Re: Celebrate Evolution! today


"Mark" <blueriverday@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d6267adc-26d9-4259-85ec-5492b7578d7e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 17, 5:28 pm, "Ernie Jurick" <invalidexam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<old.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:cplkp4drns8tn4fv5bb766kh877ne86agj@xxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:02:02 -0800, Ditty Nicolaides
<BiteMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Quoting bible verses to me as God-Given Truth doesn't hack it with me,
OS. I am an agnostic.

But as the word of God, it's the source to answer some of your
questions.

Okay, prove it's the word of God without referring to the Bible. I've
asked
you to do this before and you've always dodged the question. Using a
source
as proof of itself is the circular reasoning fallacy.

Prove it isn't without resorting to sophism.

It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything, because nonexistence
is self-evident. The burden of proof falls on the person who claims that
something exists which is not evident to others. If I claim there are flying
elephants I've got to produce one. If you say there are none, the burden of
proof still rests on me. You don't have to do a thing.

You realized that one of God's days had to be different
then one of ours. Yet so out there don't and lay claim to a 24 hour
day for every where the Bible uses the word day. Yet I showed a
regular day for God is 1000 of our years.

No, you quoted a letter written between 100-150 CE

Wrong. Most evidence points to the letter being written before
Peter's death around 64 AD at the time in Rome when Nero
was persecuting Christians.

The overwhelming majority accepts its epigraphical status. I've posted the
BAR statement by the editor of the Anchor Bible, surely an authority. Read
the book I referenced, or any contemporary like
An Introduction to the New Testament (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference
Library) by Fr Raymond E. Brown, OSB, or Werner Georg Kummel's classic of
the same name. Here's another:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=708

by someone claiming to be
the disciple Peter,

And your post was written by someone claiming
to be Bernie. Is that also inadmissible?

No, I have never claimed to be Bernie, so it's an obvious, provable
falsehood.

which is called pseudepigraphy.

Pseudepigraphy is something written in someone else's
name.

Bingo!

This is merely unprovable speculation in many
writings and people with their own agendas seek to
prove such. While it may be so, the burden of inconclusive
proof has yet to be established.

It's been proven to death. See references above.

Both the OT and the NT
are rife with
it.http://www.bib-arch.org/archive.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=10&Issue=1&Arti...

The source you quote is from a modern day Jewish
perspective, and the "symmetry" theory he touts serves
to enrich the man's career. Pseudepigraphism is not
proven by this source.

See above.

Second Peter was written at a time when Petrine Christians and Pauline
Christians were at loggerheads, struggling for power. Most of the epistles
record the continuing struggle for converts and communities. The Paulines
eventually won out and immediately began persecuting the other sects like
the Ebionites as heretics, killing off all but themselves. A scholarly
work
on the battle which has drawn praise is "St. Paul vs. St. Peter" by
Michael
Goulder.

Good. You've taken a few classes.

Never have. I'm an autodidact. Religion is one of my hobbies. You should see
my library.

Now disprove the Historicity
of Jesus the Christ and his resurrection, using the same standards
of Internal evidence, external evidence, and extant documentation
which all other antiquites are verified by.

There are only a few mentions of JC outside the NT, and zero about the
resurrection. There's barely any mention in the synoptics: Matthew gives it
a passing mention at the tail end of his book, Mark even less, and Luke
pushes most of his account into his sequel.

Good luck. LOL!

Even in translation the Peter of the Gospels and the "Peter" of the
Epistles
are obviously different people. Gospel Peter is a Galilee fisherman,
illiterate and crude, a buffoon barely able to string two sentences
together. The "Peter" of the epistles writes in a euphuistic 2nd-century
style and is obviously an educated man.

Prove it.

See references above.

Furthermore, the pre-Constantine Romans and even the early
Constantine era Romans dilligently sought to burn all books
and documents which could've provided a better written record,

Most documents that contradicted mainstream Church doctrine were destroyed
by the Church, which is why we have, for example, Origen's "Contra Celsus"
[sic] but no originals of Celsus's work,

but still, there are ample records surviving today, many of which
are secular, supporting the validity of the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Name one secular source (the post-5th century Antiquitates Judaicae
paragraph is a forgery as I'm sure you know).

As a wise person once said:

To him that believes, no proof is necessary.
To him that disbelieves, no amount of proof will suffice.

An even wiser person said, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen." :-)

A belief doesn't need proof, as the quote suggests. For thousands of years
people believed the Sun orbited the Earth. Copernicus conclusively proved it
didn't.
-- Ernie



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Celebrate Evolution! today
    ... prove it's the word of God without referring to the Bible. ... Most evidence points to the letter being written before ... Christians were at loggerheads, struggling for power. ... on the battle which has drawn praise is "St. Paul vs. St. Peter" by Michael ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Historical evidence?
    ... references was modified by Christians. ... Jesus lived and that the Christians were his followers. ... but none it contradicts the third century evidence. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: Ask an atheist a question
    ... I don't know how good the evidence for Alexander ... example, Thomas, emerged from the same community that then rejected the ... I meant the community of Christians, ... most important event associated with him, namely the Resurrection, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Ask an atheist a question
    ... There are certainly documents extant about Jesus that are much ... I don't know how good the evidence for Alexander ... I meant the community of Christians, ... most important event associated with him, namely the Resurrection, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Historical evidence for Jesus ?
    ... Naturally, as someone interested in history, I would ... Being interested in history, I have checked this evidence, and present ... be evidence for Jesus, along with analysis of how significant they are. ... This is why we have Christians -- originally a derisive ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)