Re: All Evidence is Subjective...


<jwsheffield@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140723816.265243.203570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Von R. Smith wrote:
jwsheffield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Von R. Smith wrote:
jwsheffield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
People heard you the first time. And the second. And the third... If I
haven't missed any posts in this thread, this challenge of yours was
included in ten of your posts and quoted in five others. It's impolite

to keep repeating the same stuff, and you are not doing your own
arguments any favours. The likely effect is that readers who otherwise
might have been interested in what you have to say get frustrated and
skip your posts because the constant copypasting gives them the
impression that you have nothing new and interesting to say. If you
have an interesting new insight it drowns in all those redundant quotes

and people are likely to miss it.


Then why aren't you writing those
four books?


Because you haven't demonstrated how it's relevant.

I am showing it would be impossible.


But you still haven't demonstrated that it's relevant, impossible or
no. Even if everything you said above were correct, even if your
challenge were unmeetable, it would not constitute one shred of
evidence that there are any contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, or that
the gospels reflect the events of his life with any accuracy.

You are just dodging the Roman Empire was a well run police
state(read Annals of Rome, Tacitus). They would have quickly
demonstrated it was false, if they could. For contemporaneous
accounts
read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Have you forgotten that you can't show they're contemporaneous
accounts? No assuming what you must show.

So the best evidence you've got is no evidence at all? It figures.


You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.

"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter



had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the



Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."


"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,





Rome had official historians,
like Tacitus, Josephus, Plutarch, and others. They nwould
have produced a tome refuting Christianity if they could.


That is speculation, not evidence.

So you admit unbelievers are too stupid to have gone
to the tomb and checked.

Unbelievers, by defintion, wouldn't have cared or wasted their time.

Now that is absurd speculation.
Celsus, Porphyry of Tyre, and an account put out by the
emperor of the East that Eusebius refuted. There were also
interogations by Pontius Pilate, Paulus, Gallio the brother of
Seneca, Felix, Festus, and Pliny the Younger. I have
documented they cared. You have yet to document a credible
ancient tome refuting Christianity.

There aren't any because there aren't any contemporaneous accounts.
The best evidence you have is that there is no evidence. Are there
any books refuting the evidence that aliens from Jupiter killed Kennedy?
You think the US Government wouldn't have refuted the alien theory if
they could have. Must be true then.

Maybe someone else
can meet the challenge.



Maybe you can explain how it's relevant.

I am showing it would be impossible. Rome had official historians,
like Tacitus, Josephus, Plutarch, and others. They nwould
have produced a tome refuting Christianity if they could.


You said that already.

You still havn't met the challenge.




I give this little chalenge on the internet when I get bored.
It's fun watching unbelievers tryiing to respond to it.


Much more fun, I'm sure, then watching your claims about contemporary
documents for Jesus' existence get beaten up.

Matthew was the scribe of the Apostles.

Mark took down the sermons of Peter.

Luke used eyewitnesses.



All self-admittedly hearsay, with no mention of how long after the fact
the events were reported.


John was an Apostle.


John was also a King of England.

I think there is no evidence that the Apostle John
went to Britan to become king. It wasn't even called
England until the Angli came over from Germany.

John ruled from 1199-1216. The Angles came to the
British Isles in the 5th and 6th centuries. Are you really
this ignorant?

There's more evidence for King John than for your Apostle.
(And you didn't really interpret the post as saying that they
were the same person, did you?)

<snip>

lol Jesus existed *because* no one ever found his body. Nice inverted
logic.

A guard was placed arround vthe tomb and a stone
was rolled over the enterance. read the book, "Who Moved
The Stone" by Morrison. It's a classic.

Yeah, a classic. Publication date 1987. I guess it's OK for *you*
to quote 20th century authors, huh? Is your faith so weak that you've
this desperate?


So get writing on those four books.

First tell us what this would show. Or are you going to continue
to avoid giving an answer?

Deadrat

<snip>

Pax Christi,


Jim
<snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where is Mcnameless?
    ... I was left wondering where John is. ... How about the fact that someone cancels my posts, ... moderator. ... Evidence and motive? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Psychology/psychiatry a Science?
    ... John M Price PhD wrote: ... Please feel free not to respond to my posts, Dr. Price, but remember ... >of, the lack of evidence. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Is Psychology/psychiatry a Science?
    ... John M Price PhD wrote: ... Please feel free not to respond to my posts, Dr. Price, but remember ... >of, the lack of evidence. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Santa Bill McReynolds
    ... There are so many posts going back ... The movie deal was brought up by ... Ramseys watched any of those movies, let's see some evidence that ... Ramsey was a Promise Keepers member? ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Sock Puppet Fun Revisited [was Re: McCall - no guts, no glory; put up or shutup
    ... your posts to know the way this goes. ... The Burden of Proof Principle ... When people ask "what do you mean by compelling evidence?" ... The Acceptability Principle ...
    (soc.history.medieval)