Firsthand accounts of Christ seem to be missing -- why?

[Big Mac]

Maybe he's not a Real Christian (TM) like you. Judge not lest.......ye be judged yourself?

[iplaw]

Here is a link to a debate about issues related to this topic that was held at Holy Cross university within the last few months.  It was between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.  Ehrman did not want the debate published for reasons that will become obvious as you read the transcript.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/cr ... script.pdf

[MikeyV]

Hey Mommasquid...it might be helpful if you clarified that sig by noting that the anti-atheist comment was said by George H.W. Bush...the current Bush's father.

It's been kinda bothering me. You're attrubuting the quote to the wrong guy.

[Asmodean Prime]

MikeyV

No, mommasquid is not attributing the quote to the wrong guy.  It's my mistake.  I should have looked at the date of the quote.

Still, original question stands, do you think he (bush senior and junior), is a Christian? And a patriot?

[MikeyV]

Here is a link to a debate about issues related to this topic that was held at Holy Cross university within the last few months.  It was between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.  Ehrman did not want the debate published for reasons that will become obvious as you read the transcript.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/cr ... script.pdf

No, it's not that obvious. I could understand if Dr. Craig didn't want it published, though.

His 4 historical "facts":

• Jesus' burial
• The discovery of his empty tomb
• His post-mortem appearances
• The origin of his disciples' belief in his resurection

are in no way, shape or form "facts". They are conjecture. So, he's using conjecture to "prove" the hypothetical resurection. Not to mention the simple fact that to believe any of it, you must first believe in god. So, he starts with an unproven premise, moves onto four conjectures that he labels "fact" and uses them to "prove" a hypothesis.

Then he poo-poo's the inconsistencies. So, he's even worse than an apologist. He doesn't even make a stab at reconciliation. He just brushes them off as irrelevant to the basic story.

Then, he moves into probabilities. Is he really expecting people to buy this? Does he really think he's mathematicaly proven the resurection? I can understand most of the audience buying it, they are the "choir" after all, but come on. Based on that ridiculous line of argumentation, I will be winning Powerball 8 times this month, without even buying a ticket. He has proven nothing.

[MikeyV]

MikeyV

No, mommasquid is not attributing the quote to the wrong guy.  It's my mistake.  I should have looked at the date of the quote.

Still, original question stands, do you think he (bush senior and junior), is a Christian? And a patriot?

Well, yeah, she is. It was said by George H.W. Bush the former President of the United States, not George W. Bush, the current President of the US.

[Asmodean Prime]

In any case, I think that maybe it would be a good idea if you Americans came and invaded England, in order to restore a democratic government here, which we seem to be lacking at present.

What do you think of the idea?

[Court]

In any case, I think that maybe it would be a good idea if you Americans came and invaded England, in order to restore a democratic government here, which we seem to be lacking at present.

What do you think of the idea?

Meh, we only invade countries that have something better than tea to give us. Like oil.

[iplaw]

Read my post more carefully.  I never stated that this debate was one about non-cannonical literataure.  I said it was a related topic.

They are conjecture. So, he's using conjecture to "prove" the hypothetical resurection. Not to mention the simple fact that to believe any of it, you must first believe in god.

Obviously he's debating a fellow PHD in theology who happens to disbelieve in the deity of Christ not his actual existence.  The actual life of Christ is only denied by a few fringe individuals and groups, most of whom aren't qualified to speak on the topic of historicity.  Neither man are fringe enough to debate whether 3 out of 4 of those topics actually happened.   Only #3 is actually debated amongst current scholars.  So the fact that you think they are "conjecture" just depends on which side of the fence you sit.

He doesn't even make a stab at reconciliation. He just brushes them off as irrelevant to the basic story.

No he specifically states that those topics cannot be covered within the time frame given.  They are a debate in and of themselves and peripheral to the main point, one's which he has nevertheless debated ad nauseam in other forums.

Then, he moves into probabilities. Is he really expecting people to buy this? Does he really think he's mathematicaly proven the resurection? I can understand most of the audience buying it, they are the "choir" after all, but come on. Based on that ridiculous line of argumentation, I will be winning Powerball 8 times this month, without even buying a ticket. He has proven nothing.

Did you read why he moved into the probabilities argument?  He was directly atttacking the heart of Ehrman's assertions.  Ehrman was relying on Hume's misunderstanding of the statistical probability of miracles.  Bayesian probability is a commonly used and well accepted method for determining probabilities; whether the theory was applied correctly can be argued though.  Although I don't think he needed the expansive proof it was enough to say that Hume was ignoring fundamental aspects of probability theory.  As for your example you have to show me how you made your calculations before I can make a judgment about your analogy.

[Theist]

My philosophy is simple, kill one our guys, we kill 10 of yours. A head for an eye. A fist for a finger, a life for an injury.

To quote Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof
"Very good, then the whole world will be blind and toothless" in reply to someone saying
"an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth"  

[Big Mac]

My philosophy is simple, kill one our guys, we kill 10 of yours. A head for an eye. A fist for a finger, a life for an injury.

To quote Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof
"Very good, then the whole world will be blind and toothless" in reply to someone saying
"an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth"  

Well that's nice and all, but in war, you cannot be nice. It's all about who is willing to go all the way and take who out. That's why I love guerrilla warfare (aka asymmetrical warfare). It's all about that seemingly last-ditch effort.