Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy

[airportkid]

... most people here would say the bible contains some historical truths, but the vast majority and moreover the overall thrust is total bullshit so, on balance, the bible is bullshit ...

It's the wine vs sewage conundrum:  A teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of wine makes it sewage; a teaspoon of wine in a barrel of sewage still leaves sewage.  A barrel of wine the bible is demonstrably not.  A great deal of it goes beyond being merely spoiled wine to being acutely toxic.

[Dexta]

... most people here would say the bible contains some historical truths, but the vast majority and moreover the overall thrust is total bullshit so, on balance, the bible is bullshit ...

It's the wine vs sewage conundrum:  A teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of wine makes it sewage; a teaspoon of wine in a barrel of sewage still leaves sewage.  A barrel of wine the bible is demonstrably not.  A great deal of it goes beyond being merely spoiled wine to being acutely toxic.

I guess the analogy RE the bible would be closer to a teaspoon of accurate historicity added to a barrel of pestilential bile.

An aside, but I'm not fully on board with the wine VS sewage analogy, not precisely anyway. I've worked in care homes doing 40 pieces of continence care a day, and I pick up the droppings of 4 dogs a day too. A whole barrel of wine and a single (5ml?) teaspoon of sewage? I'd be tempted to drink it still I think. 

There is the fact that 90% of shop bought sandwiches contain traces of human faeces (IIRC). Dogs and pigs etc etc etc actually eat faeces willingly sometimes. There's also the fact of skat porn and the popularity of water sports and anal sex...a little sewage, meh, worse things happen at sea. Our house does also not have a bidet - neither do most. Problem? Not one jot. Probably most of all my, likely rarefied, view on this one is, bizarrely enough, influenced by a science fiction novel written by the late, great Iain M Banks. "Matter" I think it was called. In it, a water dwelling advanced alien species would not remove all traces of excrement from the waters they lived in, as to do so would seem they were not entirely comfortable with themselves. 

Chill out, enjoy the wine, 5ml of sewage? Who gives a fuck. A litre of sewage? Different story (for me). Thresholds differ on this one I guess.

ETA: there are 143,201 millilitres in a barrel of wine, So that's 1 part excrement per 28,640 parts wine. There's probably more excrement in it anyway from poor hand hygene, insect shit on the grapes etc etc anyway. Drink on!

[mordant]

It's the wine vs sewage conundrum:  A teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of wine makes it sewage; a teaspoon of wine in a barrel of sewage still leaves sewage.  A barrel of wine the bible is demonstrably not.  A great deal of it goes beyond being merely spoiled wine to being acutely toxic.

I guess the analogy RE the bible would be closer to a teaspoon of accurate historicity added to a barrel of pestilential bile.

An aside, but I'm not fully on board with the wine VS sewage analogy, not precisely anyway. I've worked in care homes doing 40 pieces of continence care a day, and I pick up the droppings of 4 dogs a day too. A whole barrel of wine and a single (5ml?) teaspoon of sewage? I'd be tempted to drink it still I think. 

There is the fact that 90% of shop bought sandwiches contain traces of human faeces (IIRC). Dogs and pigs etc etc etc actually eat faeces willingly sometimes. There's also the fact of skat porn and the popularity of water sports and anal sex...a little sewage, meh, worse things happen at sea. Our house does also not have a bidet - neither do most. Problem? Not one jot. Probably most of all my, likely rarefied, view on this one is, bizarrely enough, influenced by a science fiction novel written by the late, great Iain M Banks. "Matter" I think it was called. In it, a water dwelling advanced alien species would not remove all traces of excrement from the waters they lived in, as to do so would seem they were not entirely comfortable with themselves. 

Chill out, enjoy the wine, 5ml of sewage? Who gives a fuck. A litre of sewage? Different story (for me). Thresholds differ on this one I guess.

ETA:  there are 143,201 millilitres in a barrel of wine, So that's 1 part excrement per 28,640 parts wine. There's probably more excrement in it anyway from poor hand hygene, insect shit on the grapes etc etc anyway. Drink on!

One of our dogs is a shit-eater. Especially in winter when it's frozen.

We do not allow him to lick us on the face, though.

[AutisticWill]

"Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy"

Luke assures us a man got up from the rotting dead -- jesus' body was unwinding at the cellular level, all the proteins were uncoupling, for a minimum of one and a half days: Friday night; all of Saturday; pre-dawn Sunday. Then this stinking dead man resurrected!

This alone proves that 'Luke' was not an accurate historian; he doesn't say, 'I have heard it said,' or, 'I now tell you what is unverified,' -- no! He perfectly commingles plagiarisms* from Josephus (an actual historian!) with outrageous violations of the foundations of the world [a world built on laws!], including angles flying about the terrestrial air!

*They are plagiarisms because he lifts the structure of the material without crediting his source: see Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery.

Correctly describing the world he, 'Luke,' lived in (right down to now obscure vocabulary), and knowing how to read a book by an expert (and reading it wrong, by the way**), does not make him a historian -- of any kind.

**'Luke' crisscrosses the chronology of two historical figures, because he didn't understand the narrative structure of some paragraphs in Josephus.

And by the waaaay: you are a lier, via misdirection/omission. Your 'signature' [so they call it] is a quote of Albert Einstein. But you had to know the following quote by Albert Einstein in order to get to the quote you chose to cherry pick from Albert Einstein's output.

Albert Einstein; Quote: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein

'Argumentum "Einsteinium"' is a tiresome 'hackney' of the feebly informed and easily impressed. My repetition of his name should drive the point home. I only quote him above in order to set the record aright.

[Dave Armstrong]

"Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy"

And by the waaaay: you are a lier, via misdirection/omission. Your 'signature' [so they call it] is a quote of Albert Einstein. But you had to know the following quote by Albert Einstein in order to get to the quote you chose to cherry pick from Albert Einstein's output.

Albert Einstein; Quote: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein

'Argumentum "Einsteinium"' is a tiresome 'hackney' of the feebly informed and easily impressed. My repetition of his name should drive the point home. I only quote him above in order to set the record aright.

As I already explained, my signature is not a lie. It doesn't misrepresent Einstein. It doesn't imply that he believed in a personal God. He didn't. He was what I would call a panentheist. That's not a personal, transcendent God. He talked about "God" quite a bit, but it's not the same God that Christians and other theists believe in. I chose this signature because it shows that he believed in something beyond what atheists believe, which shows that not all brilliant men (including those whom atheists regard as great heros) must be atheists.

I compiled a long collection of Einstein's thoughts along these lines twenty years ago. But if people insist on misunderstanding something, they'll find a way to do it, just like you did.

[Dānu]

"Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy"

And by the waaaay: you are a lier, via misdirection/omission. Your 'signature' [so they call it] is a quote of Albert Einstein. But you had to know the following quote by Albert Einstein in order to get to the quote you chose to cherry pick from Albert Einstein's output.

Albert Einstein; Quote: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein

'Argumentum "Einsteinium"' is a tiresome 'hackney' of the feebly informed and easily impressed. My repetition of his name should drive the point home. I only quote him above in order to set the record aright.

As I already explained, my signature is not a lie. It doesn't misrepresent Einstein. It doesn't imply that he believed in a personal God. He didn't. He was what I would call a panentheist. That's not a personal, transcendent God. He talked about "God" quite a bit, but it's not the same God that Christians and other theists believe in. I chose this signature because it shows that he believed in something beyond what atheists believe, which shows that not all brilliant men (including those whom atheists regard as great heros) must be atheists.

I compiled a long collection of Einstein's thoughts along these lines twenty years ago. But if people insist on misunderstanding something, they'll find a way to do it, just like you did.

QFT.

[AutisticWill]

"Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy"

And by the waaaay: you are a lier, via misdirection/omission. ...

'Argumentum "Einsteinium"' is a tiresome 'hackney' of the feebly informed and easily impressed. My repetition of his name should drive the point home. I only quote him above in order to set the record aright.

As I already explained, my signature is not a lie. It doesn't misrepresent Einstein. It doesn't imply [my underline] that he believed in a personal God. He didn't. [oh, so you know he was not a christian {or even a jew, really*}, but you wanted to use him anyway; you might as well have used a pagan witch then] ...

[* Quot: The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

and

Quot: For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ...  are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power {referring to outdated medical notions}. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them. {He is literally ridiculing the jews here for having 'stuck up' beliefs!}]


I compiled a long [my underline] collection of Einstein's thoughts along these lines twenty years ago. But if people insist on misunderstanding something, they'll find a way to do it, just like you did.

Oh yeah?

Your quot: The presence of a superior reasoning power ... in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God [in super-outsized font, by the way]

vs:

My quot: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Then there's: "But if people insist on misunderstanding something, they'll find a way to do it"

Like you!? You totally ignored the main thrust of my argument to glory in the fact that I may have misunderstood the point of your 'signature.' Let's try again, shall we?

Luke ASSURES us a man got up from the !rotting! dead -- jesus' body was unwinding, at the !cellular! level, all the proteins were uncoupling, for a minimum of one and a half days: Friday night; all of Saturday; pre-dawn Sunday. Then this !stinking DEAD man! resurrected!


This ALONE proves that 'Luke' was not an accurate historian; he doesn't say, 'I have heard it said,' or, 'I now tell you what is unverified,' -- no! He perfectly commingles plagiarisms* from Josephus (an actual historian!) with OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATIONS of the foundations of the world [a world built on laws, SOME FOUND BY EINSTEIN, by the waaaay!], including ANGLES flying about the terrestrial air!

*They are plagiarisms because he lifts the structure of the material without crediting his source: see Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery. [And if you can read the whole bible, then read his whole thing....]

Correctly describing the world he, 'Luke,' lived in (right down to now obscure vocabulary), and knowing how to read a book by an expert (and reading it wrong, by the way**), does not make him a historian -- of any kind.

**'Luke' crisscrosses the chronology of two historical figures, because he didn't understand the narrative structure of some paragraphs in Josephus.

[Dave Armstrong]

As I already explained, my signature is not a lie. It doesn't misrepresent Einstein. It doesn't imply [my underline] that he believed in a personal God. He didn't. [oh, so you know he was not a christian {or even a jew, really*}, but you wanted to use him anyway; you might as well have used a pagan witch then] ...

[* Quot: The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

and

Quot: For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ...  are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power {referring to outdated medical notions}. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them. {He is literally ridiculing the jews here for having 'stuck up' beliefs!}]


I compiled a long [my underline] collection of Einstein's thoughts along these lines twenty years ago. But if people insist on misunderstanding something, they'll find a way to do it, just like you did.

Oh yeah?

Your quot: The presence of a superior reasoning power ... in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God [in super-outsized font, by the way]

vs:

My quot: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Then there's: "But if people insist on misunderstanding something, they'll find a way to do it"

Like you!? You totally ignored the main thrust of my argument to glory in the fact that I may have misunderstood the point of your 'signature.' Let's try again, shall we?

Luke ASSURES us a man got up from the !rotting! dead -- jesus' body was unwinding, at the !cellular! level, all the proteins were uncoupling, for a minimum of one and a half days: Friday night; all of Saturday; pre-dawn Sunday. Then this !stinking DEAD man! resurrected!


This ALONE proves that 'Luke' was not an accurate historian; he doesn't say, 'I have heard it said,' or, 'I now tell you what is unverified,' -- no! He perfectly commingles plagiarisms* from Josephus (an actual historian!) with OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATIONS of the foundations of the world [a world built on laws, SOME FOUND BY EINSTEIN, by the waaaay!], including ANGLES flying about the terrestrial air!

*They are plagiarisms because he lifts the structure of the material without crediting his source: see Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery. [And if you can read the whole bible, then read his whole thing....]

Correctly describing the world he, 'Luke,' lived in (right down to now obscure vocabulary), and knowing how to read a book by an expert (and reading it wrong, by the way**), does not make him a historian -- of any kind.

**'Luke' crisscrosses the chronology of two historical figures, because he didn't understand the narrative structure of some paragraphs in Josephus.

Do you feel better now, getting that off your chest?

[AutisticWill]

Do you feel better now, getting that off your chest?

That is an ad hominem*, and ignores the content of what I said. [*You imply that because I'm incensed by your horrible logic, my observations can be ignored.] I only had to repeat myself, with added emphasis, because you didn't pay attention the first time. Nor this time, apparently.

'Luke' says a dead man did get up and go again; walked again, talked again, ate and flew through the air!

You lose.

'Luke' is not an accurate historian.

You might have had a case if 'Luke' had written, 'I am told by a man, who swears his life away that he is an eyewitness to this, that after they crucified him ...' Nor can you say that 'Luke' is that very eyewitness: The Gospel According to Luke/Acts of the Apostles is not written in the first person. The 'We' passages are an enigma; but even if they were genuine eyewitness testimony: they weren't necessarily Luke's eyewitness testimony; an eyewitness's interpretation and report of what he saw isn't automatically right just because he reports to have seen something.

As for your new Einstein signature, it, too, is an ad hominem and quite ridiculous beyond that: there are no crystal spheres singing in the either, and I fully enjoy a good rainbow, even though I am quite fanatically atheistic. Albert Einstein wasn't jesus christ, ya know: he made lots of mistakes. Albert Einstein was something of a fanatic himself: he said that black holes could not exist, and said that quantum mechanics was, in so many words, pig wash. Maybe you should stop relying on him for words of wisdom, and try his equations instead.

Einstein -- Quot: Gμv + gμvDelta = 8πG/c^4 * Tμv [thus proving that the force of gravity is congruent with the warping of spacetime.]

Though that doesn't prove the points you're trying to make either.

[It's called 'the Einstein Field Equation' -- https://byjus.com/physics/einstein-field-equation/ ]

[Aegon]

Show me one thing outside of the buybull, that proves the buybull. All religious texts, are nonsense. Every. Single. One.

I just did. Did you read the above? Everything is verified by non-biblical sources and hard evidence (archaeological artifacts, etc.).

Many historians believe Gilgamesh was a real Babylonian king. Uruk was also a very real place. The characters go to a mythical Cedar Forest...cedar trees were certainly present in the area, plenty of cedar forests in Babylon. Do you think that means the Epic of Gilgamesh is historically accurate and the Babylonian gods are real?

[Dave Armstrong]

I just did. Did you read the above? Everything is verified by non-biblical sources and hard evidence (archaeological artifacts, etc.).

Many historians believe Gilgamesh was a real Babylonian king. Uruk was also a very real place. The characters go to a mythical Cedar Forest...cedar trees were certainly present in the area, plenty of cedar forests in Babylon. Do you think that means the Epic of Gilgamesh is historically accurate and the Babylonian gods are real?

I think the Epic likely has a kernel of historical truth in it. maybe more than just a kernel. Of course as a Christian I wouldn't believe in the Babylonian gods.

Whatever is true in the Epic, would have to be verified with external scientific and historical sources, just as I do with the Bible.

[Aegon]

Many historians believe Gilgamesh was a real Babylonian king. Uruk was also a very real place. The characters go to a mythical Cedar Forest...cedar trees were certainly present in the area, plenty of cedar forests in Babylon. Do you think that means the Epic of Gilgamesh is historically accurate and the Babylonian gods are real?

I think the Epic likely has a kernel of historical truth in it. maybe more than just a kernel. Of course as a Christian I wouldn't believe in the Babylonian gods.

Whatever is true in the Epic, would have to be verified with external scientific and historical sources, just as I do with the Bible.

Sure, but you see the point? Historical accuracy within the story does not mean the fantastical elements are real, or even close to real. What really is the difference between God and Ishtar, in this way?

[Dave Armstrong]

I think the Epic likely has a kernel of historical truth in it. maybe more than just a kernel. Of course as a Christian I wouldn't believe in the Babylonian gods.

Whatever is true in the Epic, would have to be verified with external scientific and historical sources, just as I do with the Bible.

Sure, but you see the point? Historical accuracy within the story does not mean the fantastical elements are real, or even close to real. What really is the difference between God and Ishtar, in this way?

I never claimed historical accuracy proved miracles. I said that if a writer is shown to be historically trustworthy, then he can be trusted to accurately report about Jesus and Paul, etc. Then one's view of miracles beforehand determines whether one dismisses any or all supernatural reports as fiction or not. There is no compelling argument against all miracles in all places. There is scarcely any argument at all. It's all pretty much based on Hume's non-argument: "we rarely observe miracles, therefore they don't exist, and our worldview rules them out by definition anyway, so we don't have to examine purported individual cases . . ."

David Hume did believe in God, by the way (basically a deist version); he wasn't an atheist. This is a widespread myth.

Ishtar would have to be supported by various and sundry evidences, just as we do with our God and our religious views. That's their burden of proof, not mine.

[Minimalist]

Ishtar is a mythological character too....just like your god(s).

[Gwaithmir]

Of course, it’s easy for us with our 21st Century, materialistic minds to dismiss the Bible as a load of rubbish. But in the actual analysis, that is exactly what the Bible turns out to be---a load of rubbish! It is a book of nonsensical, fantastic stories about talking animals, talking bushes, mythical creatures, people rising from the dead, magic and pseudo-history. It is the creation of ignorant, fallible men, reflecting the prejudices, superstitions, bad theology and fears of the times in which it was written. It promotes slavery, ethnic cleansing, race prejudice, wars of conquest, the subjugation of women, child abuse and genital mutilation. It promotes the worship and celebration of a god who is little more than an egotistical, homicidal, fear-mongering tyrant. It is a book which any reasonable, intellectually honest, and intelligent person should heartily dismiss as bad fiction. 

[Dānu]

Sure, but you see the point? Historical accuracy within the story does not mean the fantastical elements are real, or even close to real. What really is the difference between God and Ishtar, in this way?

I never claimed historical accuracy proved miracles. I said that if a writer is shown to be historically trustworthy, then he can be trusted to accurately report about Jesus and Paul, etc. Then one's view of miracles beforehand determines whether one dismisses any or all supernatural reports as fiction or not. There is no compelling argument against all miracles in all places. There is scarcely any argument at all. It's all pretty much based on Hume's non-argument: "we rarely observe miracles, therefore they don't exist, and our worldview rules them out by definition anyway, so we don't have to examine purported individual cases . . ."

David Hume did believe in God, by the way (basically a deist version); he wasn't an atheist. This is a widespread myth.

[Dave Armstrong]

Of course, it’s easy for us with our 21st Century, materialistic minds to dismiss the Bible as a load of rubbish. But in the actual analysis, that is exactly what the Bible turns out to be---a load of rubbish! It is a book of nonsensical, fantastic stories about talking animals, talking bushes, mythical creatures, people rising from the dead, magic and pseudo-history. It is the creation of ignorant, fallible men, reflecting the prejudices, superstitions, bad theology and fears of the times in which it was written. It promotes slavery, ethnic cleansing, race prejudice, wars of conquest, the subjugation of women, child abuse and genital mutilation. It promotes the worship and celebration of a god who is little more than an egotistical, homicidal, fear-mongering tyrant. It is a book which any reasonable, intellectually honest, and intelligent person should heartily dismiss as bad fiction. 

Well, these are the fashionable myths, held by those who gather in groups like this to reinforce all of their false premises that lead to false conclusions.

This is why I'm here: to dispose of these myths one-by-one, as I am able, with the knowledge I have attained as an apologist. The ones who want this forum to be a "rah rah club" of groupthink despise that -- and me -- and would like to kick me out. Those who like stimulating discussion with someone who differs and can offer a calm, rational disagreement, are glad I am here. 

Y'all have to have that fight amongst yourselves: whether I am to be allowed to dare dissent or whether I must be censored, silenced, and banned as a threat to your comfortable bubble. There are always people who are scared to death of people and viewpoints different than their own. It's not my concern. Once that is resolved and the dust settles and the smell of flatulence from all of the hatred and and anger dissipates, then we can get down to the business of some fun and challenging dialogue, between myself and those here who enjoy great discussion and debate, as I do.

I had one question: by "mythical creatures" do you mean things like unicorns and dragons? If so, is it your position that the Bible teaches that those animals are real?

[epronovost]

I never claimed historical accuracy proved miracles. I said that if a writer is shown to be historically trustworthy, then he can be trusted to accurately report about Jesus and Paul, etc.

Here are is a problem for you though. If you cannot prove miracles by providing basic information about the geography of an area at a certain point and time, how can you be trusted to report accurately about Jesus since Jesus does a lot of miracles according to the same source? That would make any reporting on the teachings of Jesus immediately suspicious since it includes completely outlandish elements that cannot be confirmed by anybody and are already known to be part of the legendary and mythological register of the time and era. This is but one of the reason why historians and biblical scholars agree that the Gospels are not good history and that if Jesus was a historical figure, which is still considered highly plausible by the majority of historians studying the subject, we know preciously little about what he actually preached or even his actual influence since we know him through his successors.

[Dave Armstrong]

I never claimed historical accuracy proved miracles. I said that if a writer is shown to be historically trustworthy, then he can be trusted to accurately report about Jesus and Paul, etc.

Here are is a problem for you though. If you cannot prove miracles by providing basic information about the geography of an area at a certain point and time, how can you be trusted to report accurately about Jesus since Jesus does a lot of miracles according to the same source? That would make any reporting on the teachings of Jesus immediately suspicious since it includes completely outlandish elements that cannot be confirmed by anybody and are already known to be part of the legendary and mythological register of the time and era. This is but one of the reason why historians and biblical scholars agree that the Gospels are not good history and that if Jesus was a historical figure, which is still considered highly plausible by the majority of historians studying the subject, we know preciously little about what he actually preached or even his actual influence since we know him through his successors.

One can't "prove miracles" to people who are determined to never believe them, and who have ruled them out by simply claiming that they can never happen and are categorically impossible (things which no one has ever done, because it's impossible to prove a universal negative).

What we can show (and what I think I have already done in this thread) is that Bible writers report accurate history. Then it comes down to the prior views of the reader, whether the miracles also included will be believed or not. If they are entirely discounted on entirely insufficient and inadequate grounds, as I believe, then no one can cut through that as long as the falsehood is strongly believed in, essentially by blind faith, and impervious to reason. It's what they call in sociology a "true believer." Tough to break through that shell.

There are very good books that detail the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (here's one).

[AutisticWill]

David Hume did believe in God, by the way (basically a deist version); he wasn't an atheist. This is a widespread myth.

I think all these people, these great thinkers, whom you -- tediously? -- point to as 'not atheists' would have been religious fanatics, had they lived long long ago; god-trumpeters, had they lived long ago; and atheists had they lived today. You have no point there -- of course thinkers from the Enlightenment, the Renascence, the Age of Discovery, and the Early Twentieth Century believed in god; but the great thinkers seldom believed in your god -- because they knew better: that's what made them great thinkers, the knowing better, via finding out through pure thought combined with rigorous exploration and experiment! The great thinkers today do not believe in god, either at all...

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/200...nd-belief/

"... the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten [American] scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view."

...or at the very least, 'god' has nothing to do with their work.

god ain't curing cancer, honey -- neither your 'jesus+jehovah' nor 'the great watch maker in the sky' of Mozart and Einstein.

It's over.

You only believe in god because of fallacious reasoning of some kind or other, which you only have because you're human: a self-aware computer could not believe in god, it could only conclude that god does not exist, based on logic and evidence, or BREAK -- because it were illogical in it's construction.

[Dānu]

Here are is a problem for you though. If you cannot prove miracles by providing basic information about the geography of an area at a certain point and time, how can you be trusted to report accurately about Jesus since Jesus does a lot of miracles according to the same source? That would make any reporting on the teachings of Jesus immediately suspicious since it includes completely outlandish elements that cannot be confirmed by anybody and are already known to be part of the legendary and mythological register of the time and era. This is but one of the reason why historians and biblical scholars agree that the Gospels are not good history and that if Jesus was a historical figure, which is still considered highly plausible by the majority of historians studying the subject, we know preciously little about what he actually preached or even his actual influence since we know him through his successors.

One can't "prove miracles" to people who are determined to never believe them, and who have ruled them out by simply claiming that they can never happen and are categorically impossible (things which no one has ever done, because it's impossible to prove a universal negative).

What we can show (and what I think I have already done in this thread) is that Bible writers report accurate history. Then it comes down to the prior views of the reader, whether the miracles also included will be believed or not. If they are entirely discounted on entirely insufficient and inadequate grounds, as I believe, then no one can cut through that as long as the falsehood is strongly believed in, essentially by blind faith, and impervious to reason. It's what they call in sociology a "true believer." Tough to break through that shell.

There are very good books that detail the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (here's one).

What do you say to the Muslim who claims that the bible has been corrupted, that while there may be bonafide facts in it, the message of Jesus is not one.

[epronovost]

What we can show (and what I think I have already done in this thread) is that Bible writers report accurate history.

As has been shown to you with the example of the Trojan War or Spider-Man comic books, what the Bible provides as accurate history is wholly insufficient to make presumptions about it's core narrative. It's not like Luke is perfect on the inconsequential details either. It's description of the Roman census is inaccurate for example. Can we thus say that the authors of Luke report accurate history? About as much as Homer or Stan Lee. It doesn't mean we can't glean good, useful historical information from such documents. If one day archeologists trying to piece back the history of the US stumble upon a Spider Man comic book anthology, they might gather interesting and fairly reliable the US as it describe and represent pretty well the city of New-York, tabloids and sensationalist media practices and political corruptions for example, but it would take a lot of comparison with far more valuable and verifiable documents from known authors.  

There are very good books that detail the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (here's one).

It's trash. A big pile of garbage. As an historian I can tell you that this book is a dumpster fire. We have scant historical proof for the existence and life of Jesus Christ himself let alone his resurrection which, as described in the Bible, would be piss easy considering all the extraordinary, large scale events that surrounds it. The author doesn't understand the slightest about the historical methods or standards of proof in Antique history.

[AutisticWill]

... the knowledge I have attained as an apologist.

Oh. So you're not interested in learning anything new; you've learned what you did, and are now out to proselytize. Tch. You're not welcome here.

You like to justify the ways of god to men, do you?

Well, as long as logically fallacious arguments are your thing, try this on for size:

My birthgiver, Lisa, sexually abused me at 8 years old, because she was trying to save my soul from hell -- in other words, she did it for jesus. If that sounds like it makes no scene, I'm leaving out some detail; you will of course respect this.

My adoptive Mother, Ann, (who knows all about Lisa) told me that I need to come to jesus. She told me this many times, but in particular, I'm thinking of an incident where, after I had a PTSD nightmare (about Lisa), I called Ann for Motherly love; instead, she pried open my rape trauma as an avenue for jesus. She says that I, a childhood trauma victim, must throw myself face down in the dirt before the god of abraham -- a god that ordered the child abuse of Issac.

Now, Lisa is a monster, because she violates nature [the literal meaning of the word, 'monster'.] But at least she never tried to kill me! She beat me, sexually abused me, verbally beat me down, and blackmailed me. But she never tried to kill me, she never tried to cut my throat out!

Mother, Ann, told me that I would burn in hell -- and that I would be getting exactly what I deserve if I do not worship, and believe in, jesus.

Justify that, you fuck.

[AutisticWill]

  It's description of the Roman census is inaccurate for example.

jesus fucking christ -- i completely forgot about that! The bible is a complete dumpster fire -- one can't even keep up with it!!!

[Dave Armstrong]

It's trash. A big pile of garbage. As an historian I can tell you that this book is a dumpster fire. We have scant historical proof for the existence and life of Jesus Christ himself let alone his resurrection which, as described in the Bible, would be piss easy considering all the extraordinary, large scale events that surrounds it. The author doesn't understand the slightest about the historical methods or standards of proof in Antique history.

The author's education:

• Ph.D., Michigan State University (History and Philosophy of Religion)
  
  
• M.A., University of Detroit (Philosophical Theology)
  

I think we can safely say he understands historical methods. You simply can't handle it because it defends a supernatural event. It's like how Bertrand Russell claimed in his History of Philosophy (which I read) that St. Thomas Aquinas couldn't possibly be a philosopher because he was, after all, a believing Catholic. Ruling out people by huge category is not a reasoned argument. It's a baldly asserted arbitrary premise.