Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2016, 08:02 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 07:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Ah, perhaps this is a bit revealing.

Drinking Beverage brace yourself...

(27-06-2016 07:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If Jesus didn't exist, than Christianity would be a religion founded on the teaching of a non-exist, non-historical person named Jesus, wouldn't that be correct?

Yes. You have correctly stated the obvious. Kudos. Thumbsup

(27-06-2016 07:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In that case true christianity, in it's most pure and original form, was a belief in a non-historical Christ?

Yep. Now you've restated the obvious.

(27-06-2016 07:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps that's the likely psychology of why many atheists appeal to a non-historical Jesus...

Stop right there. You've been told repeatedly that many atheists on this board do not hold to the mythicist position. If you were honestly interested, you could do a poll thread, but we all know that you're not.

(27-06-2016 07:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...because for them a non-historical Jesus, would be a final blow to Christianity, which they despise?

Stop again. First, speaking personally, I don't despise Christianity per se. I take issue with the policies and practices of various Christian groups. But despising "Christianity" or all Christians across the board, would be rather prejudicial, don't you think?

Sort of like making generalizations about other groups...

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-06-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 07:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2016 04:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I'm not interested in playing guessing games with you, and as far as I'm concerned you keep your beliefs a secret so you can play a shell game with them to avoid being subjected to criticism.

I don't think the crowd that deems themselves as lacking belief, has much criticism to offer, because they hold no real alternative position to my own, they just appeal to sitting on fences when it comes to religious question.

Why do you insist on lying repeatedly? Why? I do not understand this about you.

Atheism is not a lack of position. While specifics will vary between individuals (a foreign concept for you, I know...) most members here maintain a belief in science, naturalism and apistevism. A skeptical position, if you will.

This is a viable alternative.
This has been explained to you time and time again.

You lie when you say we sit on fences.
An atheist who says that while they do not believe in god, but would consider evidence to the contrary is not sitting on the fence.

I suppose that an atheist who in unsure of the existence of god is sitting on the fence. But at least they are honest in their uncertainty.

Would it be better for them to lie and say they are certain about their belief?

I suppose from the religious viewpoint, that would be true. Religions routinely lie, equating their faith with factual certainty. However honest uncertainty is better than hypocritical faith.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-06-2016, 08:38 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 07:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If Jesus didn't exist, than Christianity would be a religion founded on the teaching of a non-exist, non-historical person named Jesus, wouldn't that be correct? In that case true christianity, in it's most pure and original form, was a belief in a non-historical Christ?

To reiterate a point I made earlier that you ignored:

You, as an individual, do not get to re-define a word that is used by millions of other people.

As I noted earlier:
Quote:The accepted and understood definition of a christian is someone who worships jesus christ as the son of god and the savior of mankind. A christian believes that christ died for the sins of humanity.

If your beliefs differ from that then the millions of people who do believe that will not accept you as a Christian.

The Ku Klux Klan is a Christian organization that believes in, among other things, the inherent superiority of the White/Aryan/Caucasian race.

Let's say there is an African American man. We'll call him Morgan*.
Morgan proclaims himself a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Morgan believes in racial superiority, however he believes that the Black/Negroid/African race is superior, not the white.

Do you think that the other members of the KKK will accept him as a valid member?

Do you think that the rest of society will accept him as a valid member?

* after Morgan Freeman. 'cause he's cool. And Morgan is shorter to type than "Africian American Man"...

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-06-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I don't think I have chimed in on this thread because there are no such sources. I read the early xians and they did not mention Jesus. It was always The holy lamb.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 08:20 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Atheism is not a lack of position. While specifics will vary between individuals (a foreign concept for you, I know...) most members here maintain a belief in science, naturalism and apistevism. A skeptical position, if you will.

Atheism as is currently defined, is a lack of belief in God/s, where as historically it implied a position that God/s did not exist, now it implies a lack of belief in God's existence, which is a lack of a position.

The tendency among atheists here, as has been my experience in pretty much every argument I've had with, with topics that even remotely relate to religion, such as morality, the existence of Jesus, etc... is for atheists in these arguments to appeal to their lack of belief, to wash their hands of any affirmative position to defend themselves, to have theists as the one who exclusively holds an affirmative position, why they themselves lack a belief. The theist is always the on with the burden of proof in these discussions, since the atheists hold no position himself. Lack of belief, being their position.

Quote:You lie when you say we sit on fences. An atheist who says that while they do not believe in god, but would consider evidence to the contrary is not sitting on the fence.

When you can't decide between two competing positions, preferring to see yourself as lacking belief, in regards to the question, you're fence sitting, whether you feel justified in doing so or not.

Quote:I suppose that an atheist who in unsure of the existence of god is sitting on the fence. But at least they are honest in their uncertainty.

I find nothing honest about it all. It doesn't seem driven by their uncertainty, the way my lack of belief in whether you're married or not is. It's driven more out of desire to absolve oneself from having any defensible position. Where as those who claimed to believe that God does not exist, have a position they would have to argue in support of, those who define their position as a lack of belief, do so to avoid this all together.

It's the same here, the atheists here are not particularly inclined to define their position as aligned with the mythicist position, because then they've have an actual alternative position to argue for. Instead they find solace in appealing to a lack of belief.

Quote:Would it be better for them to lie and say they are certain about their belief?

Atheists seem to acknowledge that to know, is about absolute certainty, while believing is not, when they speak of the gnostic and agnostic distinction. But somehow they tend to conflate believing with absolute certainty. To believe something is true, can be more or less be interpreted to believe something is more likely to be true than not.

The inability to infer one way or the other, seems to be a deliberate positions one places themselves in, to absolve themselves from having a position to defend. They often like to be on the sidelines, but like Bucky like to passively defend alternative positions, while maintaining that they don't particularly subscribe to those positions themselves. Bucky wants me to argue against Carrier and Price, while not subscribing to their mythicist position himself.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 11:04 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 08:20 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Atheism is not a lack of position. While specifics will vary between individuals (a foreign concept for you, I know...) most members here maintain a belief in science, naturalism and apistevism. A skeptical position, if you will.

Atheism as is currently defined, is a lack of belief in God/s, where as historically it implied a position that God/s did not exist, now it implies a lack of belief in God's existence, which is a lack of a position.

It is not a lack of a position. It is the skeptical position of not accepting an unevidenced claim.

Quote:The tendency among atheists here, as has been my experience in pretty much every argument I've had with, with topics that even remotely relate to religion, such as morality, the existence of Jesus, etc... is for atheists in these arguments to appeal to their lack of belief, to wash their hands of any affirmative position to defend themselves, to have theists as the one who exclusively holds an affirmative position, why they themselves lack a belief. The theist is always the on with the burden of proof in these discussions, since the atheists hold no position himself. Lack of belief, being their position.

It is the theist who is making the claim.

Quote:
Quote:You lie when you say we sit on fences. An atheist who says that while they do not believe in god, but would consider evidence to the contrary is not sitting on the fence.

When you can't decide between two competing positions, preferring to see yourself as lacking belief, in regards to the question, you're fence sitting, whether you feel justified in doing so or not.

Not accepting a claim is not fence-sitting.

Quote:
Quote:I suppose that an atheist who in unsure of the existence of god is sitting on the fence. But at least they are honest in their uncertainty.

I find nothing honest about it all.

It seems you wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if it slapped you in the head.

Quote:It doesn't seem driven by their uncertainty, the way my lack of belief in whether you're married or not is. It's driven more out of desire to absolve oneself from having any defensible position. Where as those who claimed to believe that God does not exist, have a position they would have to argue in support of, those who define their position as a lack of belief, do so to avoid this all together.

So? Do I have to make a claim on everything that does not have evidence?

Quote:It's the same here, the atheists here are not particularly inclined to define their position as aligned with the mythicist position, because then they've have an actual alternative position to argue for. Instead they find solace in appealing to a lack of belief.

Neither the mythicist nor the actualist has sufficient evidence.

Quote:
Quote:Would it be better for them to lie and say they are certain about their belief?

Atheists seem to acknowledge that to know, is about absolute certainty,

Only if you're talking about absolute knowledge. In the vernacular, to 'know' is to have sufficient evidence.

Quote:while believing is not, when they speak of the gnostic and agnostic distinction. But somehow they tend to conflate believing with absolute certainty. To believe something is true, can be more or less be interpreted to believe something is more likely to be true than not.

No, there is no conflation. To believe something to be true requires evidence that it is true.

Quote:The inability to infer one way or the other, seems to be a deliberate positions one places themselves in, to absolve themselves from having a position to defend. They often like to be on the sidelines, but like Bucky like to passively defend alternative positions, while maintaining that they don't particularly subscribe to those positions themselves. Bucky wants me to argue against Carrier and Price, while not subscribing to their mythicist position himself.

So? You are the one making the claim of the existence of a historical Jesus.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-06-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The theist is always the one with the burden of proof in these discussions, since the atheists hold no position himself.

Thumbsup

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
27-06-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 08:38 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You, as an individual, do not get to re-define a word that is used by millions of other people.

I as an individual get to define my own self-identity. Something that liberal individuals such as yourself should acknowledge.

Quote:As I noted earlier:
The accepted and understood definition of a christian is someone who worships jesus christ as the son of god and the savior of mankind. A christian believes that christ died for the sins of humanity.

According to some estimates there are over 30k denotations of Christians, fundamentalist denominations, liberal/progressive denominations, etc.., that don't tend to agree on the meaning of being a Christian.

What's funny is that you idiots, are appealing to the idea that the earliest form of followers of Christ, didn't believe that he was a historical person. Yet somehow want to claim that these supposed early followers of Jesus shouldn't be able to identify as Christians, since later Christian group predominately believe he was a historical person. You don't apparently see why you're talking out of both sides of your mouth huh?

Quote:If your beliefs differ from that then the millions of people who do believe that will not accept you as a Christian.

I doubt fundie care whether liberal christians accept them into their ranks. Or Jerry Falwell cares that progressive christians deny them into their ranks. So why should I? The reality is I don't tend to here other Christians tell me I'm not a Christian, it's just atheists such as yourself doing so. As if I care.

Quote:Do you think that the other members of the KKK will accept him as a valid member
Do you think that the rest of society will accept him as a valid member?

* after Morgan Freeman. 'cause he's cool. And Morgan is shorter to type than "Africian American Man"...

According to you the supposed earliest form of Christianity wouldn't be accepted into the membership of the later forms. But I doubt this supposed earlier form would have cared.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What's funny is that you idiots, are appealing to the idea that the earliest form of followers of Christ, didn't believe that he was a historical person.

Someone calling a whole group of persons "idiots", then, with his very next keystroke, demonstrates his ignorance of basic punctuation.

Quite ironic.

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
27-06-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 11:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  It seems you wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if it slapped you in the head.

No, there is no conflation. To believe something to be true requires evidence that it is true.

What you dishonest ones tend to do is play with terms as your see fit. It's purely a matter of semantics.

As I recall you believe that historians like Ehrman can reasonably infer from a variety of factors that Jesus did exist. That a person reading a first hand account of someone who met his brother, Josephus writing of his brother's death, Tacitus writing of his death under Pilate, etc.. can infer based on factors like this that a historical Jesus existed.

What you don't like to do, is label factors that lead one to draw reasonable conclusions, as evidence. You're whole argument is not even about the reasonableness of one position over the other, but merely about the term evidence.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: