kal, you are one of the most prolific commenters on this site; I've read many of your contributions, and you clearly know what you're talking about in many cases. But when it comes to the Bible....well, let's just say that it's above your pay grade. There is more evidence for the historicity of the scriptures than for the existence of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle --- put together. Would that there was space here to expound on this, but that is not the purpose of this site. I would merely encourage more study....I know that you have the intellect; I just hope you put aside what you've been taught and do some independent research. My own has moved me from agnostic skepticism to Biblical Christianity, and being on both sides of this issue provides a unique perspective.
I'd not say that - the evidence for the existence of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle is very strong indeed: too many dated documents, lots of inscriptional evidence and corroborating literary documents for there to be any doubt. The Bible has (for the kingship of David and Solomon, let alone the Patriarchs and the exilic period) far less external evidence to back the accounts up. That's not to say they're false, just to say that the examples you chose to compare them with are in an exceptionally well documented period with plenty of contemporary documents (including inscriptions). That's not to say that we should completely trust any of our sources on Socrates (and Classicists don't) but there's enough to prove his existence and some broad idea of the man. The same goes for much of the ancient accounts of the lives of Plato and Aristotle which are regarded as very dubious (including some of Plato's dialogues most popular in antiquity like Alcibiades I).
Shikari, it was not my intent to cast doubt on the existence of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle -- my point was that there is more (and more accurate) evidence for the scriptures (especially the NT) than there is for the above-named men. Consider the sheer volume of extant NT manuscripts (~5600 Greek; over 24,000 total) as opposed to 7 for Plato, 49 for Aristotle, 240 or less for Aristophanes. Consider the time gap between the original writings and the earliest existing copies -- the book of John, for example, was written about 95-96 A.D.; the oldest existing manuscript dates to less than 30 years later. The earliest existing manuscripts from Plato date to about 1250 years after his death; 1300 years for Xenophon's works; 1400 years for those of Aristophanes. Consider that three of Socrates' contemporaries wrote about him (Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon), and four of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about Him (Matthew, Peter, Luke, and John). Paul was close behind, having met Jesus.
Zero of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him. ZERO. This is well established scholarly fact. And you have the gall to say talking about this is above my pay grade. You have no clue what you are talking about. Whatever sources you are using are clearly some evangelical Biblical literalist propaganda. Paul NEVER met Jesus. He had a vision. This is like me saying that my schizophrenic aunt is a reliable source for information on Pocahontas, because she once saw her in her bathroom mirror.
@CBT, by this argument there is more evidence for the existence of Harry Potter than for Plato. There are 7 Harry Potter books and many other associated texts, compared to only 7 for Plato. Plato, Aristotle and Socrates may not have existed (I haven't weighed up the evidence carefully but it is at least in theory possible). If they did, arguments attributed to them might not actually have been made by them. An example I know more about is Pythagoras, who I believe probably didn't exist (or if he did was nothing like what tradition holds him to have been) due to lack of evidence. To say that the Bible is "above your pay grade", implying that it is more difficult or requires a higher level of authority than other things, is a bit silly. It isn't that hard to understand things about the Bible compared to anything else.
Ugh, there's really no debate Jesus existed. From Wikipedia (hardly a pro-Christian propaganda site)..."Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically". People can debate how accurately the Bible portrays the 'historical' Jesus, but not of his existence. I mean, this is something Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all agree on....Jesus existed.
^ Christianity, Islam and Judaism also all agree that there is a big bully in the sky watching over us. Christianity, Islam and Judaism agree on a lot of ridiculous things.
roleybob, I am a Protestant Christian, and I don't agree with you. Tell me what things you agree on and prove that I am completely wrong. In fact, I should agree with you because as you said: Christians agree with ridiculous things, right? God is not a "bully", but He is not soft. If you don't believe me, follow your little life, walk the catwalk, take off your pants, but you will regret it when you go to hell. As iRDM said, give examples that the Bible is false. Kalbahamut, CBTemple is not as fearful as you are. He said it in the face, and that's right. Paul had a vision, but with it, he learned that he was on the wrong path. I hope you have the same vision that he had for you to stop being a beast.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Tell me what things you agree on"?
The Bible is rife with examples of God having hissy fits and throwing his weight around. It portrays him as a narcistic, jealous, fickle tyrant who demands unconditional love from his subjects despite the terrible treatment that he shows them, on pain of eternal damnation.
How much more of a bully can you be?
The Bible contains myriad scientific and historical inaccuracies and is not even consistent with itself.
Going to hell? Ha ha, the whole idea is laughably absurd and clearly devised by people with the aim of exerting control over other people through threats and fearmongering, but it does go to show what I was saying above about your god's psychological issues
Second: NOTHING. God likes you so much that he even gave you free will. But does that prevent you from being punished? Example: You break a pot of your mother's plants, then he will give you a punishment, like slippers, or not using electronics. It's the same with God, but he gives you the right to choose.
Third: The only inconsistent thing is your arguments.
Fourth: Then take a vacation there. The best is that the "holidays" are eternal, right? And it is the same thing that you are doing: you try to prove to me that I am wrong, and that I am an idiot. You threaten me and tease me to make me change my mind, but it's no use. You do this more than with your RIDICLE theory. Do you think I'm stupid?
CB, I respect the fine quizzes that you have made, and thank you so very much for the insults and condescension that's much appreciated as always and very Christian of you, but what you just said is laughably ignorant and demonstrably false. There are some things described in the Bible that are probably historically based, but cherry picking those bits and holding them up as evidence of the veracity of the Bible as a whole, while ignoring the many many many many many many things that we know for a fact are false, is exactly equivalent to me pointing to the existence of New York City as proof of the historicity of Spider-Man. If Josephus is evidence for the existence of Jesus, Plato is (much stronger) evidence for Socrates. But nobody is trying to spread hate and ignorance in the name of Socrates. If any research you have done has moved you away from reality and toward mythology then I must submit that you don't know how to conduct research, and that you were never properly skeptical.
I couldn't type into the box for Psalms where is says "various" and it said I got it wrong. I filled in all the squares I could but somehow it didn't finish for me.
Please add mordachi and some other variations of mordecai, and it seems crazy that you gave the answer in various, just put david and say most of psalms was written by....
The Bible is rife with examples of God having hissy fits and throwing his weight around. It portrays him as a narcistic, jealous, fickle tyrant who demands unconditional love from his subjects despite the terrible treatment that he shows them, on pain of eternal damnation.
How much more of a bully can you be?
The Bible contains myriad scientific and historical inaccuracies and is not even consistent with itself.
Going to hell? Ha ha, the whole idea is laughably absurd and clearly devised by people with the aim of exerting control over other people through threats and fearmongering, but it does go to show what I was saying above about your god's psychological issues
Second: NOTHING. God likes you so much that he even gave you free will. But does that prevent you from being punished? Example: You break a pot of your mother's plants, then he will give you a punishment, like slippers, or not using electronics. It's the same with God, but he gives you the right to choose.
Third: The only inconsistent thing is your arguments.
Fourth: Then take a vacation there. The best is that the "holidays" are eternal, right? And it is the same thing that you are doing: you try to prove to me that I am wrong, and that I am an idiot. You threaten me and tease me to make me change my mind, but it's no use. You do this more than with your RIDICLE theory. Do you think I'm stupid?