The whole point of me showing all that stuff to [i]alwaysabeliever[/i] is because he/she said this:

[quote]Since, it has been proven through historical documents that he did exist, that he did die on a cross, and that he physically rose from the dead (since you know he was seen by hundreds of people over a period of forty days).[/quote]

If there was really proof, I would be a believer, ok?

And what are these historical documents?

Alwaysabeliever has not returned, I wanted to see what this person knew about that stuff. Now I won't get to, and he/she will just agree with all the stuff you were saying if they were to come back to this forum. But ok...

Also, I wanted this person to see that stuff, then do research on that and Jesus, and not just believe what they've been told to believe. Even if an article comes from wikipedia, so what? It gives good summaries about the topic. At least wikipedia is not a biased source. (Notice how I wasn't calling the person a moron.) ;)

The similarities between Jesus and other gods are there. The real mystery is why people still believe in Jesus.

Also, I don't know why you're being a jerk to me. Calling me a moron will not make you the bigger or smarter person, not even a little bit. :)

Even if there aren't any similarities between Horus and Jesus, you have to admit that Jesus was not the first one born from a virgin, and he certainly wasn't the first to have resurrected.

Oh, and Jesus was a hypocrite, too. He worked on the sabbath, did not honor his parents, and encouraged stealing.

Read the bible. If you are going to respond with insults, then I'm not going to take you seriously. ;)

Anyone want to talk about my evolution posts? :)

If I'm getting off-topic, I apologize.

[quote]I find it hard to believe that [i]every[/i] Egyption scholar is so biased that they would completely edit the stories of Horus to make them seem different from Jesus.[/quote]

Where did I say Egyptian scholars?

I was talking about JP Holding's site.

[quote]Also wikipedia may not, in itself, be a biased source. But the fact is that we have no way of knowing who wrote the article. For all we know it may have been a 13 year old who stumbled upon Acyria S website.[/quote]

Depends what the article is about. Honestly, I don't think I've seen or heard of Acyria S website.

[quote]Three questions:

1. Which god(s) and how exactly are they similar to Jesus?

2. Did the stories about the aformentioned god(s)(and in particular the parts that possess a simalarity to Jesus) develop before or after Jesus?

3. Is there any good reason to suspect borrowing? Or could both stories have developed indipendently?[/quote]

1. Buddha was born from a virgin mom. Well, she didn't have sex with a man to conceive him. She went through the painful-sounding process of having an elephant get inside her in a dream.

And I saw the article at tektonics about the comparison between Jesus and Buddha.

2. Before Jesus, I believe.

3. Yes and maybe.

[quote]Maybe not. But it doesnt really prove anything. You see, all people recognize the inevdibility of death. And despite this the vast majority of humans fear death. So its only natural that we would develop stories of god(s) who conqured death.[/quote]

I wasn't really trying to talk about gods. But there are other people in the bible who rose from the dead, like Lazarus, and the son of some widow. Then there's Jairus's daughter, who was probably just asleep, though. But the bible said Jesus would be the first one to rise from the dead in Acts 26:23.

Jesus performed many miracles, ya know. He could heal the sick and all that good stuff. I bet he could heal a whole town of people without breaking a sweat.

In the Bible, he just healed the sick people he happened to bump into, though.

[quote]The whole point of me showing all that stuff to alwaysabeliever is because he/she said this:[/quote]
If the whole point of you showing that stuff was to establish there wasn't proof, you could have just said, "Look, there's no proof." Alleged similarities between godmen have hardly anything to do with proof of diety.

[quote]If there was really proof, I would be a believer, ok?[/quote]
First, could you define proof? Do you require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, or beyond a reasonable doubt?

Second, why must there be "proof" for you to be a believer?

[quote]And what are these historical documents?[/quote]
I suppose he/she meant the Bible. But of course, we have Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny, Lucian, etc...All of which you'd probably dispute as "too late" or "interpolations," or what have you...

[quote]Alwaysabeliever has not returned, I wanted to see what this person knew about that stuff. Now I won't get to, and he/she will just agree with all the stuff you were saying if they were to come back to this forum. But ok...[/quote]
Yes. Is there some sort of problem?

[quote]Also, I wanted this person to see that stuff, then do research on that and Jesus, and not just believe what they've been told to believe. Even if an article comes from wikipedia, so what? It gives good summaries about the topic. At least wikipedia is not a biased source. (Notice how I wasn't calling the person a moron.) [/quote]
If one were to truly do research, [i]good[/i] research, they would come to the same conclusion as me. All they'd have to do would be go past Wikipedia, Geocities, and cereal boxes and look up books by scholars of the particular religion. I don't believe any of them actually agree with the pagan influence thesis, if that means anything.

Wikipedia isn't biased...That's hysterical. It's an encyclopedia that [i]anyone[/i] can edit to say whatever nonsense they want. Notice how at the top of many articles, it says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed," and things of that nature?

[quote]The similarities between Jesus and other gods are there. The real mystery is why people still believe in Jesus.[/quote]
The real mystery is when you're going start backing up your claims. If not Horus, what gods are similar to Jesus?

[quote]Also, I don't know why you're being a jerk to me. Calling me a moron will not make you the bigger or smarter person, not even a little bit.[/quote]
Oh, I know. I'm merely stating a fact. ;-)

I mean, come on. Why in the world would you ever compare an [b]Egyptian[/b] name to a [b]Hebrew[/b] name with their [b][i]English[/i][/b] translation? How intelligent is that?

[quote]Even if there aren't any similarities between Horus and Jesus, you have to admit that Jesus was not the first one born from a virgin, and he certainly wasn't the first to have resurrected.[/quote]
No, I don't. You're acting like this is a confirmed fact, despite this being a position that's an extreme minority amongst scholars. We already saw what one of your lists amounts to, so if you're so confident, please post direct evidence of this occuring before Jesus.

[quote]Oh, and Jesus was a hypocrite, too. He worked on the sabbath, did not honor his parents, and encouraged stealing.[/quote]
Well, with the first one, why do you think we don't follow this law anymore? This was considered a ceremonial law, and all of those laws became null when Jesus fulfilled the law.

With the second two, I'm going to require more than pure soundbites. Chapter and verse, please.

[quote]Read the bible. If you are going to respond with insults, then I'm not going to take you seriously. [/quote]
Mmkay. Yep, I've never read the Bible before.

[quote]Anyone want to talk about my evolution posts?[/quote]
Not me, that's for sure. Evolution vs. Creationism is not my thing...I don't know about the topic of evolution to make good arguments about it.

[quote]If I'm getting off-topic, I apologize.[/quote]
You're not.

[quote]Second, why must there be "proof" for you to be a believer?[/quote]

How many things do you believe in without evidence?

[quote]
Yes. Is there some sort of problem?[/quote]

Threating me?

[quote]If one were to truly do research, [i]good[/i] research, they would come to the same conclusion as me. All they'd have to do would be go past Wikipedia, Geocities, and cereal boxes and look up books by scholars of the particular religion. I don't believe any of them actually agree with the pagan influence thesis, if that means anything.[/quote]

If read some stuff by John Marco Allegro. Real interesting.

[quote]The real mystery is when you're going start backing up your claims. If not Horus, what gods are similar to Jesus?[/quote]

There was Buddha, not really a god. But still...

[quote]No, I don't. You're acting like this is a confirmed fact, despite this being a position that's an extreme minority amongst scholars. We already saw what one of your lists amounts to, so if you're so confident, please post direct evidence of this occuring before Jesus.[/quote]

I already responded to one of Sir-Think-A-Lot's comments about this.

[quote]Well, with the first one, why do you think we don't follow this law anymore? This was considered a ceremonial law, and all of those laws became null when Jesus fulfilled the law.

With the second two, I'm going to require more than pure soundbites. Chapter and verse, please.[/quote]

(I read that you said you never read the bible before. I'm not sure if you were just playing).

But for the second two, Jesus did not honor his parents and encouraged stealing here:

[b]Jesus Goes Against The Commandments:[/b]

[b]• He does not honor parents, not his parents (Nor does he promote family values):[/b]

o "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26).
o "I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36).
o "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (To his mother) (John 2:4).

[b]• Jesus lies: [/b]

o John 14:12-14 ("Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do.... If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it", John 15:7 ("If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you", John 15:16, 16:23 ("whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you", and Matt. 21:22 ("And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive" contend prayers will provide everything requested. Yet, millions of believers have prayed to Jesus millions of times and met only failure. His promise of the universal efficacy of prayer has proven as miserable a sham as his promise of all power to those with faith.
o John 7:8-10, "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." Jesus broke his promise [word] by going up secretly after saying he wouldn't.

 "While Jesus spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, my daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live" (Matt. 9:18).
 "Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose." (Matt. 9:18) If the ruler's daughter was dead, then, Jesus lied. If she was not dead, then he performed no miracle.

[b]• Jesus worked on the Sabbath day: [/b]

o "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done those things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work'. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the sabbath...."(John 5:16-18 )

[b]• He broke two commandments at once by stealing and breaking the sabbath: [/b]

o "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn." (Mark 2:23)

[b]• He encouraged stealing: [/b]

o And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them, 'Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me'." (Matthew 21).

[b]God goes against his commandments as well:[/b]

[b]• He condones and orders adultry: [/b]

o "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Num. 31:18)
o "Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms, for the land hath committed great whoredom departing from the Lord." (Hosea 1:2)
o "This is what the Lord says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel" (2 Sam. 12:11-12).

[b]• He orders stealing: [/b]

o "...and ye shall spoil the Egyptians" (Ex. 3:22).
o "...and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord God" (Ezek. 39:10).
o "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies" (Deut. 20:14).

[b]• He kills repeatedly: [/b]

o "there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the 250 men that offered incense" (Num. 16:35).
o "the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died" (Num. 21:6).
o "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound and I heal...." (Deut. 32:39).
o "The Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070 men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter" (1 Sam. 6:19).
o "The Lord kills, and makes alive: he brings down to the grave, and brings up" (1 Sam. 2:6).
o "the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them...." (1 Sam. 5:6).
o "it came to pass about 10 days after, that the Lord smote Nabal, that he died" (1 Sam. 25:38).
o "Who smote great nations and slew mighty kings...." (Psalms 135:10).
o "For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many" (Isaiah 66:16).
o "I will dash them one against another, even the father and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them" (Jer. 13:14).
o "I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword...." (Amos 4:10).
o "For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29).
o Also note: Gen. 38:7,10, Ex. 22:23-24, Num. 11:1, Deut. 32:41-42, Joshua 10:10-11, 1 Sam. 5:9, Psalms 136:17-18, Hosea 9:16, Amos 2:3, Ex. 4:24, 2 Sam. 6:6-7, and 2 Kings 5:7

[b]• He intentionally gave out bad laws: [/b]

o Ezek. 20:25 says, "I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by...."

[b]• He lies and decieves: [/b]

o "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived...." (Jer. 20:7).
o "if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel" (Ezek. 14:9).
o "Ah, Lord God! Surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reaches unto the soul" (Jer. 4:10).
o "...God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:9-12).
o See also: 2 Chron. 18:18-22, 1 Kings 22:20-23 and Jer. 15:18.

[quote]Mmkay. Yep, I've never read the Bible before.[/quote]

You should, its interesting. :)

[quote]Not me, that's for sure. Evolution vs. Creationism is not my thing...I don't know about the topic of evolution to make good arguments about it.[/quote]

It's cool.

[quote]You're not. [/quote]

Cool! 8)

I'm going to bed. Goodnight everyone!! :)

[quote]2. Before Jesus, I believe.[/quote]

Budda actually represents an interesting case. He did, in fact, live before Jesus. However most of the legendary material surrounding him didnt develop until after(or possibly around the same time) as Jesus.

The earliest stories of Buddah have him as an ordinary human who performed no miracles, had a natural birth and died.

[quote]3. Yes and maybe.[/quote]

Really, we do? Explain.

Hey, P-Dunn, how about you go over to the RRS forum and debate with the "non-experts" (as you implied they were)?

I dare you.

[quote=P-Dunn][quote]How many things do you believe in without evidence?[/quote]
Nothing. I don't believe anything without evidence. I know what game you're trying to play, and it won't work with me.[/quote]

Except it has already proven your dishonesty. There is no evidence for your God's existence, hence you believe through faith which is defined as believing in something without evidence (ironically).

[quote]I feel like I've said this 100 times...But nobody believes anything without evidence. If you're going to say that there is "no evidence" that God exists, you're saying that there are no experiences or arguments that convince anyone that God exists. So there is undoubtedly evidence, just not "good" evidence according to you.[/quote]

What peer-reviewed or scientifically-documented case can you present me that shows that personal experiences are grounds to be called "evidence?"

[quote][quote]I already responded to one of Sir-Think-A-Lot's comments about this.[/quote]
If you meant saying that Buddha's mom was a virgin...Come on, she was a married woman. I don't think there was any reason to suspect this.[/quote]

So was Mary. Unless you are going to suggest she never married or had any other children aside from Christ?

[quote][quote]There was Buddha, not really a god. But still...[/quote]
Could you post more specific similarities?[/quote]

Sure, how about this? Concerning Buddha, Remsburg ([i]The Christ[/i]) had the following to say:

On page 370 he states, "The word Buddha, like the word Christ, is not a name, but a title. It means 'the enlightened one'. The name for this religious founder was Siddhartha Gautama. He was born about 643 B.C, and died 563 B.C. (Note well that that is long before the birth of Jesus--Ed.). His mother, Mahamaya, was a virgin. Dean Milman, in his History of Christianity, says, 'Buddha, according to a tradition known in the West, was born of a virgin' (Vol. I, p. 99). Devaki (the mother of Krishna), Mary, and Mahamaya, all gave birth to their children among strangers.... The 'Tripitaka', the principal Bible of the Buddhists, containing the history of the teachings of Buddha, is a collection of books written in the centuries immediately following Buddha. The canon was finally determined at the Council of Pataliputra, held under the auspices of the Emperor Asoka the Great, 244 B.C., more than 600 years before the Christian canon was established....

Buddha was 'about 30 years old' when he began his ministry (as was Jesus allegedly--Ed.). He fasted 'seven times seven nights and days'. He had a 'band of disciples' who accompanied him. He traveled from place to place and 'preached to large multitudes'. Bishop Bigandet calls his first sermon the 'Sermon on the Mount'. At his Renunciation 'he forsook father and mother, wife and child'. His mission was 'to establish the kingdom of righteousness'. 'Buddha', says Max Mueller, 'promised salvation to all; and he commanded his disciples to preach his doctrine in all places and to all men'....

Buddha formulated the following commandments. 'Not to kill; not to steal; not to lie; not to commit adultery; not to use strong drink'. Christ said, 'Thou knowest the commandments: do not commit adultery; do not kill; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor thy father and thy mother' (Luke 18:20). Christ ignored the Decalogue of Moses and, like Buddha, presented a pentade which, with the exception of one commandment, is the same as that of Buddha.

Prof. Seydel, of the University of Leipzig, points out 50 analogies between Christianity and Buddhism. Dr. Schleiden calls attention to over 100. Baron Hiarden-Hickey says: 'Countless analogies exist between Buddhistic and Christian legends--analogies so striking that they forcibly prove to an impartial mind that a common origin must necessarily be given to the teachings of Sakay-Muni (Buddha--Ed.) and those of Jesus. Concerning the biographical accounts of the two religious teachers Harden-Hickey says, 'One account must necessarily be a copy of the other, and since the Buddhist biographer, living long before the birth of Christ, could not have borrowed from the Christian one, the plain inference is that the early creed-mongers of Alexandria were guilty of plagiarism'."

[quote][quote](I read that you said you never read the bible before. I'm not sure if you were just playing).

But for the second two, Jesus did not honor his parents and encouraged stealing here:[/quote]
I was playing. I'm a Christian...Did you really think I've never read the Bible?[/quote]

I don't see how the two are synonymous? I know of plenty of Christians - faithful Christians - who never touched the Bible. Just because you believe in Christ as the savior doesn't mean you read the holy book in which is supposedly ascribed to be written by him (or by God). In fact, there were thousands upon thousands of Christians who were illiterate and never ready the Bible throughout history, many who died in the Crusades, or suffered through inquisitions and plagues.

[quote]Oh boy. Here's another laundry list of scholarship...[/quote]

Please, hold the drama.

[quote][quote]Jesus Goes Against The Commandments:

• He does not honor parents, not his parents (Nor does he promote family values):

o "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26).[/quote]
Of course, this verse does not mean literal hate. It means to love less. This same word "hate" is used in Genesis 29:30-1, and in this context, it quite clearly means to love less.[/quote]

This is a typical example of how desperate theists become when confronted with a plain contradiction or outright absurdity. Did you even bother to read the Greek in this passage? The word used in this passage is μισεῖ or [i]miseo[/i], which definitely means HATE (according to the LSJ and Strongs). The other word in the NT used to represent hate is [i]apostygeo[/i], and only appears once. (Romans 12:9) However [i]miseo[/i] occurs 39 [u]times[/u], and always means "hate." (Eg., Mark 13:13, John 15:23, etc.) The NT has six Greek words meaning "love.," but [i]miseo[/i] is not one of them. The words for "love" do not even remotely resemble [i]miseo.[/i] Four of them begin with the letter alpha and two begin with the letter phi, none with the letter mi. So the claim that this means "love less" is phony. Don't make things up because you don't like what the Bible says.

[quote][quote]o "I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36).[/quote]
Which relates to the previous verse. He follows this up with the statement that if someone loves their father more than him, they're not worthy of him. This isn't dishonor.[/quote]

No, again the word is hate. [i]Miseo[/i]. If somebody does not HATE their family or themselves they are not worthy of him. Your dishonesty continues. According to the LSJ, the authority on Greek, the only definition of this word is hate. There is no other.

Further, Christ says he will set variance between households and divide them. This is irrelevant to the Luke 14:36 verse. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[quote][quote]o "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (To his mother) (John 2:4). [/quote]
...Which sounds harsh to our modern, Western ears. But this phrase wasn't negative. "It is also a common address in Greek literature, and never has the intent of disrespect or hostility." Even Josephus used it to describe his wife.[/quote]

Commonality doesn't negate wrongfulness. It was commonality to hold a black person as a slave in the 19th century - but it was still wrong. It was commonality for a woman to do all of the housekeeping and be subservient to men in the 50's, but it was wrong. It was commonality for a Jew to be marched away to a concentration camp by the Nazi's - I think I've made my point. Just because it was common does not make it acceptable.

[quote]Regarding the second part, "What have I to do with thee?" is is a Semitic phrase that indicates that the speaker is being unjustly bothered [b]or[/b] is being asked to get involved in a matter that is not their business. It can be impolite, but not always. Which meaning it is is determined by the context, and clearly, Jesus was meaning the second.[/quote]

What context? There is only him speaking, and he is interrupted by a follower - NOT his mother. He purposefully goes out of his way to say this to her, and doesn't address his siblings which also were there. If he was bothered - he would have addressed the follower who informed him of the fact that his mother had arrived - instead he unjustly accuses his mother. The problem is you don't like what the context is, or what is said, so instead you again as before, create a context for yourself which is not biblical - it's dishonest and irrational.

[quote][quote]• Jesus lies:

o John 14:12-14 ("Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do.... If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it", John 15:7 ("If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you", John 15:16, 16:23 ("whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you", and Matt. 21:22 ("And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive" contend prayers will provide everything requested. Yet, millions of believers have prayed to Jesus millions of times and met only failure. His promise of the universal efficacy of prayer has proven as miserable a sham as his promise of all power to those with faith.[/quote]
*sigh* Hyperbole is not a lie.

I'm not going to address this one in detail, since I've already been over it 1000 times on my blog. Click the link in my signature, where I tear Marshall Brainist arguments to shreds.[/quote]

No, post it here. I don't take well to naked assertions.

[quote][quote]o John 7:8-10, "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." Jesus broke his promise [word] by going up secretly after saying he wouldn't.[/quote]
Rather, this verse and other verses form a pattern which serves to stress Jesus' disassociation from merely human concerns, and his prerogative to act on his own terms.[/quote]

That is an irrelevant and non-biblical assertion. Back it up or stop making naked claims.

[quote]What was Jesus' reason for not going with them? Because it wasn't the right time for him yet. Within the next few days, the time [i]was[/i] right.[/quote]

[b]Jesus still lied[/b]. You can make excuses up all you want to explain the reason for the lie, but that doesn't change the fact that he did lie.

[quote][quote] "While Jesus spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, my daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live" (Matt. 9:18).

 "Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose." (Matt. 9:18) If the ruler's daughter was dead, then, Jesus lied. If she was not dead, then he performed no miracle. [/quote]
You're restricting your options. If the ruler's daughter was dead, then when Jesus said that she was sleeping, he was using a metaphor. Since he had the power to raise her, it would have been just like she was sleeping.[/quote]

There are many Greek words for "sleep" that would have been better used had Jesus used the word "sleep" metaphorically. [/quote]

Again your failure to ascertain certain simple things is astounding. Shall we go to the Greek? The word used her for sleep is καθεύδω, or [i]katheudo[/i], which can ONLY mean sleep. (LSJ), if Jesus wanted to mean "sleep" as in a metaphorical sense, the Greek would have been much different, for example it would have mimiced the Greek in the LXX (or Septuagint) of Psalm 88, "καθεύδοντες ἐν τάφῳ" or "sleep of death" (note how the word "death" is τάφῳ - and how [i] katheudo[/i] is used in context with [i]tapho[/i]). However he does not. Jesus still lied, and the words still mean what they mean, regardless of how you want to spin it to satisfy your comfort level. Dishonesty is by no means acceptable in a debate - so stop being so.

[quote]And even if she was really sleeping, he is still said to have raised a person from the dead by the name of Lazarus.[/quote]

This is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus still lied. Stop trying to dodge the subject.

[quote][quote]• Jesus worked on the Sabbath day:

o "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done those things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work'. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the sabbath...."(John 5:16-18 )[/quote]
The comment by Jesus' opponents may be reflective of later Mishnah rules that forbade carrying things, especially beds, on the Sabbath, but these are merely interpretations of the "no work on the Sabbath" rule, not actual law.[/quote]

Really? What Bible are you reading? Because according to my Bible, God ordered the death of a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath! (Num. 15:32-35) It was definitely a law.

[quote][quote]• He broke two commandments at once by stealing and breaking the sabbath:

o "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn." (Mark 2:23) [/quote]
Sorry, but this is not stealing, as sanctioned by Leviticus 19:9-10.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that these were strays? You will have to show me in the text where it suggests that because it is not there. In fact he is ridiculed by the Pharisee's (On a side note, I'm sort of wondering why the Pharisee's are so conveniently there all the time - seems more like a literary ploy to show their foolishness and not real events).

And he still is doing physical activities (plucking corn) on the Sabbath which is still against the law. Ironically enough, what the Pharisee's say also contradicts what you said above and putting you in a pickle, when the Pharisee's state "Why are they doing what is [u]unlawful[/u] on the Sabbath?" (Mark 2:24)

[quote][quote]• He encouraged stealing:

o And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them, 'Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me'." (Matthew 21).[/quote]
Interesting point to make here...God owns everything. If Jesus is God, how can you honestly say that he is "stealing" something he owns?[/quote]

First, you are seriously begging the question here. But again, making up excuses for WHY Jesus encourages his disciples to steal does not make it JUST. Nor does it wipe away the fact that he encourages stealing. Stop dodging the point.

[quote]But also, it wasn't stealing in the first place. Notice how it's never mentioned that the owners have an issue with this.[/quote]

Irrelevant speculation. The colt and ass was not Jesus' to take. And certainly not his disciples to take. In fact, there is no dialog at all with the owners, and in fact it seems rather sneaky - that Jesus has to send his disciples into another town to loose these animals - where does Jesus say, "Go ye into the next town and ask the owners of the ass and colt if you may bring them to me." He never does, and that is never implied. You are once again making up excuses and adding to the text. Common apologetic ploy.

[quote][quote]God goes against his commandments as well:

• He condones and orders adultry:

o "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Num. 31:18)[/quote]
Now, wait a minute. We're talking about Jesus allegedly stealing, etc. Everything in the Old Testament is beside the point. I'll answer you anyway, though.[/quote]

God is Jesus.

[quote]This was actually a merciful absorbtion into the society. These people would be housed, fed, and had the opportunity to leave if desired. This wasn't for rape, or sex, or anything of that nature. Research the ANE before you mouth off.[/quote]

Merciful? What are you talking about?! Have you actually READ Numbers 31? What about where Moses orders the death of EVERY man, woman (who has laid with a man) and child, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." He only wants the virgins! "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." In all they collected 32,000 virgins! (Numbers 31:35) Let's not forget that 16,000 people "fell" and 32 specifically to the lord as "tax." And of those 32,000 virgins, they would have to live with the men who murdered their entire civilization? And you want to claim they can go whenever they want? That is NOT biblical, sir. You are a liar and your repugnant version of mercy is [b]limited[/b] at best.

[quote][quote]o "Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms, for the land hath committed great whoredom departing from the Lord." (Hosea 1:2)[/quote]
Two points:

"--Given the social status of prostitutes in the ANE, that this was a remarkable gesture of forgiveness and mercy on the part of God and His prophet. There were neither social programs to help this woman out, nor any other way to escape the cycle of despair -- other than legitimate marriage.

--Hosea's marriage symbolizes and represents God's love for (and also, response to) Israel. He brought them into a covenant relationship even though they had been worshipping false gods in Egypt (i.e., being spiritual prostitutes)." [/quote]

Do you ever cite sources?

[quote][quote]o "This is what the Lord says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel" (2 Sam. 12:11-12). [/quote]
Which is merely an argument by outrage on your part. This is judgement.[/quote]

You are merely making up excuses again, as if this somehow cancels out the fact that this issue exists. Just admit that these problems are prevalent in your Bible and we can move on. You're just kidding yourself otherwise.

[quote][quote]• He orders stealing:

o "...and ye shall spoil the Egyptians" (Ex. 3:22).
o "...and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord God" (Ezek. 39:10).
o "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies" (Deut. 20:14). [/quote]
Can you explain how this is stealing -- and how it is any different, in principle, from reparations given to, say, Japanese WWII prisoners in America?[/quote]

So in your mind two wrongs make a right? Again, your tinted veiw of morality is strikingly horrific. Can't God be more giving and less taking? "Rob the Egyptians" is very clear language to me. The Egyptians didn't say, "hey look, sorry - take our stuff because we were so cruel." You are so dishonest it sickens me.

[quote][quote]• He kills repeatedly:

o "there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the 250 men that offered incense" (Num. 16:35).
o "the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died" (Num. 21:6).
o "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound and I heal...." (Deut. 32:39).
o "The Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070 men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter" (1 Sam. 6:19).
o "The Lord kills, and makes alive: he brings down to the grave, and brings up" (1 Sam. 2:6).
o "the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them...." (1 Sam. 5:6).
o "it came to pass about 10 days after, that the Lord smote Nabal, that he died" (1 Sam. 25:38).
o "Who smote great nations and slew mighty kings...." (Psalms 135:10).
o "For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many" (Isaiah 66:16).
o "I will dash them one against another, even the father and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them" (Jer. 13:14).
o "I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword...." (Amos 4:10).
o "For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29).
o Also note: Gen. 38:7,10, Ex. 22:23-24, Num. 11:1, Deut. 32:41-42, Joshua 10:10-11, 1 Sam. 5:9, Psalms 136:17-18, Hosea 9:16, Amos 2:3, Ex. 4:24, 2 Sam. 6:6-7, and 2 Kings 5:7 [/quote]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Keep on arguing by outrage. If you're going to assert that any of these are wrong, you're going to have to prove that the judgement given was unjustified. Not many people go down this road.[/quote]

So it's okay for God to kill at will? You're cool with that? Alright, just never call your God compassionate or loving, and definitely don't think, even for a second, you can consider yourself to be so. You Christians are vile creatures sometimes, not thinking with your brain, and instead deluding yourself that mass murder is okay because he's your God. Repugnant standards you have for a God.

[quote][quote]• He intentionally gave out bad laws:

o Ezek. 20:25 says, "I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by...."[/quote]
Not so fast. You're making an interpretation based on words that aren't in the text. God didn't issue the laws in this case...He "gave them over" to pagan laws as punishment, meaning he allowed them to govern themselves harmfully. We're the source of evil, not God.[/quote]

No, God is the source of evil. Isaiah 45:7 is a prime example. To prove this, take a look at the Greek in Isaiah 45:7, "εγω ο κατασκευασας φως και ποιησας σκοτος ο ποιων ειρηνην και κτιζων κακα εγω κυριος ο θεος ο ποιων ταυτα παντα" which when you break it down is very literal. However, before you go claiming something as a metaphor (which so many of you do), make sure the words can't me turned or twisted within the context of the passage.

Take for example, the word "κτιζων" means 'to create, bring into being, bring about, make, build' according to the LSJ 9th Edition. The root is κτιζων which other Greek writers, like Sophicles, used when describing inventions or perpetuations. Never once does it have some sort of twisted meaning.

In fact, κτιζω appears in other books of the Bible too. Consider if you will Amos 4: 13, "διοτι ιδου εγω στερεων βροντην και κτιζων πνευμα" when the author of Amos is discussing , "he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought." Unless you're going to suggest that the term "create" here doesn't mean "create?" Do you have a better understanding of Greek in which you can show us this doesn't mean what the Greek suggests it means?

The Hebrew is really just as literal. The Hebrew word used here for "create" is bara' (baw-raw) which when looked up in any Hebrew dictionary doesn't just mean 'create', but it means "to create absolutely, make; or to be QUALIFIED to cut down" - for example a lumberjack. The only other meaning for this word is "root" as this is also the name of a plant - which indirectly signifies the creation of life in a plant - the root being the giver of life.

The passage CLEARLY means "create evil". The word "evil" in Hebrew is ra' from the word ra'a [raw-aw] meaning literally "evil". So when you combine the two points - the one I made earlier and the one I made now - in Hebrew the line is:

* Bara' ra' or "creates evil"

In the Greek, the word used for evil is κακος, which literally means "EVIL." There is no other translation for this word. None. When combined with my earlier point, the Greek line is:

* και κτιζων κακα or "and creates evil"

Oh, there isn't just one passage to prove this either:

See also Judges 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23, 18:10, 19:9; 1 Kings 14:10, 21:29, 2 Kings 21:12; 2 Chron. 34:24, 28; Isaiah 31:2; Jer. 11:11, 14:16, 18:11, 19:3, 23:12, 26:3, 32:42, 35:17, 36:3, 40:2, 42:10, 42:17, 44:2, 45:5, 49:5, 49:37, 51:64; Lam. 3:38; Exek. 6:10, 14:22, 20:25-26; Amos 3:6; Mic. 1:12, 2:3. (C. Dennis McKinsey, Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide) Enjoy.

[quote][quote]• He lies and decieves:

o "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived...." (Jer. 20:7).[/quote]
This is likely a mistranslation. The word for "decieved" could just as easily mean "persuade" or "seduce." In the context of the rest of the book, "persuaded" makes the most sense.[/quote]

You are no NT scholar, or Greek scholar that is for damn sure. First of all, the Greek word in this passage that you are applying an erroneous definition of is ἠπάτησάς - or the root - ἀπατάω ([i]apatao[/i]). This word is very literal, and does not leave room for metaphor. According to Strongs this word means "to cheat, delude" and according to the LSJ AND the Middle-Liddell it means "to cheat, trick, outwit, beguile," in fact other Greek writers use this word in the same fashion, such as Homer, Sophocles and Plato - in all cases the word means deceive. Here is no different. You are again making up bullshit definitions because you don't like the meaning of words.

[quote][quote]o "if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel" (Ezek. 14:9).
o "Ah, Lord God! Surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reaches unto the soul" (Jer. 4:10).
o "...God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:9-12).
o See also: 2 Chron. 18:18-22, 1 Kings 22:20-23 and Jer. 15:18.[/quote]
"It appears that this objection is asserting that the fact that God does not like lying necessarily implies that He could not use this evil for His own ends as a judgment. This is hardly a valid syllogism. One's feelings toward something don't have any connection with whether it is possible to use that something towards one's own ends."[/quote]

Again, source information is required. Further, you are again creating excuses to rationalize away the problems instead of dealing with them. This is dishonest - in fact you have shown to be dishonest over and over in this thread. Correct it fast.

Look out, here comes the "Fundy Atheist On The Run!" I bet American Atheist couldn't answer what I said so I he went to you, just like he did with lilangelofterror.

[quote=Rook_Hawkins]Except it has already proven your dishonesty. There is no evidence for your God's existence, hence you believe through faith which is defined as believing in something without evidence (ironically). [/quote]
So you're denying that there are any experiences or arguments that can cause people to believe in God? That's an awfully risky road for you to take.

Plus, you can't even get the [url=http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html]definition of "faith"[/url] right, and you supposedly know Greek. I guess you're well aware that word "pistis" was commonly used to connote forensic proof, and as such, true Biblical faith is trust based on prior performance.

[quote]What peer-reviewed or scientifically-documented case can you present me that shows that personal experiences are grounds to be called "evidence?"[/quote]
Since when is type of evidence a matter that requires scientific documentation?

Though I'm rather hesitant to post this link, you can try[url=http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html]here[/url]

Most people do consider personal experience to be evidence. You consider it to be bad evidence. I honestly don't consider it to be the best evidence either, but I still see it as evidence, because it's something that causes millions of people to believe in a personal deity.

And even if we establish that personal experience is [i]not[/i] evidence, then what about arguments for God, as I've mentioned? What about the beginning of the universe as pointing to a creator, the fine-tuning of the universe, morality, and any and all evidence backing the Biblical accounts? I see that you fancy yourself to be an expert of the Bible...I suppose we'll see.

[quote]So was Mary. Unless you are going to suggest she never married or had any other children aside from Christ?[/quote]
That was a really stupid comment on your part. Mary wasn't married when she became pregnant with Jesus. She became pregnant when she was pledged to be Joseph's husband, and that's why Joseph wanted to cut off the engagement; He thought she'd done something against the law. Have you not read the story?

[quote]Sure, how about this? Concerning Buddha, Remsburg (The Christ) had the following to say:[/quote]
Ah yes...Remsburg...

[quote]On page 370 he states, "The word Buddha, like the word Christ, is not a name, but a title. It means 'the enlightened one'. The name for this religious founder was Siddhartha Gautama. He was born about 643 B.C, and died 563 B.C. (Note well that that is long before the birth of Jesus--Ed.). His mother, Mahamaya, was a virgin. Dean Milman, in his History of Christianity, says, 'Buddha, according to a tradition known in the West, was born of a virgin' (Vol. I, p. 99). Devaki (the mother of Krishna), Mary, and Mahamaya, all gave birth to their children among strangers.... The 'Tripitaka', the principal Bible of the Buddhists, containing the history of the teachings of Buddha, is a collection of books written in the centuries immediately following Buddha. The canon was finally determined at the Council of Pataliputra, held under the auspices of the Emperor Asoka the Great, 244 B.C., more than 600 years before the Christian canon was established....[/quote]
Except, as mentioned before, the early stories of Buddha had none of this in them. These stories of virgin births didn't surface until after Jesus. Glenn Miller notes:

"The oldest accounts of Buddha's ancestry appear to presuppose nothing abnormal about his birth, and merely speak of his being well born both on his mother's end and father's side for seven generations back. According to the later legend he is born not as other human beings, but in the same was as a universal king he descends from the Tusita heaven by his own choice, and with this his father is not concerned. This is not properly a virgin birth, but it may be called parthogenetic, that is, Suddhodana was not his progenitor."

In case I'm wrong, though, can you provide a direct quote of a pre-Christ manuscript that says that Buddha was born of a virgin?

[quote]Buddha was 'about 30 years old' when he began his ministry (as was Jesus allegedly--Ed.). He fasted 'seven times seven nights and days'. He had a 'band of disciples' who accompanied him. He traveled from place to place and 'preached to large multitudes'.[/quote]
All of these things are to be expected from any religious leader. Your point is what?

[quote]Bishop Bigandet calls his first sermon the 'Sermon on the Mount'.[/quote]
Good for [b]19th century[/b] figure Bishop Bigandet...*sigh*

[quote]At his Renunciation 'he forsook father and mother, wife and child'.[/quote]
I'm not really sure what your point is here, or how it proves influence.

[quote]His mission was 'to establish the kingdom of righteousness'.[/quote]
Can you be less vague, please? Where is this said, exactly?

[quote]'Buddha', says Max Mueller, 'promised salvation to all; and he commanded his disciples to preach his doctrine in all places and to all men'....[/quote]
You really enjoy using sources from centuries ago, don't you? I'm waiting for the quotes from Thomas Paine...

I'll wait for direct quotes from Buddha from you. If that's really true, then Buddha must have said that at some point. Also, provide the date at which it was written.

[quote]Buddha formulated the following commandments. 'Not to kill; not to steal; not to lie; not to commit adultery; not to use strong drink'. Christ said, 'Thou knowest the commandments: do not commit adultery; do not kill; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor thy father and thy mother' (Luke 18:20). Christ ignored the Decalogue of Moses and, like Buddha, presented a pentade which, with the exception of one commandment, is the same as that of Buddha.[/quote]
Which also doesn't come as any sort of surprise. If a moral system works, people use it all over the place. That's simply the way it is.

But this is odd for you to be using. The Ten Commandments were written long before Buddha ever came on the scene. So it would have him that was doing the "copying," not Jesus.

[quote]Prof. Seydel, of the University of Leipzig, points out 50 analogies between Christianity and Buddhism. Dr. Schleiden calls attention to over 100. Baron Hiarden-Hickey says: 'Countless analogies exist between Buddhistic and Christian legends--analogies so striking that they forcibly prove to an impartial mind that a common origin must necessarily be given to the teachings of Sakay-Muni (Buddha--Ed.) and those of Jesus. Concerning the biographical accounts of the two religious teachers Harden-Hickey says, 'One account must necessarily be a copy of the other, and since the Buddhist biographer, living long before the birth of Christ, could not have borrowed from the Christian one, the plain inference is that the early creed-mongers of Alexandria were guilty of plagiarism'."[/quote]
Funny that

[quote]I don't see how the two are synonymous? I know of plenty of Christians - faithful Christians - who never touched the Bible. Just because you believe in Christ as the savior doesn't mean you read the holy book in which is supposedly ascribed to be written by him (or by God). In fact, there were thousands upon thousands of Christians who were illiterate and never ready the Bible throughout history, many who died in the Crusades, or suffered through inquisitions and plagues.[/quote]
Granted.

Your claim about illiterate Christians is rather irrelevant to this conversation. This is 2007, and the majority of people where we live are literate.

[quote]This is a typical example of how desperate theists become when confronted with a plain contradiction or outright absurdity. Did you even bother to read the Greek in this passage? The word used in this passage is μισεῖ or miseo, which definitely means HATE (according to the LSJ and Strongs). The other word in the NT used to represent hate is apostygeo, and only appears once. (Romans 12:9) However miseo occurs 39 times, and always means "hate." (Eg., Mark 13:13, John 15:23, etc.) The NT has six Greek words meaning "love.," but miseo is not one of them. The words for "love" do not even remotely resemble miseo. Four of them begin with the letter alpha and two begin with the letter phi, none with the letter mi. So the claim that this means "love less" is phony. Don't make things up because you don't like what the Bible says.[/quote]
I'm not making things up. This definition is perfectly in line with the ancient world and Jewish culture.

"Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "...[T]o us Orientals the only word which can express and cordial inclination of approval is 'love'." The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships."

Did you even read the Genesis verse? If [i]miseo[/i] always means literal hate, then how is it possible that Jacob [b]hated his own wife[/b] and yet still consented to be her husband?

See also: Luke 16:13. Or, for a non-Biblical reference, try Poimandes 4:6: "If you do not [b]hate[/b] your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself".

[quote]No, again the word is hate. Miseo. If somebody does not HATE their family or themselves they are not worthy of him. Your dishonesty continues. According to the LSJ, the authority on Greek, the only definition of this word is hate. There is no other.

Further, Christ says he will set variance between households and divide them. This is irrelevant to the Luke 14:36 verse. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.[/quote]
Uh huh.

[quote]Commonality doesn't negate wrongfulness. It was commonality to hold a black person as a slave in the 19th century - but it was still wrong. It was commonality for a woman to do all of the housekeeping and be subservient to men in the 50's, but it was wrong. It was commonality for a Jew to be marched away to a concentration camp by the Nazi's - I think I've made my point. Just because it was common does not make it acceptable. [/quote]
Funny that you pick and choose what I said and base a whole paragraph of rants about it. Did you not read the second half of the sentence, where I said that it "never has the intent of disrespect or hostility?" and that Josephus writes that Pheroras uses it to summon his beloved wife?

Malina and Rohrbaugh [Social-Science commentary, 299] add that such implication of distance was in fact quite proper in a society where men were expected to break the maternal bonds by a certain age. Jesus' reaction is entirely respectful and appropriate in this context.

[quote]What context? There is only him speaking, and he is interrupted by a follower - NOT his mother. He purposefully goes out of his way to say this to her, and doesn't address his siblings which also were there. If he was bothered - he would have addressed the follower who informed him of the fact that his mother had arrived - instead he unjustly accuses his mother.[/quote]
What? In my Bible, it says, "When the wine was gone, [b]Jesus' mother[/b] said to him, 'They have no more wine.'" Is there something I'm missing here, or are you making stuff up so you can invent a contradiction again?

[quote]The problem is you don't like what the context is, or what is said, so instead you again as before, create a context for yourself which is not biblical - it's dishonest and irrational.[/quote]
Which is hilarious to me, because you didn't read the passage. Thank you for your expert commentary, Mr. "Rational Responder."

EDIT: I'm not sure why it posted already...I'm not done with you yet.

[quote=P-Dunn]Look out, here comes the "Fundy Atheist On The Run!" I bet American Atheist couldn't answer what I said so I he went to you, just like he did with lilangelofterror.[/quote]

Another dishonest ploy? I see you are a fan of JP Holding, which doesn't bode well for your credibility. If you're going to attack me, do so with facts against my arguments - otherwise you're only distracting people from the subject at hand.

[quote][quote=Rook_Hawkins]Except it has already proven your dishonesty. There is no evidence for your God's existence, hence you believe through faith which is defined as believing in something without evidence (ironically). [/quote]
So you're denying that there are any experiences or arguments that can cause people to believe in God? That's an awfully risky road for you to take.

Plus, you can't even get the [url=http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html]definition of "faith"[/url] right, and you supposedly know Greek. I guess you're well aware that word "pistis" was commonly used to connote forensic proof, and as such, true Biblical faith is trust based on prior performance.[/quote]

Okay, let me clue you in on JP Holding, because you're obviously under the impression that he knows something. REAL historians don't trust Holding, and with good reason.

"Holding claims (to the horrified astonishment of all historians of Rome!) that it is "questionable" whether Cicero was Caesar's enemy. Doesn't Holding even think to check these things? Holding often does this: asserts what every historian knows is completely false, makes claims exactly the opposite of what we learn even in the most introductory courses on the subject, and then poor sods like me have to do the legwork to prove him wrong. It is as if he insists the grass on my lawn is not green, so that I actually have to take the absurd step of bringing in witnesses to testify that my grass is in fact green." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"

"Despite all that, Holding has the audacity to claim Cicero showed no sign of approving the assassination. Obviously, Holding just says what he pleases, and doesn't even bother checking the facts. Even besides Cicero's political opposition to Caesar and approval of his assassination, Cicero also called Caesar "wicked" (Phillipics 3.6.14) and regarded many of Caesar's legislative acts to be unconscionable (Phillipics 1.7.16, 1.9.23)." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"

"Holding claims that distrust of oral history is "a thoroughly modern, graphocentric prejudice." In so speaking, Holding is parting company with every professional historian I know or have ever read. It is not a "prejudice" to employ the best methods available for avoiding error and getting at the truth. And historians know that written records are preserved more accurately and honestly than oral tradition." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"

"Then there is Holding's last objection, that Caesar would have dictated his book, which is just silly. Even if that were true (and it often wasn't--many aristocratic writers put their own hand to scroll or wax), Caesar still would have continually checked and corrected the text, and the words written would still be his in both content and style. That is, they would have without doubt originated with him and not someone else. Therefore, there is no analogy here to oral transmission. This is still Caesar's words, as Caesar himself wrote or spoke them. Had Jesus done the same--had someone recorded what he said in writing after he rose from the dead, and Jesus checked and corrected and signed off on it--that would count as an eyewitness report direct from Jesus. It would indeed provide better evidence for the Resurrection than we now have--if we had as much reason to believe the document was authentic as we do for Caesar's [i]Civil War[/i]." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"

"Holding claims it doesn't matter that many major historians record the Rubicon crossing, but not the resurrection of Jesus.[13] This seems rather silly. Clearly we would have better evidence if the resurrection story were discussed in all these same historians--especially if they in turn cited earlier historians whose works otherwise don't survive, and even more if they also cited (as they often do) official or eyewitness documents. So when I claim that we have better evidence for the Rubicon crossing than the resurrection of Jesus, this is plainly true. Holding's attempt to deny this is simply bizarre. Surely if we had such accounts, he would cite this fact in support of the Resurrection. So he can't claim it "makes no difference." " Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"

"Now, Holding claims that for the Gospel authors "there was no dispute over source material," but this is plainly false. All the Gospels disagree.[18] Even Luke, who claims to follow everything precisely, leaves out many things. Luke also recasts what Jesus said or did in a slightly different way than his one known source (Mark) and provides a completely different chronology than John. Obviously, there must have been disagreements. A critical historian would address them and, if possible, resolve them by naming and citing sources. For example, consider current Christian efforts at harmonizing the Gospel accounts. That is exactly what an author like Luke would have done--had he been a critical historian, and not a mere mouthpiece defending an ideology." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"

"Holding incorrectly claims this "amounts to saying that Luke didn't end up with Carrier's own view of the world, so therefore he must have been uncritical from the start." To the contrary, had Luke actually engaged a proper critical method and still found what he reports to be true, then I would not expect him to end up with my worldview. Indeed, had that happened to me, even I would not have ended up with my worldview. The difference is not in where we ended up. The difference lies in whether we used sound methods and thus have a reasonable claim to have discovered the actual truth. We can't prove that Luke did, because he tells us nothing at all about his methods and offers no clear evidence he employed sound ones. See the links provided in Addendum D below." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"

"Holding argues that “Christianity ‘did the wrong thing’ in order to be a successful religion” and that thus “the only way Christianity did succeed is because it was a truly revealed faith -- and because it had the irrefutable witness of the resurrection.” Here he serves notice that we will be asked to "admit" that miracles are the only way to account for the rise and success of Christianity. In any other field of inquiry this would be laughed off stage. I am thinking of a cartoon in which a lab-coated scientist is standing at the chalkboard, which is full of integers, and he is pointing to a hollow circle in the midst of it all, saying, "Right here a miracle takes place." Appealing to miracles as a needful causal link is tantamount to confessing bafflement." Robert M. Price's review of [i]"The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"[/i]

"Citing 1 Corinthians 1:18 (“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”), Holding asks rhetorically, “Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?” He contends that crucifixion was so repulsive and degrading a punishment that no one could have taken a crucified man seriously as a religious founder. On top of that, no one could have envisioned the notion of a god stooping to undergo such treatment.... This is completely futile and does not begin to take into account the religious appetite (in many people) for the grotesque and the sanguine. Just look at the eagerly morbid piety of Roman Catholics and fundamentalist advocates of "the Blood" who wallow in every gruesome detail of the crucifixion, real or imagined. Consider the box office receipts of Mel Gibson’s pious gore-fest The Passion of the Christ. In ancient times, think of the Attis cult which centered upon the suicide of its savior who castrated himself and bled to death. Street corner celebrations of such rites invariably attracted bystanders, even initially hostile ones, swept up in the music and chanting, to castrate themselves and join the sect on the spot!" Robert M. Price's review of [i]"The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"[/i]

"Holding thinks that “Jesus' Jewishness…was also a major impediment to spreading the Gospel beyond the Jews themselves. Judaism was regarded by the Romans and Gentiles as a superstition. Roman writers like Tacitus willingly reported… all manner of calumnies against Jews as a whole, regarding them as a spiteful and hateful race. Bringing a Jewish savior to the door of the average Roman would have been only less successful bringing one to the door of a Nazi.” This is ludicrous. There were Roman anti-Semites aplenty, though this seems to have prevailed mainly during periods of Jewish revolt against Rome. But in fact, Judaism was quite attractive to Gentiles in general, Romans in particular, as witnessed by the number of conversions and the unofficial adherence of Gentile God-fearers (like Cornelius in Acts 10 and the Lukan Centurion who bankrolled the synagogue). It had the appeal of an "Oriental" religion as well as the sterling teaching of Ethical Monotheism to recommend it." Robert M. Price's review of [i]"The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"[/i]

"(Holding claims - Ed), “The Romans… believed that superstitions (such as Judaism and Christianity) undermined the social system established by their religion – and… anyone who followed or adopted one of their foreign superstitions would be looked on not only as a religious rebel, but as a social rebel as well.” No, Judaism was considered a legitimate religion and for that reason Jews were exempt from military service. The Roman attitude seems to have been that an ancient religion was okay, even if silly by the standards of Romans like Juvenal, who felt the same way about the religion of Isis and Osiris, Cybele and Attis, etc. But these, too, were legal and quite popular. It was only new religions, like Christianity or the Bacchanalia (new to Rome), that aroused suspicion. (Holding will acknowledge this fact later, when it seems to prove useful to him.)" Robert M. Price's review of [i]"The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"[/i]

"Holding first argued that Judaism was repulsive to Romans, but now he has to switch hats. He says, correctly, that Romans paid grudging respect to Judaism because it had an ancient pedigree. “Old was good. Innovation was bad.” Thus a new faith like Christianity should have failed. Should we then conclude that no new religions ever started or were accepted on their appearance in the West? You just can't take the opinions of the intellectual caste as definitive for what everyone would have thought. Especially since the very expression of such opinions presupposes a regrettable (to these snobs) prevalence of precisely such "superstitions" as the snobs were condemning. Such faiths famously could and did succeed--even to the extent of becoming the official religion of Rome: Mithraism and even Baalism, for example. Holding argues as if the success of Christianity couldn't happen and so it must have taken a miracle for it to have happened. The scientific approach, taken by Rodney Stark (The Rise of Christianity) and others, is to take as established that it did happen and then explain it, not piously refuse to explain it and claim "It's a miracle!" With that utter abdication of the scientific method, we would still be in the Dark Ages." Robert M. Price's review of [i]"The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"[/i]

These are a mere few of the dozens of articles I could have drawn from to show Holding's inability to be honest, and most importantly, his inability to do any real independant research. Instead he throws around [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks and dodges points, seems to make up arguments out of thin air, and when he doesn't want to do deal with somebody who actually knows what they are talking about - he sends his cronies like Frank Walton after them with nothing but slander and false accusations. That leaves Holding in the clear for Walton and others to take the blunt of everything (which is really unfair to them) and although they should know better - they can get into a lot of trouble in this manner.

And for the record, JP Holding has an open invitation to come on the Rational Response Squad when we get together to record and debate me - however for some reason he never actually acknowledges this challenge to him, and instead insists we haven't put it out there. So much for the honesty of Holding. But back to the point.

Your definition of faith is very slanted and uneducated.

Faith (American Heritage Dictionary)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

Keep digging.

[quote][quote]What peer-reviewed or scientifically-documented case can you present me that shows that personal experiences are grounds to be called "evidence?"[/quote]
Since when is type of evidence a matter that requires scientific documentation?[/quote]

Any type of evidence you think you can present should be backed up by scientific processes. This includes hypothesis - this is how REAL historians become historians - they write a dissertation and submit it for peer review to a panel of scholars who are more knowledgeable then they are - the panel reviews the document and sometimes scraps entire paragraphs as irrelevant or not factual, or when source information doesn't back up the cited statement. People like Holding, for example, will never understand that - if Holding submitted his works for peer review any scholar would laugh him out of their presense.

Any claim that personal experience is evidence involves extraordinary evidence (It would be equivalent to me claiming I had an interstellar space craft - in order for me to prove this I would need to provide evidence enough to convince the entire UN...this is what your claim demands - this is the sort of evidence you would require of me if I made an equally non-objective claim.)

[quote]Though I'm rather hesitant to post this link, you can try[url=http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html]here[/url][/quote]

This isn't peer-reviewed. I find any work claiming such things to be dubious. This paper would not make it through peer-review.

[quote]Most people do consider personal experience to be evidence.[/quote]

But not people who count. People of authority on positions such as psychology and neurology do NOT find personal experience is evidence. If it were, people would be led to believe any sort of fact - people could claim that green Martians exist in their brains because in their experiences they are truthful and honestly think in their deluded world that green Martians exist in their heads - and people like you and I would never be able to tell them they would be wrong because their evidence would be substantiated by experience. But let's face it, green Martians do not exist in peoples heads. If you want to go to the extreme claim that they might - I will have to stop taking you seriously.

[quote] You consider it to be bad evidence.[/quote]

You have me all wrong, friend. I am not an authority on personal experiences, and those contained within the psyche, nor do I claim to be. This is why I asked for peer-reviewed documents or publications in a scientific journal. These are authoritative and I'd yield to such authorities is such works existed. But as far as I'm aware, the works that DO exist are those relating to the inaccuracy of personal experiences, and the deluded nation of many of them. For example, the case in which pray failed a scientific study - this case can be found at the RRS website - it was documented by MSNBC.

I'm not dishonest enough to claim I'm an authority in something I'm not. I just require evidence for claims, as you should expect me to. I would expect you to do the same.

[quote] I honestly don't consider it to be the best evidence either, but I still see it as evidence, because it's something that causes millions of people to believe in a personal deity.[/quote]

What about mass delusions experienced by people people in New Age cults? Or what of the documented cases in the Encyclopedia Brittanica where dozens of people on a life boat all claimed to see a ship on the Horizon based on one person muddying the water, and causing a mass hallucination? These are not uncommon things, these happen every day. And let's not forget, there are millions more who believe (and even hallucinate or have visions of) other Gods and other mythical stories as well, like the insane amount of Muslims who claimed to have been visited by God to commit acts of terror? And even on a smaller level, The Son of Sam killings, the man claiming to have received orders to kill from a dog acting out the will of God?

[quote]And even if we establish that personal experience is [i]not[/i] evidence, then what about arguments for God, as I've mentioned? What about the beginning of the universe as pointing to a creator, the fine-tuning of the universe, morality, and any and all evidence backing the Biblical accounts?[/quote]

To counter: There is also other variable options that are just as plausible as your creation theory and some that are MORE plausible then your theory. Like for example, people who believe that we were created by an alien race and colonized, or people who think we are of the earth's life energy? What of the Greeks who felt that people grew from Ants? (The Mermondons) How is that less probably then claiming that Adam's wife Eve came from his rib? And that God had to rest on the seventh day?

Further, what about all the evidence that contradicts the Bible accounts? What about all the immorality in the Bible? You can't overlook the bad and cherry-pick the good and think you have a case.

[quote] I see that you fancy yourself to be an expert of the Bible...I suppose we'll see.[/quote]

I don't fancy anything about myself. My title is not self-proclaimed. I earned this title, and it was given to be by several historians like McKinsey and Carrier.

[quote][quote]So was Mary. Unless you are going to suggest she never married or had any other children aside from Christ?[/quote]
That was a really stupid comment on your part. Mary wasn't married when she became pregnant with Jesus. She became pregnant when she was pledged to be Joseph's husband, and that's why Joseph wanted to cut off the engagement; He thought she'd done something against the law. Have you not read the story?[/quote]

That wasn't your comment. You stated that Buddha's mother was married. So I countered. You have no evidence that the Virgin Birth happened, and that story is highly criticized by that of Celsus - in the list I gave you that you conveniently ignored. He wasn't the only accuser. There was also Trypho and Porphyry and many others who argued that this myth was fancied by Christians later.

[quote][quote]Sure, how about this? Concerning Buddha, Remsburg (The Christ) had the following to say:[/quote]
Ah yes...Remsburg...[/quote]

You asked.

[quote][quote]On page 370 he states, "The word Buddha, like the word Christ, is not a name, but a title. It means 'the enlightened one'. The name for this religious founder was Siddhartha Gautama. He was born about 643 B.C, and died 563 B.C. (Note well that that is long before the birth of Jesus--Ed.). His mother, Mahamaya, was a virgin. Dean Milman, in his History of Christianity, says, 'Buddha, according to a tradition known in the West, was born of a virgin' (Vol. I, p. 99). Devaki (the mother of Krishna), Mary, and Mahamaya, all gave birth to their children among strangers.... The 'Tripitaka', the principal Bible of the Buddhists, containing the history of the teachings of Buddha, is a collection of books written in the centuries immediately following Buddha. The canon was finally determined at the Council of Pataliputra, held under the auspices of the Emperor Asoka the Great, 244 B.C., more than 600 years before the Christian canon was established....[/quote]
Except, as mentioned before, the early stories of Buddha had none of this in them. These stories of virgin births didn't surface until after Jesus. Glenn Miller notes:

"The oldest accounts of Buddha's ancestry appear to presuppose nothing abnormal about his birth, and merely speak of his being well born both on his mother's end and father's side for seven generations back. According to the later legend he is born not as other human beings, but in the same was as a universal king he descends from the Tusita heaven by his own choice, and with this his father is not concerned. This is not properly a virgin birth, but it may be called parthogenetic, that is, Suddhodana was not his progenitor."

In case I'm wrong, though, can you provide a direct quote of a pre-Christ manuscript that says that Buddha was born of a virgin?[/quote]

I'm fairly certain scholars are in general concensus that the virgin birth account in Buddhism was well established before Christ. But I'll look into it for you and get you information on this.

[quote][quote]Buddha was 'about 30 years old' when he began his ministry (as was Jesus allegedly--Ed.). He fasted 'seven times seven nights and days'. He had a 'band of disciples' who accompanied him. He traveled from place to place and 'preached to large multitudes'.[/quote]
All of these things are to be expected from any religious leader. Your point is what?[/quote]

That there is nothing special or original about your mythology. What do you think the point of Comparative Religion is? This is why they teach this course at college. Obviously it holds weight.

[quote][quote]Bishop Bigandet calls his first sermon the 'Sermon on the Mount'.[/quote]
Good for [b]19th century[/b] figure Bishop Bigandet...*sigh*[/quote]

Look at you scoffing at me using a later source - how hypocritical.

[quote][quote]At his Renunciation 'he forsook father and mother, wife and child'.[/quote]
I'm not really sure what your point is here, or how it proves influence.[/quote]

This mimics that of Luke 14:36.

[quote][quote]His mission was 'to establish the kingdom of righteousness'.[/quote]
Can you be less vague, please? Where is this said, exactly?[/quote]

This is a basic Buddhist teaching. Please review www.buddhanet.net

[quote][quote]'Buddha', says Max Mueller, 'promised salvation to all; and he commanded his disciples to preach his doctrine in all places and to all men'....[/quote]
You really enjoy using sources from centuries ago, don't you? I'm waiting for the quotes from Thomas Paine...[/quote]

The irony.

[quote]I'll wait for direct quotes from Buddha from you. If that's really true, then Buddha must have said that at some point. Also, provide the date at which it was written.[/quote]

Oh, so you're trying to be cute? This is quite humorous coming from a guy who's only source for the existence of [i]his[/i] myth comes from sources which are unnamed, unverified, tampered with and written generations are the fact. But apparently the only time contemporary or autobiographical works are important is when they suit you, right? I mean, not having the same sort of evidence you ask of me for YOUR God is okay, right? Double-standard much?

[quote][quote]Buddha formulated the following commandments. 'Not to kill; not to steal; not to lie; not to commit adultery; not to use strong drink'. Christ said, 'Thou knowest the commandments: do not commit adultery; do not kill; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor thy father and thy mother' (Luke 18:20). Christ ignored the Decalogue of Moses and, like Buddha, presented a pentade which, with the exception of one commandment, is the same as that of Buddha.[/quote]
Which also doesn't come as any sort of surprise. If a moral system works, people use it all over the place. That's simply the way it is.[/quote]

I agree. So you admit that Buddhists had this idea in 266 BCE when they codified their canon?

[quote]But this is odd for you to be using. The Ten Commandments were written long before Buddha ever came on the scene. So it would have him that was doing the "copying," not Jesus.[/quote]

Actually these laws existed in some form before the book of Exodus was written and on tablets of stone dating back to the Sumerians which existed all the way back in 3,000 BCE.

Check this out and see the similarities between the Summarian Code of Hammurabi and the OT laws attributed to Moses - note how I try to use authoritative sources and references to back up my claims:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM (Washington State University)

[quote][quote]Prof. Seydel, of the University of Leipzig, points out 50 analogies between Christianity and Buddhism. Dr. Schleiden calls attention to over 100. Baron Hiarden-Hickey says: 'Countless analogies exist between Buddhistic and Christian legends--analogies so striking that they forcibly prove to an impartial mind that a common origin must necessarily be given to the teachings of Sakay-Muni (Buddha--Ed.) and those of Jesus. Concerning the biographical accounts of the two religious teachers Harden-Hickey says, 'One account must necessarily be a copy of the other, and since the Buddhist biographer, living long before the birth of Christ, could not have borrowed from the Christian one, the plain inference is that the early creed-mongers of Alexandria were guilty of plagiarism'."[/quote]
Funny that[/quote]

Indeed. And not that this wasn't uncommon. In fact swapping out God mythologies and rearranging them and sometimes altering certain attributes and events was a common practice back in the time of First Century Palestine - even your pal Holding admits this. Although he isn't a valuable source, so I'll list a few for you:

The Cults of the Roman Empire, Prof. Turcan
The Ancient Mysteries, Prof. Marvin Meyer
Ancient Mysteries, Peter James and Prof. Nick Thorpe (Archaeologist)
Classical Myth and Religion, Oxford University Press
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Prof. and Fellow Robert M. Price

[quote][quote]I don't see how the two are synonymous? I know of plenty of Christians - faithful Christians - who never touched the Bible. Just because you believe in Christ as the savior doesn't mean you read the holy book in which is supposedly ascribed to be written by him (or by God). In fact, there were thousands upon thousands of Christians who were illiterate and never ready the Bible throughout history, many who died in the Crusades, or suffered through inquisitions and plagues.[/quote]
Granted.[/quote]

Good.

[quote][quote]This is a typical example of how desperate theists become when confronted with a plain contradiction or outright absurdity. Did you even bother to read the Greek in this passage? The word used in this passage is μισεῖ or miseo, which definitely means HATE (according to the LSJ and Strongs). The other word in the NT used to represent hate is apostygeo, and only appears once. (Romans 12:9) However miseo occurs 39 times, and always means "hate." (Eg., Mark 13:13, John 15:23, etc.) The NT has six Greek words meaning "love.," but miseo is not one of them. The words for "love" do not even remotely resemble miseo. Four of them begin with the letter alpha and two begin with the letter phi, none with the letter mi. So the claim that this means "love less" is phony. Don't make things up because you don't like what the Bible says.[/quote]
I'm not making things up. This definition is perfectly in line with the ancient world and Jewish culture.[/quote]

No, it's not. The LSJ is a compendium of Greek words, each word has a list of several uses of the word in a variety of authors of all ages. This word, [i]miseo[/i], ONLY means hate, every time it's used. Stop pretending you know something - this is an area I have you beat in. Just admit it and be honest.

[quote]"Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "...[T]o us Orientals the only word which can express and cordial inclination of approval is 'love'." The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships."[/quote]

LIST SOURCES! Every time you make a comment like this without providing a source I'm going to treat it as suspect and not take it seriously. If you are afraid of posting your sources because you know they are suspect, yet you post information from then anyway, I'm going to start taking YOU less seriously. And trust me, if I start taking you less seriously - don't even think you have a chance of being taken seriously by people who have more authority then I do.

[quote]Did you even read the Genesis verse? If [i]miseo[/i] always means literal hate, then how is it possible that Jacob [b]hated his own wife[/b] and yet still consented to be her husband?[/quote]

That's a pickle isn't it? Thanks for pointing out the contradiction, saved me from doing it. Sucks to have those in your perfect book from God, eh?

[quote]See also: Luke 16:13. Or, for a non-Biblical reference, try Poimandes 4:6: "If you do not [b]hate[/b] your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself".[/quote]

You just continue to take right from Holding's website don't you? I can tell because Holding also spells Poemandres wrong. Also, you'll note that Holding is quoting another source for this quote, Fitzmeyer's Lukan commentary. The problem is, Fitzmeyer is the only one who seems to know of this passage, nobody else on the entire classical civilization knows of anybody called "Poimandes."

Also, I know of no Greek pros written by anybody named Poimandes, so this is quite absurd to use, mainly because such a document can not be looked at by critical historians - it does not exist.

Now Poemandres on the other hand was a hermetic writer, but his works do NOT number like the method Holding claims, and nowhere in Poemandres does such a line exist. The only line that can even be of some semblance to Holdings ridiculous claim is, "But All-Father Mind, being Life and Light, did bring forth Man co-equal to Himself, with whom He fell in love, as being His own child; for he was beautiful beyond compare, the Image of his Sire. In very truth, God fell in love with his own Form; and on him did bestow all of His own formations." from line 12. There are no chapters in Poemandres, as it's a mere few lines. This is another case of JP Holding creating arguments from thin air.

It's a shame you don't do any of your own research.

[quote][quote]No, again the word is hate. Miseo. If somebody does not HATE their family or themselves they are not worthy of him. Your dishonesty continues. According to the LSJ, the authority on Greek, the only definition of this word is hate. There is no other.

Further, Christ says he will set variance between households and divide them. This is irrelevant to the Luke 14:36 verse. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.[/quote]
Uh huh.[/quote]

I figured you wouldn't have anything intelligent to say concerning this issue.

[quote][quote]Commonality doesn't negate wrongfulness. It was commonality to hold a black person as a slave in the 19th century - but it was still wrong. It was commonality for a woman to do all of the housekeeping and be subservient to men in the 50's, but it was wrong. It was commonality for a Jew to be marched away to a concentration camp by the Nazi's - I think I've made my point. Just because it was common does not make it acceptable. [/quote]
Funny that you pick and choose what I said and base a whole paragraph of rants about it.[/quote]

I didn't pick and choose anything. I respond to your points when they are erroneous. Funny how you completely dodge my points and don't even respond to half of them.

[quote] Did you not read the second half of the sentence, where I said that it "never has the intent of disrespect or hostility?" and that Josephus writes that Pheroras uses it to summon his beloved wife?[/quote]

Book, volume chapter and paragraph number please.

[quote][quote]What context? There is only him speaking, and he is interrupted by a follower - NOT his mother. He purposefully goes out of his way to say this to her, and doesn't address his siblings which also were there. If he was bothered - he would have addressed the follower who informed him of the fact that his mother had arrived - instead he unjustly accuses his mother.[/quote]
What? In my Bible, it says, "When the wine was gone, [b]Jesus' mother[/b] said to him, 'They have no more wine.'" Is there something I'm missing here, or are you making stuff up so you can invent a contradiction again?[/quote]

Actually, this is my fault - you are correct, I was thinking of ANOTHER time when Jesus didn't honor his family or mother, sorry. I get them confused sometimes. I was thinking when his mother and brothers approached him from the multitude and Jesus dismissed them saying, basically that the people he cared about were only those who heard the word. You know, Luke 8:19-21?

However, I should let you know that the translation from my NAB version states in John 2:4, "Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me?" The NASB (considered the most authentic translations by McDowell and Stuart) states, "And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us?" That is not kind. I would have to compare the Greek to that in Josephus once you can cite me the reference to see if it matches up with the Greek in John.

[quote][quote]The problem is you don't like what the context is, or what is said, so instead you again as before, create a context for yourself which is not biblical - it's dishonest and irrational.[/quote]
Which is hilarious to me, because you didn't read the passage. Thank you for your expert commentary, Mr. "Rational Responder."[/quote]

Let's not get into a who-screwed-up-more debate, you won't win.

[quote]EDIT: I'm not sure why it posted already...I'm not done with you yet.[/quote]

Child you haven't even stretched a thread from my sweater. The more you act like you know something the more I'll swat you down - you take from Holding and don't cite sources, you're almost as bad as he is. You can still pull out of that trench and be honest, and not be a child. You may still have worth in this discussion. That depends on you.

Feel free to check the list of authoritative sources above. In fact you can include a few more:

The Oxford Classical Dictionary
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
The Cambridge Dictionary of Classical Civilizations

[quote]Anyhow, how are these 'surface' traits? They aren't things like color of hair or eyes, race, heritage, Hair style, Gun as Arm, etc. They are things that have to do with Biblical accounts. [/quote]

Its exactly the same kind of simalarities. Even if another god was virgin born(according to the BIblical description) it doesnt prove anything.

Now if there was another god whos mother was a virgin pledged to be married, was told by an angel(or other divine messanger) that she would be pregnant, her husband found out and tried to divroce her until he was also visited by a divine messanger. Then they both visited another town where the god was born and visited by shepards(or some other equilvent group) and magi. Then you might have a case.

However simply noting that another religion had a 'virgin birth' isnt proof of borrowing(either way). In fact it isnt really proof of anything at all.

[quote]Yes, it does. It proves that virgins arent as safe as they claim to be![/quote]

Lol good point.

[quote]I personally think that the whole virgin story is a cover, I mean... We have no evidance other than mary's and joseph's [/quote]

I can live with that. The virgin birth is one that's impossible to prove for absolute fact.

I'm more concerned with the borrowing issue here.

I'm going to hop into this whole debate for a very brief second simply to clarify some things, since it has entered into what I consider a specialty of mine.

I have a brief correction for Rook, Miseo is the Latin, Miso is the Greek(but Miseo is derived from the Greek). You might have said that, and I misinterpretted.

However, Miseo is the premier word for hate in Latin. It is used in Vergil to describe Juno's feelings for Rome(which, in case you're not familiar with, they're not good until the very end). It is the same word from which we derive Misanthrope. Miso comes up in a Greek story. A man shouts to the heavens 'Why do you hate me?'. The employed word is Miso. This isused after his dog disobeys him, a wolf attacks his farm, and he drops a giant boulder on his foot(for context)

Katheudo is used for sleep in the same story, as the boy is tired, and goes to sleep in a tree. This later happens when the dog is tired from fleeing the wolf, and also when the wife goes to bed after cooking and sweeping the hearth.

Finally, hyperbole does qualify as a lie...

The word for create is also used to describe, as Rook Hawkins says, new inventions. For example, Daedalus and Icarus features Daedalus 'creating' wings. The word for make is, in Latin, facio, and in Greek, it is (I have no Greek typing set up on my new computer, so i'll not be able to use the cyrillic alphabet) FaQia. That means to make, but it implies two things, one, repetition of something done before, and two, an idea of changing one thing into another, but not fabricating something entirely anew.

"Did you even read the Genesis verse? If miseo always means literal hate, then how is it possible that Jacob hated his own wife and yet still consented to be her husband?"

(You obviously have never read the Catullus poem, 'I love and I hate') The word in this case is 'odi', and odi is a slightly weaker form of hate, as in You dislike, as opposed to miso, which implies almost contempt. There is a word for prefer(also meaning love in some cases). Colo or Foveo. There is a negative for Colo, Miscolo, meaning to prefer less. or to Love less in respect. This is used in the story of a man with three daughters.

He speaks of how he cherishes his daughters equally, preferring none less. The words used for prefer less is miscolo, and later in the story, mallui(prefer). However, while there are words for love less by respect, why use the word for hate?

EDIT: My bad, I've been informed that the Latin word they use is indeed Odi, not miseo. Oops. And in Greek, it also is miseo, and that is the word they use. Also, miscolo is simply another way of writing mallui. Aside from that, I stand by the above.

[b]Sorry for the wait, Rook. This past week was exam week for me, and I also had a college music audition to prepare for (and two more coming up soon) so my reply had to be delayed. I’m sure you understand at least the first part of that. ;-)

Since it posted somehow without me being done with much of it, I'll just repost the entire thing. Rook, I haven't changed anything that was originally into the post, but I have added on to many things I was trying to say.[/b]

==========

Look out, here comes the "Fundy Atheist On The Run!" I bet American Atheist couldn't answer what I said so I he went to you, just like he did with lilangelofterror.

[quote=Rook_Hawkins]Except it has already proven your dishonesty. There is no evidence for your God's existence, hence you believe through faith which is defined as believing in something without evidence (ironically). [/quote]
So you're denying that there are any experiences or arguments that can cause people to believe in God? That's an awfully risky road for you to take.

Plus, you can't even get the [url=http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html]definition of "faith"[/url] right, and you supposedly know Greek. I guess you're well aware that word "pistis" was commonly used to connote forensic proof, and as such, true Biblical faith is trust based on prior performance.

[quote]What peer-reviewed or scientifically-documented case can you present me that shows that personal experiences are grounds to be called "evidence?"[/quote]
Since when is type of evidence a matter that requires scientific documentation?

Though I'm rather hesitant to post this link, you can try[url=http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html]here[/url]

Most people do consider personal experience to be evidence. You consider it to be bad evidence. I honestly don't consider it to be the best evidence either, but I still see it as evidence, because it's something that causes millions of people to believe in a personal deity.

And even if we establish that personal experience is [i]not[/i] evidence, then what about arguments for God, as I've mentioned? What about the beginning of the universe as pointing to a creator, the fine-tuning of the universe, morality, and any and all evidence backing the Biblical accounts? I see that you fancy yourself to be an expert of the Bible...I suppose we'll see.

[quote]So was Mary. Unless you are going to suggest she never married or had any other children aside from Christ?[/quote]
That was a really stupid comment on your part. Mary wasn't married when she became pregnant with Jesus. She became pregnant when she was pledged to be Joseph's husband, and that's why Joseph wanted to cut off the engagement; He thought she'd done something against the law. Have you not read the story?

[quote]Sure, how about this? Concerning Buddha, Remsburg (The Christ) had the following to say:[/quote]
Ah yes...Remsburg...

[quote]On page 370 he states, "The word Buddha, like the word Christ, is not a name, but a title. It means 'the enlightened one'. The name for this religious founder was Siddhartha Gautama. He was born about 643 B.C, and died 563 B.C. (Note well that that is long before the birth of Jesus--Ed.). His mother, Mahamaya, was a virgin. Dean Milman, in his History of Christianity, says, 'Buddha, according to a tradition known in the West, was born of a virgin' (Vol. I, p. 99). Devaki (the mother of Krishna), Mary, and Mahamaya, all gave birth to their children among strangers.... The 'Tripitaka', the principal Bible of the Buddhists, containing the history of the teachings of Buddha, is a collection of books written in the centuries immediately following Buddha. The canon was finally determined at the Council of Pataliputra, held under the auspices of the Emperor Asoka the Great, 244 B.C., more than 600 years before the Christian canon was established....[/quote]
Except, as mentioned before, the early stories of Buddha had none of this in them. These stories of virgin births didn't surface until after Jesus. Glenn Miller notes:

"The oldest accounts of Buddha's ancestry appear to presuppose nothing abnormal about his birth, and merely speak of his being well born both on his mother's end and father's side for seven generations back. According to the later legend he is born not as other human beings, but in the same was as a universal king he descends from the Tusita heaven by his own choice, and with this his father is not concerned. This is not properly a virgin birth, but it may be called parthogenetic, that is, Suddhodana was not his progenitor."

In case I'm wrong, though, can you provide a direct quote of a pre-Christ manuscript that says that Buddha was born of a virgin?

[quote]Buddha was 'about 30 years old' when he began his ministry (as was Jesus allegedly--Ed.). He fasted 'seven times seven nights and days'. He had a 'band of disciples' who accompanied him. He traveled from place to place and 'preached to large multitudes'.[/quote]
All of these things are to be expected from any religious leader. Your point is what?

[quote]Bishop Bigandet calls his first sermon the 'Sermon on the Mount'.[/quote]
Good for [b]19th century[/b] figure Bishop Bigandet...*sigh*

[quote]At his Renunciation 'he forsook father and mother, wife and child'.[/quote]
I'm not really sure what your point is here, or how it proves influence.

[quote]His mission was 'to establish the kingdom of righteousness'.[/quote]
Can you be less vague, please? Where is this said, exactly?

[quote]'Buddha', says Max Mueller, 'promised salvation to all; and he commanded his disciples to preach his doctrine in all places and to all men'....[/quote]
You really enjoy using sources from centuries ago, don't you? I'm waiting for the quotes from Thomas Paine...

I'll wait for direct quotes from Buddha from you. If that's really true, then Buddha must have said that at some point. Also, provide the date at which it was written.

[quote]Buddha formulated the following commandments. 'Not to kill; not to steal; not to lie; not to commit adultery; not to use strong drink'. Christ said, 'Thou knowest the commandments: do not commit adultery; do not kill; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor thy father and thy mother' (Luke 18:20). Christ ignored the Decalogue of Moses and, like Buddha, presented a pentade which, with the exception of one commandment, is the same as that of Buddha.[/quote]
Which also doesn't come as any sort of surprise. If a moral system works, people use it all over the place. That's simply the way it is.

But this is odd for you to be using. The Ten Commandments were written long before Buddha ever came on the scene. So it would have him that was doing the "copying," not Jesus.

[quote]Prof. Seydel, of the University of Leipzig, points out 50 analogies between Christianity and Buddhism. Dr. Schleiden calls attention to over 100. Baron Hiarden-Hickey says: 'Countless analogies exist between Buddhistic and Christian legends--analogies so striking that they forcibly prove to an impartial mind that a common origin must necessarily be given to the teachings of Sakay-Muni (Buddha--Ed.) and those of Jesus. Concerning the biographical accounts of the two religious teachers Harden-Hickey says, 'One account must necessarily be a copy of the other, and since the Buddhist biographer, living long before the birth of Christ, could not have borrowed from the Christian one, the plain inference is that the early creed-mongers of Alexandria were guilty of plagiarism'."[/quote]
Funny that, if there is so much similarity between Buddha and Jesus, scholars almost unanimously disagree with the Christ-myth. Since you're playing the quote game:

Professor Chun-Fang Yu, the Chair of the Department of Religion at Rutgers and a specialist in Buddhist studies. Mike Licona listed 18 similarities recorded by Acharya S. about Buddha and Jesus, and Yu replied: "None of the 18 [are] correct. A few, however, have some semblance of correctness but are badly distorted." Only eight passed the latter test. Licona concludes:

[i]Dr. Yu ended by writing, "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism. It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. You should not honor [Ms. Murdock -- Acharya's actual name] by engaging in a discussion. Please ask [her] to take a basic course in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she does not know."[/i]

So, unless you can provide me with primary Buddhist sources for your information, then I won't buy it. Don't give me Acharya, or Kersey Graves, or any other nonsense of that sort. Give me quotes from Buddhist literature.

[quote]I don't see how the two are synonymous? I know of plenty of Christians - faithful Christians - who never touched the Bible. Just because you believe in Christ as the savior doesn't mean you read the holy book in which is supposedly ascribed to be written by him (or by God). In fact, there were thousands upon thousands of Christians who were illiterate and never ready the Bible throughout history, many who died in the Crusades, or suffered through inquisitions and plagues.[/quote]
Granted.

Your claim about illiterate Christians is rather irrelevant to this conversation. This is 2007, and the majority of people where we live are literate.

[quote]This is a typical example of how desperate theists become when confronted with a plain contradiction or outright absurdity. Did you even bother to read the Greek in this passage? The word used in this passage is μισεῖ or miseo, which definitely means HATE (according to the LSJ and Strongs). The other word in the NT used to represent hate is apostygeo, and only appears once. (Romans 12:9) However miseo occurs 39 times, and always means "hate." (Eg., Mark 13:13, John 15:23, etc.) The NT has six Greek words meaning "love.," but miseo is not one of them. The words for "love" do not even remotely resemble miseo. Four of them begin with the letter alpha and two begin with the letter phi, none with the letter mi. So the claim that this means "love less" is phony. Don't make things up because you don't like what the Bible says.[/quote]
I'm not making things up. This definition is perfectly in line with the ancient world and Jewish culture.

"Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "...[T]o us Orientals the only word which can express and cordial inclination of approval is 'love'." The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships."

Did you even read the Genesis verse? If [i]miseo[/i] always means literal hate, then how is it possible that Jacob [b]hated his own wife[/b] and yet still consented to be her husband?

See also: Luke 16:13. Or, for a non-Biblical reference, try Poimandes 4:6: "If you do not [b]hate[/b] your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself".

[quote]No, again the word is hate. Miseo. If somebody does not HATE their family or themselves they are not worthy of him. Your dishonesty continues. According to the LSJ, the authority on Greek, the only definition of this word is hate. There is no other.[/quote]
Uh huh…And here is where your fundy atheism comes out. What you're doing here is merely being woodenly literal. You're denying that someone could use hyperbole because you're that desperate to put a spot on Jesus' character.

Think about this in the context of the rest of Jesus’ ministry. Does it really make any sense at all for Jesus to say that everyone should literally hate their family? Is this supported by any of his other actions?

[quote]Further, Christ says he will set variance between households and divide them. This is irrelevant to the Luke 14:36 verse. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.[/quote]
I don't really understand what's the problem with this verse. Could you explain it to me, perhaps?

[quote]Commonality doesn't negate wrongfulness. It was commonality to hold a black person as a slave in the 19th century - but it was still wrong. It was commonality for a woman to do all of the housekeeping and be subservient to men in the 50's, but it was wrong. It was commonality for a Jew to be marched away to a concentration camp by the Nazi's - I think I've made my point. Just because it was common does not make it acceptable. [/quote]
Funny that you pick and choose what I said and base a whole paragraph of rants about it. Did you not read the second half of the sentence, where I said that it "never has the intent of disrespect or hostility?" and that Josephus writes that Pheroras uses it to summon his beloved wife?

Malina and Rohrbaugh [Social-Science commentary, 299] add that such implication of distance was in fact quite proper in a society where men were expected to break the maternal bonds by a certain age. Jesus' reaction is entirely respectful and appropriate in this context.

[quote]What context? There is only him speaking, and he is interrupted by a follower - NOT his mother. He purposefully goes out of his way to say this to her, and doesn't address his siblings which also were there. If he was bothered - he would have addressed the follower who informed him of the fact that his mother had arrived - instead he unjustly accuses his mother.[/quote]
What? In my Bible, it says, "When the wine was gone, [b]Jesus' mother[/b] said to him, 'They have no more wine.'" Is there something I'm missing here, or are you making stuff up so you can invent a contradiction again?

[quote]The problem is you don't like what the context is, or what is said, so instead you again as before, create a context for yourself which is not biblical - it's dishonest and irrational.[/quote]
Which is hilarious to me, because you didn't read the passage. Thank you for your expert commentary, Mr. "Rational Responder." If you’re going to sit here and call me “dishonest” while not even double-checking your own work, then your credibility is now questionable.

[quote]No, post it here. I don't take well to naked assertions.[/quote]
Briefly:

1) These verses are an obvious example of what's called [i]dramatic orientation[/i], something you seem to not be able to grasp. Abraham Rihbany writes in his book, The Syrian Christ:

[i]A case may be overstated or understated, not necessarily for the purpose of deceiving, but to impress the hearer with the significance or insignificance of it. If a sleeper who has been expected to rise at sunrise should oversleep and need to be awakened, say half an hour or an hour later than the appointed time, he is then aroused with the call, 'Arise, it is noon already...' Of a strong and brave man it is said, 'He can split the earth.' The Syrians suffer from no misunderstanding in such cases. They discern each other's meaning.[/i]

2) No one who's been a Christian for more than five minutes interprets verses like Mark 11:24 to mean that you'll get whatever you ask for in prayer immediately, as Marshall Brain portrays it to say. [b]No one.[/b] In fact, I challenge you to find even one Christian who really believes that prayer works in the way. If you can’t (and you won’t) then it is therefore a strawman of mainstream Christianity to portray the verses like that, as if people interpret that way.

3) If the authors believed that they were literal promises, they wouldn't be in the Bible. Think about it; the moment one of them had a prayer that was answered negatively, they would have labeled Jesus as a liar and probably wouldn't have written it down.

4) There is a standard set on what you should ask for: It's called the Lord's Prayer. "Give us this day our daily bread." Bread was a staple of the early Palestinian diet. It instructs us to pray for our daily needs, not something like “Give us this day our Porche.”

For more, click the link my signature.

[quote]That is an irrelevant and non-biblical assertion. Back it up or stop making naked claims.[/quote]
So, in other words, if it’s not explicitly laid out in the Bible for you, it must not be an accurate statement? You’re such a fundy.

It's completely relevant. Jesus having a disassociation with human concerns and acting on his own prerogative is a message that’s repeated many times in the Gospels. This is one of the examples. It also mirrors the temptation stories like John 7:3.

[quote]Jesus still lied. You can make excuses up all you want to explain the reason for the lie, but that doesn't change the fact that he did lie.[/quote]
Hypothetical scenario: You and Sapient are going out to get a burger...Hot date, right? You say, "Hey, let's go to McDonald's." He says, "You go on without me. It’s not time for me to go yet." So you go. He shows up half an hour later.

Does that make Sapient a [b]liar[/b]? If not, why? What is the difference in these stories?

[quote]There are many Greek words for "sleep" that would have been better used had Jesus used the word "sleep" metaphorically. [/quote]
So in other words, because it doesn't spell it out for you in a simple, easily understood way means that the idea is therefore wrong? Stop being so woodenly literal.

[quote]Again your failure to ascertain certain simple things is astounding.[/quote]
Please, hold the drama.

[quote]Shall we go to the Greek? The word used her for sleep is καθεύδω, or katheudo, which can ONLY mean sleep. (LSJ), if Jesus wanted to mean "sleep" as in a metaphorical sense, the Greek would have been much different, for example it would have mimiced the Greek in the LXX (or Septuagint) of Psalm 88, "καθεύδοντες ἐν τάφῳ" or "sleep of death" (note how the word "death" is τάφῳ - and how katheudo is used in context with tapho). However he does not. Jesus still lied, and the words still mean what they mean, regardless of how you want to spin it to satisfy your comfort level. Dishonesty is by no means acceptable in a debate - so stop being so.[/quote]
I'm sick of your claim that I'm being dishonest. When someone is being dishonest, they are telling something they know isn't true. That is by no means what I am doing, so stop accusing me of it.

Katheudo is used 22 times in the NT. Here are some examples.

“For this reason it says, "Awake, [b]sleeper[/b], And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you." Eph. 5:14 (NAS).

The word for sleep here is katheudo. In this context, does that mean sleep, or death? How about this?

“For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or [b]asleep[/b], we will live together with Him.” 1 Thess 5:9-10.

Does that mean sleep, or death?

Face it, Rook. Katheudo has other definitions other than "sleep." The first was an example of it being used as a euphemism for death. The second was an example of it being used to connote being indifferent to one's sins. According to StudyLight.org, which has a Greek Lexicon, the definitions for this word are:

1. “to fall asleep, drop off to sleep
2. to sleep
a. to sleep normally
b. [b]euphemistically, to be dead[/b]
c. metaph.
1. to yield to sloth and sin
2. to be indifferent to one's salvation

So now, with this in mind, how do we view the "sleeping" girl? From [url=http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nosleep.html]here[/url]:

"Sleep" was a euphemism for death in the ancient world (Keener, Matthew commentary, 305), and Jesus here now draws what (as the crowd's response shows) was a peculiar distinction. Why? It is in order to announce that "in Jesus' presence it is sleep rather than a terminus of life, for the girl will come back from it after the miracle" (Witherington, Mark commentary, 190). This is also the significance of Jesus telling the people to "give place" (i.e., "Get out of my way!"). In effect he was announcing that he would be able to fix the situation.

In effect, you're also simply begging the question in saying that Jesus "would have used" a certain word to describe it. Keep in mind that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, not Greek, so he wouldn't have used that particular word anyway.

[quote]This is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus still lied. Stop trying to dodge the subject.[/quote]
Let me clarify. Let's say that when he said she was sleeping, she really was, and Jesus and there was no miracle here. Well, here's a place where he never claimed someone was sleeping, and rose someone from the grave who had been there a while. You can't pull that trick there.

[quote]Really? What Bible are you reading? Because according to my Bible, God ordered the death of a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath! (Num. 15:32-35) It was definitely a law. [/quote]
You need to understand the nature of the law. The law states that anyone working on the Sabbath must be put to death. There is, however, no clarification about what constitutes "work." It doesn't say, "Anyone caught picking up firewood on the Sabbath must be put to death." Whether the action in question is "work" is all up to the interpretation of the people in authority.

[quote]Are you suggesting that these were strays? You will have to show me in the text where it suggests that because it is not there. In fact he is ridiculed by the Pharisee's (On a side note, I'm sort of wondering why the Pharisee's are so conveniently there all the time - seems more like a literary ploy to show their foolishness and not real events).[/quote]
This is another example of how you seem to require everything to be explicitly written out for you, or else it's false. Since Jesus and his disciples were very poor, it seems likely that if they were picking corn, it was probably on the edge of the field. The Pharisees weren't criticizing him for not picking the edges of the corn, so your comment about that is irrelevant.

Regarding the second part, that's a lot of childish speculation from you. The Pharisees were looking for a reason to kill him, since they hated his teaching. Why [i]wouldn't[/i] they get people to follow him around and accuse him of wrongdoing at the slightest of reasons?

[quote]And he still is doing physical activities (plucking corn) on the Sabbath which is still against the law. Ironically enough, what the Pharisee's say also contradicts what you said above and putting you in a pickle, when the Pharisee's state "Why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" (Mark 2:24)[/quote]
Again, for them it's all up to the interpretation of the law.

[quote]First, you are seriously begging the question here. But again, making up excuses for WHY Jesus encourages his disciples to steal does not make it JUST. Nor does it wipe away the fact that he encourages stealing. Stop dodging the point.[/quote]
Again, if Jesus is God, it's impossible for him to "steal" anything, since everything is already his. How is this an invalid point, if in fact Jesus is God?

[quote]Irrelevant speculation. The colt and ass was not Jesus' to take. And certainly not his disciples to take. In fact, there is no dialog at all with the owners, and in fact it seems rather sneaky - that Jesus has to send his disciples into another town to loose these animals - where does Jesus say, "Go ye into the next town and ask the owners of the ass and colt if you may bring them to me." He never does, and that is never implied. You are once again making up excuses and adding to the text. Common apologetic ploy.[/quote]
And this is another example of you getting you forgetting what actually happened in the story. Read the Luke parallel at 19:33-34 before you accuse me of making up excuses.

"33As they were untying the colt, its [b]owners asked them,[/b] "Why are you untying the colt?"

34They replied, "The Lord needs it."

And there is no objection from them. Thanks again, Dr. Bible Scholar, for your input. Knowing you, though, I’m sure you’ll accuse Luke of inventing this so you can cover your own butt.

[quote]God is Jesus.[/quote]
Indeed. However, I asked AA specifically what he was talking about when he was saying Jesus stole and worked on the Sabbath. I didn't ask for a laundry list of arguments by outrage and complaints about the OT God, which is what I eventually got.

[quote]Merciful? What are you talking about?! Have you actually READ Numbers 31? What about where Moses orders the death of EVERY man, woman (who has laid with a man) and child,[/quote]
I'm waiting for the part where you explain how the Midianites were perfectly innocent people and they shouldn't have been killed. This oughta be good…

[quote]"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." He only wants the virgins! "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." In all they collected 32,000 virgins! (Numbers 31:35) Let's not forget that 16,000 people "fell" and 32 specifically to the lord as "tax." And of those 32,000 virgins, they would have to live with the men who murdered their entire civilization? And you want to claim they can go whenever they want? That is NOT biblical, sir. You are a liar and your repugnant version of mercy is limited at best.[/quote]
Meh. I didn't expect that you have ever read any social commentary on this particular subject. You don’t seem to [i]want[/i] to understand anything Biblical in social context.

To be honest, I don’t feel like discussing this, so read this: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

[quote] Do you ever cite sources?[/quote]
So you have nothing to say about the actual material?

Here you go: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hoseamarry.html. Now stop complaining and answer what I said.

[quote] You are merely making up excuses again, as if this somehow cancels out the fact that this issue exists. Just admit that these problems are prevalent in your Bible and we can move on. You're just kidding yourself otherwise.[/quote]
Thanks for admitting that you think pointing out that someone is using appeals to emotion and not thinking rationally about the situation is “making up excuses.”

Sorry, Rook. You don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt about errors in the Bible. You have to earn it. And of course, even if there are, it still must be examined like any other historical document.

[quote] So in your mind two wrongs make a right? Again, your tinted veiw of morality is strikingly horrific. Can't God be more giving and less taking? "Rob the Egyptians" is very clear language to me. The Egyptians didn't say, "hey look, sorry - take our stuff because we were so cruel." You are so dishonest it sickens me.[/quote]
Actually, Dr. Bible Scholar, Exodus 12:35-36 says that the Egyptians gave the Israelites stuff because they asked for it, just as Exodus 3:22 says that God will make them favorably disposed to giving them stuff. Who’s the one being dishonest (at least by your definition) now?

[quote] So it's okay for God to kill at will? You're cool with that? Alright, just never call your God compassionate or loving, and definitely don't think, even for a second, you can consider yourself to be so. You Christians are vile creatures sometimes, not thinking with your brain, and instead deluding yourself that mass murder is okay because he's your God. Repugnant standards you have for a God.[/quote]
You [i]would[/i] say something like that. You must be under the assumption that all of these people were perfectly innocent, and God had no business killing them since they did nothing wrong.

What I’m “cool with” is God punishing the wicked. If God killed someone for no reason, I probably wouldn’t be cool with it. But in almost every case here, there is a big reason why this was done, with several chances to repent and be saved being given to the respective people, etc.

What’s the most hilarious part of this is how you’re appealing to objective morality, too.

[quote] No, God is the source of evil. Isaiah 45:7 is a prime example. To prove this, take a look at the Greek in Isaiah 45:7, "εγω ο κατασκευασας φως και ποιησας σκοτος ο ποιων ειρηνην και κτιζων κακα εγω κυριος ο θεος ο ποιων ταυτα παντα" which when you break it down is very literal. However, before you go claiming something as a metaphor (which so many of you do), make sure the words can't me turned or twisted within the context of the passage. [/quote]
*Sigh*. Okay. First, let me state that I wasn’t talking about God creating evil in the beginning. I was talking about how we were the cause of the punishment in this case, not Him. So this is a strawman. But as you seem to be very intent on saying that God created evil, I’ll address your argument.

[quote]Take for example, the word "κτιζων" means 'to create, bring into being, bring about, make, build' according to the LSJ 9th Edition. The root is κτιζων which other Greek writers, like Sophicles, used when describing inventions or perpetuations. Never once does it have some sort of twisted meaning.
In fact, κτιζω appears in other books of the Bible too. Consider if you will Amos 4: 13, "διοτι ιδου εγω στερεων βροντην και κτιζων πνευμα" when the author of Amos is discussing , "he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought." Unless you're going to suggest that the term "create" here doesn't mean "create?" Do you have a better understanding of Greek in which you can show us this doesn't mean what the Greek suggests it means?
The Hebrew is really just as literal. The Hebrew word used here for "create" is bara' (baw-raw) which when looked up in any Hebrew dictionary doesn't just mean 'create', but it means "to create absolutely, make; or to be QUALIFIED to cut down" - for example a lumberjack. The only other meaning for this word is "root" as this is also the name of a plant - which indirectly signifies the creation of life in a plant - the root being the giver of life.
The passage CLEARLY means "create evil". The word "evil" in Hebrew is ra' from the word ra'a [raw-aw] meaning literally "evil". So when you combine the two points - the one I made earlier and the one I made now - in Hebrew the line is:
* Bara' ra' or "creates evil"
In the Greek, the word used for evil is κακος, which literally means "EVIL." There is no other translation for this word. None. When combined with my earlier point, the Greek line is:
* και κτιζων κακα or "and creates evil"
Oh, there isn't just one passage to prove this either:
See also Judges 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23, 18:10, 19:9; 1 Kings 14:10, 21:29, 2 Kings 21:12; 2 Chron. 34:24, 28; Isaiah 31:2; Jer. 11:11, 14:16, 18:11, 19:3, 23:12, 26:3, 32:42, 35:17, 36:3, 40:2, 42:10, 42:17, 44:2, 45:5, 49:5, 49:37, 51:64; Lam. 3:38; Exek. 6:10, 14:22, 20:25-26; Amos 3:6; Mic. 1:12, 2:3. (C. Dennis McKinsey, Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide) Enjoy.[/quote]
I would respond in two ways.

This verse is a verse of opposites. It mentions how he creates light and forms the darkness. Darkness is the opposite of light, correct? So how is “evil” the opposite of peace? In fact, the word [i]shalom[/i] is NEVER used to indicate moral goodness, the opposite of evil. The Hebrew ‘ra’ can also mean “calamity” or “disaster,” or “adversity,” which makes more sense in the context of the passages. This is why newer translations like the NIV have translated it as “bring prosperity and create disaster.” You do not have the liberty to say the ‘ra’ can only be translated as “evil”, like you seem to claim with everything else. There are many definitions of the word ‘ra’, and evil isn’t even one of the most prominent. These translations of ‘ra’ make much more sense anyway.

Secondly, I’d say that evil is not a thing that can be created at all. It’s merely the opposite of good, which is God’s very nature itself. We can measure heat; we can’t measure cold. Good and evil are the same…We can create heat, but not cold. We can create good, but not evil.

[quote] You are no NT scholar, or Greek scholar that is for damn sure. First of all, the Greek word in this passage that you are applying an erroneous definition of is ἠπάτησάς - or the root - ἀπατάω (apatao). This word is very literal, and does not leave room for metaphor. According to Strongs this word means "to cheat, delude" and according to the LSJ AND the Middle-Liddell it means "to cheat, trick, outwit, beguile," in fact other Greek writers use this word in the same fashion, such as Homer, Sophocles and Plato - in all cases the word means deceive. Here is no different. You are again making up bullshit definitions because you don't like the meaning of words.[/quote]
Right, and you are? You supposedly know Greek; that doesn’t give you the right to call yourself a “NT scholar.” Oh, and have you not realized that we’re discussing the [i]Hebrew[/i] yet? You keep bringing up the Greek because you know claim to know it, but that’s completely irrelevant to what the [b]original[/b] Hebrew says. I don’t care about the Septuagint, which is merely a translation.

[quote] Again, source information is required. Further, you are again creating excuses to rationalize away the problems instead of dealing with them. This is dishonest - in fact you have shown to be dishonest over and over in this thread. Correct it fast.[/quote]
Once again, complaining without actually addressing the material…Ho hum. Google it, why don’t you?

[quote] Another dishonest ploy? I see you are a fan of JP Holding, which doesn't bode well for your credibility. If you're going to attack me, do so with facts against my arguments - otherwise you're only distracting people from the subject at hand.[/quote]
Using JP’s material doesn’t bode well for my credibility…Let me guess. Because Richard Carrier and Robert Price don’t like him very much? What’s to stop me from saying that using either of them takes away from your credibility?

Plus, it seems like the same should be said about you. There have been several times where you’ve merely complained that I didn’t cite my source, and avoided answering the actual material.

[quote] Okay, let me clue you in on JP Holding, because you're obviously under the impression that he knows something. REAL historians don't trust Holding, and with good reason.
"Holding claims (to the horrified astonishment of all historians of Rome!) that it is "questionable" whether Cicero was Caesar's enemy. Doesn't Holding even think to check these things? Holding often does this: asserts what every historian knows is completely false, makes claims exactly the opposite of what we learn even in the most introductory courses on the subject, and then poor sods like me have to do the legwork to prove him wrong. It is as if he insists the grass on my lawn is not green, so that I actually have to take the absurd step of bringing in witnesses to testify that my grass is in fact green." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"
"Despite all that, Holding has the audacity to claim Cicero showed no sign of approving the assassination. Obviously, Holding just says what he pleases, and doesn't even bother checking the facts. Even besides Cicero's political opposition to Caesar and approval of his assassination, Cicero also called Caesar "wicked" (Phillipics 3.6.14) and regarded many of Caesar's legislative acts to be unconscionable (Phillipics 1.7.16, 1.9.23)." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"
"Holding claims that distrust of oral history is "a thoroughly modern, graphocentric prejudice." In so speaking, Holding is parting company with every professional historian I know or have ever read. It is not a "prejudice" to employ the best methods available for avoiding error and getting at the truth. And historians know that written records are preserved more accurately and honestly than oral tradition." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"
"Then there is Holding's last objection, that Caesar would have dictated his book, which is just silly. Even if that were true (and it often wasn't--many aristocratic writers put their own hand to scroll or wax), Caesar still would have continually checked and corrected the text, and the words written would still be his in both content and style. That is, they would have without doubt originated with him and not someone else. Therefore, there is no analogy here to oral transmission. This is still Caesar's words, as Caesar himself wrote or spoke them. Had Jesus done the same--had someone recorded what he said in writing after he rose from the dead, and Jesus checked and corrected and signed off on it--that would count as an eyewitness report direct from Jesus. It would indeed provide better evidence for the Resurrection than we now have--if we had as much reason to believe the document was authentic as we do for Caesar's Civil War." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"
"Holding claims it doesn't matter that many major historians record the Rubicon crossing, but not the resurrection of Jesus.[13] This seems rather silly. Clearly we would have better evidence if the resurrection story were discussed in all these same historians--especially if they in turn cited earlier historians whose works otherwise don't survive, and even more if they also cited (as they often do) official or eyewitness documents. So when I claim that we have better evidence for the Rubicon crossing than the resurrection of Jesus, this is plainly true. Holding's attempt to deny this is simply bizarre. Surely if we had such accounts, he would cite this fact in support of the Resurrection. So he can't claim it "makes no difference." " Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"
"Now, Holding claims that for the Gospel authors "there was no dispute over source material," but this is plainly false. All the Gospels disagree.[18] Even Luke, who claims to follow everything precisely, leaves out many things. Luke also recasts what Jesus said or did in a slightly different way than his one known source (Mark) and provides a completely different chronology than John. Obviously, there must have been disagreements. A critical historian would address them and, if possible, resolve them by naming and citing sources. For example, consider current Christian efforts at harmonizing the Gospel accounts. That is exactly what an author like Luke would have done--had he been a critical historian, and not a mere mouthpiece defending an ideology." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"
"Holding incorrectly claims this "amounts to saying that Luke didn't end up with Carrier's own view of the world, so therefore he must have been uncritical from the start." To the contrary, had Luke actually engaged a proper critical method and still found what he reports to be true, then I would not expect him to end up with my worldview. Indeed, had that happened to me, even I would not have ended up with my worldview. The difference is not in where we ended up. The difference lies in whether we used sound methods and thus have a reasonable claim to have discovered the actual truth. We can't prove that Luke did, because he tells us nothing at all about his methods and offers no clear evidence he employed sound ones. See the links provided in Addendum D below." Richard Carrier on JP Holdings "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection"
"Holding argues that “Christianity ‘did the wrong thing’ in order to be a successful religion” and that thus “the only way Christianity did succeed is because it was a truly revealed faith -- and because it had the irrefutable witness of the resurrection.” Here he serves notice that we will be asked to "admit" that miracles are the only way to account for the rise and success of Christianity. In any other field of inquiry this would be laughed off stage. I am thinking of a cartoon in which a lab-coated scientist is standing at the chalkboard, which is full of integers, and he is pointing to a hollow circle in the midst of it all, saying, "Right here a miracle takes place." Appealing to miracles as a needful causal link is tantamount to confessing bafflement." Robert M. Price's review of "The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"
"Citing 1 Corinthians 1:18 (“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”), Holding asks rhetorically, “Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?” He contends that crucifixion was so repulsive and degrading a punishment that no one could have taken a crucified man seriously as a religious founder. On top of that, no one could have envisioned the notion of a god stooping to undergo such treatment.... This is completely futile and does not begin to take into account the religious appetite (in many people) for the grotesque and the sanguine. Just look at the eagerly morbid piety of Roman Catholics and fundamentalist advocates of "the Blood" who wallow in every gruesome detail of the crucifixion, real or imagined. Consider the box office receipts of Mel Gibson’s pious gore-fest The Passion of the Christ. In ancient times, think of the Attis cult which centered upon the suicide of its savior who castrated himself and bled to death. Street corner celebrations of such rites invariably attracted bystanders, even initially hostile ones, swept up in the music and chanting, to castrate themselves and join the sect on the spot!" Robert M. Price's review of "The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"
"Holding thinks that “Jesus' Jewishness…was also a major impediment to spreading the Gospel beyond the Jews themselves. Judaism was regarded by the Romans and Gentiles as a superstition. Roman writers like Tacitus willingly reported… all manner of calumnies against Jews as a whole, regarding them as a spiteful and hateful race. Bringing a Jewish savior to the door of the average Roman would have been only less successful bringing one to the door of a Nazi.” This is ludicrous. There were Roman anti-Semites aplenty, though this seems to have prevailed mainly during periods of Jewish revolt against Rome. But in fact, Judaism was quite attractive to Gentiles in general, Romans in particular, as witnessed by the number of conversions and the unofficial adherence of Gentile God-fearers (like Cornelius in Acts 10 and the Lukan Centurion who bankrolled the synagogue). It had the appeal of an "Oriental" religion as well as the sterling teaching of Ethical Monotheism to recommend it." Robert M. Price's review of "The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"
"(Holding claims - Ed), “The Romans… believed that superstitions (such as Judaism and Christianity) undermined the social system established by their religion – and… anyone who followed or adopted one of their foreign superstitions would be looked on not only as a religious rebel, but as a social rebel as well.” No, Judaism was considered a legitimate religion and for that reason Jews were exempt from military service. The Roman attitude seems to have been that an ancient religion was okay, even if silly by the standards of Romans like Juvenal, who felt the same way about the religion of Isis and Osiris, Cybele and Attis, etc. But these, too, were legal and quite popular. It was only new religions, like Christianity or the Bacchanalia (new to Rome), that aroused suspicion. (Holding will acknowledge this fact later, when it seems to prove useful to him.)" Robert M. Price's review of "The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"
"Holding first argued that Judaism was repulsive to Romans, but now he has to switch hats. He says, correctly, that Romans paid grudging respect to Judaism because it had an ancient pedigree. “Old was good. Innovation was bad.” Thus a new faith like Christianity should have failed. Should we then conclude that no new religions ever started or were accepted on their appearance in the West? You just can't take the opinions of the intellectual caste as definitive for what everyone would have thought. Especially since the very expression of such opinions presupposes a regrettable (to these snobs) prevalence of precisely such "superstitions" as the snobs were condemning. Such faiths famously could and did succeed--even to the extent of becoming the official religion of Rome: Mithraism and even Baalism, for example. Holding argues as if the success of Christianity couldn't happen and so it must have taken a miracle for it to have happened. The scientific approach, taken by Rodney Stark (The Rise of Christianity) and others, is to take as established that it did happen and then explain it, not piously refuse to explain it and claim "It's a miracle!" With that utter abdication of the scientific method, we would still be in the Dark Ages." Robert M. Price's review of "The Impossible Faith, or How not to Start a Religion"[/quote]
It’s really hilarious that you quote these two as if Holding hasn’t already responded to everything they’ve said. It’s also really hilarious that your definition of a “real historian” is someone who agrees with your ideals…Especially in the case of Robert Price, who had to start his [i]own[/i] journal because all of the other scholarly journals think he’s a lunatic. I suppose people like N.T. Wright, Michael Grant, Robin Lane Fox, Will Durant, Rudolf Bultmann, and Robert Van Voorst don’t count as “real historians” because they don’t deny Jesus existed, right? When atheist Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant says that "Modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars." in his book, [i]Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels[/i], is he not a [b]real[/b] historian?

For Holding’s response to Price’s response to The Impossible faith, see [url= http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose_CC3.html]here[/url].
For Holding’s response to Carrier, check the original article, where he added a response [url=http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rubicon.html]here[/url].

[quote]These are a mere few of the dozens of articles I could have drawn from to show Holding's inability to be honest, and most importantly, his inability to do any real independant research.[/quote]
Pah. Holding doesn't do research...This is hysterical.

[quote]Instead he throws around ad hominem attacks and dodges points, seems to make up arguments out of thin air, and when he doesn't want to do deal with somebody who actually knows what they are talking about - he sends his cronies like Frank Walton after them with nothing but slander and false accusations. That leaves Holding in the clear for Walton and others to take the blunt of everything (which is really unfair to them) and although they should know better - they can get into a lot of trouble in this manner.

And for the record, JP Holding has an open invitation to come on the Rational Response Squad when we get together to record and debate me - however for some reason he never actually acknowledges this challenge to him, and instead insists we haven't put it out there. So much for the honesty of Holding. But back to the point.[/quote]
He doesn't do live debates because that leaves the space open for you to play debate games, arguing by soundbites that are so vague as to be impossible to respond to in adequate time. In doing a written debate, you really have to do your homework, or else you get slammed. If you're making the point that he doesn't do research, then this is the best way to show that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that he challenged you to debate him on TWeb first. Am I right?

If you still believe that he's such a chump, you can always debate him on the Christ-myth over at TheologyWeb, like he challenged you to do. He certainly won't be getting his "cronies" to argue for him. He even said that he'd be fine with doing a dual-forum debate, posting his responses at TWeb and at the RRS forum.

[quote] Your definition of faith is very slanted and uneducated.
Faith (American Heritage Dictionary)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
Keep digging.[/quote]
And now, ladies and gentlemen, we have our famous New Testament scholar and Greek scholar Rook Hawkins using the [b]English[/b] definition to refute a view of the [b][i][u]Greek[/i][/u][/b] word. Brilliant, sir! Simply mind-boggling! I don’t believe I’ve seen anything like it!

[quote] Any type of evidence you think you can present should be backed up by scientific processes. This includes hypothesis - this is how REAL historians become historians - they write a dissertation and submit it for peer review to a panel of scholars who are more knowledgeable then they are - the panel reviews the document and sometimes scraps entire paragraphs as irrelevant or not factual, or when source information doesn't back up the cited statement. People like Holding, for example, will never understand that - if Holding submitted his works for peer review any scholar would laugh him out of their presense.[/quote]
You mean like the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation, which he’s written several times for? Or perhaps the dozen times he’s written the Christian Research Journal put out by CRI?

It’s hilariously ironic, given what is true about Price, that you make this sort of claim.

Your claim is irrelevant. Holding doesn’t pretend to himself be a historian. He uses “real historians” to back up his statements with solid core data.

[quote]Any claim that personal experience is evidence involves extraordinary evidence (It would be equivalent to me claiming I had an interstellar space craft - in order for me to prove this I would need to provide evidence enough to convince the entire UN...this is what your claim demands - this is the sort of evidence you would require of me if I made an equally non-objective claim.)[/quote]
Another hilariously ironic statement of yours. ECREE was invented by Carl Sagan and is not a legally established standard of evidence.

[quote] This isn't peer-reviewed. I find any work claiming such things to be dubious. This paper would not make it through peer-review.[/quote]
Why? Because it says prayer works?

[quote] But not people who count. People of authority on positions such as psychology and neurology do NOT find personal experience is evidence. If it were, people would be led to believe any sort of fact - people could claim that green Martians exist in their brains because in their experiences they are truthful and honestly think in their deluded world that green Martians exist in their heads - and people like you and I would never be able to tell them they would be wrong because their evidence would be substantiated by experience. But let's face it, green Martians do not exist in peoples heads. If you want to go to the extreme claim that they might - I will have to stop taking you seriously.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity, what do you believe Christians experience?

[quote]You have me all wrong, friend. I am not an authority on personal experiences, and those contained within the psyche, nor do I claim to be. This is why I asked for peer-reviewed documents or publications in a scientific journal. These are authoritative and I'd yield to such authorities is such works existed. But as far as I'm aware, the works that DO exist are those relating to the inaccuracy of personal experiences, and the deluded nation of many of them.[/quote]
I'll continue looking.

[quote]For example, the case in which pray failed a scientific study - this case can be found at the RRS website - it was documented by MSNBC.[/quote]
Which is why I was initially hesitant to post that original study. I don't really trust the credibility of either test, because they miss the point of prayer. It was never intended to have an immediate, 100% accuracy.

[quote]I'm not dishonest enough to claim I'm an authority in something I'm not. I just require evidence for claims, as you should expect me to. I would expect you to do the same.[/quote]
Indeed.

[quote]What about mass delusions experienced by people people in New Age cults? Or what of the documented cases in the Encyclopedia Brittanica where dozens of people on a life boat all claimed to see a ship on the Horizon based on one person muddying the water, and causing a mass hallucination? These are not uncommon things, these happen every day.[/quote]
This is vastly different, of course, from Christian religious experience. Hallucinating an object, or in this case, mistaking something in the distance for another thing, has nothing to do with religious experience.

[quote]And let's not forget, there are millions more who believe (and even hallucinate or have visions of) other Gods and other mythical stories as well, like the insane amount of Muslims who claimed to have been visited by God to commit acts of terror?[/quote]
As far as I know, they never claimed to be "visited by God," but merely claim that it says to kill non-muslims in the Quran, and so they do it.

[quote]And even on a smaller level, The Son of Sam killings, the man claiming to have received orders to kill from a dog acting out the will of God?[/quote]
Well, I'd say he's most likely insane. I'd think that anyone who claims to be ordered by God to do something that goes against the teachings of God is most likely deluding himself.

As a whole, do you care to make an argument to the validity of any of these examples, or will you merely use these as an evasion technique?

[quote] To counter: There is also other variable options that are just as plausible as your creation theory and some that are MORE plausible then your theory. Like for example, people who believe that we were created by an alien race and colonized, or people who think we are of the earth's life energy? What of the Greeks who felt that people grew from Ants? (The Mermondons) How is that less probably then claiming that Adam's wife Eve came from his rib? And that God had to rest on the seventh day?[/quote]
All right, then. I’ll play your game.

Where did the alien race come from originally?
Where did the ants (and the earth) come from originally?

The Biblical story is immediately more plausible because it has an explanation of what happened before it. Creation [i]ex nihilo[/i]. And since you make a big deal about the original language, you should know that the word for “rest” simply meant to “not do work” which had nothing to do with being tired.

[quote]Further, what about all the evidence that contradicts the Bible accounts?[/quote]
What, like the kind of information given by Kersey Graves, Acharya S, and Brian Flemming, I suppose? Christ-mythers are hilarious…

[quote]What about all the immorality in the Bible? You can't overlook the bad and cherry-pick the good and think you have a case.[/quote]
If there is immorality in the Bible, then so be it. It still must be examined like any other historical document. If you were to prove a contradiction, or prove that an act of God described in it was immoral, that doesn’t throw the whole book out, does it? What you say here amounts to childish complaining.

[quote] I don't fancy anything about myself. My title is not self-proclaimed. I earned this title, and it was given to be by several historians like McKinsey and Carrier.[/quote]
And what gives them the right to call you an expert of Biblical criticism? Neither of them are experts in that particular field. McKinsey especially…His book on Biblical errors is probably one of the worst there is, mostly because of the silly blunders and fundamentalist arguments by outrage.

Now that I said that, you should go and whine to him about that comment, just like American Atheist whined to you.

[quote] That wasn't your comment. You stated that Buddha's mother was married. So I countered. You have no evidence that the Virgin Birth happened, and that story is highly criticized by that of Celsus - in the list I gave you that you conveniently ignored. He wasn't the only accuser. There was also Trypho and Porphyry and many others who argued that this myth was fancied by Christians later.[/quote]
I stated that Buddha’s mother was married, and I assumed you realized that I meant “married when she conceived Buddha.” Mary, on the other hand, was not married when she became pregnant, and such an act if it were indeed adultery was punishable by death. Your counter misses the point entirely.

To say we have “no evidence” is also a distortion. We have several independent accounts in the Bible, and to say that’s not “evidence” is merely a product of bias. The issue is, once again, whether it’s “good evidence” to you.

Of course it was criticized by Celsus…He was a skeptic of Christianity. Note also that he never says Jesus didn’t exist, as we’d expect someone hostile of Christianity to say. Celsus also doesn’t deny that Jesus performed miracles, despite being a skeptic. Do you agree with him there too?

Trypho…I assume your referring to the Trypho dialogues where he apparently suggests that Jesus did not exist. You’re also forgetting that he takes the historicity of Jesus for granted for the whole rest of the conversation.

[quote]I'm fairly certain scholars are in general concensus that the virgin birth account in Buddhism was well established before Christ. But I'll look into it for you and get you information on this. [/quote]
Yeah, I'll wait. Give me a direct quote from a pre-Christian Buddhist literature and I'll believe you.

[quote]That there is nothing special or original about your mythology. What do you think the point of Comparative Religion is? This is why they teach this course at college. Obviously it holds weight.[/quote]
Nothing special or original...Hmm. That's a big statement, and once that you've failed to substantiate. Even if there are similar teachings in Buddhism, there are still many events that are not featured in Buddhism.

Yet the Christ-myth hypothesis is still in the extreme minority. Will you ever understand that?

[quote]Look at you scoffing at me using a later source - how hypocritical.[/quote]
First, because the man in question is a Catholic bishop who was writing about something thousands of years after the event happened.

Second, because the comparison as a means of implying influence fails miserably, because it's weak. "Oh look...Jesus made a sermon on top of a hill. So did Buddha. JESUS COPIED BUDDHA!" Wow!

Third, because the term "Sermon on the Mount" is not found in the text of the Bible, and so someone expressing his opinion of a Buddhist event based on a non-Biblical term is extremely weak as well.

Do you understand now why I scoff at your source and his information?

[quote]This mimics that of Luke 14:36.[/quote]
Luke 14:36 does not exist. I assume you mean Luke 14:26.

This is also a very vague comparison and is really stretching anyway. How in the world is this supposed to prove influence?

[quote]This is a basic Buddhist teaching. Please review www.buddhanet.net[/quote]
Are you referring to the prophecy that a future Buddha will come back and restore the religion and bring peace to the world?

If so, then this prophecy applied only to a future Buddha named Maitreya, not the historical one. Glenn Miller adds:

"The prophetic stream from which Jesus stepped is rich, varied, prior to Him, and established BEFORE His arrival."

[quote]The irony.[/quote]
Please point me to a place where I used scholarship that's over a hundred years old. I certainly don't recall ever doing it.

[quote]Oh, so you're trying to be cute? This is quite humorous coming from a guy who's only source for the existence of his myth comes from sources which are unnamed, unverified, tampered with and written generations are the fact. But apparently the only time contemporary or autobiographical works are important is when they suit you, right? I mean, not having the same sort of evidence you ask of me for YOUR God is okay, right? Double-standard much?[/quote][/quote]
Yeah, as if this is somehow comparable hundred year old scholarship.

Unnamed? How do you determine the authorship of an ancient document? I'd be interested to know your test. Each Gospel has an internal claim of authorship, so I'd be interested to know why that's not good enough for you.

Unverified? Are you saying that because we don't have many, non-Christian sources who confirm this, it must not be true? Well, do you really expect there to be verification from a time period in which we have barely any surviving documents in the first place outside of the Gospels? Are four independent accounts of Jesus's life somehow not verifiying evidence?

Tampered with? Can you provide verifiable evidence that the Scriptures were edited over time on purpose?

Written generations after the fact? Who cares? It's not like there are hundreds of years in between. Most scholars date the Gospels in the 70s or 80s range, and Pauline epistles to somewhere in the 50s. This is [i]excellent[/i] in comparison to what we know about many figures of history. Are you really going to use such a criteria to criticize a document when mainstream historians don't use that criteria?

This is no double standard. I merely asked for a quote from Buddha. If you're going to say he said something, I expect evidence he did. If you're going to say that, hypothetically, Buddha died on a cross and rose again on the third day, I'd ask for where in the story it says that. I don't see the double standard.

[quote]I agree. So you admit that Buddhists had this idea in 266 BCE when they codified their canon?[/quote]
Not until you can prove that. And even if you can, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't prove influence at all.

[quote]Actually these laws existed in some form before the book of Exodus was written and on tablets of stone dating back to the Sumerians which existed all the way back in 3,000 BCE.[/quote]
Really? The ideas of Buddha were written before Buddha arrived?

[quote]Check this out and see the similarities between the Summarian Code of Hammurabi and the OT laws attributed to Moses - note how I try to use authoritative sources and references to back up my claims:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM (Washington State University)[/quote]
And this should worry me how? Did you not read anything I said?

[quote]Indeed. And not that this wasn't uncommon. In fact swapping out God mythologies and rearranging them and sometimes altering certain attributes and events was a common practice back in the time of First Century Palestine - even your pal Holding admits this. Although he isn't a valuable source, so I'll list a few for you:

The Cults of the Roman Empire, Prof. Turcan
The Ancient Mysteries, Prof. Marvin Meyer
Ancient Mysteries, Peter James and Prof. Nick Thorpe (Archaeologist)
Classical Myth and Religion, Oxford University Press
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Prof. and Fellow Robert M. Price[/quote]
Hmm...Holding admitted this? Really? Where?

[quote]No, it's not. The LSJ is a compendium of Greek words, each word has a list of several uses of the word in a variety of authors of all ages. This word, miseo, ONLY means hate, every time it's used. Stop pretending you know something - this is an area I have you beat in. Just admit it and be honest.[/quote]
Well, we already saw how you butchered the treatment of katheudo. Perhaps you have me beat in fundamentalism...

[quote]LIST SOURCES! Every time you make a comment like this without providing a source I'm going to treat it as suspect and not take it seriously. If you are afraid of posting your sources because you know they are suspect, yet you post information from then anyway, I'm going to start taking YOU less seriously. And trust me, if I start taking you less seriously - don't even think you have a chance of being taken seriously by people who have more authority then I do.[/quote]
Okay, moron. I cited Abraham Rihbany and his book at the beginning of the paragraph. You quoted the paragraph, didn't actually read what I said, and then ranted about a flagrant misunderstanding. Your credibility is officially down the toilet, Dr. Bible Scholar.

Now why don't you stop ranting and actually answer what I said?

[quote]That's a pickle isn't it? Thanks for pointing out the contradiction, saved me from doing it. Sucks to have those in your perfect book from God, eh? [/quote]
Wow...Geez, you're such a fundy. Can't you just accept it and move on?

[quote]You just continue to take right from Holding's website don't you? I can tell because Holding also spells Poemandres wrong. Also, you'll note that Holding is quoting another source for this quote, Fitzmeyer's Lukan commentary. The problem is, Fitzmeyer is the only one who seems to know of this passage, nobody else on the entire classical civilization knows of anybody called "Poimandes."

Also, I know of no Greek pros written by anybody named Poimandes, so this is quite absurd to use, mainly because such a document can not be looked at by critical historians - it does not exist.

Now Poemandres on the other hand was a hermetic writer, but his works do NOT number like the method Holding claims, and nowhere in Poemandres does such a line exist. The only line that can even be of some semblance to Holdings ridiculous claim is, "But All-Father Mind, being Life and Light, did bring forth Man co-equal to Himself, with whom He fell in love, as being His own child; for he was beautiful beyond compare, the Image of his Sire. In very truth, God fell in love with his own Form; and on him did bestow all of His own formations." from line 12. There are no chapters in Poemandres, as it's a mere few lines. This is another case of JP Holding creating arguments from thin air.

It's a shame you don't do any of your own research.[/quote]
It's at this point that I've almost begun to feel bad for you. If you hadn't before, you have now officially exposed your own hypocrisy.

Your first mistake is thinking that Poimandes is a person. It's actually a written work. Holding wasn't talking about any person, nor was I.

Your second stupid mistake is saying the document doesn't exist. Hmm, only Holding and Fitzmeyer know of it? How about [url=http://firstnewtestament.netfirms.com/christ_rising_dying_god.htm]this guy,[/url] who quotes from it about an unrelated topic? Or, perhaps, [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=oVLF53DjFPsC&pg=RA3-PA560&lpg=RA3-PA560&dq=poimandes&source=web&ots=hBWN4Y4qFR&sig=Bp44D_TFm9NKbo0RqaACx252zrI]this book[/url] which cites it as a source? Or [url=http://www.anksyborg.org/dettopic.asp?CodNotic=79]here[/url], which mentions it as a "part and parcel of the Hermetic Teachings?"

Your third, and probably most blunderous mistake is to claim that I haven't done any of my own research. In light of what I just said, who's the one who has done research here? Get a clue, Rook. I'm more mature than doing a quick scan of Google, noticing that Poimandes gets spell-corrected to Poemandres, and assuming that's what I meant. Why aren't you?

[quote]I figured you wouldn't have anything intelligent to say concerning this issue.[/quote]
Well, now you can check my new response to see if I did.

[quote]I didn't pick and choose anything. I respond to your points when they are erroneous. Funny how you completely dodge my points and don't even respond to half of them.[/quote]
The heck you didn't. The fact that it was "common" was only a small portion of my reply as a whole, and I went onto explain that it wasn't offensive. You ignored this.

[quote]Book, volume chapter and paragraph number please.[/quote]
You're undoubtedly expecting that I don't know this. But, I do.

Antiquities 17.4.2. Here's the relevant passage:

"When, therefore, Pheroras was fallen sick, and thou camest to him and tookest care of him, and when he saw the kindness thou hadst for him, his mind was overborne thereby. So he called me to him, and said to me, 'O [b]woman[/b]! Antipater hath circumvented me in this affair of his father and my brother."

[quote]Actually, this is my fault - you are correct, I was thinking of ANOTHER time when Jesus didn't honor his family or mother, sorry. I get them confused sometimes. I was thinking when his mother and brothers approached him from the multitude and Jesus dismissed them saying, basically that the people he cared about were only those who heard the word. You know, Luke 8:19-21?[/quote]
You mean the one that says:

[i]Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."

He replied, [b]"My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."[/b]"[/i]

And this is supposed to be disrespectful [i]how[/i], exactly? Maybe I'm not using the right translation...

[quote]However, I should let you know that the translation from my NAB version states in John 2:4, "Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me?" The NASB (considered the most authentic translations by McDowell and Stuart) states, "And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us?" That is not kind. I would have to compare the Greek to that in Josephus once you can cite me the reference to see if it matches up with the Greek in John. [/quote]
So basically, you're going to try to pick the translation that sounds the most unkind, ignore everything I've said, and still stick by your opinion? It's odd, since most fundy Christians do this to stand by what their opinions are, and then atheists criticize them for it. Not you, apparently.

[quote]Let's not get into a who-screwed-up-more debate, you won't win.[/quote]
Really? I think the Poimandes screw-up is enough to win you that title no matter what else you say.

[quote]Child you haven't even stretched a thread from my sweater. The more you act like you know something the more I'll swat you down - you take from Holding and don't cite sources, you're almost as bad as he is. You can still pull out of that trench and be honest, and not be a child. You may still have worth in this discussion. That depends on you.[/quote]
Please, hold the drama.

Question: how do you know which is literal and which is allegory?

[quote]Question: how do you know which is literal and which is allegory?[/quote]
It's an excellent question, one that's often use to try to stump me. There are several ways to determine this.

One is to read commentary by scholars. They are trained to exegete the text, and through that process, we come to a better understanding of what the text means, and whether it's literal or allegorical. Keener's commentaries are great, as well as Witherington's.

Two, and one that probably isn't as accurate but usually works out for me, is by reading it in context, both literary and historical context. If it makes sense as a literal, then the argument can be made that it is, and from there, I see what the scholars think.

Hmm, I was not trying to stump you so much as I wanted an answer. However, I think that the bible is open to interpretation.

If we have a difinitive line between allegory and reality then why don't we separate the two? Why not at least put a little "A" next to stories and an "R" next to the ones that everyone agrees to be reality? Why not encorperate all of the portions that diddnt make it into the bible back in? If they were about jesus or his followers then the common man has a right to read them with little "R" and "A"'s in the text. I believe that all of the things that the creationists are pushing would probably fit in the "A" category right?

My MORMON history teacher says that atheists are evil (and I have not told him I am one...)

but he is full of it

and yes, all sources should be taken to be at best a roughened up version of the actual events. especially if your sources are several thousand years old

haha, I think (I can't really remember) that it was the story of Samson

(the story with the jawbone of the ass, where he killed a bunch of people... like 10,000 or something (sorry about this... i have not read the whole old testament))

I can just imagine that Samson is a drunk who grabs a bone, walks into a bar, and says "gimmie a beer and ill tell you a story about this bone" - that is how we got a majority of our bible.. just mutated bar stories (hehe)

I like your answer to why making a book easier to understand is bad. Because if everyone could think about it, then maybe they would realize it is the most ridiculous thing humans can think of!

Really? Cause I think there might be some sarcasm in that...

I thought I had a good point. Anything you didn't like about it? Any peer review you think would be a good Idea?

Of course, it is not unnecessary. When people make their life choices based on the 'Word of God', I think knowing if they were serious or not would be essential.

Also, it is obvious that bible 'scholars' disagree. They pick and choose. There is nothing wrong with picking and choosing. But it is what is happening. We don't stone people anymore. Hell, we don't punish anyone anymore for breaking the sabbath. Not too much punishment for the good old bearing false witness. Adultery? Don't make me laugh. The sacrificial element of Christianity that seemed prevalent in the old testament (and somewhat less so in the New) has been nearly completely dropped. And there isn't anything wrong with that. I prefer it to be that way. But it isn't the way you treat a book that is infallible.

[quote]We don't because that law doesn't apply to us, which is what atheists continually misunderstand. Jesus redeemed us from all of the ceremonial OT law, which includes the law about breaking the sabbath. They're not picking and choosing anything if it doesn't apply.

You're also treating the Bible as if it's one monolithic source. When the laws were being followed, there was only the New Testament, which to them would have been infallible. Once the New Testament came along, some of the OT is not involved anymore. That doesn't make it more fallible or less infallible.[/quote]

K, I am fine with Jesus revising the old bible. The old testiment was not a nice work. Jesus cleaned it up, but still had some things in there that we no longer follow, and it is no longer nessiscary to follow. So, why don't we get another prophet to revise the new testiment and take out/ add a new book of stuff that is still relivent?

Oh yeah, We do it was jo smith and his newfangled book of mormon! But it is too easy to show that he just made that stuff up.

I think that we need to do to the NT what jesus did to the OT, revise/write a new book. We need a new liberal prophet. One that takes out all of the bad stuff in religion.