Board index ‹ Bible

[Alexander the Great]

>How do I know Christianity didn't do the same thing? Because of it's corroboratable historical references.

I can prove to you that New York exists, that it survived terrorists attacks, that it's crime rate has gone down, and that there are people in the city who fanatically worshipped Spiderman (dressed up as him, defended his character against detractors, congregated together in ceremonies (conventions), and created art about him). If we go by your way of thinking, this should be enough to prove that Spiderman was a "real" person.

[jimwalton]

Then you have completely misunderstood and distorted my way of thinking. There primary and significant difference between Spiderman and the Gospel of Luke is the intent of the authors and what they were trying to accomplish. Steve Ditko was intending to write a fictional comic book set in New York City. Even though he uses a factual setting, there is nothing about his work that he intends to be anything but entertainment and fiction. Luke, on the other hand, was intending a historical account (Lk. 1.1) on the basis of facts transmitted by eyewitnesses and others who had legitimate experiences (Lk. 1.2) giving full regard to scholarly research and reliable historiography (Lk. 1.3). His intent is not to entertain but rather to educate (Lk. 1.4).

[Alexander the Great]

> Then you have completely misunderstood and distorted my way of thinking.

Of course I haven't. Don't be ridiculous. I used the same methodology you invoked. The difference is that you don't have the same emotional attachment to "Spiderman is real" that you do to "Christianity is true".

> Luke, on the other hand, was intending a historical account (Lk. 1.1) on the basis of facts transmitted by eyewitnesses and others who had legitimate experiences (Lk. 1.2) giving full regard to scholarly research and reliable historiography (Lk. 1.3).

Except that you're STILL operating under the assumption that Luke cannot be anything except just an honest guy trying to explain what he saw. You've been trained (or trained yourself) to avoid on all accounts even ADDRESSING the idea that folks like Luke (and other members of the early Church) could have been the first (or second or third or fourth) century's equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith. I can't even get you to TALK about it. This is what strikes the rest of us non-Christians as being so nonsensical. We could sit down over a beer and laugh at how insane L. Ron Hubbard sounded. We can have another round and move onto how Joseph Smith duped the masses. This model of charlatan(s) trick masses into training their children to produce a religion is overwhelmingly evidenced and clearly at the start of religions. Yet you can't even TALK about it for your religion. You keep parroting the same thing over over and over with nothing to back it up except the circular reference: "Luke was on the up and up as evidenced by my references to Luke".

It's like talking to a flat-earthist. The overwhelming evidence of a spherical Earth doesn't count, your "sources" all reference themselves, and the concept that you could be wrong about all this and the Earth being round just isn't even in your vocabulary.

[jimwalton]

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence supporting your position. You have offered no evidence to substantiate your claim that they are just making things up.

I said, "You claim to be identifying a pattern based on evidence ("people with a doctrinal ax to grind...to invent a narrative"). Let's see what you have. Present your case and we can discuss it." I've received nothing from you.

I said, "then what does? What is the component you are looking for that shows a piece of writing to be historical? What are you expecting that Luke doesn't have? Let's talk." I get nothing in reply.

It is apparent you have nothing.

> under the assumption that Luke cannot be anything except

I have given you the lists of evidence, twice, with no rebuttal from you. It is apparent you have nothing.

> avoid on all accounts even ADDRESSING the idea that folks like Luke (and other members of the early Church) could have been the first (or second or third or fourth) century's equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith.

Give me your evidence. Without it I'm left to assume you have nothing.

> I can't even get you to TALK about it.

I've given you the lists, twice. I have begged you to talk about it, with no reply. I'm left to assume you have nothing.

> Yet you can't even TALK about it for your religion.

I've given you the lists, twice. I've begged you to give me your evidence, and yet all you do is call names and verbally abuse. I'm left to assume you have nothing.

> You keep parroting the same thing over over and over with nothing to back it up except the circular reference: "Luke was on the up and up as evidenced by my references to Luke".

So give me your case. Show me your evidence. Without it, I'm left to assume you have nothing.

> The overwhelming evidence of a spherical Earth doesn't count, your "sources" all reference themselves, and the concept that you could be wrong about all this and the Earth being round just isn't even in your vocabulary.

So give me your case. Show me your evidence. Without it, I'm left to assume you have nothing.