mad sweeney
Footballguy
Try to follow me here Larry. If the Bible is indisputable, then it is not disputable. If the Bible, as you say above, is false in some areas then it is not indisputable. If it is not indisputable, then it is disputable. I don't care how many people added to it, it is not a historic (nor in the least bit unbiased) document. It's a bunch of testimonies to faith.All of your lathered persecuted-by-bias repetition still doesn't amount up to anything extra-Biblical. Not a single one of those multiple sources within the Bible is an extra-Biblical source so you can say it 7 times 700 times if you want and you still won't have come up with one extra-Biblical source. Which was the point of Andy's post that you continue to try and bluster your way around.again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!The Bible isn't disputable, but there's uncertainty about some of it. That would make it a disputable source Larry.I AM NOT DISPUTING, NOR HAVE I DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL DRAFTEES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, only their divine acts.The Bible isn't "a disputable source", its numerous sources that each have completely separate and varying degrees of certainty to their existence...Which is the whole problem with you (and Andy's) bias showing up like this... It isn't based in reality.You're a real piece of work Larry. Reminds me of Cliff Clabin when someone asked him "What color is the sky in your world?" Andy asks if there's anything other than a disputable source and you pop up with a bunch of stuff from the same disputed source and then go on the offensive about it.it answers the question by pointing out the absurdity of Andy's request... Any doesn't require 1/6 of the evidence for at least a half dozen other people drafted that he requires for Biblical characters simply because they are in the Bible...
My answer was in response to Andy's complete lack of perspective into his own bias that he has been letting run rampant in this thread...
you'll note that in my response to Andy I told him if he found me 6 different sources that verified that Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu lived that I'd find him some non-Biblical sources that talk about Peter or Paul or Jesus... I even bolded it for you since you have obviously missed it up to now...
You accusing someone of lack of perspective and bias is probably the funniest thing I've read in this draft.
The Bible is NOT "one disputable source". It never has been. Are some portions of it and some stories in it considered questionable? Absolutely, some of them are considered outright false scientifically and historically... But most of the people after, say, Judges are considered to have lived, ESPECIALLY when referring to the New Testament (where there is little doubt that they lived)...
You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.
You can blame it on my "anti Christianity" bias if it makes you feel morally superior (which is untrue, I don't believe in any of the religions) but the fact is that you answered absolutely 0% of Andy's request and you can't even seem to keep little facts (like how I am not disputing their existence) straight from post to post. I see with clear eyes homey, your bias and belief is what's clouding things.
The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...
my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.
again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...
And for some reason it still seems like you think I doubt the existence of those people...
Bias, bias, bias, bias. So easy to throw the term around.


I'm not sure where he'll rank, but he is a giant.