Ammishaddai:
[s][/s] If you knew I would strike this lengthy writeup, then why didn't you provided a short summary that has that "document " ?

You think too much of yourself. I'm not merely creating these posts for your benefit, but for the benefit of forum members viewing the thread, which is why I'm taking the patience to corroborate my posts with the requisite links that supports my assertions.

So your constant strikethroughs are literally ineffective here but please by all means, strike on.

Ammishaddai:
I don't have time for lengthy writeups that confirm stupidity . Please provide that document that confirms what you are saying

The audacity.

You're the person making the baseless claims here. Worst of all, you're not even making any attempt to evidence them. Do you even understand the concept of the burden of proof?

I'll humor you for the last time. This thing has enlightened more minds than all the worlds religious scribblings combined.

A Short History Of Nearly Everything

[s]

Tamaratonye1:

You think too much of yourself. I'm not merely creating these posts for your benefit, but for the benefit of forum members viewing the thread, which is why I'm taking the patience to corroborate my posts with the requisite links that supports my assertions.

So your constant strikethroughs are literally ineffective here but please by all means, strike on.


The audacity.

You're the person making the baseless claims here. Worst of all, you're not even making any attempt to evidence them. Do you even understand the concept of the burden of proof?

I'll humor you for the last time. This thing has enlightened more minds than all the worlds religious scribblings combined.

A Short History Of Nearly Everything

[/s] Let me break it down for you since you're having comprehension difficulties:

We are two detectives who stumble upon a body, and we each have theories relating to the murder . Now who does the burden of proof lie on : me or both of us ?

Ammishaddai:
[s][/s] Let me break it down for you since you're having comprehension difficulties:

We are two detectives who stumble upon a body, and we each have theories relating to the murder . Now who does the burden of proof lie on : me or both of us ?

This is a fallacy of equivocation, since I haven't made any claims here. Everything I've written is based on evidence used to counter your claim that the Bible is more accurate than any other historical document, and I even post the links to these evidence. That in itself, is not a claim.

It's not you and I having theories about the murder, it is you alone. What we're examining here is there strength of your theory.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[3][4]

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".[5][6][7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The problem with using analogies is that you can easily commit a logical fallacy, albeit unintentionally. Please note this in the future.

Ammishaddai:
Mr Reed, let me assume that you've read the story of Daniel the prophet and the revelations given to by the God of Israel . Now tell me , did the Greeks not rule after the Persians ? Please answer with a yes or no. Because I don't have the time to read lengthy arguments that sway from the topic.

Did the dream in Daniel name the Greeks or the Persians? Did it mention dates or length of period of rule? Did it mention any thing about how vast the empires would be? It says that Nebuchadnezzar would be the greatest earthly king yet the Persians, the Macedonians, the Greeks and the Romans all surpassed Nebuchadnezzar's empire. So what accurate details are you now talking about?

@Ammishaddai, are you aware that details are useless if they don't constitute facts? Are you going to dishonestly deny that facts are more important than details?

[s]

Tamaratonye1:

This is a fallacy of equivocation, since I haven't made any claims here. Everything I've written is based on evidence used to counter your claim that the Bible is more accurate than any other historical document, and I even post the links to these evidence. That in itself, is not a claim.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The problem with using analogies is that you can easily commit a logical fallacy, albeit unintentionally. Please note this in the future.

[/s] This is not an answer . Kindly read the previous post carefully before attempting to prove to me how retàrded you are .

[s]

LordReed:


Did the dream in Daniel name the Greeks or the Persians? Did it mention dates or length of period of rule? Did it mention any thing about how vast the empires would be? It says that Nebuchadnezzar would be the greatest earthly king yet the Persians, the Macedonians, the Greeks and the Romans all surpassed Nebuchadnezzar's empire. So what accurate details are you now talking about?

[/s] Mr Reed , in my last post ,I never asked for dates or sizes of the empires . I just asked a very simple question that could have been answered in a yes or no . But this you've failed to do . Why ?

Ammishaddai:
[s][/s] This is not an answer . Kindly read the previous post carefully before attempting to prove to me how retàrded you are .

It is an answer. Just not the answer you want. Sadly, your insults won't score you any points here, it only makes you appear unstable.

The problem here is you don't want to assume any responsibility for your claims. You want everybody to spoon-feed you. You might not realize this but you're embarrassing yourself and making jest of the practice of Christian apologetics.

Edited for inclusion

Ammishaddai:
[s][/s] Mr Reed , in my last post ,I never asked for dates or sizes of the empires . I just asked a very simple question that could have been answered in a yes or no . But this you've failed to do . Why ?

You are the one who has failed to show how the bible is accurate in historical detail. The dream doesn't mention Greece or Persia so what relevance does it have to your point?

@Ammishaddai

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
-Robert G. Ingersoll

LordReed:


LMFAO! Really? Did you know there was no census of the type said to be abbout the time of Jesus birth? Did you know that the Israelite kingdoms at the height of their power were not very famous as told by the Bible and could barely dominate neighbouring tribes not to talk of withstanding the might of Egypt or Persia. The Bible is a cultural record not a history book. It gets a lot of details wrong as confirmed by other sources.

Add the facts that its a theological book too.

LordReed:


No it isn't. Take the census that supposedly happened when Jesus was born, the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great, but the census took place in 6 CE, nine years after Herod's death in 4 BCE. Moreover, such census was limited to Judea and did not affect Galilee, which was governed by the ethnarch Herod Antipas and not directly under Roman control.

There were indeed three censuses of the entire empire during Augustus's reign (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), but none of these censuses happened while Quirinius was the Legate of Syria, no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors and, in any case, an imperial census would not have affected Joseph and Mary, who lived in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea, which was not under direct Roman control back then.

We know all this because the Romans were prolific and meticulous record keepers so there is no way the census was accurately recorded in the Bible.

But same Romans historian wrote about Christ, but wasn't seen as meticulous in that. Is their meticulous selective?

hupernikao:


But same Romans historian wrote about Christ, but wasn't seen as meticulous in that. Is their meticulous selective?

They wrote about Christians and what they believe, not about Christ.

kingxsamz:



What's detailed about a white man and a white woman who came from the man's ribs and was deceived by a talking magical snake to eat a magical fruit which got an invisible white guy upset that he had to punish them, only for them to end up giving birth to children who populated the entire earth including blacks, Asians and other races?
Valid history indeed...
The Bible is just a book of stories exaggerated to a certain point. Nothing historical about it, especially the supernatural aspect of it.

The stories you take it for, is why your argument is like this too. Illogical.

LordReed:


They wrote about Christians and what they believe, not about Christ.

Nah soo. I expect this. They must be gossipers then not historians. Since they are good in documenting gist about Christians.

It just takes turning to the light to see clearly. That's all it takes.

hupernikao:


Nah soo. I expect this. They must be gossipers then not historians. Since they are good in documenting gist about Christians.

It just takes turning to the light to see clearly. That's all it takes.

Well Christians were considered enemies of the state so I don't see how that makes it gossip.

hupernikao:


Add the facts that its a theological book too.

Sure.

LordReed:


Well Christians were considered enemies of the state so I don't see how that makes it gossip.

Okay. This one you wrote is not just about them writing what they felt or said but reality. But the one they wrote about Christian's Christ is just about writing what they said, not reality. Right?

hupernikao:


Okay. This one you wrote is not just about them writing what they felt or said but reality. But the one they wrote about Christian's Christ is just about writing what they said, not reality. Right?

If I write that you like eating pounded yam, am I writing about pounded yam or your love for pounded yam?

LordReed:


If I write that you like eating pounded yam, am I writing about pounded yam or your love for pounded yam?

If your narrative is based on false premise, like not sure I like pounded yam but you speaking about my love for it, then your writing shouldn't be taken seriously and all of your other writing can be taken as just gossip or jokes.

So I must treat your all write up the same way, else it becomes a double standard. Since they never knew Christ but mentioned him, then all of their historical records must be interpreted as such. A mention of what never existed but spoken about.

hupernikao:


If your narrative is based on false premise, like not sure I like pounded yam but you speaking about my love for it, then your writing shouldn't be taken seriously and all of your other writing can be taken as just gossip or jokes.

So I must treat your all write up the same way, else it becomes a double standard. Since they never knew Christ but mentioned him, then all of their historical records must be interpreted as such. A mention of what never existed but spoken about.

The Romans themselves believed in other gods so are you suggesting we should ignore all their records because they believed in what doesn't exist?

hupernikao:


But same Romans historian wrote about Christ, but wasn't seen as meticulous in that. Is their meticulous selective?

The Romans wrote about a "chrestos". They said nothing about a "christ". Christ is a title, and there were a number of messiah (christos) claimants at the time. There is no reason to think that because you only know about one, there was only one, and that's what the Romans were talking about.

The only reason the Romans would have even heard about one of the nobody criminals who was executed under a standing order in a province, for causing a ruckus in the temple, the economic lifeblood of the city of Jerusalem, which was absolutely 110 % economically dependent on the festival tourism and sacrifices brought to the temple, and the gospels say he threatened that economy.

They didn't get a trial, and it's obvious the gospels made them up, as they are vastly different, the only reason a Roman would have even been aware of this person, (if they were), was that communities of believers had grown up surrounding the mythos concerning him. They did not sit around discussing the people who were summarily executed by Roman governors. What the Romans knew, (if they knew anything) was totally based on communities of believers. Does the fact that the Romans knew about Mithras, and communities devoted to him, mean he was a real person?

LordReed:

hupernikao:

But same Romans historian wrote about Christ, but wasn't seen as meticulous in that. Is their meticulous selective?

They wrote about Christians and what they believe, not about Christ.

They did write about Christ a "chrestos. Sadly for the jesus freaks, they were writing about him in the mid first century BCE.

They built the tomb you see in the attached picture below, and inside it they wrote an inscription, which translated to English says: Rome, Mausoleum of Caecilia Metella, Tombstone of the lictor Chrestus

The Tomb of Caecilia Metella (Italian: Mausoleo di Cecilia Metella) is a mausoleum located just outside Rome at the three mile marker of the Via Appia. It was built during the 1st century BC to honor Caecilia Metella who was the daughter of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus, a consul in 69 BC, and wife of Marcus Licinius Crassus who served under Julius Caesar and was the son of the famous triumvir Marcus Crassus.

Ammishaddai:
It's simply because there is no other valid historical document that's as detailed as the bible.

......I'm still trying to find out what you mean by saying that the Bible is the most detailed historical document,..... and why anyone would need or want to know that.......


Is it about prophecies?....... Things that the Bible says about history,....... that were passed down from a time before the events happened,....... more detailed than in the scriptures of other religions?........

......If so, why would anyone need or want to know that?......... Does it have anything to do with your belief in the Christian God, or believing that the Bible is the word of God?.....

I can't think of anything you could mean by saying that Bible is the most detailed historical document,....... that would be a reason for believing in a Christian God, and believing that the Bible is the word of that God.

Tamaratonye1:

They did write about Christ a "chrestos. Sadly for the jesus freaks, they were writing about him in the mid first century BCE.

They built the tomb you see in the attached picture below, and inside it they wrote an inscription, which translated to English says: Rome, Mausoleum of Caecilia Metella, Tombstone of the lictor Chrestus

You need to read and check your history well. It's obvious. Lordreed understand who am referring to, but you need to go back and check well as your narrative is off it.

Tamaratonye1:

The Romans wrote about a "chrestos". They said nothing about a "christ". Christ is a title, and there were a number of messiah (christos) claimants at the time. There is no reason to think that because you only know about one, there was only one, and that's what the Romans were talking about.

The only reason the Romans would have even heard about one of the nobody criminals who was executed under a standing order in a province, for causing a ruckus in the temple, the economic lifeblood of the city of Jerusalem, which was absolutely 110 % economically dependent on the festival tourism and sacrifices brought to the temple, and the gospels say he threatened that economy.

They didn't get a trial, and it's obvious the gospels made them up, as they are vastly different, the only reason a Roman would have even been aware of this person, (if they were), was that communities of believers had grown up surrounding the mythos concerning him. They did not sit around discussing the people who were summarily executed by Roman governors. What the Romans knew, (if they knew anything) was totally based on communities of believers. Does the fact that the Romans knew about Mithras, and communities devoted to him, mean he was a real person?

Like I said. Go and check your history well. It seems to have a gap. Read your history well. Someone can mistaken you for lying with tye above. But for me, am sure it's a gap in knowledge you need to close.

Tamaratonye1:

The Romans wrote about a "chrestos". They said nothing about a "christ". Christ is a title, and there were a number of messiah (christos) claimants at the time. There is no reason to think that because you only know about one, there was only one, and that's what the Romans were talking about.

The only reason the Romans would have even heard about one of the nobody criminals who was executed under a standing order in a province, for causing a ruckus in the temple, the economic lifeblood of the city of Jerusalem, which was absolutely 110 % economically dependent on the festival tourism and sacrifices brought to the temple, and the gospels say he threatened that economy.

They didn't get a trial, and it's obvious the gospels made them up, as they are vastly different, the only reason a Roman would have even been aware of this person, (if they were), was that communities of believers had grown up surrounding the mythos concerning him. They did not sit around discussing the people who were summarily executed by Roman governors. What the Romans knew, (if they knew anything) was totally based on communities of believers. Does the fact that the Romans knew about Mithras, and communities devoted to him, mean he was a real person?

Like I said. Go and check your history well. It seems to have a gap. Read your history well. Someone can mistaken you for lying with tye above. But for me, am sure it's a gap in knowledge you need to close.

hupernikao:


But same Romans historian wrote about Christ...

Tamaratonye1:

The Romans wrote about a "chrestos". They said nothing about a "christ". Christ is a title, and there were a number of messiah (christos) claimants at the time. There is no reason to think that because you only know about one, there was only one, and that's what the Romans were talking about

hupernikao:


Like I said. Go and check your history well. It seems to have a gap. Read your history well. Someone can mistaken you for lying with tye above. But for me, am sure it's a gap in knowledge you need to close.

I have no need to check anything. There is absolutely no "gap". You wish there were, but since you can not even be bothered to state what that "gap" is, you are dismissed as yet another ignorant fundamentalist who actually knows nothing about the actual culture and history of the time.

State what you are actually talking about, or keep shut.

Tamaratonye1:





I have no need to check anything. There is absolutely no "gap". You wish there were, but since you can not even be bothered to state what that "gap" is, you are dismissed as yet another ignorant fundamentalist who actually knows nothing about the actual culture and history of the time.

State what you are actually talking about, or keep shut.

Does your trouble include not knowing how to communicate properly? It's like the gap is wider than I thought. You better learn how to relate with words if you are communicating.

Secondly, you have much gap in history, I have told you. Go and check your knowledge about historical records on the Chrestus written about. Read the events that surrounded the writings, study the intent of the writer when he wrote it, then you will see how far you are from the truth of what he wrote. Saying he wrote about one random Chrestus, is a sign of not properly informed. Go and read again, that's the right thing to do, not arguing.