Debating the historical Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2015, 11:55 AM
Debating the historical Jesus
So I've managed to get myself into a debate on FB,go figure. First it started off with the soft tissue found on the T-Rex then somehow a pastor jumped in and now it moved to what historians have said about Jesus. He made these nice yellow squares to prove his points.
I've used GWG's points. But as any good Christian would say "I've already seen all those points and you probably got them from some pagan atheist page".

My head hurts.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
                   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OceanTherapist's post
10-03-2015, 11:56 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
A couple more.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
           
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
Thank him for the survey and point out that 35 of the 39 are saying Josephus was telling porkies.

And that it's probably a sin to deliberately misinterpret statistics.

Also remind him that the bible does not contain 'evidence'. It contains claims and promises.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
10-03-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(10-03-2015 12:02 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Thank him for the survey and point out that 35 of the 39 are saying Josephus was telling porkies.

And that it's probably a sin to deliberately misinterpret statistics.

Also remind him that the bible does not contain 'evidence'. It contains claims and promises.

Big Grin

It also says that only 4 of the 39 believe it to be 100% true. The other ones say maybe it's true or only parts are interpolated. Then he tried to tell me that they only added a couple words to it and that's why is interpolated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(10-03-2015 12:13 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  ...
It also says that only 4 of the 39 believe it to be 100% true. The other ones say maybe it's true or only parts are interpolated. Then he tried to tell me that they only added a couple words to it and that's why is interpolated.

Ask him which 'couple'?

Ask why lying for Jesus is not a sin in his eyes?

Pious fraud

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
10-03-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(10-03-2015 12:23 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 12:13 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  ...
It also says that only 4 of the 39 believe it to be 100% true. The other ones say maybe it's true or only parts are interpolated. Then he tried to tell me that they only added a couple words to it and that's why is interpolated.

Ask him which 'couple'?

Ask why lying for Jesus is not a sin in his eyes?

Pious fraud

I'll ask. He hasn't responded back in a while. Maybe I stumped him. I doubt it though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
So technically I'm conversing with 3 dopes. One of them asked me if I believed muhammad was real and then said "Mohamed believed jesus existed too. You gonna tell 1 bil Muslims they're wrong?" And this is coming from a christian.
I asked him if he believes Muslims about Jesus why doesn't he believe everything else they say. But he dodged that question. I think he's just a troll or just really fuckin' stupid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OceanTherapist's post
10-03-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(10-03-2015 11:56 AM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  A couple more.

The James Ossuary is the weak link here:

Bone Box of Contention

All of the stuff he posted are references of AFTER Jesus was dead. Nothing DURING his life, this is why Jesus' existence is questioned, it doesn't conform to the historical method of determining historicity.

GWOG has a debunking of Josephus here: Josephus

He has a more general debunking of a historical Jesus here: No Jesus

They will always have a problem coming up with a contemporary account of Jesus within the 0-33AD time frame -it doesn't exist.

One point GWOG made in his writing is that Philo of Alexandria was an ambassador for the Jews to Rome and he lived in Jesus' time. You would think he would've mentioned something about Jesus, if he really was everything they say he is, (rabbi, convicted criminal, Sanhedrin witch hunt victim, thousands of followers) but he never mentions a thing about this great teacher.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
10-03-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
Citing what Scholars or Historians believe is an appeal to authority.

What is important is the evidence that these scholars and historians cite.
And it must be highlighted that these people have very low standards with regards to evidence. All documented claims are by people who have never claimed to have met Jesus and the documented accounts are written several decades after Jesus time.

It's odd.
these people hang off every word that Jesus allegedly said in the bible <sermon on the mount> etc. But quite frankly even if the sermon happened, no-one wrote it down at the time, no-one verified the transcript. No-one that heard it, ever wrote it down.

It's just a made up story. Even if there was a Jesus, its most likely that he didn't say any of the words attributed to him in the bible. And if that is the case, then who the hell is Jesus anyway, and why should we even care who he is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(10-03-2015 12:46 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 11:56 AM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  A couple more.

The James Ossuary is the weak link here:

Bone Box of Contention

All of the stuff he posted are references of AFTER Jesus was dead. Nothing DURING his life, this is why Jesus' existence is questioned, it doesn't conform to the historical method of determining historicity.

GWOG has a debunking of Josephus here: Josephus

He has a more general debunking of a historical Jesus here: No Jesus

They will always have a problem coming up with a contemporary account of Jesus within the 0-33AD time frame -it doesn't exist.

One point GWOG made in his writing is that Philo of Alexandria was an ambassador for the Jews to Rome and he lived in Jesus' time. You would think he would've mentioned something about Jesus, if he really was everything they say he is, (rabbi, convicted criminal, Sanhedrin witch hunt victim, thousands of followers) but he never mentions a thing about this great teacher.

I've used a lot of what GWoG has said. So far I can't tell if it has worked. The pastor isn't responding. Have to give him a little time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OceanTherapist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: