19 Feb 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo; if you're that intellectually lazy just be happy with your ignorance (it works for RBHILL, blindfaith101, d2jbecker, Darfius, etc. but I thought a freethinker might put some effort into an issue after stating a position).
I don't really care enough about the issue to read that giant block of text you linked to. Would you like to summarize it for me?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThere you go slandering me again. Despite what you think, O omniscient one, I've done my research and am still covinced Jesus is my Lord and Savior. To say that makes me less intelligent or learned than you is ridiculous. We simply look at the evidence and come up with different conclusions. Obviously, your conclusion tends to make you call people names and show disdain for them whereas mine tends to make me feel love for them and try to help them.
No; if you're that intellectually lazy just be happy with your ignorance (it works for RBHILL, blindfaith101, d2jbecker, Darfius, etc. but I thought a freethinker might put some effort into an issue after stating a position).
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusWhat your supposed to do is look at the site and then refute the points made. Since you won't do this you either: A) Know you can't or B) Are too intellectually lazy to try. Either way, you're not debating and you're wasting space in this thread. On what basis do you say the site I mentioned is biased, because it presents a point of view supported by facts that you refuse to consider as possibly correct?
http://www.bede.org.uk/frazer.htm
There, I too can provide a bias website that will magically make my case.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusNo, you refuse to look at evidence and you already have made up your mind without conceding the possibility that you are wrong. That makes you intellectually lazy and ignorant; and truth is an absolute defense to a slander suit.
There you go slandering me again. Despite what you think, O omniscient one, I've done my research and am still covinced Jesus is my Lord and Savior. To say that makes me less intelligent or learned than you is ridiculous. We simply look at the evidence and come up with different conclusions. Obviously, your conclusion tends to make you call people names ...[text shortened]... show disdain for them whereas mine tends to make me feel love for them and try to help them.
19 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI put as much effort into my post effort as you did yours.
No; if you're that intellectually lazy just be happy with your ignorance (it works for RBHILL, blindfaith101, d2jbecker, Darfius, etc. but I thought a freethinker might put some effort into an issue after stating a position).
By the way, I don't like your overbearing attitude, your love for insults and put downs, your refusal to acknowledge it when you're wrong, and your entire focus on winning debates while belittling your opponents. Don't be too surprised if I don't engage you in forum discussions very much any more, and if I do, if I let them die once you start to show those attributes of yours that keep the discussions from being productive for me and others.
It's unfortunate, because you're possibly the most intelligent poster here. Discussing things with you is too irritating and I have to soak up too much abuse to bother. Your need to put dominating those who don't agree with you over educating yourself and others keeps it from being worth it most of the time.
I have not conceded the possibility that I am wrong. Mischaracterizing what others say is another of your irritating habits that gets in the way of productive debate.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'll really miss "debating" someone who won't read a couple of pages on whether Jesus was a real person or not, but expects me to summarize it for him. I don't care what you think about me; if you have something to add to the thread go ahead but if you just want to cry about how I hurt your feelings, pick a number and grab a hankie.
I put as much effort into my post effort as you did yours.
By the way, I don't like your overbearing attitude, your love for insults and put downs, your refusal to acknowledge it when you're wrong, and your entire focus on winning debates while belittling your opponents. Don't be too surprised if I don't engage you in forum discussions very mu ...[text shortened]... what others say is another of your irritating habits that gets in the way of productive debate.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI have already said I could be wrong. You have not. That makes you a hypocrite, sir.
No, you refuse to look at evidence and you already have made up your mind without conceding the possibility that you are wrong. That makes you intellectually lazy and ignorant; and truth is an absolute defense to a slander suit.
I do look at the evidence. Me not agreeing with you does not mean I didn't review the evidence. It means we drew different conclusions.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThe site presents stuff as Gospel. Where is the corroboration? Where is the peer reviewed scholarly essay? I don't see it, so the site fails to withstand my criteria to be considered.
I'll really miss "debating" someone who won't read a couple of pages on whether Jesus was a real person or not, but expects me to summarize it for him. I don't care what you think about me; if you have something to add to the thread go ahead but if you just want to cry about how I hurt your feelings, pick a number and grab a hankie.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThere's a problem with using Josephus as a confirmation source.
I never said Luke was an eyewitness. In fact, I said in an earlier post that he got his testimony from Paul. I just assumed Luke was around the same age as Paul.
My other sources are as follows:
Josephus
Tacitus
The Talmud
Pliny the Younger
"The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel
In his first book Josephus recorded the two offensive acts of Pilate, i.e. the bringing of Caesar's ensign into Jerusalem and the using the locals treasury to fund the local viaduct .
It's not until his second book that "the Christ" reference is added, a reference that reads more like part of the gospels than a outside source for confirmation. A reference that would be more useful in making a claim that Josephus was one of the writers of the Gospels if we were investigating " who wrote the Gospels? " , than a confirmation of the proof that Jesus actually existed,
It seems highly unlikely that the person that wrote that passage would have considered Pilate's effrontery in bringing the ensign and water into the city as important as " Pilate killed the Messiah"
So why wasn't it in the first book?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by frogstompI do not claim to know every bit of secular evidence that claims Jesus existed. I do know that scholars generally agree that he did. Your history books say that he did.
There's a problem with using Josephus as a confirmation source.
In his first book Josephus recorded the two offensive acts of Pilate, i.e. the bringing of Caesar's ensign into Jerusalem and the using the locals treasury to fund the local viaduct .
It's not until his second book that "the Christ" reference is added, a reference that reads ...[text shortened]... ty as important as " Pilate killed the Messiah"
So why wasn't it in the first book?
If Jesus did not exist, who founded Christianity and why?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by Darfiusfirst that Christ reference, despite dubious authorship, was not "secular evidence".
I do not claim to know every bit of secular evidence that claims Jesus existed. I do know that scholars generally agree that he did. Your history books say that he did.
If Jesus did not exist, who founded Christianity and why?
Second: scholars is too broad a term, so broad its generally used as part of a fallacious argument. as are terms like " generally" lol.
Third : My history books and sources do not say he actually existed , they do however have things like Cicero remarking on a law case involving some kids playing ball in the street.
and Lastly: Assume for the moment that Josephus did indeed write the passage attributed to him. Josephus was a collaborator with the Romans the entire religion might well have started as his attempt at exculpation.
A likely scenario? Not really but a possibility still the same.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll really miss "debating" someone who won't read a couple of pages on whether Jesus was a real person or not, but expects me to summarize it for him. I don't care what you think about me; if you have something to add to the thread go ahead but if you just want to cry about how I hurt your feelings, pick a number and grab a hankie.
I've come to the conclusion that old age has worn away at your sanity 🙂
pc
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusUhm, provided he did exist, Jesus didn't found Christianity.
I do not claim to know every bit of secular evidence that claims Jesus existed. I do know that scholars generally agree that he did. Your history books say that he did.
If Jesus did not exist, who founded Christianity and why?