Atheist Dishonesty of "Evidence"

[Sheldon]

@christianapologist

Why do you think the biblical texts are not contemporary to eyewitnesses?

@Sheldon

@Sheldon

the gospels are anonymous hearsay, we have not one contemporary word written about anything Jesus may or may not have said or done. The names Matthew Mark Luke and John were assigned arbitrarily to the gospel texts three and half centuries later, to lend them some gravitas.

No eyewitnesses, not one, no facts - none, beyond some scant evidence for a quite common execution of someone with a pretty common name. Repeating this false claim doesn’t evidence it.

How many times do you think you can ignore those facts before you are accused of mendacity?

@Kevin_Levites

My points about the demonic haunted house were only intended to demonstrate the nature of hoaxes . . .

@christianapologist

Ok. So your story about a hoax in this thread was just a tangent.

No it was analogous, and it objectively evidences the fact that those who champion superstition have dealt in chicanery and hoaxes. Can You provide any objective evidence that a deity or anything supernatural is possible? Each time this goes unanswered is a large clue as to that answer…

@christianapologist

What’s interesting is that Paul provides a great number of details about the life and teaching of Jesus

Third hand hearsay, hmm.

@christianapologist

the life and teaching of Jesus, all being proclaimed within about twenty years of the life of Jesus—easily within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses."

Oh dear, and this evidences eyewitness how? Even if you did have claims by people to have “witnessed magic” from an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition, so what? How many religions have identical claims?

@christianapologist

Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 76–77.

Appeal to authority fallacy, people’s subjective religious beliefs are not objective evidence.

@christianapologist

How about responding to the dating of the Book of Acts and the specific ways I have tried to show we have eyewitness testimony and eyewitnesses could have testified against these writings since they were contemporary?

I don’t think you know what contemporary means, but there are no contemporary accounts of anything about the Jesus character, not one word was written while he was alive.

@Sheldon

@christianapologist

Let’s start with Jesus, himself, shall we? Simple craftsman, denied the wishes of others to make him a political figure, and crucified.

We have no evidence for any of that, only some that someone with a pretty common name was crucified. I have explained the gospels are anonymous hearsay, the earliest dates to decades after the events they purport to describe, and the names were assigned arbitrarily over three and a half centuries later to lend them some gravitas.

You seem to be ignoring facts you don’t like, now why would that be?

Just as you ignored this response to your earlier claims.

And this…

And this…

And this…

I won’t labour the point any further, but your credibility takes a hit every time you roll past arguments challenging yours as if they haven’t been offered, and move on to a new raft of claims…

FYI:

“The earliest possible date for Luke-Acts is around 62 AD, the time of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome,[14] but most scholars date the work to 80–90 AD on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century); if it does show awareness of the Pauline epistles, and also of the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, as some believe, then a date in the early 2nd century is possible.”

Maybe contemporary doesn’t mean what you think it means?