law of reaping?

          The Pharisees didn’t believe so, and they were the arbiters and interpreters of the Law.

          But the Law on working during the Sabbath wasn’t universal. Anyone doing priestly work was exempt…surprise, surprise…not.

          So, it could be interpreted that by feeding their faces the apostles, and Jesus, were sending a message that they were also doing priestly work.

          The rules are complicated. “Working” on a Sabbath was not totally taboo, it was all about worldly gain…what that means is up for interpretation.

        • Greg G.

          Thank you for this and the link. Ignorant Amos broke down the points of what is considered work.

          1 Samuel 21:6 (NIV)6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.

          1 Samuel 21:1-9 is the story that Jesus refers to. This verse shows that the bread David got had been removed but it does not say that it was removed that day. It says it had been replaced on the day it was taken away but it does not say that it had been replaced that day. Making that statement is a clue that it had not been replaced that day. The bread is always replaced on the sabbath so David was not there on the sabbath. So Jesus’ analogy about David eating the showbread on the sabbath was wrong.

        • Lycan

          It doesn’t say when it was removed. So your explanation doesn’t show that if definitely wasn’t on the sabbath

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s the ambiguity of the Bible for ya…all sorts of interpretations can be read into it depending on the argument.

          The inference is that it is about old showbread removed before the Sabbath…maybe, or maybe not..remember, the Sabbath begins at sundown on a Friday evening and finishes sundown on Saturday evening. On that day could mean Friday prior to sundown…the fresh bread being placed in an already hot oven. Remaining hot into the Sabbath.

          Read the commentaries.

          About this the Jews are divided; some say they were baked on the sabbath day, but the greater part say that baking did not drive away the sabbath, or it was lawful on the sabbath day; but others say that they were baked on the evening of the sabbath, and kept in the oven until the time of their being set upon the table (h); and, as Abarbinel observes, the mouth of the oven might be stopped up till that time to keep in the heat; but others say (i) this heat was miraculous, or that a miracle was wrought for the sake of it; which is not probable.

          http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_samuel/21-6.htm

          What is actually written in the texts, and the exegesis read into those texts through rose tinted Christian spectacles, are two different things.

        • Greg G.

          The “on the day it was taken” would be an indication that it was taken some other day than the day of the events. It is wrong to infer that it was the sabbath when it doesn’t say that. The sabbath is never mentioned in 1 Samuel or 2 Samuel.

        • Greg G.

          I generally like the commentary at http://www.biblestudytools.com but where they say “However, we are not referred David. He went with his followers to the tabernacle at Nob near Jerusalem, and being hungry, asked bread of the priests,” I think they are misinterpreting the story. David left Jerusalem in a hurry and was keeping it a secret with nobody but his boyfriend Jonathan knowing about it. He was traveling alone and met up with others later. At the end of the chapter, David goes to Gath and acts crazy in order to escape. That wouldn’t have worked if he had companions. He met up with friends and followers in the next chapter. David was lying to the priest about having companions and being on a mission for the king.

          The fact that Saul had the whole town of Shiloh killed would have given the Pharisees the argument as they would have point to those consequences for David eating the showbread.

        • Lycan

          No he wasn’t, because the priest in the OT asked him as long as the men have kept themselves from women.

        • Greg G.

          David lied about that. He was traveling alone. There were no others and he was not on a secret mission for the king.

          Ahimilech made that up, or the author of the story. There is no provision for anybody to eat the bread except for the priests.

        • Lycan

          Sorry, no evidence that David didn’t pick some men on the way. He did lead men and it is possible that he got some on the way out that he trusted.

        • Greg G.

          The point of 1 Samuel 20 is that David had nobody to trust except for Jonathan who did not go with him.

          After visiting Nob, he went to Gath and had to act insane to escape from there. In chapter 22, he went to the cave of Adullam and gathered some men there.

          You are making up the parts of the story the original author forgot to make up. Good job.

        • Lycan

          Wrong, because if he trusted he wouldn’t have gathered men in Adullam.

        • Greg G.

          Read the story, please. His family gathered up people in distress. Read for comprehension, not wishful thinking.

        • Lycan

          And how did his family if as you say he only told Jonathan?

        • Greg G.

          Why don’t you read the Bible? He went to his home. He had left Jerusalem.

        • Lycan

          He didn’t go to Bethlehem according to the Bible his parents came to him.

        • Lycan

          “David left Gath and escaped to the cave of Adullam. When his brothers and his father’s household heard about it, they went down to him there. ”

          1 Samuel 22. They heard about it. He didn’t go home. What are you talking about??

        • Greg G.

          Right. His family came to him.

        • Lycan

          and trusted no one else.

        • epeeist

          Research the Jewish position on flipping a switch

          We have a Miele fridge/freezer that has a “Sabbath mode”.

          We also have lights that can be controlled from an app (as well as multi-room HiFi and central heating that can be controlled in the same way). Is switching these on and off the same as using a mechanical switch?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I use Google Home for lots of stuff, including making phone calls to order a curry, because am a lazy bastard and I can…am I to be stoned for working the Sabbath?

        • Greg G.

          I think you would be required to get the delivery guy stoned.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Moron. You really don’t know much, but still insist on talking shite about stuff all the same.

          It’s not the activity that is against the Law, but what is being gathered and what is then done with the product of the activity.

          The product being gathered must be something that is scattered in the place it grew, and had not previously been gathered before.

          So gathering sticks from where they once grew, or fallen fruit from where it fell, was against the Law. Picking up sticks that had been previously gathered, or gathering up fruit that fell from a fruit bowl on a table, is not breaking the Law.

          So “plucking” up sticks from where they fell from the place they grew, into a collection of sticks, is against the Law, plucking up mana that supposedly fell from Heaven…or plucking ears of corn from the plant it is growing on and eating it, not from the ground where it fell, is okay in the Law.

          Gathering marbles, or collecting football cards is good-to-go, too.

          https://www.ou.org/holidays/shabbat/melacha-4-gathering/

          The switching of electricity is about the Law on igniting or extinguishing fire…both are against the Law…even if one’s house is burning to the ground…unless life is endanger.

          So it’s not about the flipping of the switch being work, it’s about the “fire”, aka light and heat, being created or put out, by flicking the switch. The spark created from flicking the switch, the bulb illuminating, or the cooker igniting…or the same extinguishing when turned off.

          It’s a bit more complicated than that once we get into the minutiae.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_on_Shabbat

          Yes, it’s very stupid, yes, it’s a lot of nonsense, and yes, an omniscience could have planned for such fuckwittery ahead of time. It didn’t, because it doesn’t exist.

        • Rudy R

          The history books say that Jesus walked across the surface of the water?

        • Lycan

          If they would you believe it then?

        • Greg G.

          No, I would have to see the source material that they based the claim on. If the authors based their history on sources that were not credible or arrived at their conclusion through faulty reasoning, then no. If they had solid evidence that it actually happened, I would have to accept it.

        • Rudy R

          If historians chronicled the event using historical methodologies, but the resurrection is absent of that. You dodged Greg G’s question and you dodge mine. Wonder why.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Whaaaa?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope…because the supernatural is beyond the purview of honest historians.

          And refreshingly enough, there are honest Christian history scholars too.

          https://jamestabor.com/do-historians-exclude-the-supernatural/

        • You mean like the Jesus story was later changed to add the miraculous birth? Oh, yeah. I know all about that kind of thing. We call it “legend.”

        • Greg G.

          “You mean like the Jesus story was later changed to add the TWO miraculous birthS?”

          And two discrepant genealogies.

        • What goes back to 125CE? One tiny scrap might, that’s true. So what? How does that give any confidence for the rest of the NT?

          If only someone had laboriously gone, chapter by chapter, through the entire NT, calculating the time gap from original to our best copies …

          Oh, wait a minute. I already did that. And I passed the link on to you, so we should be on the same page.

        • Greg G.

          How does that give any confidence for the rest of the NT?

          I noticed that it counters confidence for the rest of the NT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52#Greek_text

          There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso, and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through haplography.

          Those two words are the most likely to have been dropped if it said what they think it but we only know that the missing text in the line is not the same length as the text we have received for the verse.

        • That’s a fascinating observation. It’s as little as 30-ish years from the original, and it already has a mistake? Or, as you note, if it’s correct, then the later copies are incorrect. Either way, lycanthropes like Lycan build their arguments on sand.

        • I missed this. Where is your source that says that only 40 words are under debate?

          And keep in mind what a sad argument that would be. From our poor copies of the NT, we only know of 40 words that we can’t resolve with some degree of confidence. Think of all the words that we don’t even know we should doubt because of our poor record of the NT …

        • Greg G.

          I was wondering where the figure comes from, too. There are many discrepancies but most can be accounted for by common errors. It seems like a plausible number. The bigger issue is that we don’t know who the true author was for most of the books.

          I like the debate that IA posted recently between Bart Ehrman and James White. Lycan is basically making White’s argument but I thought Ehrman had the stronger point that the agreement that White was satisfied with. The agreement White is arguing for is many, many copies downline from where he needs to get.

        • I found IA’s Ehrman/White debate video at the link below.

          What was White’s argument? I’m guessing that it was basically, “we in effect have the original NT”?

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/03/arguing-truth-bible-fiction-2/#comment-3786356208

        • Greg G.

          Yes, something like that. White argued that they could figure out the correct words in most cases and the rest didn’t matter. He just couldn’t grasp that there may have been significant errors introduced before the copy they could work back to. That copy would have been one of a sequence of copies made by amateurs who were just copying a letter, not scripture. White couldn’t get his head around that being a problem.

        • Unfortunately, in that situation you must ask if the cluelessness is deliberate.

        • Lycan

          You call the NT a poor though it has the most manuscripts of any book. Meaning that all books have a poor record?

        • Michael Neville

          How old are those manuscripts? While NT fragments may date as far back as 150 CE, the first complete NT, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century. In other words, a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy….

        • Greg G.

          The number of copies written a thousand years later are not as relevant as the originals would be if they existed.

        • Lycan

          you mean a hundred. I’m talking about the old ones.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No, he meant a thousand. There is no manuscripts from a hundred years later.

          http://i1.wp.com/www.richardcarrier.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/graph-of-nt-manuscripts.jpg?resize=585%2C363

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined?s=25%2C000+manuscripts

          You really don’t know an awful lot about this stuff, do ya?

          The earliest complete NT book manuscripts don’t appear until the 4th century. The fragments we have prior to that are dated from the late second century.

          Ironically, the earliest complete items are 1&2 Timothy, circa 350 C.E., both late second century forged letters in the name of Paul.

        • Lycan

          You realize your own graph shows there were a few manuscripts about 100 years after right?

        • Greg G.

          Do you realize that none of them have more than a dozen verses with about two thirds of the text missing from those verses so there are no complete verses? Two of them have John 18:37-38 but even combined they cannot produce a whole verse. They have some overlaps. One is consistent with the John we have but one is not spaced to have the same words in its missing text.

          The earliest texts are nothing to get excited about. Even if the sample was perfect, the sample is too small to declare that the texts we have are therefore perfect. But the fact that there are discrepancies in this small of a sample undercuts your claim completely.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are really this retarded.

          There is nothing in the first column of the graphic, right…the first century.

          The second column is the second century. We know that the earliest NT manuscript known is p52, a credit card sized fragment of gJohn. It can be dated to the second half of the second century. That puts it over a hundred years after the alleged events. All other manuscript fragments are later. Do the math.

          What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: palaeography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of p52. The real problem is thus in the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts’s work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute “dead ringers” for the handwriting of p52, and even if I had done so, that would not force us to date p52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for p52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, p52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want p52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel.

          http://www.academia.edu/436092/The_Use_and_Abuse_of_P52_Papyrological_Pitfalls_in_the_Dating_of_the_Fourth_Gospel

          The earliest manuscript doesn’t help you out of the hole here. So my comment…

          There is no manuscripts from a hundred years later.

          …stands.

          There is nothing earlier. The p52 fragment is more than 100 years, at least, after the alleged fact.

          There is nothing but fragments of NT books until the 4th century.

        • Lycan

          The 2nd half of the 2nd century is about 100 years later.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If the story of the life of Jesus ended in circa 30-33 CE then mid second century is more than 100 years. Late second century is even more than more than a 100 years. I realise you are not the sharpest tool in the box, but basic math applies. How many times copied is p52? Given a 90’s authorship of gJohn there is at least a half a century for a story which was already over a half a century of hearsay nonsense. Plenty of time for bastardization to occur through copy error and other nefarious shenanigan’s for various purposes.

        • You really want to keep riding this horse? Our manuscript evidence for the NT is pathetic. No, I don’t think it’s sufficient to support the claims of miracles. And shouldn’t we be consistent? We scrub the supernatural out of the biographies of other people.

        • Lycan

          When did I ever say it was enough to support the claims of miracles? I think you and me may be on different pages here.

        • Yes, very different pages. I thought you were pointing to evidence to argue that the NT was historically reliable.

        • Lycan

          That’s where I think we went off course. I thought we were arguing about whether the oldest manuscripts match the newer ones, which has nothing to do with historical reliability.

        • If our best copies are filled with errors compared to the originals, that has quite a bit to say about historical reliability.

        • Lycan

          We don’t have the originals, so how can you compare them.

        • Hmm. That’s a good point. So I guess anyone who declares anything definite about the accuracy of our NT (like “there are just 40 words in question in the NT”) is badly misinformed or worse.

        • Lycan

          No, Because I said against what we have.

        • Greg G.

          No, Because I said against what we have.

          Your argument has changed. Is that because you are beginning to realize that your claims are wrong?

          Earlier in this very thread, you were talking about the 100 year gap to be from the alleged events:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3827915719
          That’s less then a 100 year gap. 125AD when Jesus was crucified on 30AD.

          You were trying to make a case about the many copies of the New Testament and I pointed out that most of the copies were written a thousand years later. You were still talking about the gap from the alleged events when you responded thusly:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3831260863
          you mean a hundred. I’m talking about the old ones.

          You shifted the discussion here:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3832326653
          The 2nd half of the 2nd century is about 100 years later.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3832518881
          We don’t have the originals, so how can you compare them.

          We can compare the copies we have and they all have discrepancies. They cannot all be identical to the originals. But since we do not have the originals, you cannot argue that they are faithful to the originals.

          Researchers can trace the genealogy of a manuscript by the errors contained in it from its predecessors. I expect that if two identical manuscripts were ever found, they would be touted in the literature. That is mainly seen with copies made by trained copyists. The earliest copies were made by amateurs. It is absurd for you to pull out that argument.

          If you realize your argument is wrong, admit it. Don’t try to blame the other person for missing the shift.

        • Lycan

          No my argument hasn’t, I still hold to those points. I never said we had the originals. At least don’t remember saying we had them.

        • Greg G.

          Your reply to me “you mean a hundred. I’m talking about the old ones” was referring to the original documents being a hundred years. We do not have multiple manuscripts within a hundred years of anything but some epistles. But your claim was originally to the alleged events in your reply to IA. Now you have changed your story again.

        • Lycan

          See now I get it you put words in others mouths. I never said original yet you assume I meant that?

        • Greg G.

          I just provided the links to places in this thread where you were referring to the old manuscripts being a hundred years after the events. I provided a link to your reply to me where I was explicitly referring to the originals, after you had tried to make a point about the many copies of manuscripts and I said most were about a thousand years later, and you replied “you mean a hundred. I’m talking about the old ones.” The conversation was clearly about the difference between the oldest extant manuscripts and the originals. You didn’t point out that you agreed that it was a problem until after it had been explained to you.

          Trying to tell us now that you were talking about the oldest manuscripts all along is a lie. Does Jesus know about this?

        • Lycan

          ” The conversation was clearly about the difference between the oldest extant manuscripts and the originals. You didn’t point out that you agreed that it was a problem until after it had been explained to you.”

          Once again putting words in my mouth. I never said originals.

        • Greg G.

          Once again putting words in my mouth. I never said originals.

          You were in a conversation that ranged from the dates of the events and the dates of the originals. You never said you were talking the fragments we have even when the post you replied to clearly specified what was being discussed. You never mentioned that you were talking about something else. Now you claim you were not talking about the originals. You didn’t know that the early documents we had were fragments. You changed your tune because you realized you had made a foolish mistake.

          Next you will be telling us you had your fingers crossed behind your back the whole time you were typing.

        • Lycan

          No, it’s a personal pet peeve of mine for people to assume what I meant when that’s not what I said. I’m asking you go based on what I say, not what you infer me to mean.

          ” You never mentioned that you were talking about something else. Now you claim you were not talking about the originals. ”

          I said the old ones.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, after I explained why we couldn’t possibly know what the originals said and could only go back to copies of copies of copies. Later you started claiming that you meant the oldest copies we had. That was never mentioned in that conversation.

        • Lycan

          But I always said old ones. Never said originals. At least not that I remember. If you can quote me saying we had the originals I’ll admit I was wrong.

        • Greg G.

          Your response of “you mean a hundred. I’m talking about the old ones.” was to this post:

          The number of copies written a thousand years later are not as relevant as the originals would be if they existed.
          [bolding added]
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/#comment-3831032390

          The “thousand years later” explicitly is relative to the originals. If the “old ones” is referring to the oldest manuscripts we have, as I interpret it to mean, what does the “hundred” mean? The only sensible interpretation is that “hundred” is just to replace the “thousand” to make it refer to the originals written a hundred or so years before the “old ones.”

          My reply was to you saying “You call the NT a poor though it has the most manuscripts of any book. Meaning that all books have a poor record?” You have to include the the manuscripts from the 9th century to when the printing press made manuscripts obsolete in order for the Bible to have an impressive number of manuscripts. You could not have been referring to only the oldest manuscripts we have because those are only about a dozen scraps.

          Even your claim about the 40 disputed words are disputes about what was in the originals. That was in Bob’s post that you replied to.

          So when you say you were referring to “the old ones”, remember that you can’t even get a complete New Testament with all of them combined without getting some from the fourth century.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lycan is in a corner and refuses to back down. Either way you cut his comment to be generous, he has still fucked up his argument. But in an effort to retrieve his mindwankery, he has decided to make a fool of himself. Entertainment for the Easter holidays…mint.

        • Greg G.

          I just replied to him that he is no longer arguing for the accuracy of the Bible manuscripts but is arguing that he is stupid instead of admitting he was wrong.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s not an uncommon tactic.

        • is arguing that he is stupid

          And in that, he has a compelling point.

        • Greg G.

          That’s one of the 40 opinions that are not disputed.

        • which makes no sense. But thanks for sharing.

        • Lycan

          Can’t go based on what we don’t have.

        • Greg G.

          So even if there are only 40 words that are in dispute with respect to the copies of NT manuscripts that we have, every word is in dispute with respect to the originals because we don’t have them.

        • Lycan

          Yes, exactly.

        • Greg G.

          So do you follow Paul’s letters that tout faith, or James epistle that requires following OT law, John’s formula that requires believing and asking Jesus into your heart, or the other gospels’ formulas. If you choose the wrong one, then Jesus will say he never knew you. You don’t have the original manuscripts to see what was actually written, but that might not help.

          You have to trust Irenaeus who named the books that later were canonized. But can you trust his wisdom? Here is how he decided there should be exactly four gospels:

          The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, ‘O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself ‘. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these.

          So if you think your soul needs to be saved from God’s anger, why would you think it would be appeased with logic like that? It’s not logic, it’s superstitious nonsense.

        • Right. We don’t have originals. We have very late copies, which might be fairly good or very bad copies–we just don’t know. So everything about the NT originals is in question to varying degrees, not just 40 words.

        • Lycan

          40 words from what we have.

        • I guess that’s pretty much a classic Christian position, isn’t it? Nothing I can say will get you to back away from a claim.

        • Lycan

          That’s actually classic science. Many times scientists only go based on what they have. Sure they speculate but until they find the evidence they can’t really use it.

        • Greg G.

          Actually, scientists use their speculations to look for evidence to support or refute their speculations. Scientific hypotheses make predictions that have not been observed so they know where to observe and what to look for in order to find evidence. If the evidence doesn’t agree with the predictions, the hypothesis is eliminated.

          Now about those forty words. Where can we find the list of words and where they appear in the Bible. Here’s a list of about 40 verses that are disputed in modern translations:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

        • Lycan

          “Actually, scientists use their speculations to look for evidence to support or refute their speculations. Scientific hypotheses make predictions that have not been observed so they know where to observe and what to look for in order to find evidence.”

          Yes but we don’t the evidence. People are out there probably looking for it now.

        • Greg G.

          Scientists are investigating evidence all the time.

        • Lycan

          Never said they weren’t.

        • Greg G.

          You said, “People are out there probably looking for it now.”

          I just pointed out that the “probably” is an unnecessary hedge. You could have used “definitely”.

        • Lycan

          I said probably because I don’t know whether they are looking or not.

        • Greg G.

          And I said that “probably” is not necessary so you don’t have to say “probably”. You’re welcome.

        • Lycan

          ok

        • No, we have plenty of evidence. We know what’s likely to happen to a text that’s copied and copied, over and over, for 200 years.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lycan’s naivety is quite quaint in a funny sort of way.

        • Greg G.

          Plenty of evidence? We have 25,000 manuscripts of evidence, most of which were produced by professionals, and the best matches are scraps of a half dozen or so verses with most of the text missing or illegible. I don’t see anyone touting two identical manuscripts.

        • I can imagine the typical Christian who asks about the “25,000 manuscripts” being shown P52.

          He’d say, “Where’s the manuscript?”

        • Greg G.

          P52 and P90 are possibly the two oldest manuscripts we have. Both have parts of John 18:37-38. The bolded letters are all the places the remains of the texts have matching letters from my own eyeballing the text given for the manuscripts on the corresponding Wikipedia articles:

          ΛEΓEI AYTΩKAI TOYTOΤΟΥΣ

          The first two words are the first two words of John 18:38. The next overlap is the end and beginning of the eighth and ninth words of the verse. The third overlap is the first letter of the 14th word. That is 2 complete words and 14 matching letters, though the spacing of the manuscripts show that P52 has letters or words missing while P90 appears to have just enough room for them to fit.

        • Lycan

          THat’s not evidenced Bob that’s speculation. Thinking you know what’s likely too have happened is speculation.

        • Greg G.

          We have those 25,000 manuscripts. Only the smallest fragments have no discrepancies but even some of those show discrepancies. So it is not speculation that errors happen. It is blind stupidity to argue that discrepancies are rare in manuscripts. Bart Ehrman has said that there are more variants of text in the manuscripts we have than there are words in the New Testament.

        • Lycan

          My simple point Greg is that we don’t know.

        • Greg G.

          Which is what everybody was saying then. If your argument was about getting back to a certain set of copies, it isn’t a meaningful argument.

        • If you don’t know, then don’t tell us that exactly 40 words in the NT–no more–are in doubt.

        • Lycan

          I already answered greg on that. I can’t find the old article.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So you can’t find a single citation that supports your assertion on the 40 words hypothesis? What does that tell you about it do you think? The red flags should be waving furiously. But like the usual ill prepared Christian apologist, you fired from the hip and rather than back away, you are committed. Now the hole in which you are digging is getting too deep to get out of…you won’t admit you might be in error…typical.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We know a lot more than you care to admit we know…or perhaps it’s you that doesn’t know the extent of the problem and you think the rest of us are equally as ignorant.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=195&v=Pz-z8j67Ids

        • We know that corruption can happen, so we know that it’s a false claim to say that corruption didn’t happen in the case of the NT.

          What is it with you? Are you just having a meaningless chat? If so, don’t waste our time. If you don’t want to contribute new ideas, teach us something, or learn something yourself, why are you here?

        • Lycan

          When did I ever claim corruption didn’t happen. I claimed we don’t know after reading your article if you recall.

        • Then your point is what?

        • Lycan

          My point has been ever since reading your article is that we don’t know.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Liar!

        • Not really sure what you mean by that.

          So let me reboot. Have you been talking about the reliability of our version of the NT? You seemed to have both strong and quantitative opinions about this. Give us your opinion on this.

        • Lycan

          No, I’ve been talking about the accuracy from the older ones. As in your article you mostly point out that maybe there was some corruption because we don’t have the originals. I wasn’t talking about reliability, but how it compares to the older ones that we have.

        • Greg G.

          I have pointed out that P52, the one you insist is the earliest, could not have said what the other copies say because the spacing is wrong. We know that no two manuscripts are alike, even those done by professionals and checked by professionals. The earliest copies were not done by Bible copying specialists. The possibility of the earliest copies we have not being corrupted versions of the originals is infinitesimal. Why keep beating the grease spot where the dead horse was?

        • epeeist

          What is it with you? Are you just having a meaningless chat?

          We’ll just have to wait to see if the intelligence level increases as we move away from a full moon towards a new moon (around the middle of the month). At the moment it is a bit like treading treacle.

        • Good point about the lycanthropy. I hear there’s a cream for that condition.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s not speculation when one uses the evidence to come up with what’s likely to have happened.

          You are not very good at this online argument malarkey, are ya?

          That you don’t know that the evidence leads to certain conclusions to be drawn is what we do all the time, is quite worrying.

          Bayes Theorem is the probability of a given hypothesis being accurate based on the preponderance evidence and knowledge.

          When a passage is found in later manuscripts that isn’t found in earlier manuscripts suggests to the scholarship that the passage missing in the earlier manuscripts is a later addition and not original.

          The long ending of Mark is an example of this and people have died because they were too stupid to know this detail.

          I can only guess that you are not interesting in learning here, preferring to wallow in your blatant asininity. You certainly don’t show any sign of learning, repeating your same mistakes and errors.

        • Greg G.

          You certainly don’t show any sign of learning, repeating your same mistakes and errors.

          He does seem to recognize his errors eventually and not only changes his mind, he changes his mind retroactively to the beginning of the argument.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Still learning fuck all in the process. He changes his fuckwit assertions for other fuckwit assertions when his initial fuckwit assertions are demonstrated as fuckwit assertions.

        • Pofarmer

          That’s the God Googles. Can’t see the Forest, or the trees.

        • Greg G.

          Can’t see the Gump for the shrimp.

        • Ignorant Amos

          With enough mind changing, even retroactively, perhaps someday the penny will finally drop.

        • Greg G.

          So what? It’s still leaves over 137,000 words in question.

          Which 40 words are in dispute, according to you?

        • Greg G.

          But what we have are copies of copies of copies of copies copied by amateurs who had no idea that anybody would consider it holy scripture.

          You keep making hay about some “40 words”. I have searched and not found a list or anybody else making the claim. Where are you getting that information?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pulled from his arse…like every other assertion he can’t support.

        • Greg G.

          I am beginning to think that. Well, not actually “beginning”. I thought that the first time I saw the claim. It seems like a plausible figure, though.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It seems like a plausible biblical figure, though.

          Ftfy.

        • Greg G.

          Google gives me a lot of hits on the number forty in Bible verses when I try to search for the claim.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The added forged ending of Mark is more than 40 words ffs.

        • Greg G.

          Then it gets into the definition of “disputed.” Most scholars accept that the end of Mark and the “cast the first stone” passage are added. But there are still those KJV 1611 believers that dispute it.

          I gave him a Wiki articles that listed about 40 verses that are either not included or blocked off in modern translations.

          Did Jesus react with anger or compassion when the leper asked for a healing in Mark? Most copies say “compassion” but the older manuscripts say “anger”. A copyist might want to change a negative. But there are two other places in Mark where Jesus responds with anger.

          This site has hundreds of discrepancies and different explanations for errors that are quite likely considering that there were no spaces between words so it might be a little difficult to locate where one left off.

          Ralph Bruce Terry, A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Variants, http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/ .

        • Lycan

          Honestly can’t find that old link. Was looking through the whole conversation but can’t find it. Okay I’ll stop saying 40 words now.

        • Greg G.

          40 words seem plausible to me but if we don’t know the precise number then just say it is the biblical forty which just means “many” that nobody actually counted. A period of sleep is not precisely 40 winks.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I think it is 40 lines and Lycan has confused lines with words.

          But the Pericope Adulterae in John and the long ending of Mark are more than forty lines. Two not insignificant passages.

          The last words of Jesus on the cross in Luke being later omitted in order to add to the tension of anti-Semitism, is another important change…especially if one was a Jew being persecuted as a God killer back in the day.

          Since we have no original autographs, knowing exactly what has been changed from whatever the authors actually wrote, and what has been changed, either by accident, or for nefarious reasons, is pure speculation for the most part.

        • I think it is 40 lines and Lycan has confused lines with words.

          Which was apparently what he did when he confused “200 years” with “2 generations” (for how long legend is super-duper guaranteed to not change a story).

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bless his cotton socks…his God is not playing ball and watching over him as he walks through the valley of the shadow of death where “evil” abounds.

        • Greg G.

          The last words of Jesus on the cross in Luke being later omitted in order to add to the tension of anti-Semitism, is another important change…especially if one was a Jew being persecuted as a God killer back in the day.

          I was just listening to the Ehrman video. I was also making a car rental reservation and I missed that but I heard him saying in his conclusion something about a significant difference in Luke. Now that is cleared up so I don’t have to go back and listen all over again.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Apparently copyists were prone to play fast and loose with the scriptures depending on a political agenda. The KJV is a prime example of such. Of course we only know that something was removed or added because we have older copies with said removed or added texts either still in there or missing. How can we know what other things have been fiddled about with when we don’t have an earlier version to compare and show the changes?

        • epeeist

          Apparently copyists were prone to play fast and loose with the scriptures depending on a political agenda

          The other thing I seem to recall (for which I can currently find no references) is that many of the copyists were illiterate or did not understand the languages of the texts they were copying. Hence they would not have been able to tell whether their copies were correct or not.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed…a point Ehrman raises in the presentation I posted.

          He cites an example of a copyist who spells the same word in the same short passage three different ways without a jot. The joke he cracks is that people could spell no better then than now. The point that they also didn’t know what they were copying notwithstanding, they copied text rote like and not all that well by all accounts.

        • Greg G.

          They made a sequence of sounds when they spoke and they had a few letters that made those sounds so it was a matter of putting letters for the sounds in the order the sound were made in speech. Reading was making the sounds of the letters on the page out loud and listening to what came out. Apparently it was worth noting if a person could read silently. They also had marks to indicate tone changes or other alterations to the sound but they were not always used so a word my have different sounds in different sentences and might be spelled differently.

          {Some of that is from vague memories, some from clear memories, and some from speculation, but that’s how I think of it. Feel free to correct where I am wrong.)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wasn’t that just for Hebrew though?

        • Greg G.

          This article says St. Andrew was the first to read silently but I don’t think it is thoroughly researched. I think Strabo mentioned Julius Caesar could read silently. I saw that in an article gave more examples.
          http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/12/08/st-ambrose-the-man-who-invented-silent-reading/

          But trying to find that led to an article that says it is a myth that people always read aloud. I can’t even find the app on my phone where i found that article so Phuket.

        • Greg G.

          That is the point Ehrman made in the debate with James White that, I think, you posted recently. White just couldn’t get his head around the idea that the agreements between different lineages only get you back to the copy where the lineages diverged, but not to any copies before that divergence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah…a did post it. Am not sure how many would’ve seen it though…but we must consider the lurkers and casual visitor who didn’t.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Disqus had a kitten there…???

        • I saw one comment of yours twice … and then I didn’t.

          Reminds me of the glimpse of Jesus I saw yesterday at Easter. Turned out to be just my imagination.

          Hey–it’s not like people have been wrong about resurrections before.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s this new laptop…it’s a piece of HP crap.

          4 gig ram and an intel core i5 8th gen processor, 1 tb HD…and it is a £400 doorstop.

        • Greg G.

          The old ones do not help you. The word “manuscript” includes fragments.

          This page has a chart of the number of manuscripts for each century

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

          That page also discusses how they were made and why we have only fragments:

          An important issue with manuscripts is preservation. The earliest New Testament manuscripts were written on papyrus, made from a reed that grew abundantly in the Nile Delta. This tradition continued as late as the 8th century.[7] Papyrus eventually becomes brittle and deteriorates with age. The dry climate of Egypt allowed some papyrus manuscripts to be partially preserved, but, with the exception of {displaystyle {mathfrak {P}}} {mathfrak {P}}77, no New Testament papyrus manuscript is complete; many consist only of a single fragmented page.

          I am not sure what the page means by P77 being an exception because it is just a couple of fragments of ten verses of Matthew. There are three or four discrepancies with the text we have just in those fragments of the verses.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_77

          Here is a list of all the manuscripts written on papyri:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

          Here is a list of all Greek manuscripts ordered by dating methods:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts#Distribution_of_Greek_manuscripts_by_century_and_category

          Maybe you can tell us which of the manuscripts from the first hundred years that you are impressed by and why we should be impressed. The next to last link above spells out which verses are represented by each manuscript but keep in mind that those may not even be whole verses. The P52 manuscript is a corner of a page with a few words of each line from 6 verses from the Gospel of John.

          In the past 24 hours or so, I have looked at two manuscripts dated as early as the second century. Both are fragments with no more than bits of ten verses and both show that they are not consistent with accepted text we use today. If the hundred year mark for manuscripts is a gold standard, extrapolating from the four or five discrepancies from those 16 verses would put about 7000 words in dispute.

        • Lycan

          The link you gave me shows that the 2nd century manuscripts were like the ones we have today albeit they were fragmented? What are you talking about?

        • Greg G.

          I gave four links. Look at the Wikipedia pages for each manuscript. P52 shows that there was not enough space for the missing text to say what it says in the version we have today. P77 shows differences to the text we have and a corrected error which implies that the other differences were not seen as errors, so either the manuscript it was copied from was wrong or the text we have is wrong.

        • Lycan

          I’m talking about the link you gave with the earliest manuscripts.

        • Greg G.

          I have given multiple links to pages about the earliest manuscripts. All of them have information about one or more manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or early third century. They do not show that all of them are like what we have today. Two of the earliest manuscripts are different. Where they are the same is such a small sample as to be trivial.

          The 2nd century manuscripts (P52, P90, and P104) amount to nineteen verses with two-thirds of the text missing.

        • Lycan

          The link that had them in order.

        • Greg G.

          Great. Now we are getting somewhere. That bit of information cuts it down to two. One is the papyri manuscripts only and the other is all manuscripts. It has one more in the 3rd century, IIRC.

          Why so much evasion? Why not just explain what you meant? Many of the descriptions say which families of texts the manuscripts are most like, which means they are less like other families.

          You didn’t know what you were talking about but you won’t back down from your ignorance. It’s OK, ignorance can drive learning. If you don’t learn from ignorance, you stay ignorant.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wiping the floor with a bible thumper who doesn’t know his own scriptures, where they come from, or anything about the shagging subject.

          They pitch up here ill prepared…but Lycan was here before, wtf was he doing in all that time…not getting his shit together and learning the subject, that’s obvious.

          It’s embarrassing.

          It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

        • Greg G.

          deb replied to some three year old posts and at least one of them was Lycan. So he was summoned.

          The Bible is the Word of God, donchanknow? It don’t matter where it comes from, just BELIEVE!

        • Now and then, I like shooting fish in a barrel. It keeps me off the street, so there’s that.

        • A hundred years? Tell me what fraction of the NT we’d have if we only used manuscript fragments less than 100 years distant from the originals.

        • Let me answer my own question. Five papyri are conventionally dated less than 100 years after authorship. They contain bits of John 15, 16, 18, and 19 (P52, P32, and P90), Rev. 1 (P98), and Matt. 21 (P104). That looks to me to be less than 1% of the total New Testament.

        • The old kindergarten try, eh? That’s cute.

          Meaning that all books have a poor record?

          Meaning that no book has a strong enough historical record to support supernatural claims. Historians universally strip that away from the biographies of Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Alexander, and so on.

        • Lycan

          Yes but those people existed Bob.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So you are happy enough to strip away all the supernatural in the NT to find an itinerant unimpressive nobody called Jesus?

          Jesus was the sixth most common name in first century Palestine.

          It’s all the added on supernatural bells and whistles that made the character impressive enough for anyone to follow him.

          What about the writings about Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Baal? Did those characters exist?

          And you hand waved away Romulus too…did he exist?

          The Myth About Rome’s 1st King

          Romulus was the eponymous first king of Rome. How he got there is a story like many others, involving a rags-to-riches rise in fortune, a miraculous birth (like Jesus), and the exposure of an unwanted infant (see Paris of Troy and Oedipus) in a river (see Moses and Sargon). Barry Cunliffe, in Britain Begins (Oxford: 2013), succinctly describes the story as one of love, rape, treachery, and murder.

          Outline of the Birth and Rise of Romulus

          • After the birth of Mars’ sons Romulus and Remus, the king orders them to be left to die in the Tiber River.

          • When the basket in which the twins were placed washes up on shore, a wolf suckles them and a woodpecker named Picus feeds them until….

          • The shepherd Faustulus finds the twins and brings them into his home.

          • When they grow up, Romulus and Remus restore the throne of Alba Longa to its rightful ruler, their maternal grandfather.

          • Then they set out to found their own city.

          • Sibling rivalry leads Romulus to slay his brother.

          • Romulus then becomes the first king and founder of the city of Rome.

          • Rome is named after him.

          A Fine Story, But It’s False

          Such is the condensed, skeletal version of the story of the twins, but the details are believed to be false.

          https://www.thoughtco.com/romulus-roman-mythology-119619

        • Greg G.

          • When the basket in which the twins were placed washes up on shore, a wolf suckles them and a woodpecker named Picus feeds them until….

          Sounds familiar.

          Mark 1:13 (NRSV)13 He [Jesus] was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

        • Greg G.

          When you look at the epistles, they do not say Jesus existed in the first century. When you strip away all of the implausible bits from the gospels, you are left with someone going here and there to do nothing.

        • ?? Do you ever stay on one topic? Do you think we don’t notice when you dance away from an embarrassing point?

          If I may, let me suggest that you do things like adults do. At this point, you say, “OK, yeah, that’s a good point. I was wrong.” And then you move on to a new topic.

          Give it a try. See if you don’t get treated better online.

        • Lycan

          I stayed on topic. From the beginning Bob we’ve been talking about whether a legend could have formed that quickly from someone who didn’t exist. Now you wanna change the topic?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ned Ludd didn’t exist.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Ludd

          Did the Angel Moroni exist?

          Did Sherlock Holmes exist?

          Did John Frum exist?

          You keep ignoring the examples that refute your 200 years needed to make a legend nonsense.

        • Lycan

          Ned’s Ludd’s legend didn’t come into full swing until the 20th century. Since he existed in the 18th century the two generation rule applies.

          Source: https://www.history.com/news/ask-history/who-were-the-luddites

          Sherlock Holmes is a fictional story written by a guy in 1887. Sorry, not the same thing as a legend. That’s like saying Lord of the Rings is a Legend when you know Tolkien wrote it.

          Angel Moroni is supposed to be an angel so once again not the same thing.

          John Frum is a cult following with only a few members. “The John Frum cult is a hybrid of indigenous religions and ritual patterns and 19th century Christianity which was suddenly thrown a paradigm shift by the introduction of 30,000 US marines appearing with an unparalleled level of industrialization in a very short period of time!”

          Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gq1aw/did_john_frum_exist/

        • Greg G.

          Ned Ludd didn’t exist in the 18th century. His legend started then but he never existed.

          John Frum was believed in, though. It shows how easily people can come to believe in someone who never existed.

        • Lycan

          The legend states he existed in the 18th century so that follows the two generation rule.

          John Frum, yes I agree but that didn’t fool the masses or the region. Getting a few people to believe you doesn’t make it a legend. Such as Jim Jones he most likely won’t be known as some messiah. He’ll be known as the guy who got his followers to drink the koolaid.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus is like Ned.

        • Lycan

          Nope, not even close.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The legend states he existed in the 18th century so that follows the two generation rule.

          Yeah, but there is no evidence to support the existence of Ned Ludd other than the legend that he existed. Two conflicting tales are claimed to be the root of the legend. It is circular. Like the NT for Jesus. That’s the point.

          Supposedly, Ludd was a weaver from Anstey, near Leicester, England. In 1779, either after being whipped for idleness, or after being taunted by local youths, he smashed two knitting frames in what was described as a “fit of passion”. This story is traceable to an article in The Nottingham Review on 20 December 1811, but there is no independent evidence of its truth. John Blackner’s book History of Nottingham, also published in 1811, provides a variant tale, of a lad called “Ludnam” who was told by his father, a framework-knitter, to “square his needles”. Ludnam took a hammer and “beat them into a heap”. News of the incident spread, and whenever frames were sabotaged, people would jokingly say “Ned Ludd did it”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ned’s Ludd’s legend didn’t come into full swing until the 20th century. Since he existed in the 18th century the two generation rule applies.

          Ned Ludd didn’t exist at all ya clown. Your source doesn’t support your fuckwittery. There were Luddite’s back in 1811, that’s within a generation of the alleged destruction of the loom’s by an apprentice named Ned Ludd. That’s where the legend began.

          The Luddites were a group of English textile workers and weavers in the 19th century who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest. The group was protesting the use of machinery in a “fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labour practices. Luddites feared that the time spent learning the skills of their craft would go to waste as machines would replace their role in the industry. It is a misconception that the Luddites protested against the machinery itself in an attempt to halt the progress of technology. Over time, however, the term has come to mean one opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation, or new technologies in general. The Luddite movement began in Nottingham and culminated in a region-wide rebellion that lasted from 1811 to 1816. Mill owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed with military force.

          Although the origin of the name Luddite is uncertain, the movement was said to be named after Ned Ludd, an apprentice who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779 and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. Ned Ludd, however, was completely fictional and used as a way to shock the government. The name evolved into the imaginary General Ludd or King Ludd, who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

          Which means there was folk who believed that Ned Ludd was a real person doing anti-social shit back just after that time. Just like the Jewish cult of Christianity. It is no bloody wonder you are a dumb Christian. You fail to learn. You’re a cretin.

          Sherlock Holmes is a fictional story written by a guy in 1887. Sorry, not the same thing as a legend. That’s like saying Lord of the Rings is a Legend when you know Tolkien wrote it.

          Duh…well yeah…no shit Sherlock…that’s precisely the point of the analogy ya feckin’ rhubarb.

          Try the legend of King Arthur, Robin Hood, Sleepy Hollow, Zorro, Tarzan…etc. How can you be so asinine with just the one head.

          Angel Moroni is supposed to be an angel so once again not the same thing.

          And Jesus was supposed to be a God. Not the same thing is not the point ya fuckwit. Did the Angel Moroni exist or not? No. Did legends begin about the Angel Moroni within 200 years of it’s invention? Yes.

          John Frum is a cult following with only a few members.

          A twofer…two fallacies in one sentence. The ad populum and the non sequitur…Dime Bar.

          It is irrelevant how many gullible eejits believe the legend. The point we are arguing is how long it takes for a legend to arise. Your claim was 200 years. Then you insisted on the doesn’t exist caveat. I presented examples of fictitious characters that DIDN’T EXIST, but who legends arose about.

          There are plenty of others. You were talking bubbles, you lost. Give it up already.

        • Lycan

          I meant when he’s alleged to have existed. I already gave you the link.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What does that matter? He was made up. Legends stared going around about him within a generation resulting in a movement that was named after him called the Luddites.

          Some people believe/believed Sherlock Holmes existed…as in the alleged he existed. Some people even point to a number of people he might have been modelled upon. Myths have been created about Sherlock Holmes that are not in the books. A bit like Rick saying “play it again Sam” in Casablanca…it is legendary…it never happened.

          Your point was that it takes 200 years for legends to get going. It is bullshit. Whether a character is real, or fictional, or just alleged to have existed…your point is complete bunkum.

          The Hellenistic world was full of myths and legends. They didn’t all start with real people…they all didn’t start with a figure that was meant to have lived 200 years or more previously…and very few today would hold to the Greek gods being anything more than myth and legend…get a grip.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sherlock Holmes is a fictional story written by a guy in 1887. Sorry, not the same thing as a legend. That’s like saying Lord of the Rings is a Legend when you know Tolkien wrote it.

          No it isn’t. False equivalence.
          Try reading why it is your muddle headed thinking at the following article… https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/11/sherlock-holmes-exhibition-museum-london-dispelling-myths

        • Greg G.

          Here is part 1 of a debate between two scholars on the subject we are debating. White makes some good points but he cannot get back to the originals as Ehrman points out.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moHInA9fAsI

        • Ignorant Amos

          Palaeographers have dated it later. Closer to the end of the second century.

          In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:

          There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).

          Biblical scholars should realise that some of the dates proposed by some of their colleagues are not acceptable to Greek palaeographers and papyrologists.

          https://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-for-that-st-johns-fragment-rylands-library-papyrus-p52/

        • epeeist

          Palaeographers have dated it later

          Even if he could find anything close to the date of 30CE (which of course he can’t) he still has to show that the document(s) he finds contain information which actually corresponds to the facts. He can’t even demonstrate that the gospels are internally consistent never mind externally consistent with other information for which we have strong evidential backing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed.

          And I noticed in another comment that you mention that the museum has labelled the p52 fragment 2nd or 3rd century to recognise the current scholarship.

        • Lycan

          Hey what writings of Ehrman are you talking about? As of 2012 he still believed that Jesus existed.

        • Pofarmer

          No one is saying that Ehrman doesn’t believe that Jesus existed.

        • Greg G.

          There’s only 40 words that are currently being argued with in the new testamant.

          That doesn’t get you back to the originals, though. The first copies were just letters copied by amateurs. They weren’t considered scripture at the time so they would not have been copied with care so there would be many errors and corrections of perceived errors. The many manuscripts only lead back to a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. So the least corrupted epistles of the New Testament would be the forgeries.

          But the early epistles do not tell anything about Jesus that could not have been derived from the Jewish scriptures. The gospels use elements from fictional and historical literature, seasoned with Jewish scripture and early Christian literature to create a fictional account. Since it is all fictional, the original wording is not that important.

          But the original wording is hugely important if you are going to have a theology involving eternal torture based upon it and you cannot know whether the most important claims are authentic.

        • deb

          And we haven’t even begun to discuss the contradictions between books, when reading the same stories.

        • Greg G.

          Was Jesus arrested before or after the passover meal? The Synoptics say after but John says it was before.

        • Joe

          Was Jesus arrested before or after the passover meal?

          Yes. Contradiction solved.

        • Lycan

          Also where did Bart say that because in misquoting Jesus he still seemingly acknowledged his existance.

        • Pofarmer

          Certainly Ehrman thinks Jesus existed, but he also admits that the extra canonical sources are useless for various reasons.

        • deb

          I’d like to have this answered, too. Who is taught in history that no proof exists for them?

        • Pofarmer

          I’ve never gotten an honest answer to that, nor to all the “secular” historians who attest to Jesus, are.

        • Susan

          Historians only need a good amount of evidence to declare that it’s most likely someone existed.

          And historians, by discipline, have to disregard supernatural claims.

          So, historians don’t give you Christ.

          Make up your mind. What are you claiming is supported by the historical method?

        • deb

          Yes, you do. I’m not sure where you get the idea that you can just throw ideas out from somewhere, and you don’t need anything to back them up. And no, most historians don’t believe that there is enough real evidence to prove the jesus figure was real. If that were true, then we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. All you seem to want to do is argue, like a child that sticks his fingers in his ears and goes Nah nah nah nah nah, hoping to drown out everything that doesn’t agree with him. There is no proof for this person, and you know it. Can you offer anything else other than claims without proof?

        • Lycan

          There’s no proof for many people in ancient history, yet they’re are still taugh in schools. That’s my point, most people just have evidence backing up their existence not proof since most of the time we only have old text to show that they existed.

        • Pofarmer

          You’re own ignorance isn’t “proof”.

          http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/childgod.htm

          “Shed, the Savior God of the New Kingdom”

        • Lycan

          Nope Pofarmer I actually used the orignals myths, from the actual greek history texts.

          Such as he Encyclopedia of Religion, and Drudgery Divine by Jonathan Z. Smith

          Source: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Dionysos

        • Pofarmer

          Your source says Dionysus was considered a savior.

        • Lycan

          Yes but there were other differences in the story. Also never claimed none of them were also considered Saviors.

        • Pofarmer

          I mean the title of the article is called “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”Yet he names no other saviors in the list.

          Granted, it’s an old comment in this thread.

        • Lycan

          Well if that was my comment then I was wrong.

        • Pofarmer

          The Encyclopedia of Religion is “an actual Greek History text? “. Well bless your heart.

        • Lycan

          The people who have studied the myths then.

        • Michael Neville

          God bless you.

          Nobody here sneezed. Or are you giving the apostates and heretics a polite Christian “fuck you”?

        • Greg G.

          I sneezed. I am allergic to hearing or reading “gesundheit” in English.

        • Michael Neville

          You haven’t “proven” anything. You’ve made assertions and claimed they were facts. Contrary to your belief, having an unevidenced opinion does not make it true. So where’s your evidence?

        • Lycan

          http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Dionysos

          The guy used actual original stories of the myths from sources like The Encyclopedia of Religion, and Drudgery Divine by Jonathan Z. Smith.

        • Michael Neville

          NOW you’ve provided some evidence. Before you were just making assertions and claiming they were facts. I suggest you do evidence first and then make your claims instead of having us drag the evidence out of you. It’ll make you look more honest.

        • Lycan

          I provided that evidence over 3 years ago. A lot of these people haven’t scrolled down far enough to see it.

          Thanks though.

          God bless you.

        • Michael Neville

          So we’re supposed to look for a THREE YEAR OLD post for evidence of claims you’re making NOW? That does not make sense. But since you’re a Christian, making sense is not something we expect.

          God bless you.

          Fuck you too, asswipe.

          You do realize that saying “god bless you” to an atheist is pretty fucking insulting? Or are you too stupid to understand this. My bet is on stupidity but, since you’re a Christian, being an asswipe is not ruled out.

        • Lycan

          I was simply responding to your statement that I basically only just started providing evidence. Showing that not to be true.

        • Michael Neville

          So I was supposed to search for a three year old post to discover you weren’t, as usual for Christians, pulling nonsense out of your ass but instead were repeating nonsense from someone else?

        • Lycan

          No, that’s why I was letting you know.

        • wtfwjtd

          Did you miss this?

          “Most of those gods were used to explain the cycles of the seasons. Jesus isn’t like them. Yes, Christianity is different from all the other religions, but so is every other religion. If Christianity weren’t different from one of the earlier religions, it would just be that religion.”

          If you could be bothered to read everything that Bob wrote, instead of just picking out bits here and there, you would see that your point was adequately addressed.

          “…technically attis rising again doesn’t seem to have been added to the legend until about the 4th century which would have been after Christ rose again.”

          So you are saying that this one religion is copying from Christianity instead of the other way ’round? Good point, if it’s valid. But it still not nearly enough to refute the basic premise and title of Bob’s post:
          “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”

          You’e going to have to do better than that.

        • Lycan

          “If you could be bothered to read everything that Bob wrote, instead of just picking out bits here and there, you would see that your point was adequately addressed.”

          Technically didn’t you just do the same thing?

          I didn’t pick out in a sense it’s the title for crying out loud. It’s not like I went into the article and picked out minor things from it. It’s the title and the first sentence. All I was trying to point out was that the beginning of the article seems very misleading.

          God bless you.

        • deb

          This is really nit-picking. You know exactly what is meant by the title, but because you can’t disprove the article itself, you go after that title? This is one of the many reasons why many have real problems with apologists–they can’t acknowledge the forest for the trees.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If Lycan had bothered to check a dictionary.

          saviour:- 1.A person who saves someone or something (especially a country or cause) from danger, and who is regarded with the veneration of a religious figure.

          The word is also synonymous with “hero”.

          http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/savior

          So technically, there is nothing wrong with the title, ergo Po is right that the complaint is pedantic bullshit.

    • deb

      They were basically the same thing, though. They were deities who were worshiped by the people of their culture, and they allegedly did many, if not all, of the same things that the jesus character did. It makes his story not unique, and shows how tales like this have been around for multiple centuries, and are not special just to any one particular being.

  • Spectrum

    The movie “Zeitgeist” also presented similar claims to these, and has since been discredited.

    • Unhelpful. What I need is for you to clearly point out the error in the post above and then clearly give me the correct interpretation. References would be nice.

      • Spectrum

        How about you address the “Zeitgeist” movie ? You mean you haven’t seen it yet ? If you had, you’d realise that it raised many of the same questions – that have been refuted – regarding “other Christs” e.t.c. And you wouldn’t be needing to waste people’s time with articles like this.

        • Yes, I’ve seen it years ago. No, I’m not going to follow up on your homework assignment.

          How about you do the heavy lifting here? I write a post, and then if you find errors, that’s great–but I need you to make the errors clear. Simply saying, “Oh, that’s been dealt with” doesn’t help us much here.

        • Spectrum

          I mentioned “Zeitgeist” because it covered most of what you and others are raising here. As that was found to have errors and untruths that were dealt with accordingly, why should it be necessary to point out YOUR errors e.t.c. ? It would merely be repetition.

          Must we list each and every false deity from history, to see if they pass the “Jesus test” ? None do. This subject is therefore irrelevant. Unless you’re an atheist who who likes to mischievously waste peoples’ time pursuing dead end subjects such as this.

        • The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves has been (rightly, I assume) attacked for sloppy scholarship. If Zeitgeist has problems, that’s fine.

          This post is not Zeitgeist.

          Unless you’re an atheist who who likes to mischievously waste peoples’ time pursuing dead end subjects such as this.

          Tragically, you’re the time waster in this example. You want to handwave that there are no valid arguments without actually doing the heavy lifting.

          Compose an argument and I’ll read it. Handwaving that it’s already been done earns you no points.

        • Spectrum

          “Zeitgeist” has problems and it’s fine.”

          No, it’s NOT fine. Because the producer of that documentary is knowingly deceiving people who could be potential Christian converts, by presenting erroneous “information” that is presented in a manner that is likely to mislead them. And also to possibly persuade CURRENT Christians to doubt their faith and thus lose their salvation. That is SERIOUS. And with articles like yours, you are perpetrating the same thing.

          THIS is what I mean by “it’s already been done”. Not only done – but dusted, too ; http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/pagangods.shtm
          – also check out the numerous links at the bottom of that page.

          Atheist leaning blog writers like you, seek to discredit Christianity by regurgitating these falsehoods – all excused in the name of “exploring”….

          ( from your description at top of this page ) ;
          “….Bob explores
          intellectual arguments in favor of Christianity (Christian apologetics)
          from an atheist perspective and critiques Christianity’s actions in
          society…”.

          Now it’s fair enough to critique something, but do it without using arguments that have been proven false.

        • I think you need to find a blog about Zeitgeist and blow off steam there. This isn’t that.

          And also to possibly persuade CURRENT Christians to doubt their faith and thus lose their salvation. That is SERIOUS. And with articles like yours, you are perpetrating the same thing.

          Charged, tried, and convicted! Wow—that was fast.

          In my neck of the woods, someone who disagrees with an argument is obliged to point out the error and then show the correct information. Your mama didn’t teach you manners?

          Thanks for the nonworking link. Instead of assigning me homework because you’re too busy or lazy to help us out here, I’d rather you make clear the problems here.

          do it without using arguments that have been proven false.

          This is a drive-by. You tell me that my arguments suck. That of course informs me not at all and kinda makes it look like you don’t have an argument.

          I want you to show me, but then I’ve asked you that before. I’m getting impatient.

        • Spectrum

          No, the link wasn’t broken, I linked to the wrong page. Sorry. Try this ; http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/pagangods.shtml

          If that should not work either ( unlikely ) then type in ; Is there a God ( in the search bar of that page ).

          After reading the article and the links at the bottom of it, you should see how your article has been made redundant. Which is why I chastised you.

          You keep insisting on me “showing you”. Read the article and links, and I will have done that. O.k. ?

        • I read the article. It’s the same old thing. “Of your 3 points of comparison, god X doesn’t match up with #1, so therefore that one is irrelevant” and so on.

          My point is really simple: the Jesus story came from a world full of stories of dying and rising gods. Yes, I realize that these gods had different names than Jesus or looked different or came from different cultures or rose repeatedly instead of once and so on and so on. My point remains.

          You disagree? Then carefully tell us yourself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Christian converts, by presenting erroneous “information” that is presented in a manner that is likely to mislead them. And also to possibly persuade CURRENT Christians to doubt their faith and thus lose their salvation. That is SERIOUS.

          And yet, you have no problem with young children without the reasoning tools in place to check for themselves that the Buybull is an erroneous crock of shit….

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/42/c3/b6/42c3b6dc5e40de6b3c98da07174501f0.jpg

          …talk about hypocrisy. Atheists know and realise there are errors in Zeitgeist, that’s why there are plans afoot to correct them.

          Mythicist Milwaukee & King’s Tower Productions are going to produce a well-researched film about the Jesus myth theory that deliberately eliminates the flaws of past films (like that awful Zeitgeist thing) and pays attention to the best scholarship on the issue, while also introducing a lot of entertaining features as well as educational ones.

          http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8540

          Any such plans for the Buybull have you heard about? No? Hypocrite.

          Now it’s fair enough to critique something, but do it without using arguments that have been proven false.

          YOU have yet to show an argument of Bob’s to be wrong…come back when YOU can present that argument.

  • 778878

    its all true however theres one other one you forgot to mention ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ whose got 616 directly in this name

  • Prazwal Jasper

    Bob Seidensticker, I have one question after reading the write up.
    You’ve mentioned many dying and rising saviors but arguably the only dead and risen savior that is being worshiped till today, as God, is Jesus. Respond to this please,
    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    • I don’t know for sure–there were lots of them in ancient history, and there are lots of tiny throwback cults that actually worship some of those ancient gods. For example, can we be certain that there are zero worshipers of Dionysus today?

      But let’s assume that Jesus is the only one. What’s your conclusion?

      • Prazwal Jasper

        I don’t have a conclusion yet but I have an interpretation. Yes we don’t know for sure if Jesus is the only one who is being worshiped but what we know for sure is that Jesus is believed to be God and is definitely being worshiped till today.

        This longevity of Jesus being a God/Savior did not just come because he came back from the dead, but rather the aspect of knowledge of his own death, willingness to sacrifice himself for the people-where he walked into his own death, and the knowledge of his own fate that he will resurrect (all by himself without any help from any other person or a deity) and will come back to his own power as God made him different from the others. So I don’t think it would be very appropriate to keep all of these saviors in one category because except from being risen from the dead there is not much common among them. This kind of makes me assume that probably it would not be wrong if we attribute divinity to Jesus instead of calling him another savior in a line of saviors.

        • except from being risen from the dead there is not much common among them

          Aside from this one remarkable claim–they rose from the dead–they have nothing in common. Uh, OK, but the fact remains that the Jesus story arose from a culture suffused with stories of dying-and-rising gods. So what’s likelier–that Jesus actually did, historically, rise from the dead (unlike all the others) or that the Jesus story was just like all the others–just a story?

          There’s no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are buying into a bullshit story…it’s as simple as that, nothing more.

        • MNb

          “This longevity of Jesus being a God/Savior”
          was already explained by Edward Gibbons in the 18th Century.

          “I. The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.
          II.The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth.
          III.The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive Church.
          IV. The pure and austere morals of the Christians.
          V. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing State in the heart of the Roman empire.”

          Some may be more convincing than others (they been discussed extensively, ao by Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy), but special it isn’t and a reason to attribute divinity certainly not.
          The longevity of Archimedes’ Law and Pythagoras’ Theorem is bigger – and no reason to call them divine either.

        • deb

          I think I read in the bible that jesus “was raised”, NOT that he rose. Isn’t that considered getting help from another person or deity? He didn’t do it by himself, so that negates your point that he resurrected. He was written to have “been resurrected”, meaning that someone else brought him back. And that’s only if you happen to believe what’s written in the book.

    • Greg G.

      Different types of religions can be classified by a specific property. As the religions in that classification die out, the last remaining religion isn’t automatically true or, otherwise, more significant. What would it tell us if there was one polytheistic religion left?

      • Prazwal Jasper

        What you said makes sense. But my perspective is this:

        Why do we have to call it the last remaining religion? We can also say that it is the only religion which survived because it is the true religion. Can’t we?
        It is not a dying religion where we can say that it is the last of them and will be discovered as false soon. That’s not the case when it comes to Christianity. It is a growing religion not a dying one. This probably makes me not agree to what you say.

        If there was a polytheistic religion left and if it is a growing religion I would definitely think of it as significant and there is some truth behind it for us to find. That would be my opinion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why do we have to call it the last remaining religion?

          We don’t, because it isn’t.

          We can also say that it is the only religion which survived because it is the true religion.

          You can say whatever nonsense ya please. What you can demonstrate is a different animal. We can say it isn’t the only religion that has survived because it is true, because that is asinine poppycock. And we can demonstrate why. Other religions survive, a number of them a lot longer than Christianity.

          Can’t we?

          No..WE can’t…what nonsense YOU want to say is entirely up to you, but if you can’t support it, WE can point and laugh at you for saying it.

          It is not a dying religion where we can say that it is the last of them and will be discovered as false soon.

          I’m sure many of the now extinct religions thought that at one time, and then they were gone.

          That’s not the case when it comes to Christianity. It is a growing religion not a dying one.

          Well that depends on where one lives….here in the UK, it really is a dying one. Now, given your logic, Islam is going to be the true one before the end of the century, given it’s growth.

          * For the first time in British history, there are now more atheists and agnostics than believers in God. And church attendance rates in the UK are at an all-time low, with less than 2% of British men and women attending church on any given Sunday.

          https://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/religion-declining-secula_b_9889398.html

          Not everyone agrees with you anyway. Even among Christians there is a belief the religion is in decline.

          http://religionnews.com/2016/09/06/why-is-christianity-declining/

          This probably makes me not agree to what you say.

          Why does that come as no surprise?

          If there was a polytheistic religion left and if it is a growing religion I would definitely think of it as significant and there is some truth behind it for us to find.

          So, you’ve not heard of Hinduism then?

          What about those new age Polytheistic reconstructionist’s?

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbeckett/2014/08/polytheism-is-the-future.html

          That would be my opinion.

          Opinions are fine as far as they go, they are like arseholes, everyone has one. Not all that impressive. But around here there is a requirement for a wee bit more than just an opinion if it is seriously ya want to be taken.

        • Pofarmer

          Which fucking rock has this person been hiding under?

        • Greg G.

          Apparently a rock without access to Disqus. His complete posting history is this thread.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Maybe the rhubarb has just gained access to the internet and doesn’t know what books are…or maybe I’m being too generous?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The class of woo-woo merchant we’re getting around here of late seems to be getting worse.

        • Greg G.

          Why do we have to call it the last remaining religion? We can also say that it is the only religion which survived because it is the true religion. Can’t we?

          No, it was either always a true religion or it is always a false religion. There is no reason to think any religion is true. The fact that there are many religions with many sects and denominations means that almost all religions are certainly false, which shows that people have a strong tendency to follow false religions, which favors all religions being false.

          Religion is growing because the population of the world is growing but the percentage of the population is not growing. If we are to judge a religion by growth, then Islam must be true, not Christianity. Christianity keeps dividing into different denominations.

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          If Christianity was true, wouldn’t Jesus’ prayer have come true? His prayer was that Christians would agree so much that the rest of the world would be impressed enough to believe. We see that Paul was at odds with James and Peter even before the New Testament was written. The diversity continues to widen. Three years ago, it was estimated that there were 45,000 Christian denominations and the growth rate would suggest that there are about 47,000 by now. That makes Jesus the biggest prayer failure of all time.

          When something goes extinct, it usually ends one member at a time. There will always be one last survivor before extinction.

        • MR

          Hoo-boy. 10 to 1 we got another sock puppet.

        • Greg G.

          I wouldn’t take those odds to bet against sock puppet. His Disqus history shows a total of four posts, all in this thread.

        • Pofarmer

          We can also say that it is the only religion which survived because it is the true religion.

          In large part, it survived and grew, not because it was true, but because it was willing to kill and forcibly convert people who did not agree with it. That was one of the real “strengths” of Christianity. Something doesn’t have to be “true” for you to decide to believe it when your skin is on the line or you’ll be burned alive for not believing.

        • We call it a true religion when there’s evidence. There isn’t.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Zoroastrianism.

      Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

      • Prazwal Jasper

        What are you trying to say from this? Did Zoroaster resurrect? What is your point by saying this? Can you please explain?

        • Ignorant Amos

          What are you trying to say from this?

          I’m saying that the dying and rising idea, along with the mythical motif of resurrection was well established by the time the Jesus yarn was being concocted.

          Did Zoroaster resurrect?

          Don’t be silly. No one resurrects, it’s myth.

          What Zoroaster did do apparently…millennia before Judaism, Christianity, and Islamism, is propose and teach many of the familiar ideas adopted by those faiths. Particularly Christianity and it’s plagiarised resurrection nonsense.

          He taught about free will, and opposed the use of the hallucinogenic Haoma plant in rituals, polytheism, over-ritualising religious ceremonies and animal sacrifices, as well an oppressive class system in Persia which earned him strong opposition among local authorities. Eventually, at the age of about forty-two, he received the patronage of queen Hutaosa and a ruler named Vishtaspa, an early adherent of Zoroastrianism (possibly from Bactria according to the Shahnameh). Zoroaster’s teaching about individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the resurrection of the body, the Last Judgment, and everlasting life for the reunited soul and body, among other things, became borrowings in the Abrahamic religions, but they lost the context of the original teaching.

          What is your point by saying this?

          There was nothing special about Zoroaster. Myth’s about him notwithstanding. But with the patronage of the powers that be, his religious ideas took root and influenced the Abrahamic faiths. That Jesus is being worshipped today says nothing to the veracity of the claims that he is a dying and risen saviour. It’s just a story. A story that was influenced by earlier ideas. It ain’t original.

          Can you please explain?

          You seem to hold some fascination that just because your particular dying and risen godman is still being worshipped today, it gives some veracity to a belief system that is hotch-potch of various existing more ancient ideas morphed into what it is today. The Jesus of the book takes many forms. We have Christians visit here that claim that the resurrection was a metaphor. Others that it is a celestial event, other that it never happened. There are now 45,000+ different flavours of the Jewish Christian cult with a diverse opinion and interpretation of the bastardised scriptures.

          Christianity is neither original nor of one ideal.

        • MNb

          “Did Zoroaster resurrect?”
          No. Neither was Jesus. That you believe so means zilch.