Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 01:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because it was a distraction from the point I was making about the first cause argument being an argument from ignorance. I point out it is an argument from ignorance, so pointing out that SOMETHING ELSE is also an argument from ignorance is a distraction from my critique.

I disagree, since showing the contrast was on point.

It is a contrast between an irrelevant point and my point. It doesn't matter if you disagree. The relevance of critiquing a point no one was making, is none. Making it a red herring.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
02-08-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 01:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Not contemporary.

Enough said

Contemporary:

1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time:

2. of about the same age or date

3. of the present time; modern:

4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.

5. a person of the same age as another.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/contemporary

Paul lived during the time of Jesus, and whether or not he ever met him has nothing to do with the fact that he was a contemporary.

Nuff said.

Big Grin

He provides no contemporary evidence for Jesus (the entire point of the thread). So simply citing Paul as "evidence" and saying he was a contemporary, is asinine and another red herring.

Paul's date of birth isn't the question or point. The lack of contemporary evidence is.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
02-08-2016, 01:41 PM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 01:45 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 01:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Contemporary:

1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time:

2. of about the same age or date

3. of the present time; modern:

4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.

5. a person of the same age as another.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/contemporary

Paul lived during the time of Jesus, and whether or not he ever met him has nothing to do with the fact that he was a contemporary.

Nuff said.

Big Grin

He provides no contemporary evidence for Jesus (the entire point of the thread). So simply citing Paul as "evidence" and saying he was a contemporary, is asinine and another red herring.

Paul's date of birth isn't the question or point. The lack of contemporary evidence is.

Actually, he does provide contemporary evidence for Jesus. He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles. He also became a follower of Jesus, so he says.

He provides heaps of contemporary evidence.

You don't have to like it, but it is exactly what it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 01:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 01:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I disagree, since showing the contrast was on point.

It is a contrast between an irrelevant point and my point. It doesn't matter if you disagree. The relevance of critiquing a point no one was making, is none. Making it a red herring.

How can it be an irrelevant point when it directly addresses your point by contrasting it?

You made a point, and I addressed it with a counter-point.

That's not a red herring at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 12:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 12:35 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Unfortunately, so is the argument for Indeterminism.

""Well, I can't conceive of the Universe being caused, therefore I believe it was not caused."

Except I didn't say I believed the universe is uncaused. That is a straw man.

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer with regards to some questions. Presuming to know the answer in spite of a lack of evidence and logic, is what the religious do.

Yabut, he didn't claim to know. He just said what he believed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
02-08-2016, 03:32 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 11:49 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 10:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "So here we have Dr. Mark Fulton, who implies that he...doesn't need to learn anything from anyone"

Oh the irony.Big Grin

"and when that evidence is evaluated by a very large body of professional "judges" who all reach the same conclusion that the evidence is more than good enough to warrant existence,"

79

Instead, you, Rene Salm, Ken Humphreys, and many other conspiracy theorists will only serve to poison the minds of the young and the gullible

Oh the irony Facepalm

That's what I mean; you don't even know nor understand the ramifications of what you are doing. You cannot even muster up and adequate response to my post.

You cannot even muster up and adequate response to my post.


You are asking me to respond to your post about how shitty my whole book is, and how I'm ruining the world, how insignificant I am, and how I don't know a scrap about history. What would be the point? You have revealed your true colours...you are a dyed in the wool Jeebus fan. You are paranoid about all atheists and their arguments. You cannot stick to an interesting discussion of the history without 1. repeating your tired arguments again and again, 2. abusing people who don't agree with you.

That is why this discussion has degenerated.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
02-08-2016, 04:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 03:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 11:49 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  That's what I mean; you don't even know nor understand the ramifications of what you are doing. You cannot even muster up and adequate response to my post.

You cannot even muster up and adequate response to my post.


You are asking me to respond to your post about how shitty my whole book is, and how I'm ruining the world, how insignificant I am, and how I don't know a scrap about history. What would be the point? You have revealed your true colours...you are a dyed in the wool Jeebus fan. You are paranoid about all atheists and their arguments. You cannot stick to an interesting discussion of the history without 1. repeating your tired arguments again and again, 2. abusing people who don't agree with you.

That is why this discussion has degenerated.

No, this discussion degenerates because those of you who have no clue about actual history continue to insist that you have some kind of a viable argument against the evidence and a large body of professionals in unanimity.

It degenerates because it is glaringly obvious that the motives for your withholding validation of the consensus has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever, and instead it has everything to do with your extreme bias against that religion. This makes you a DENIALIST to such an extreme that the truth- or the best approximation of it- is completely irrelevant to you.

All that matters to you is your burning desire to put an end to Christianity, no matter what. You will fabricate your own version of Christianity history. You will rail against all the scholars who do not support your position. They are all wrong as far as you are concerned, because it is absolutely imperative that you be right.

You who is a doctor- who learns virtually on a daily basis from other doctors who represent a consensus of professionals- put all your trust into those professionals because you have learned that the chances of them being correct is exceedingly high.

Yet, you have a problem with me- another professional- who also trusts a consensus of professionals because it is my experience that the chances of them being correct is also exceedingly high?

Now you can see why I say that you have absolutely no interest in history, nor any interest at all in representing it properly, because it is clearly obvious that you have absolutely no respect for it whatsoever.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 05:16 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 12:35 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The First Cause argument...also known as an argument from ignorance.

"Well, I can't conceive of the Universe being uncaused, therefore I believe it has a cause."

Unfortunately, so is the argument for Indeterminism.

""Well, I can't conceive of the Universe being caused, therefore I believe it was not caused."
Thats usually not how claims are evaluated.
Not accepting one belief does not automatically mean to accept the opposite belief.

When we have two claims (i believe the universe to be caused / not caused), the claims are evaluated separately. So for the claim "i believe the universe is caused", you can either believe it or not. That (the latter one) does not adress at all the separate claim of "i believe the universe was not caused (by anything)". This claim is separately evaluated by "i believe" or "i dont believe".

It is done the same way in law: When the prosecution claims that (the indicted person) is guilty, we do not evaluate the two prongs thats he is guilty or innocent (two separate prongs), but we evaluate "he is guilty". Therefore the judgement is "guilty" or "not guilty", and not "guilty" or "innocent". The innocence claim is a different one and evaluated separately.

We dont say "i dont think hes guilty, therefore i think he is innocent" in court.

So if TBD doesnt believe one claim, it is a straw man to suggest he (indirectly) claimed to hold the opposing belief. TBD may say "i dont know" to both claims, making GoingUps response indeed a red herring.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
02-08-2016, 05:23 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 01:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  He provides no contemporary evidence for Jesus (the entire point of the thread). So simply citing Paul as "evidence" and saying he was a contemporary, is asinine and another red herring.

Paul's date of birth isn't the question or point. The lack of contemporary evidence is.

Actually, he does provide contemporary evidence for Jesus. He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles. He also became a follower of Jesus, so he says.

He provides heaps of contemporary evidence.

You don't have to like it, but it is exactly what it is.

My understanding of the myth is that Jesus was already dead and gone when Paul was on the road to Damascus and A blinding light got to him. ANd further in the fable was that Jesus spoke to him from the dead. SO how could he have met Jesus while alive if his story was to be believed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Born Again Pagan's post
02-08-2016, 05:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 05:23 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually, he does provide contemporary evidence for Jesus. He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles. He also became a follower of Jesus, so he says.

He provides heaps of contemporary evidence.

You don't have to like it, but it is exactly what it is.

My understanding of the myth is that Jesus was already dead and gone when Paul was on the road to Damascus and A blinding light got to him. ANd further in the fable was that Jesus spoke to him from the dead. SO how could he have met Jesus while alive if his story was to be believed?

Again, the word "contemporary" does not mean that he ever met Jesus. All it means is that he lived at the same time. In this case, he learned about Jesus from his peers, and from at least one member of Jesus' family, his brother James whom he spoke to often according to the written sources. He also spoke to some of the most trusted people who followed Jesus, his apostles.

Paul was a contemporary for a certainty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: