One single thing that religion can do that secularism cannot

quote:

If Jesus did exist, and performed a many miracle, wouldn't someone have documented it then and there?

My mistake, you answered one.

Writing materials were not cheap back then. One couldn't just write down what they saw. Besides, back then information was usually passed orally.

It was written down only a few years afterwards.

quote:

And that is your interpretation on what passes for evidence. LOL.

Our knowledge of ancient egypt comes from hieroglyphics. If there is no hieroglyphic of Horus on a cross, then how do you know the claim is true? Also, where is a hieroglyphic of Horus as a lamb as claimed in the video you posted? All I've seen is him as a falcon.

The point is that you chose to believe in something without evidence. It's your choice, I'm not here to change your mind. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:

quote:

If Jesus did exist, and performed a many miracle, wouldn't someone have documented it then and there?

My mistake, you answered one.

Writing materials were not cheap back then. One couldn't just write down what they saw. Besides, back then information was usually passed orally.

quote:

OK, so the jews/god/christians used stone tablets for recording the important stuff or so one would think (ie ten commandments, etc.) but the Egyptians who thousands of years before them were expected to record everything in stone/hieroglyphics? It certainly would appear that they did record much more than the xian tribesmen.

It was written down only a few years afterwards.

quote:

And that is your interpretation on what passes for evidence. LOL.

Our knowledge of ancient egypt comes from hieroglyphics. If there is no hieroglyphic of Horus on a cross, then how do you know the claim is true?

quote:

Nash, the Egyptians practically invented paper aka papyrus. There is a lot of their history that I don't know, a lot that is written that I haven't seen. Your original question centered around Egyptians using crucifixion, I provided religious text and research text, both supporting it. Some books written well over 100 years ago, so someone had knowledge of this and it eventually made its way into the English language.

Also, where is a hieroglyphic of Horus as a lamb as claimed in the video you posted? All I've seen is him as a falcon.

quote:

I suggested earlier that you watch the videos again, I think in the first one about two minutes thirty seconds or so there is a brief clip of hieroglyphs and I'm thinking in the third one at four minutes they do quick comparison on Horus and Jesus using hieroglyphics. They among others really deconstruct the passing of the story from god to god to god. So it is not just JC who gets exposed.

The point is that you chose to believe in something without evidence. It's your choice, I'm not here to change your mind. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Disagreement, is not necessarily a bad thing. I do wish you would look at all of the evidence thoroughly.

And the first round is on me, whenever.

Regards, miamizsun

quote:

However, the earliest book we have ever found has been dated to about 200 years after the death of god. The gospel of Mark is probably the oldest and the other "corroborating" books that sound similar to Mark were written many, many years later.

Not true at all. Besides, the last number you used was 150 years after Jesus. Now it's up to 200. Where did you get the 200 years figure?

No, read it again, Nash. I stated, "the first books of the bible were SUPPOSEDLY written 50 to 80- years after the supposed death of god. However, the earliest book we have ever found has been dated to about 200 years after the death of god."

These are the facts, Nash: Mark was supposedly written 50 to 80 years after the crucifixion. The earliest books of the NT have been dated to the second half of the second century. This is basic, Bible History 101, Nash. Go look it up if you wish.

The bottom line is this: There are no "eye witness accounts" that can be considered factual as you continually state. None, dude. Your attempts to bend known historical fact to suit your fundamentalist agenda is quite transparent.

quote:

200 years after the death of god."

god is dead?

DF

quote:

Disagreement, is not necessarily a bad thing. I do wish you would look at all of the evidence thoroughly.

I did, it's lacking. Think about it, why would a god represented by a falcon and considered a warrior be called a lamb? He wouldn't, the comparison is designed to mislead people to think that it's a retold story and not true. Evidence of this is the very first comparison, that the two were born in December. Jesus was not born in December, so the argument is flawed.

That's why I don't believe the comparison, no evidence. Until I see a hieroglyphic of Horus on a cross, the claim can't be substantiated.

We'll never agree on it, so I'll buy the 2nd round.

quote:

These are the facts, Nash: Mark was supposedly written 50 to 80 years after the crucifixion. The earliest books of the NT have been dated to the second half of the second century. This is basic, Bible History 101, Nash. Go look it up if you wish.

I did look it up, as shown in the link I provided, most scholars believe Mark to be about 37 years after the crucifixion.

"On this evidence, Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70 CE. A slightly earlier date is possible. A date in the early 70s is also possible, but most scholars do not place the year very much later. "

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_Mark's_Gospel_written

That's 37 years after Jesus death, not 200.

"The consensus among scholars is that the book of Mark was written between 50 and 60 A.D."

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/gospel-of-mark.htm

That's 17-27 years after Jesus death.

That's 3 links I've provided that refutes the 200 years claim.

quote:

I did look it up, as shown in the link I provided, most scholars believe Mark to be about 37 years after the crucifixion.

That depends on what source or what scholar you wish to believe. Opinions vary widely but the majority of the evidence is that Mark was 50 to 80 years after the crucifixion. If you want to claim 37 then fine with me. But, Nash, what you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that the earliest sample of the book of Mark has been dated well into the second century. <------ Read that sentence again and again until you get it, please. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. What it means is that Mark could have been written by a ghost writer up to 200 years after the events took place.

We don't even know you wrote the book, Nash, since it was written anonymously. The church has traditionally ascribed it to Mark but we DON'T EVEN KNOW.

The point, again, is that you keep holding the early books of the bible as "eye witness accounts" of the life of Jesus when we don't even know who wrote them or when they were written and when the best evidence we have indicates these books were written anywhere from "37" to 200 years after the events took place.

quote:

But, Nash, what you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that the earliest sample of the book of Mark has been dated well into the second century.

I provided several links proving that the majority of scholars believe Mark was written about 70 AD. Jesus died in 33 AD, so that's 37 years afterwards.

Of course there is always debate just like with any subject. There are a minority of scholars who date it back to the 2nd century, others place it around 40-50 AD. The consensus is that Mark was written around 70 AD.

Another link.

"The external, direct evidence is contradictory. There is disagreement about whether Mark wrote his gospel before or after Peter's death, which took place during Nero's persecution of the church c. 65. The Gospel of Mark was written either when Peter was in Rome or just after his death in Rome. To be on the safe side a date ranging from 63-68 should be attributed the Gospel of Mark. "

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm

That's 3 times I've googled "Gospel of Mark was written" and came up with the same answer.

Three links from three different sources citing that the date is difficult to determine, but what evidence we have places it around 70 AD, 37 years after the crucifixion, not 200.

quote:

I provided several links proving that the majority of scholars believe Mark was written about 70 AD. Jesus died in 33 AD, so that's 37 years afterwards.

Jesus H. Christ, Nash. I know that. I agree that some scholars state that. I have no reason to disagree. What I am saying (over and over again) is that the earliest sample of the book comes from 200 years after the fact so as far as we know, the book was actually written 200 years afterward but made to appear to have been 37 years after the Crucifixion.

Somebody help me out here? Any ideas on how I could possible make my point any clearer?

My point that you keep trying to ignore is that you keep insisting that these books should be considered "eye witness" testimony that would be held up in the court of law. Even scholars can't agree on who wrote it when.

Really dude. Watching you go through these mental gyrations in a feeble attempt to re-write biblical history in order to support your insecure faith is almost sickening to watch. Sickening but strangely fascinating.

quote:

Jesus H. Christ, Nash. I know that. I agree that some scholars state that. I have no reason to disagree. What I am saying (over and over again) is that the earliest sample of the book comes from 200 years after the fact so as far as we know, the book was actually written 200 years afterward but made to appear to have been 37 years after the Crucifixion.

I posted three sources that disputes that. Where's your proof?

Hi, guys, I am back...what did I miss?
Has anyone strangled anyone yet? LOL

quote:

I posted three sources that disputes that. Where's your proof?

Ok, you're an idiot. There it is, I pulled the "idiot" card. I hate it but there it is bigger-n hell.

I am NOT DISPUTING YOUR ASSERTION that that scholars think the Book of Mark was written sometime between 60 and 105 AD - or "37" years after god died. I admit that I have failed miserably in helping you understand how this "eye witness testimony" assertion is not a valid argument.

From http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro34.htm which states:

"The earliest surviving copy of Mark is 225 A.D."

So, Nash, all you have for your "eye witness testimony" that is (according to you) "admissible in a court of law" is a copy of a copy of a copy ad infinitum that is dated to TWO HUNDRED YEARS after the original book was presumably written. We don't even know who wrote the thing yet two other "gospels" are based on this scant bit of evidence.

Key word: copy. That's not the original, so obviously the original was written earlier.

Another source.

'Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.

75 CE would be about 42 years after the crucifixion.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm

So you're saying that these scholars who spend their lives researching ancient documents have it wrong?

quote:

So you're saying that these scholars who spend their lives researching ancient documents have it wrong?

NO. I AGREE WITH THE SCHOLARS. How can I possibly make this any clearer when words won't capitalize any bigger than that?

Let's try this: How old is the oldest surviving copy of the Gospel of Mark, Nash?

Paine is more venerated in the UK than in the US, which is a shame, like Pitt the Elder, he is viewed as the foremost True Whig of all time.

It is a shame there is not a "State of Paine" although the Most Serene Christian Republic of Alabamastan could merely drop the terminal "e" and make it doubly iconic for us here.

Paine's prose in Common Sense was fantastic and whipped a group of isolated colonies into a common frenzy. Age of Reason is perhaps the ultimate apogee of Enlightenment Thought, whether one agree or not, historically and philosophically speaking it is one of the truly seminal works in English on freedom, literal and mental.

Thomas Paine's work "On Agrarian Justice" is a little known work that proposed a means of an early retirement and social security plan based on dividing up the great enclosed estates of the UK and making them into a trust fund from the sales for all subjects.

"Age of Reason Part I" is mild. The really nasty stuff is in "Part II." Such a wit and a genius of a man with a pen and to think he was a corset maker's son and apprentice!

I, for one, would be joyfully inclined to join in any Paineful experience!

quote:

NO. I AGREE WITH THE SCHOLARS. How can I possibly make this any clearer when words won't capitalize any bigger than that?

You're changing your story.

"However, the earliest book we have ever found has been dated to about 200 years after the death of god. The gospel of Mark is probably the oldest and the other "corroborating" books that sound similar to Mark were written many, many years later. "

""the first books of the bible were SUPPOSEDLY written 50 to 80- years after the supposed death of god. However, the earliest book we have ever found has been dated to about 200 years after the death of god."

So first you say Mark was dated 200 years after the crucifixion. Then it changed to supposedly, now you say you agree with the scholars that Mark was written much earlier. That was my whole point to start with. So if we agree, why the hostility?

quote:

However, the earliest book we have ever found has been dated to about 200 years after the death of god. The gospel of Mark is probably the oldest and the other "corroborating" books that sound similar to Mark were written many, many years later. "

""the first books of the bible were SUPPOSEDLY written 50 to 80- years after the supposed death of god. However, the earliest book we have ever found has been dated to about 200 years after the death of god."

Look at the bold words, Nash. See if you can form a picture. Read back through my other posts if you must, I haven't changed my story once. You are simply too dense to understand these complicated words.

Remember: stare at the bold words. Eat some blueberries before you read any more. They have been found to increase mental capacity, you know.

quote:

Look at the bold words, Nash. See if you can form a picture. Read back through my other posts if you must, I haven't changed my story once. You are simply too dense to understand these complicated words.

Remember: stare at the bold words. Eat some blueberries before you read any more. They have been found to increase mental capacity, you know.

So if this whole time you agreed with the scholarly consensus that Mark was written about 70 AD, what are you arguing about? Why bring up how old a copy of Mark is when it's date and the original authorship are unrelated?

Seems kind of pointless to keep bringing up how old a copy is if we agree on the original date Mark was written, doesn't it? So again, why the hostility if we agree?

quote:

So if this whole time you agreed with the scholarly consensus that Mark was written about 70 AD, what are you arguing about? Why bring up how old a copy of Mark is when it's date and the original authorship are unrelated?

You're an idiot, by the way.

Go back to my original post: "(as to your continual insistence of asserting "eye witness" reports as valid "proofs": Nash, the first books of the bible were SUPPOSEDLY written 50 to 80- years after the supposed death of god. However, the earliest book we have ever found has been dated to about 200 years after the death of god. The gospel of Mark is probably the oldest and the other "corroborating" books that sound similar to Mark were written many, many years later. Your "eye witness" accounts do not stand up to even minimal scrutiny.)"

Summary: The details discussed in the Book of Mark suggests that it was written 70-ish AD - This I agree with. However, the oldest copy we have is 200 years after that so we can't be certain of that authorship date. We are just going on the evidence at hand wish is sketchy at best. We don't eve know who wrote the book and we believe some of the stories were told to the author second hand by (if I'm not mistaken) Joesphus. Despite all that shaky, flimsy data, this book is used as the foundation for the other gospels.

My point, Nash, for the dozenth time, is that holding the gospels out to be valid "eye witness" testimony of the life of Jesus is stupid. Your assertion doesn't even pass the minimal test for acceptability.

quote:

Summary: The details discussed in the Book of Mark suggests that it was written 70-ish AD - This I agree with. However, the oldest copy we have is 200 years after that so we can't be certain of that authorship date.

You're changing your story.

You were implying that Mark was written 200 years after the crucifixion and that somehow discredits it. You didn't say anything about it being written 50-70 AD, which is 17 - 37 years after the crucifixion, until after I provided several links proving such. I never said anything about our oldest copy, I was talking about when scholars believed Mark was first written. You interjected that to avoid being wrong, so now you're backtracking.

Feel free to call me whatever names you want. It doesn't bother me a bit.

"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost. You can still call him vile names." Elbert Hubbard.

You can have the last word, I'm done.

quote:

You interjected that to avoid being wrong, so now you're backtracking.

My very first post is quoted above your post that said the same thing as the next one and the next and so on. My mistake was being dumb enough to assume that if I repeated myself often enough you might grasp a very simple concept concerning valid "eye witness" testimony.