Need Help From A Master Historian!

[ljahns]

Wow, not even ONE person has touched upon what I said. I know it’s too long guys, sorry for posting it. It’s a mass of info, I just wanted to gather up a good response to some of it.

I have copied your posts and I’ll read it and give you any help that I can. Just like the other responder said, you have yielded the playing field to him, well now it’s time to take it back.

The book I recommended in my previous post is a short one and well worth reading. Again it’s Answering the New Atheism; Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God by Scott Haan and Benjamin Wiker.

 

[The_Catholic]

I have copied your posts and I’ll read it and give you any help that I can. Just like the other responder said, you have yielded the playing field to him, well now it’s time to take it back.

The book I recommended in my previous post is a short one and well worth reading. Again it’s Answering the New Atheism; Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God by Scott Haan and Benjamin Wiker.

I tried ordering it but they were all out

Oh and by the way I’ve been up all night, copying , reading, and studying many of his response. It’s actually all easily refuted, and I think after this one last time, I’ll call it quits. He’s VERY arrogant.

 

[The_Catholic]

For the first time in a long while, I came up with answers all on my own I refuted everything he said, and unlike he, I went into detail, gave references, and the time studying the issues wher ehe just seemed to visit a Richard Carrier site and copy and paste. I sent him ten letters, eaching dealing with a section of his complaints. and I stood up for over 12 hours writing it. I had help through Catholic Answers, the majority or books I own, and JPHolding I really blew him away, not to sound conceded. I’m sure he’s going to dismiss my claims, but he is no historian and he’ll be arguing against historians, as where all my info comes from.

And i’ve shaken my sandals, no more am I going to talk to him.

P.S. Really, I can’t believe how easily his claims were refuted. A little study brings one far

 

[packermann]

According to my friend, "Christianity itself did not do good. some Christians and Christian organisations have done, and some have done bad. when you look at the statistics for Christians and atheists, atheists get divorced less, there are lower teen pregnancy rates in atheistic societies, lower STD transmissions, lower homicide rates, less violent crime, less general crime and so on. "

that’s what he thinks, I wonder where he got that info?

This is an example of how figures do not lie but liars figure.

The finding that atheists have less divorce rates than believers is ased is the faulty 1999 Barna study. What this study did was compare the percentage of all believers who got divorces to the percentage of all atheists who got divorces. And, sure 'nuff, the perecentage for believers was higher than for the athieists.

But there was was one little problem. Atheists are are half as likely to get married than believers. So a more accurate study would be to compare the percentage of married believers to the percentage of married atheists. When this is done, the divorce rates of atheists are about 4 times higher than the believers.

On should have been suspicious of the Barna just by looking at Richard Dawkins, who has been dovorced 7 times.

The same goes with the crime rate argument. I just read the book Make and Takers by Peter Scheizer. Again, people used statistica to say that the crime rates are lower in the blue state than the red states. This was argued to show that conservatives are more likely to mcommit crime than liberals, But Schweizer showed this was a fallacy. He found that when you broke it down to counties, that the blue counties had more crime than the red counties.

Although this book was an argument of conservative vs liberals, since conservatives are more likely to be religious and liberals more likely to be non-religious, I think it also show that non-religious people are more violent then religious people.

 

[ljahns]

I tried ordering it but they were all out

Oh and by the way I’ve been up all night, copying , reading, and studying many of his response. It’s actually all easily refuted, and I think after this one last time, I’ll call it quits. He’s VERY arrogant.

Did you try Amazon? They have it. I just checked.

I’d get it even though you aren’t going to be debating him any longer. You might also recommend that he read it. It refutes Dawkins and his atheistic claims nicely. I think your biggest mistake was arguing scripture with him. Since they do not believe in scripture then there is no common ground.

Atheists consistently want to reduce God to a mathmatical formulae which is like reducing Rembrandt to his paint. You can’t prove Rembrandt painted something just because paint is on a canvas. You have to deduce that he painted through all cumulative circumstantial evidence. Just like your friends continual use of the court room scenario. However, one thing he never admits is that a lot of cases are won on circumstantial evidence. IE eyewitness testimony and forensics. Same with God. Since He is the author of the cosmos and evolution His signature is all over it including science. The book I recommended goes into that in detail. All without using scripture!
If by some mischance you do get into it with him again, set the ground rules and don’t use scripture, use science.

 

[The_Catholic]

Did you try Amazon? They have it. I just checked.

I’d get it even though you aren’t going to be debating him any longer. You might also recommend that he read it. It refutes Dawkins and his atheistic claims nicely. I think your biggest mistake was arguing scripture with him. Since they do not believe in scripture then there is no common ground.

Atheists consistently want to reduce God to a mathmatical formulae which is like reducing Rembrandt to his paint. You can’t prove Rembrandt painted something just because paint is on a canvas. You have to deduce that he painted through all cumulative circumstantial evidence. Just like your friends continual use of the court room scenario. However, one thing he never admits is that a lot of cases are won on circumstantial evidence. IE eyewitness testimony and forensics. Same with God. Since He is the author of the cosmos and evolution His signature is all over it including science. The book I recommended goes into that in detail. All without using scripture!
If by some mischance you do get into it with him again, set the ground rules and don’t use scripture, use science.

No listen bro, I only showed you guys the end of our debate, since June we have been arguing regarding science and the existence of God. Scripture never came up, ever.

Only recently did we get into the historian evidence for Christianity, so that’s why we were talking about it.

Just to note, science is this guy’s field anyhow, he’s very very smart regarding the sciences. And is totaly bias by saying that since you can’t measure God, He cannot exist, He’s fictious, not “actual.” This guy can’t break that bubble.

 

[ljahns]

No listen bro, I only showed you guys the end of our debate, since June we have been arguing regarding science and the existence of God. Scripture never came up, ever.

Only recently did we get into the historian evidence for Christianity, so that’s why we were talking about it.

Just to note, science is this guy’s field anyhow, he’s very very smart regarding the sciences. And is totaly bias by saying that since you can’t measure God, He cannot exist, He’s fictious, not “actual.” This guy can’t break that bubble.

Sorry, didn’t know you had gone down that track. If he cannot break that “bubble” then i’m afriad he’s a gonner. I still recommend the book it’s great!

An just an FYI that’s sister not bro

 

[The_Catholic]

Sorry, didn’t know you had gone down that track. If he cannot break that “bubble” then i’m afriad he’s a gonner. I still recommend the book it’s great!

An just an FYI that’s sister not bro

WOW A SISSTER FOR ME LOL! I’m sorry, I should’ve checked your profile.

 

[neophyte]

The Catholic:

…Since there is no evidence for god, just as there is no evidence for any form of ‘magic’ existing, despite repeated attempts to find this we cannot form an argument based upon no evidence…

You’ve posted a lot of material, and there’s no way I can wade through it. But right here in the first post he begs the question - he can’t start off saying that there’s no evidence for the existence of God if the question to be determined is “does God exist”. It’s the most basic logical error, and I bet he repeats it elsewhere. If he insists that there can be no supernatural explanation for any event, he begs the question.

 

[peary]

THE ATHEIST OUT OF QUOTES:
Couple of big problems here, firstly there is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, the evidence that Jesus even existed is pretty poor. The historicity of Jesus is not what it could or should be. The historicity of someone else from a similar period like say Julius Caesar is much more certain.

The existence of the Church is the best evidence that Jesus was an actual person.

"But nobody is saying that. Rather, the claim is that God rose Jesus from the dead. And if God exists and wants to raise Jesus from the dead, I would think that would be the most probable explanation. "

In Christian doctrine, Christ IS God, and it is Christ Who rose Himself from the dead.

“Philosopher Antony Flew, when he was an atheist said the resurrection is more likely if God exists.”

I would also agree with this. If this super being exists it is more likely that resurrection could occur, however since we have no evidence for such a being, this is pure speculation.

The last thing to know it’s in water is a fish.

Mary being a virgin would appear to be a translation error, if you look back at the Aramaic texts before their translation into Greek you will find that Mary was not a virgin, but a young woman. It is a similar difference as maid and maiden in English. One simply means young woman, the other means virgin.

That is not adequate. ‘Virgin’ means exactly what it means in the Bible - a young woman who has not had intercourse.

Additionally the bible states that the messiah would be of the line of David, since these lines are always passed down the male side… he cant be the messiah if Joseph is not the real father. This is just one of many of the contradictions between the two gospels which deal with Jesus’ birth.

The line of descent is from his mother.

Additionally the Jesus birth story gets wrong other facts, like suggesting they had to be in Bethlehem because of a census requiring all people to go to their ancient ancestors city. This is clearly flawed since it doesn’t specify generations. Additionally we can check other historical documents and find that no national census occurred, only local ones which did not require anyone to go anywhere.

That is not true. Check the historical record.

 

[ljahns]

WOW A SISSTER FOR ME LOL! I’m sorry, I should’ve checked your profile.

That’s ok. Actually I get it quite often outside of the forum as well. With my first name being what it is, I actually got a draft registration notice when I turned 17.

 

[peary]

SECOND PART:

“You can respond by asking: “if a historian allows for the possibility of the miraculous, doesn’t that throw history up for grabs?” Anotherwords one could invoke a miraculous explanation for all kinds of things that happened in the past.”

No, I would attack it on a more fundamental level. Historians and scientists cannot make claims without evidence. Just as you cannot be arrested of a crime when no evidence exists that you did this crime. This is how we determine what is and is not true, which is why we use it to determine guilt and innocence.

Historians are naturally biased in their presentation of historical reality. Very few can be objective about their findings nowadays.

“I think it’s clear this marerial was not meant to be taken literally.”

"There are no credible eyewitness accounts and no corroboration from other sources. So the historian would say there’s no good evidence the Aesop’s fables report actual historical events. "

Exactly, you need evidence. Without evidence positive claims cannot be made. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence required

The existence of the Church for over two-thousand years is the best evidence we have for the historical veracity of the existence of Christ.

“But regarding Jesus’ resurrection, we find that the gospels fit into the genre of ancient biographies.”

Unfortunately the gospels are often contradictory, both internally, with each other and with other external evidence. In order to be considered evidence they must be consistent.

If one reads the four gospels, although there are sections which seem, on first reading, contradictory, for the most part, all four of them are consistant with each other.

We know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the gospels. Moreover, the gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men.

Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three.

It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord’s prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the “original Mark.”

So we can see these have been edited, and they are continually being edited. The earliest guess to the time the original was written was 70AD. Now the problem here is that only John the revelator was alive by this point!

We don’t know that. The other apostles were out in the Mediterranean area teaching, preaching, and establishing the Church in communities as far as Spain.

The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

Furthermore the gospels were written in Greek, when the disciples of Jesus spoke and used Aramaic.

There is factual evidence that the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

Most historians have found serious flaws with these accounts, many of which have been contrived, or edited. I should like to hear these independent sources and eyewitnesses. It is one thing to say they exist and another to actually present them. A man can claim he had evidence for bigfoot, but it is another thing to actually present that evidence.

The Church is the best evidence we have as to the veracity and authenticity that Christ was a real person.