Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  For example, we do not know how existence came into being with any degree of certainty. Some people adhere to a First Cause effect, while others adhere to a sense of Randomness.

"Come into being" is a meaningless set of words. Coming into being requires time, a priori.

Okay ... and?

Quote:
Quote:Now the question here is whether or not this something "eternal" could possibly represent something that could be understood as some kind of a god. Not so much the god of the bible or any known religion, but a god of some sort nonetheless.

That's your question. It's not my question. I don't deal in incoherent, undefined nonsense.

Okay, then exclude yourself if you disagree with the content of this discussion and have nothing to add.

It's a very simple process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  So who's opinion is more reasonable; mine or those who claimed to observe the practice of magic?

As I said, you totally missed the point. It's NOT ABOUT YOU. The people who sentenced the women to death, thought it was reasonable to do it. THAT is the point. It's about what THEY thought was reasonable. Not you. Not me.
It's not about whether magic is real.

I realize you are no historian, but you're doing THIS.
You're committing this fallacy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy
It's NOT ABOUT what we can prove. Pay attention gramps. It's about the worldview of the WITNESSES. Not about yours.

Quote:Not desperate about anything. Simply pointing out the flaws in how you evaluate evidence.

The witnesses in Salem thought they were really witches. The witnesses of Jesus thought they saw miracles. They are very similar.

Quote:I am not about to go off reading multiple books just to argue a simple point. Carrier is regarded as fool in this genre and can be dismissed completely, but Price and Ehrman are credible, with Ehrman accepting the possibility that Jesus did actually exist.

Exactly.
As I said, old man, you are totally out of touch with the present debate, and are totally ignorant of the current state of the debate.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 12:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:07 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I have done no such thing. You don't even know what I'm talking about gramps.

No, it is clear that you oppose First Cause. Your previous post reeks of opposition.

I do. It's incoherent. It's meaningless. A cause has to ACT. THAT requires time a priori. It's meaningless. It's an OLD OLD Medieval concept. You only deal in OLD OLD Medieval garbage.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  So who's opinion is more reasonable; mine or those who claimed to observe the practice of magic?

As I said, you totally missed the point. It's NOT ABOUT YOU. The people who sentenced the women to death, thought it was reasonable to do it. THAT is the point. It's about what THEY thought was reasonable. Not you. Not me.
It's not about whether magic is real.

I realize you are no historian, but you're doing THIS.
You're committing this fallacy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy
It's NOT ABOUT what we can prove. Pay attention gramps. It's about the worldview of the WITNESSES. Not about yours.

And my point remains the same. What is more reasonable:

1. Attestations from people regarding the practice of real magic?

2. Attestations from people regarding the mere existence of a person?

Which one has more credibility? How do you compare attestations from a group of superstitious people believing exactly the same superstitious things to another group of of people with varying degrees of different superstitions who believe in something as benign as the mere existence of a human being?

You simply cannot make this comparison whatsoever.

It's false on every level.


Quote:
Quote:Not desperate about anything. Simply pointing out the flaws in how you evaluate evidence.

The witnesses in Salem thought they were really witches. The witnesses of Jesus thought they saw miracles. They are very similar.

Ah-ha! We are not talking about miracles, but only his existence. You continue to insist that because the Gospels have him painted as a miracle worker that it somehow invalidates ALL other records attesting to his mere existence.

Now you are tasked with explaining how the Gospel records of a miracle worker completely invalidates all other records of his existence.

I will await this explanation.

Quote:
Quote:I am not about to go off reading multiple books just to argue a simple point. Carrier is regarded as fool in this genre and can be dismissed completely, but Price and Ehrman are credible, with Ehrman accepting the possibility that Jesus did actually exist.

Exactly.
As I said, old man, you are totally out of touch with the present debate, and are totally ignorant of the current state of the debate.

I am not out of touch, as there really isn't much of an actual debate on the subject. It is virtually unanimous that Jesus existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:33 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  We are not talking about miracles, but only his existence. You continue to insist that because the Gospels have him painted as a miracle worker that it somehow invalidates ALL other records attesting to his mere existence.

Wrong again gramps. It's about the reliability ABOUT ANYTHING of witnesses.
You really don't get it, do you. If a group of relatively educated witnesses said they witness witches, a few hundred years ago, and YOU REJECT THAT, then you also must reject witnesses from 2000 years ago, who were FAR FAR less educated.

Quote:I am not out of touch, as there really isn't much of an actual debate on the subject. It is virtually unanimous that Jesus existed.

Oh there is, and you proved by your responses you know nothing about it, or who is arguing what. You're living in that distant past.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:38 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 12:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 12:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Come into being" is a meaningless set of words. Coming into being requires time, a priori.

Okay ... and?

Quote:That's your question. It's not my question. I don't deal in incoherent, undefined nonsense.

Okay, then exclude yourself if you disagree with the content of this discussion and have nothing to add.

It's a very simple process.

It would be, but you're incompetent in every way.
Define "eternal" and in doing so use NO term that includes spacetime.
Until proven otherwise, spacetime exists only in this universe.
Therefore you can use no concept or word that requires spacetime when discussing the origins of the universe.
It's really very simple. It's shocking you don't even know that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:55 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 12:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  We are not talking about miracles, but only his existence. You continue to insist that because the Gospels have him painted as a miracle worker that it somehow invalidates ALL other records attesting to his mere existence.

Wrong again gramps. It's about the reliability ABOUT ANYTHING of witnesses.
You really don't get it, do you. If a group of relatively educated witnesses said they witness witches, a few hundred years ago, and YOU REJECT THAT, then you also must reject witnesses from 2000 years ago, who were FAR FAR less educated.

Not true.

I reject attestations that people claim to have seen magic performed because it is unreasonable to accept the existence of magic.

I accept attestations that people claim of the mere existence of a man because it is perfectly reasonable to accept the mere existence of a man.

The difference is exceptionally obvious.

Quote:
Quote:I am not out of touch, as there really isn't much of an actual debate on the subject. It is virtually unanimous that Jesus existed.

Oh there is, and you proved by your responses you know nothing about it, or who is arguing what. You're living in that distant past.

No, it is virtually unanimous that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by Pilate.

You are caught up in the world of mythicism, and ascribe far too much credibility to that belief system. Contrary to what you believe, it has no real traction and never did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:04 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 12:01 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Not at all, only if you dont understand the article you linked yourself, or just read the headlines respectively, which i would call "sloppy research". The link you provided says nothing what you claimed here. It just demonstrated that physics on a very small scale is counter intuitive. You messed up "counter intuitive" with "not natural" a common mistake by people who lack scientific education. Quantum physics is, while being counter intuitive, entirely natural, because it has been observed, tested, predicted and theoreticized.
What the Bonn team did is try out how "big" objects possible can be affected by effects of quantum mechanics. They started off with a complete caesium atom, which is pretty "big" for a start, tryed to move it and found out they can observe the quantum effect of superposition which means that an object can be at multiple locations until is is being observed.
They next step they want to do is to move the atom several millimeters apart, trying to observe quantum effects. My (personal) prediction is: they wont see that. Quantum mechanics can not be observed at such large scales.

And thats why here we have again somebody who either doesnt read the scientific link he provides or doenst understand what he links.

P.S.: and when you keep going about
please demonstrate how such a being can "exist" without space and time, because both of them have broken down at the very earliest stage of the universe. They break down at a scale so small that quantum physics has to be applied. The same quantum physics whos basic premises you dont seem to have understood.

If you would have actually read the article, you may have noticed the link further down that continues the story:

http://phys.org/news/2011-04-atom-quantu....html#nRlv

I cant decide if you are more stupid or dishonest. I will lay out why:

1) Dishonesty
You link to the experiment of the Bonn team, an experiment that does not support your claim at all. When i call your BS out about your "interpretation" of this experiment you refer to "link further down that continues the story". In fact its another Team (Heidelberg) with a different experiment, at a different time (2011 opposed to 2015). If you wanted us to read the Heidelberg Article, why link the Bonn article?
Because i called out your BS and you quickly looked for something....at the very same website. The second link was on the website as a "related story".
Dishonest and fucking lazy. I just love that combination

2) Lack of reading comprehension/scientific education
The results of the Heidelberg team were exactly the same as the ones of Bonn.
Quote:"This may sound paradoxical and it is certainly impossible in classical phyiscs for macroscopic objects, but in quantum physics, such superpositions are a well-known phenomenon. This uncertainty about the state of the atom does not mean that the measurement lacks precision”, Jörg Schmiedmayer (TU Vienna) emphasizes. “It is a fundamental property of quantum physics: The particle is in both of the two possible states simultaneousely, it is in a superposition."


You are starting to insult my intellect, kid. If you want to promote your bullshit, you at least could honour us by putting in more effort.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your demonstration how a being can "exist" without space and time Drinking Beverage

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
01-07-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:55 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Not true.

I reject attestations that people claim to have seen magic performed because it is unreasonable to accept the existence of magic.

I accept attestations that people claim of the mere existence of a man because it is perfectly reasonable to accept the mere existence of a man.

The difference is exceptionally obvious.

Totally true. You're still committing the Historian's Fallacy.
You pick and chose what you witnesses you chose to call reliable, not based on what THEY thought was what they were seeing. You totally miss the point, (or reject it as it's inconvenient).
It's not about what YOU reject. The educated witnesses in Salem testified to what they saw. The witnesses of Jesus, who also claimed IN THE SAME breath, he did miracles, walked on water etc. etc. were far less educated and far less reliable. You chose to accept the less educated and less reliable, as you are desperate to maintain your delusions.

You're attempting to create a difference with no distinction.

Quote:No, it is virtually unanimous that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by Pilate.

Then prove it.
You have no poll of "objective" scholars, and you know it.
You don't even know the current names, books, and arguments of current scholars, and in fact refuse to even address them.

Still waiting for the definition of "eternal".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 01:06 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:59 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 12:04 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  If you would have actually read the article, you may have noticed the link further down that continues the story:

http://phys.org/news/2011-04-atom-quantu....html#nRlv

I cant decide if you are more stupid or dishonest. I will lay out why:

1) Dishonesty
You link to the experiment of the Bonn team, an experiment that does not support your claim at all. When i call your BS out about your "interpretation" of this experiment you refer to "link further down that continues the story". In fact its another Team (Heidelberg) with a different experiment, at a different time (2011 opposed to 2015). If you wanted us to read the Heidelberg Article, why link the Bonn article?
Because i called out your BS and you quickly looked for something....at the very same website. The second link was on the website as a "related story".
Dishonest and fucking lazy. I just love that combination

2) Lack of reading comprehension/scientific education
The results of the Heidelberg team were exactly the same as the ones of Bonn.
Quote:"This may sound paradoxical and it is certainly impossible in classical phyiscs for macroscopic objects, but in quantum physics, such superpositions are a well-known phenomenon. This uncertainty about the state of the atom does not mean that the measurement lacks precision”, Jörg Schmiedmayer (TU Vienna) emphasizes. “It is a fundamental property of quantum physics: The particle is in both of the two possible states simultaneousely, it is in a superposition."


You are starting to insult my intellect, kid. If you want to promote your bullshit, you at least could honour us by putting in more effort.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your demonstration how a being can "exist" without space and time Drinking Beverage

Well now, aren't you just desperate to dispense ad hominems?

If this is your attitude "kid," I am very proficient with the ignore feature on these forums, so if you want any kind of discussion with me, the next excessively negative response from you will dictate what form of action I will take.

it's up to you.

So you will demonstrate the integrity needed to address me with some degree of respect before I respond to this, or be ignored.

Simple enough?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: