[ref001]
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/18/96
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/18/96
[23:15] ok to continue
[23:15] sure
[23:15] what direct evidence do youhave that
the NT writers copied pagan sources?
[23:15] empirical data please
[23:16] The very nature of ancient scriptures
makes direct evidence impossible. Since you aren't
persuaded byu hte similarity with Pagan stories I'm
not sure how to proceed...
[23:17] Judith (spinner@dial025.skypoint.net) joined
#apologetics.
[23:17] chappy, what are the dates of the sources
you are citing? Mithras for example, what are the dates
of the manuscripts?
[23:17] hullo judith
[23:17] hello..
[23:17] You demand empirical data because you
know it is impossible to provide and therefore win
hte argument
[23:18] just seeing what's going on here..
[23:18] chappy do I?
[23:18] Loki (lrj91331@Bayou.UH.EDU) joined #apologetics.
[23:18] moo.
[23:18] That is my perception (I suppose I should
have added that)
[23:18] chappy I know your arument. I have
read Bousett before. he os the man who came up with
the theoryoriginally. Have your ead him?
[23:18] Judith (spinner@dial025.skypoint.net) left
#apologetics.
[23:18] No
[23:18] chappy, would you demand anything less
than hard data?
[23:19] I would hope not
[23:19] So, do you know the dates of the Mithras
Manuscripts?
[23:19] The same could be said of the bible
(which is exactly my point)
[23:19] yes or nowill suffice
[23:19] So, do you know the dates of the Mithras
Manuscripts?
[23:19] No and I don't believe I quoted them
[23:19] oh, would you like me to tell you?
[23:20] Sure if you believe it is relevant
[23:20] starkle (starkle@access-one.com) joined #apologetics.
[23:20] Loki (lrj91331@Bayou.UH.EDU) left #apologetics.
[23:20] chappy what is your source for this
information?
[23:20] Which information?
[23:20] Shrapnell (royc@netcom14.netcom.com) joined
#apologetics.
[23:20] chappy the earliest manusctipt for
the Mithras Cult is about 150 AD. POST CHRISTIAN. Scratch
Mithras dependence
[23:20] XUStudent (097556@XAVIER.XU.EDU) joined #apologetics.
[23:20] chappy your theory
[23:21] chappy what is your source of information?
[23:21] JLeighton (JLeighton@www-20-215.gnn.com) joined
#apologetics.
[23:21] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[23:21] hi
[23:21] My source of info has been reading literature
based on Greek, Roman, and other mythologies
[23:21] hullo
[23:22] hi JL
[23:22] MacBinary (ircle@dial196160.wbm.ca) joined
#apologetics.
[23:22] Hi Ac
[23:22] chappy thats nice. I did not ask for
a biblography, I ask for names.
[23:22] hullo xu
[23:22] hullo Macbinary
[23:22] hi
[23:23] Acolyte Seems like it is better to
go to the sources rather than what people have said
about them.
[23:23] chappy what sources are you usiing?
[23:23] Acolyte, do you deny that Pagans had
stories about virgin births,and healings etc?
[23:23] xu unles of course the theories proposed
byt he sources are unreliavble and outdated.
[23:23] Chappy I asked A question I believe.
Please answer it and I will answer yours in turn.
[23:23] chappy after all, that is only fair
[23:23] chappy what are your sources?
[23:24] Acolyte I thought Chappy was saying
he was reading the stories himself rather than having
somebody else read them and tell about them
[23:24] Chappy what scholarly sources can you
cite for me?
[23:24] xu, I amonly asking, but he denied
that to be the case
[23:24] Chappy> My source of info has been reading
literature based on Greek, Roman,
[23:24] +and other mythologies
[23:24] I told you I wasn't a biblical scholar,
I don't have original manuscripts lying around in my
basement
[23:25] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com)
joined #apologetics.
[23:25] hi zen
[23:25] Hi Zen
[23:25] hey max, XU
[23:25] er
[23:25] mac
[23:25] chappy ok, well you must have been
reading somethng, what did you read this in?
[23:25] what are you guys taling about
[23:25] ^-__-^ (irc@pslip210b.egr-ri.ids.net) joined
#apologetics.
[23:25] err talking
[23:25] MacBinary Pagan origions in the Bible
[23:25] good question mac
[23:26] I can't remember offhand, I read constantly.
The info I'm alluding to was read about 10 years ago
[23:26] Have you ever read/heard anything
by Joseph Campbell?
[23:26] chappy IC, so I am just supposed to
dump my whole paradigm on the authority of some bk
you read ten yours ago that I don't know of?
[23:26] Xu yes.
[23:26] baimei (baimei@206.98.174.101) joined #apologetics.
[23:26] hey bai
[23:26] JLeighton (JLeighton@www-20-215.gnn.com) left
#apologetics.
[23:27] hi
[23:27] He explains some pagan myths and
their connections to Biblical myths pretty well.
[23:27] Xu and Mircea Eliade refutes him pretty
well too.
[23:27] Has anybody noticed that they decided
to stop talking about things in #Bible. All they want
you to do is quote verses and say "hi" or "bye" to each
other?
[23:27] Acolyte Saying what?
[23:27] Xu a freind of mine just finished abk
on Cambell. Youshould pick it up.
[23:28] Acolyte: I can see you are preferring
to have my arguments undermined by the fact that you
have more knowledge of dates than I do. Do you deny
that other religiions had very similar stories?
[23:28] who is campbell?
[23:28] xu for one, cambell relies on extremly
late dates for his thesis to work.
[23:28] chappy no I do not.
[23:28] MacBinary He studied different myths.
[23:28] <^-__-^> Mac, Joeseph Campbell, a mythos specialist
of sorts
[23:28] Acolyte such as...
[23:28] either chappy is very quiet or he
is /msging
[23:28] chappy, would you dump your worldview
based on flimsy evidence that you are giving me now?
[23:29] oh
[23:29] <^-__-^> Christian traditions borrowed heavily
from Zoroasterism
[23:29] xu late dates for the Gospels.
[23:29] Then why have you wasted the last fifteen
miinutes asking me to dredge up the dates of texts
I read years ago
[23:29] anybody here read Rorty?
[23:29] Acolyte when does he date them?
[23:29] zx second centruy AD. FAR far too late
[23:29] Acolyte: people don't dump beliefs-
that is the nature of faith
[23:29] mac me
[23:30] <^-__-^> yes
[23:30] chappy wann a bet?
[23:30] chappy so youwant me to be a christian
but not believe xianity? harldy
[23:30] <^-__-^> Mac, Richard Rorty?
[23:30] Acolyte is that when he dates the
latest one? I have heard dates of John going as far
as 100-110 AD
[23:30] yep
[23:30] I have his _Philo and the Mirror
of Nature_
[23:30] xu by whom?
[23:30] xu how about Rev?
[23:30] starkle (starkle@access-one.com) left #apologetics.
[23:31] Acolyte Rev I date around 95 AD.
[23:31] acolyte: you asked for evidence that
they read the krishna myths--- the bible itself is
the evidence
[23:31] Acolyte by most people that study
these thigns
[23:31] xu and I have read Rev about 64 AD.
[23:31] <^-__-^> excellent book--you can do no better
in getting an overview of current philo of language,
very frequently assighned
[23:31] baimei that assumes you theory is right.
give me empirical data. A quote from the Talmud perhaps
[23:31] Acolyte But there are clear references
to Domition and the Temple being destroyed.
[23:32] Acolyte: If the stories of virgin birth
in the bible are true, are they also true for other
texts which you have undoubtedly read which predate
the bible?
[23:32] Xu that is debateable.
[23:32] I am interested in what he has to
say about foundationalism
[23:32] chappy no
[23:32] <^-__-^> how so?
[23:32] Why not?
[23:32] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip05.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[23:32] Acolyte So I am supposed to not believe
Campbell because you do not believe the dates he gives
to the Gospels which are what most people say about
them.
[23:32] whether he agrees with the classical
formulation - or if not - why
[23:32] Hi pascoe...I hope you do not mind
us discussing Bible
[23:33] what makes the christian myth true and
the others just myths---only your belief
[23:33] XUStudent: the purpose here is to challenge
the Bible.
[23:33] baimei define "true"
[23:33] xu never said that but that no textual
critic dates the NT outside of 100 AD.
[23:34] pascoe In what way? I thought we
were talking about the meaning of certain parts of
the Bible. That is where this discussion has been
going.
[23:34] <^-__-^> mac, the great thing about that book
is that he faithfully represents the philos of several
important diff philosophers, accross the spectrum
[23:34] anyone can site Campbell or some other
scholar's late dating. what they cannot do is site
factual evidence of late dating.
[23:34] Acolyte If "no contextual critic" does
it...how did Campell do it? He seems to be one.
[23:34] XUStudent: it looks as tho the challenges
against the Bible continue.
[23:34] hmm - I will have to read this one
closely then :)
[23:34] Acolyte: if the NT was written around
100 AD, or even 10 AD does this not indicate that there
is potential for vast distortion of truth?
[23:34] pascoe I have not seen one so far.
[23:34] xu he is not a textual critic.
[23:35] Acolyte then what is he?
[23:35] XUStudent: see Chappy and baimei above.
[23:35] chappy possible, so? its possible that
green aliens are watching us too. So
[23:35] XU religion studies and mythology.
[23:35] Campbell is a humanist with lots of
oppinions. 8)
[23:35] pascoe He asked a question...never
said anything about it not being true.
[23:35] er, was.
[23:35] XUStudent: ok, that's fine in #apolgetics.
[23:36] he is no longer a humanist?
[23:36] MacBinary: he's dead.
[23:36] oh
[23:36] Shrapnell (royc@netcom14.netcom.com) left #apologetics.
[23:36] oops
[23:36] Acolyte That is very broad...in what
way does he do it? How does he tie it in with Bibnle
is what I am asking.
[23:36] pascoe Of course! We do more than
say "hi" and "bye" to each other :)
[23:36] anyone here read anything by Patrick
Grim?
[23:37] <^-__-^> JC was also an anti semite--which ought
to caste aspersions on his thoughts vis a vis Judaism
[23:37] xu clarify please
[23:37] Acolyte: you seem to use facts very
conveniently, you only acknowledge them in support
of your argument. All others are ridiculed
[23:37] Chappy: have you actually sited any
facts yet?
[23:38] chappy I ridicule what are not facts.
very simple
[23:38] Acolyte Well...he obviously knows
his Bible in terms of other myths...so he knows at
least a part of Biblical criticism. So why not classify
him as somebody who knows what he is talking about?
[23:38] I don't believe anyone has- just speculation
and theory and speculation about the accuracy of theories
read...:)
[23:38] ZenLagMan (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com)
joined #apologetics.
[23:38] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit.
[23:38] Hi ZenLagMan
[23:39] xu part of? I know part of Textual
Crit, His soucres are dated. that is the problem.
[23:39] XUStudent: Campbell attempted to marry
all ancient stories. Unfortunately, he could only
do so by ignoring their obvious exclusive differences.
[23:39] CTCP PING: 824704707 from ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com)
to #apologetics
[23:39] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com)
left irc: changing servers
[23:39] how do account for the similarities
between the names and lives of krishna and christ?
[23:39] Nick change: ZenLagMan -> ZenRookie
[23:39] MacBinary (ircle@dial196160.wbm.ca) left #apologetics.
[23:39] pascoe he does so because of his Jungian
assumptions, not the data.
[23:39] baimia what simialarities in the names?
[23:39] Acolyte: "his sources are dated" have
you any idea how silly that sounds when we are criticising
a 200 year old book?
[23:40] chappy do you have any hard empirical
data or just speculation?
[23:40] Acolyte they are dated only because
you have said they are from what I have seen.
[23:40] 2000 year old book.
[23:40] book(s). 8)
[23:40] soory missed a zero
[23:40] pascoe :)
[23:40] chappy I mean his sources for his arguments
for the dates of the bks of the NT. Do you know how
sill you sound saying that? It shows too much.
[23:41] Chappy: it would serve your argument
better if you sited some facts which were independent
of Campbells beliefs and opinions.
[23:41] krishna was called krishna zeus and
krishna jeseus, you dont see any connection?
[23:41] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial42.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics.
[23:41] chappy, for example Cambell relies
on Bultmann and others, who's dates have been severely
criticised but post Bultmanians and non Bultmanian
scholars for the past 30 yrs. They are disrepute largly
[23:41] Acolyte most people believe the Gospels
to be written between 60-100 AD
[23:41] hey profg
[23:41] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com)
left #apologetics.
[23:41] hello ProfG. 8)
[23:41] hiya :-)
[23:41] Acolyte: you said earlier that you doubted
the veracity of the bible. why do you defend it with
such vigour then?
[23:41] xu well did you read time magazie recently?
[23:41] krishna= king jeseus or zeus=god
[23:41] Hi profg
[23:42] I saw there were a bunch of ppl here
via the WWW interface :-)
[23:42] Chappy No I said I am skeptical. I
did not say I doubted the veracity of the Bible.
[23:42] ProfG: does it automatically alert
you? 8)
[23:42] Acolyte which one? They have a lot
of Bible things in there :)
[23:42] pascoe: nah, gotta go to the #apologetics
web page
[23:42] Skeptical = doubt?
[23:42] ProfG: bummer. 8)
[23:42] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[23:42] baimei so? It does nt take a brain
to think things up. How do you account for Unicorns
INJapan and Uninorns in Ireland? Easy idea to think
up
[23:43] xu the one on the Bible.
[23:43] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics.
[23:43] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org
[23:43] xu there is a text they found from
Mark dated about 50 AD
[23:43] Acolyte: interesting, how was it dated?
[23:43] Acolyte Who dated it?
[23:43] chappy no, Skeptical= NON-gullible.
[23:44] xu a number of scholars. I don't have
the article with me but youcan look it up if you like
since it was only a few months ago. (BTW I don't take
TIME Magazine to be Conservative)
[23:44] thats the problem they didnt make it
up for themselves, they copied the whole story
[23:45] Yet you think stories written 2000 years
ago about virgin births and raising the dead are worth
defending? I would define that as gullible
[23:45] baimei: what is the earliest date for
krishna stories?
[23:45] baimei give me some hard empirical
evidence please other than similar accounts.
[23:45] baimei did the Jews of the Times accuse
them of that? No.
[23:45] Acolyte a lot depends on the dating.
I will have to check it out.
[23:45] Chappy perhaps, but where is your evidence?
[23:45] between 500 - 1000 bc
[23:46] xy fine, but most scholars date MK
about 50-60 AD presently
[23:46] Well...I am going to #philosophy
now. I will talk to you later
[23:46] Chappy: it is interesting how you can
continue to make assertions about the authenticity
of the Bible without siting any factual evidence.
[23:46] The evidence is that these happenings
have never been replicated
[23:46] bai that is a date, not empirical data
[23:46] chappy has the begining of the universe
been replicated?
[23:46] Acolyte Wait...I was thinking Matthew...that
is when I date Mark.
[23:46] baimei: the prophesies concerning Christ
were well known by that time.
[23:46] chappy is ANY historical event repeatable?
[23:46] aco: give empirical data proving the
bible
[23:47] baimei prove what about the bible?
[23:47] baimei: it would be more probable that
the krishna followers copied from the OT prophesy.
[23:47] pascoe that is possible too
[23:47] baimei: give empirical data proving
krishna.
[23:47] pascoe the argument can be argued both
ways. ;)
[23:47] The workings of god ought to be replicable
[23:47] chappy they are - by God
[23:47] chappy so you know how GOD OUGHT to
work? how do you know that?
[23:47] Acolyte: the OT prophesy is older than
the krishna stories according to baimei.
[23:47] chappy how do you know things about
what God OUGHT to do?
[23:48] XUStudent (097556@XAVIER.XU.EDU) left #apologetics.
[23:48] chappy does God talk to you or something?
[23:48] pascoe: you cant prove him, he was a
myth, like the bible stories
[23:48] Acolyte I only know what is convincing.
God is not convincing me that he exists...
[23:48] baimei: so you don't even stand behind
the evidence you are using to refute the Bible? interesting.
[23:48] there is proof that he was worshipped
in india bc
[23:48] ok, gotta go to bed, God bless all
[23:48] chappy perhaps you are not ment to
be convinced.
[23:49] baimei what proof?
[23:49] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu:
http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[23:49] I guess you'd have to blame god for
that wouldn't you
[23:49] Chappy: God may not be convincing to
you, but that doesn't change God's existence. Neither
does it support your assertions against the authenticity
of Scripture.
[23:49] c u l8r
[23:49] baimei for a refutaion of your thoery
please Read Paul Meir, A Marginal Jew, ANchor Books
[23:49] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial42.fiu.edu) left irc:
Leaving
[23:49] sculptures showing slaughter of the
innocents and others of his stories
[23:49] chappy what is convincing is realative
to ones paradigm.
[23:49] chappy what is your paradigm?
[23:50] Scripture is claimed to be a work of
god, if I don't believe in god, then it is natural
to doubt the veracity of scripture
[23:50] beimei also read reymond Brown, The
Birht of the Messiah
[23:50] texts like the Bh----Gita (cant remember
the spelling)
[23:50] chappy fine, what is your paradigm?
[23:50] Acolyte: i am agnostic
[23:50] chappy define
[23:50] what kind of agnostic?
[23:51] I don't believe god exists but cannot
prove that he does not.
[23:51] chappy so is that a justified or unjustified
belief about God not existing?
[23:51] I can argue however that he is not
a kind or benevolent god
[23:51] channy so you think God is not Good?
[23:52] yes
[23:52] chappy so is that a justified or unjustified
belief about God not existing?
[23:52] pascoe2 (pasc8891@xslip30.csrv.uidaho.edu)
joined #apologetics.
[23:52] justified (according to my paradigm)
[23:52] Smitty1 (mwandrey@205.184.166.106) joined #apologetics.
[23:52] baimei (baimei@206.98.174.101) left #apologetics.
[23:52] chappy so let me see if I understand
you ok?
[23:52] Smitty1 (mwandrey@205.184.166.106) left #apologetics.
[23:52] please do
[23:53] Chappy: your faith looks similar to
mine, so how can you attack mine? 8)
[23:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip05.csrv.uidaho.edu) left
irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip05.csrv.uidaho.edu]
[23:53] chappy you have belief G. Belief G
has no proof for it, but you believe belief G none
the less. Correct?
[23:53] Nick change: pascoe2 -> pascoe
[23:53] No
[23:53] ok please explain.
[23:54] Chappy do you have proof for your unbelief
in God?
[23:54] I don't believe god exists but
cannot prove that he does not.
[23:54] that IS what you said, correct?
[23:54]
