Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1,700 year old statue.......that is stupid. No way that is true at all, anybody saying so is an outright liar. That is artifacts, so do not be stupid. How stupid could an person be.
This stupid--- After showing 10 plagues to Pharoah on their behalf( Israelites) and parting a sea in front of their face--and wiping out Pharoahs army who followed them into the red sea----- knew 100% for sure--YHWH( Jehovah) did it--1 week later made a golden calf to worship----- doesn't get any stupider than this.
This stupid--- After showing 10 plagues to Pharoah on their behalf( Israelites) and parting a sea in front of their face--and wiping out Pharoahs army who followed them into the red sea----- knew 100% for sure--YHWH( Jehovah) did it--1 week later made a golden calf to worship----- doesn't get any stupider than this.
Here you are claiming AS FACT that the Jesus story is a myth.
So you continue to dodge what my actual point is. That there is no corroborating evidence for the existence of the Nazarene outside your pet Bible is what I would base any claim of "myth" on but that was not my main point, and you know it.
My claim which you so transparently avoided here is that there exists many parallels between the Jesus story and ones that came before it. Just like there are many parallels between The Lion the witch and the wardrobe and the Jesus story. This is common in fiction that themes and imagery are revisited and recycled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You could have simply said that you saw parallels in the story.
Not just could. DID. That is what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Besides, Lewis never hid the fact that the book series was based on the story of Jesus.
Then whats your problem? Even when you agree with me you seem compelled to act like you disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And my point that archaeology serves as a point of EVIDENCE in favor of the Bible stands.
Except in sole isolation it does not such thing. You need more than this to make such evidence "Stand". It has to be corroborated and supported. Once again: Simply verifying the existence of locations in a book in NO WAY supports the contention that the event in that book really occurred. You can keep ignoring that fact and desperately flapping around it, but the fact remains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I pointed out the fallacies that you use. Simply denying it doesn't make you right.
Except I have used none. I have done nothing more than point out the ones YOU use. Pointing out the fallacies of another is not itself a fallacy. No matter how much you need to pretend otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Give me some supporting links if I am to believe that personal testimony alone is NEVER accepted in a court of law.
As usual you are using your MO tactic of making a claim, having that claim called into question, and then dodging by attempting to shift the onus of proof onto the people who fail to buy your assertions.
In post #153 you brought up the idea of how testimony is used in law. Not me. You. The onus therefore is on you to substantiate your claims about how testimony is used in law. Not on me. So YOU give ME some supporting links that show that entirely uncorroborated personal testimony is used in law.
I gave you an example. Show me what % of rare accusations were found guilty when supported by nothing but the victims accusation and testimony.
Can you find a %? Can you even find one example? Or do you retract your nonsense for once?
And I responded that your insult was not to my satisfaction. Give me some supporting links if I am to believe that personal testimony alone is NEVER accepted in a court of law.
Under article VIII, rule 801 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence:
Quote:
(c) Hearsay.—‘‘Hearsay’’ is a statement, other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in
evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
And Rule 802:
Quote:
Rule 802. Hearsay Rule
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or
by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statu-
tory authority or by Act of Congress.
And my point that archaeology serves as a point of EVIDENCE in favor of the Bible stands. That alone puts the scales in my favor since you have zero proof that the Bible authors all conspired to create a work of fiction.
That's completely untrue.
The archaeological "evidence" barely even qualifies. It's like naming someone a suspect in a crime when the only evidence you have is that the accused was in the same town where the crime was committed.
"Well, sir, there was a murder in New York City last night, and you WERE in New York City, so we're going to take you in for questioning ..."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
