Spirituality
02 Aug 05
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerA scientist! GAFFAW! GAFFAW!
Originally posted by David C
[b]Yes, do you see the illogic here? What seems more probable to you...
1) Story is told. 2000 years later, story is told again with different names and details contemporaneous with the times.
2) Story is told "prophesizing" events that will happen 2000 years in the future.
Neither of which helps you ...[text shortened]... t GWB is an actor from the South.
Btw, what is the "I know you are but what am I" argument?[/b]
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaTacitus:
Tacitus:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html#tacforg
Pliny:
Don't you think around 80 years is quite fast (at the time) for such an elaborate ploy of a fake Messiah to be set and followed by a sufficient number raise concerns?
For such a ploy, I would imagine it's much easier to pick one of the so-called Messiahs of that time that REAL ...[text shortened]... and followed by a significant number in less than 100 years in a time, I find it very unlikely.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html#tacforg
I'll see your link and raise you two:
http://essenes.net/m12.htm#tacitus
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9846.htm#TACITUS
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm#TACITUS
Pliny: For such a ploy, I would imagine it's much easier to pick one of the so-called Messiahs of that time that REALLY was executed and build from there.
Perhaps. Excellent point.
Thallus:
The thing with Thallus is not proving that the darkness existed or not during the crucifixion. As an atheist I believe it didn't, but the fact is that the "he" that is mentioned by Africanus quotes of Thallus is clearly Jesus Christ:
Please refer to the eariler Thallus link I've posted. Additionally, this reference of Africanus to Thallus is from a third hand (Syncellus) circa 9th century. An apologist, at that. Not credible, in my estimation.
I look at both sides and see no reason to embark on conspiracy theories. If you think it's likely that a mythical Jesus could be concocted and followed by a significant number in less than 100 years in a time, I find it very unlikely.
I appreciate your point of view. I strongly disagree, as the mythical "Jesus" was "concocted" over a far longer period...both before and after the epoch he supposedly existed.
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaI was in a pretty pissy mood. I would rather retract it. It's not what it says about you. It's what it says about me
Don't worry, if it was directed to me I would like to see it. I'm not offended in forums, no matter what people say. Don't be hypocritically polite and say what you have to say.
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by telerionyou have something againts Wyoming dont you, this has been like the 3rd time you referenced me with Wyoming, well Im proud to live here, and being in most states, Wyoming is one of my favorites
Typical uneducated chauvanist.
Well, then again you are from Wyoming. How big is your harem again? No. Not that one. The one with humans in it.
BTW Im single, you still need to have your wife approve all of your posts before you submit it 😛 lol j/k
06 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flyUnityAh you meant smart wife as in my wife?!
you have something againts Wyoming dont you, this has been like the 3rd time you referenced me with Wyoming, well Im proud to live here, and being in most states, Wyoming is one of my favorites
BTW Im single, you still need to have your wife approve all of your posts before you submit it 😛 lol j/k
I thought you were making some snide reference to my being some one's bitch.
Well, damn, I guess I was off on that one too!!
I'm just not as good as SVW at this game.
I will always pick on Wyoming (and Utah), I lived in Idaho for a long time so I have skeletons in my closet too.
Edit: Wait, you were calling me a bitch. Well then proud Mr. Wyoming. I see that you did not deny having a non-human harem (You could be a single sheepherder). Interesting . . .
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaIs this what LH refers to as post hoc ergo propter hoc?
They are a document, and therefore they are historical evidence. You may say they are not neutral (and I would agree), but to say they are not historical evidence is fallacious.
History at that time is made of patches and sketches, especially if it's about something non-governmental. It's perfectly normal that there aren't more references to Christ mad ...[text shortened]... Roman authorities? Why should he be documented until his cult became significant (e.g. Plyne)?
The Cat in the Hat is a document. Is it historical evidence?
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by telerionI seriously think this is one of the stupidest debates I ever heard, thats why Im not trying to prove the Jesus existed, next you will be wanting proof that Paul existed, Its like trying to debate with somone who thinks that moon landings never took place, more of a waste of time
[b]Either he is inconsistent in his application of his standards, and he does not question the historicity of Socrates and Alexander
Or whether or not he accepts the historicity of these two men is superfluous. It simply clouds the discussion.
For instance, I claim agnosticism as to the historicity of both Socrates and Alexander. In the face of ...[text shortened]... , but that's about it (Guess they weren't 'True Christians,' at least not right then).
[/b]
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by telerionSo far David has put forward reasons why the historicity of Jesus should be questioned.
So far David has put forward reasons why the historicity of Jesus should be questioned. He has countered every evidence thus presented with standard objections from scholarship. As yet, no one has really engaged him. Some of you have danced around the subject, hoping to divert attention to irrelevant topics. A few other good 'Christians' have behaved ...[text shortened]... rm goes, but that's about it (Guess they weren't 'True Christians,' at least not right then)
Speculations at best, but fair enough.
He has countered every evidence thus presented with standard objections from scholarship.
All he did was speculate about real documents and the motivations behind those documents. Nothing more. Objections cannot be merely "A Christian did it" and when it isn't a Christian "A Christian faked it". It's too simple.
06 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionhaha, of course I meant your wife, and it was supposed to be a compliment
Ah you meant smart wife as in my wife?!
I thought you were making some snide reference to my being some one's bitch.
Well, damn, I guess I was off on that one too!!
I'm just not as good as SVW at this game.
I will always pi ...[text shortened]... man harem (You could be a single sheepherder). Interesting . . .
Edit. I never called you a bitch. And I deny having a non-human harem. Happy now?
well Im done for the night, this is confusing
06 Aug 05
All he did was speculate about real documents and the motivations behind those documents. Nothing more. Objections cannot be merely "A Christian did it" and when it isn't a Christian "A Christian faked it". It's too simple.
True. This aspect of the case could be developed better. Maybe highlighting some of the key reasons why we should suspect the actual documents beyond simply being written by apologists.
Until you came along, I think he had been too mired down by foolishness to get into it.
GIVE ME AN 'A'!
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CIt has no claims on historical facts, so no. If it did have a little, even if they were briefly mentioned, it would be.
Is this what LH refers to as post hoc ergo propter hoc?
The Cat in the Hat is a document. Is it historical evidence?
I think you don't realize the extremely low ammount of historical evidence of the time.
06 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by David CBut listen to your arguments.
[b]Tacitus:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html#tacforg
I'll see your link and raise you two:
http://essenes.net/m12.htm#tacitus
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9846.htm#TACITUS
http://www.positiveatheism.o ...[text shortened]... eriod...both before and after the epoch he supposedly existed.[/b][/b]
You are denying all evidence presented by Christians yet your base of defense seems to be only atheists. Isn't your denial to accept them a dead-lock?
I appreciate your point of view. I strongly disagree, as the mythical "Jesus" was "concocted" over a far longer period...both before and after the epoch he supposedly existed.
What period? I think I need you to clear this up before I start debating this point.
Edit: I'll be back some other day. It's after 6 AM and the true mistery is why I decided to come home at 3 AM, from a bar packed with beautiful women, because I was tired and then I spent 3 hours at a chess forum... That, my fellow debaters, is illogical.
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaGranted, but herein lies my conundrum. Most of the documentation we've discussed has had ample opportunity to be modified to a particular viewpoint by indivduals with a vested interest. Would you agree?
All he did was speculate about real documents and the motivations behind those documents. Nothing more. Objections cannot be merely "A Christian did it" and when it isn't a Christian "A Christian faked it". It's too simple.
Now, given the evidence that there are "Jesus" figures in other religions with similar, if not remarkably parallel histories, does it not seem less-than-"crackpot" that the earlier saviours might have been co-opted? Unless, of course, you're going to take the "prophecy" route. At this point I won't debate the reasons why it happened, other than to say "power".