• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Case for Christ

Logicman said:
You know, the amount of information you have to kick to the curb to make your anemic and sophomoric anti-Christianity agenda fly is now probably in the thousands of pieces of evidence.
Click to expand...

You can't rebut his rebuttals of Greenleaf? He had 2 very specific accusations. They should be easy for you to dispense with if they're garbage.

Meanwhile, I stumbled on a link to a pretty well thought out argument why your apologetics might be better approached from a different angle, but it's on another machine. I'll post it later.
 
RAMOSS said:
This of course, is making some assumptions that have been shown to be false. One, that you have pearls, and two , that the people you are trying to debate are swine.
Click to expand...

Greenleaf wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, in which he emphatically stated: “...it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . .”

Chow down on that, Ramoss.
 
Logicman said:
Greenleaf wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, in which he emphatically stated: “...it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . .”

Chow down on that, Ramoss.
Click to expand...

And, Greenleaf was wronging very poorly thought out apologist writings. It was crazy back then, and it's crazy now. As a matter of fact, if you BOTHERED to look at the link provided, it started the first bits of pieces of the essay back then. I could do the whole bloody thing, it's not a book, it's a pretty small and poorly written essay, filled with logical fallacies and poor thinking.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, Greenleaf was wronging very poorly thought out apologist writings. It was crazy back then, and it's crazy now. As a matter of fact, if you BOTHERED to look at the link provided, it started the first bits of pieces of the essay back then. I could do the whole bloody thing, it's not a book, it's a pretty small and poorly written essay, filled with logical fallacies and poor thinking.
Click to expand...

Flush.

Anything that is written about the historical Jesus is horse manure to you, Ramoss. It's just one lie, misrepresentation, etc., after another with you when you go to try to dispell it.

Christ is resurrected in all FOUR GOSPELS and various EPISTLES, Ramoss. Chow down on that.
 
Logicman said:
Anything that is written about the historical Jesus is horse manure to you, Ramoss. It's just one lie, misrepresentation, denial, etc., after another with you when you go to try to dispell it.

Christ is resurrected in all FOUR GOSPELS and various EPISTLES, Ramoss. So chow down on that too.
Click to expand...

So, you got a set of books that either use one of them as a source, or a common source to makes stories up. That does not mean it's true.
 
RAMOSS said:
So, you got a set of books that either use one of them as a source, or a common source to makes stories up. That does not mean it's true.
Click to expand...

You've got zero credibility on proving that. That's another one of your THEORIES you can't document.
 
Logicman said:
You've got zero credibility on proving that. That's another one of your THEORIES you can't document.
Click to expand...

And, of course, what is MORE important, is you have zero cediblity and zero evidence to show the gospels are more than just a story.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, of course, what is MORE important, is you have zero cediblity and zero evidence to show the gospels are more than just a story.
Click to expand...

Like the Bible says, even the devil believes, and shudders. But you, you just sing the "No No" song and think you're positing something special. It's just more of your usual anti-Christianity tripe.
 
Logicman said:
Like the Bible says, even the devil believes, and shudders. But you, you just sing the "No No" song and think you're positing something special. It's just more of your usual anti-Christianity tripe.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, doing more circular logic. The Christian concept of 'the devil' is all screwed up, and more pagan than anything else.
 
RAMOSS said:
Which is, of course, doing more circular logic. The Christian concept of 'the devil' is all screwed up, and more pagan than anything else.
Click to expand...

It's just one nonsensical post after another with you.
 
Logicman said:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067523901.html#post1067523901

Did you finish reading "The Case for Christ"?
Click to expand...

Not yet.

If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Because 1) I tend to read several books at once, and 2) when I need to do a lot of fact checking as I go it's a slower process.

Anyway, I posted a response to one of your posts asking for specific factual errors in Strobel's book.

The first response I wrote seems to have been deleted. Maybe because I quoted Strobel's book or because I inserted a link to a google search.

Page 101, Strobel's expert apologist cites a blatant fraud named Jerry Vardaman. Just use a search engine on that guy's name. Has Strobel ever acknowledged that Vardaman's coin with "micro" letters was a fraud?

Strobel seems to be going around interviewing professional apologists posing as a skeptic, asking them questions the apologists have ready answers for, and then immediately or eventually accepting the apologists arguments. And that's what almost all of it is (so far, anyway) - argument. Not proof.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Not yet.



Because 1) I tend to read several books at once, and 2) when I need to do a lot of fact checking as I go it's a slower process.

Anyway, I posted a response to one of your posts asking for specific factual errors in Strobel's book.

The first response I wrote seems to have been deleted. Maybe because I quoted Strobel's book or because I inserted a link to a google search.

Page 101, Strobel's expert apologist cites a blatant fraud named Jerry Vardaman. Just use a search engine on that guy's name. Has Strobel ever acknowledged that Vardaman's coin with "micro" letters was a fraud?

Strobel seems to be going around interviewing professional apologists posing as a skeptic, asking them questions the apologists have ready answers for, and then immediately or eventually accepting the apologists arguments. And that's what almost all of it is (so far, anyway) - argument. Not proof.
Click to expand...

And not even a good argument.
 
RAMOSS said:
And not even a good argument.
Click to expand...

Most are not.

I tend to get fed up when I see the supposed skeptic repeatedly not asking very obvious skeptical questions. Strobel usually tries, I'll give him that.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Anyway, I posted a response to one of your posts asking for specific factual errors in Strobel's book.

The first response I wrote seems to have been deleted. Maybe because I quoted Strobel's book or because I inserted a link to a google search.

Page 101, Strobel's expert apologist cites a blatant fraud named Jerry Vardaman. Just use a search engine on that guy's name. Has Strobel ever acknowledged that Vardaman's coin with "micro" letters was a fraud?
Click to expand...

There's no mention of Jerry Vardaman in my book on page 101, or anywhere else in that book. There was an allusion to quote "an archaeologist" that spoke of a coin in relation to the discussion on Quirinius, but no Jerry Vardaman.

On the other hand, John McRay made a number of excellent arguments that busted the skeptic's claim that a 2nd census under Quirinius was bogus. And that was the main thing I think you should take away from that.

<alt>doxygen said:
Strobel seems to be going around interviewing professional apologists posing as a skeptic, asking them questions the apologists have ready answers for, and then immediately or eventually accepting the apologists arguments. And that's what almost all of it is (so far, anyway) - argument. Not proof.
Click to expand...

Well, he could have gone to some of the liberal "scholars" of the Jesus Seminar, a gaggle of left-wing loons who started with an antisupernatural bias and unfounded theories, and who voted using colored beads, etc. But then you can Google refuting the Jesus Seminar to see what a sham it was that they presented.

The scholars Strobel interviewed are well known in their fields, and all have legitimate degrees, Ph.D's, etc. They present any number of excellent observations in response to specific questions posed by a skeptic of Christianity. Strobel found the information compelling, which is one of the reasons why he became a Christian.

So it's like I said, if you find anything in Strobel's book where one of the scholars interviewed presented bad information, please let me know and we'll discuss. So far you have 1 item in 101 pages? Not too shabby at all! :)

I think if anything, after finishing that book, you will have a much greater appreciation of the foundations of Christianity than you had before.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Most are not.
Click to expand...

You've present ONE and now you're saying "most" are not good arguments?

On what basis do you derive that? Give me an example of one other one that was 'bad' that you read about?
 
Logicman said:
There's no mention of Jerry Vardaman in my book on page 101, or anywhere else in that book. There was an allusion to quote "an archaeologist" that spoke of a coin in relation to the discussion on Quirinius, but no Jerry Vardaman.

On the other hand, John McRay made a number of excellent arguments that busted the skeptic's claim that a 2nd census under Quirinius was bogus. And that was the main thing I think you should take away from that.



Well, he could have gone to some of the liberal "scholars" of the Jesus Seminar, a gaggle of left-wing loons who started with an antisupernatural bias and unfounded theories, and who voted using colored beads, etc. But then you can Google refuting the Jesus Seminar to see what a sham it was that they presented.

The scholars Strobel interviewed are well known in their fields, and all have legitimate degrees, Ph.D's, etc. They present any number of excellent observations in response to specific questions posed by a skeptic of Christianity. Strobel found the information compelling, which is one of the reasons why he became a Christian.

So it's like I said, if you find anything in Strobel's book where one of the scholars interviewed presented bad information, please let me know and we'll discuss. So far you have 1 item in 101 pages? Not too shabby at all! :)

I think if anything, after finishing that book, you will have a much greater appreciation of the foundations of Christianity than you had before.
Click to expand...

Reread the 'coin' section It explicitly says Vardamen

From page 95

He responded by saying, "An eminent
archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work
in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
Reread the 'coin' section It explicitly says Vardamen

From page 95
Click to expand...

Nope. Not on 95 either. Can you get with doxygen and get your page #'s confirmed?

Chances are you might have the 1998 Copyright version instead of the updated and expanded 2016 version.

And even if you have the 1998 version you should understand that that one was published many years after the interview with McRay, when a discussion on Vardaman and others was possibly still ongoing.

And if that's the best you have then you need to get that pooch you're running around the arena some rabies shots.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
Nope. Not on 95 either. Can you get with doxygen and get your page #'s confirmed?

Chances are you might have the 1998 Copyright version instead of the updated and expanded 2016 version.

And even if you have the 1998 version you should understand that that one was published many years after the interview with McRay, when a discussion on Vardaman and others was possibly still ongoing.

And if that's the best you have then you need to get that pooch you're running around the arena some rabies shots.
Click to expand...


Maybe I have a different version.. but yes, it's on page 95.I just looked at it, and yes, that is the exact words, on page 95.

If he mentions the coin, even if the name of Vardaman is not relayed, it's still misinformation. Yes,.. it's the 1998 version, and bringing it up , even back then, was a lie.
 
RAMOSS said:
Maybe I have a different version.. but yes, it's on page 95.I just looked at it, and yes, that is the exact words, on page 95.

If he mentions the coin, even if the name of Vardaman is not relayed, it's still misinformation. Yes,.. it's the 1998 version, and bringing it up , even back then, was a lie.
Click to expand...

I doubt McRay knew it was disputed that much at the time.

Regardless, it's not that critical anyway. McRay's other arguments were enough to demolish the skeptic's claim against Luke / Quirinius. But I doubt you care about that.
 
Logicman said:
I doubt McRay knew it was disputed that much at the time.

Regardless, it's not that critical anyway. McRay's other arguments were enough to demolish the skeptic's claim against Luke / Quirinius. But I doubt you care about that.
Click to expand...

Uh.. no.. the other arguments were totally and utterly useless as a matter of fact. The twisting of reality to try to fit into a preconceived notion was amusing though. It just does not fit the historical record at all.
 
Logicman said:
Nope. Not on 95 either. Can you get with doxygen and get your page #'s confirmed?

Chances are you might have the 1998 Copyright version instead of the updated and expanded 2016 version.

And even if you have the 1998 version you should understand that that one was published many years after the interview with McRay, when a discussion on Vardaman and others was possibly still ongoing.

And if that's the best you have then you need to get that pooch you're running around the arena some rabies shots.
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you on the other stuff - no time now.

I have the Kindle ebook. I got it a couple of weeks ago. It looks like they are using the 1998 version, but they e-published it in 2016.

Are there any other errors or cases of false evidence in the earlier version that we should be aware of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom