Debating the historical Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2015, 01:14 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
Thread split again


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 01:27 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 12:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-03-2015 12:44 AM)A New Hope Wrote:  Lol I love this place so much hypocrisy.... its WORSE than being at a church Tongue (thats something i DID NOT think i would say about this place but owell) The saddest part of all is that 90 percent of the people in here cant answer ELEMENTARY science questions, which means they know the theories but they have no true understanding of WHY they should believe said theories other than someone smarter than them said they should.


[Image: 200_s.gif]

[Image: tumblr_inline_mr16ogLuEX1qz4rgp.gif]

[Image: tumblr_inline_mr16ovydwF1qz4rgp.gif]

[Image: tumblr_inline_mr16opEdNF1qz4rgp.gif]

Rolleyes


I hear the sound of someone JAQ'ing off again. I wonder who it could be? Oh right, the jackass too lazy to get himself a education!


No really, keep complaining about how we all know nothing, seeing as how you already know everything there is to know anyways. It's such a compelling form of argumentation!
Lol no a compeling form of argumentation would be to attack the the person themself that your in a debate with rather than refuting points or atleast moving on in an objective manner.

[Image: 49315c6f981d128e8b981045288fa666.jpg]

[Image: ad7c6042ae1a0c91f8228104e1a6f43e.jpg]

[Image: 7307b8fcf4f76439b05b35d265626a9a.jpg]

I wish you would step back from that ledge my friend
We could cut ties with ALL THE LIES youve been living
And if you do not want to see me again
that would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
that would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
The angry boy a bit too insane
Icing over a secret pain
You know you don't belong
You're the first to fight
You're way too loud
You're the flash of light on a burial shroud
I know something's wrong
Well everyone I know has got a reason
To say
Please EK GO AWAY
I wish you would step back
From that ledge my friend
You could cut ties with all the lies
That you've been living in
And if you do not want to see me again
that would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
that would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
Well he's on his keyboard and he's typing code
And I do not think anyone knows
What hes doing here
And your friends have left you
You've been dismissed
I never thought it would come to this
And I, I want you to know
Everyone's got to face down the demons
Maybe today
please go the FUCK away.
I wish you would step back from
That ledge my friend
You could cut ties with all the lies
That you've been living in
And if you do not want to see me again
That would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
That would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
That would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
That would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
That would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
That would be to baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
Can you please just go away.


(Lol the longest part of this post was the images Rolleyes )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes A New Hope's post
15-03-2015, 01:42 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(14-03-2015 01:16 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-03-2015 08:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Don't you think that such claims are baseless when you have no reason to make them?
Many a story is based on rumour, it's human nature. The question of whether Jesus actually existed has two aspects to it. Either he existed or he did not.
If he existed then perhaps some documented events actually happened. But we can be pretty sure that many of the documented events didn't happen such as the resurrection, or walking on water or turning water to wine, or the virgin birth. These events defy the laws of nature. If they didn't happen the way they were documented then how do we account for them? Rumor based on superstition. People, back in those times would find it easy to believe in stories of supernatural events, hell even these days many people find it easy to believe stories of supernatural events.

So this sets the precedent. It is human nature and a common practice for rumors to spread. The Jesus story is fraught with rumor.
You have even provided "evidence" suggesting that Tacitus was careful not to document heresay and rumor.
Why was Tacitus careful against rumors when he had no evidence to suggest that rumor was at play?

Perhaps because only a fool would wave their hand and discount the possibility of rumor. It makes sense to mitigate real and possible threats. Rumor is a real and possible threat.
What side are you on? Out of curiosity do you think he did exist? Or that he didnt?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes A New Hope's post
15-03-2015, 02:02 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 01:27 AM)A New Hope Wrote:  
(15-03-2015 12:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I hear the sound of someone JAQ'ing off again. I wonder who it could be? Oh right, the jackass too lazy to get himself a education!


No really, keep complaining about how we all know nothing, seeing as how you already know everything there is to know anyways. It's such a compelling form of argumentation!
Lol no a compeling form of argumentation would be to attack the the person themself that your in a debate with rather than refuting points or atleast moving on in an objective manner.

I'm sorry, are you under the mistaken impression that you have a valid point worth refuting? That would almost be precious, if it wasn't so pathetically stupid... Weeping

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-03-2015, 02:07 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2015 02:10 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 01:42 AM)A New Hope Wrote:  What side are you on? Out of curiosity do you think he did exist? Or that he didnt?
I don't know whether "he" existed or not.

I think it is quite a complex question.
It's hard to define what is meant by "Jesus" as a person.

By this I mean do I think a person was born in Bethlehem of a virgin woman and had supernatural abilities and was resurrected? - As far as we know this stuff is impossible so it can't be true.

Do I think a hunt was made to kill the first born in order to kill Jesus as a baby. - Seems highly unlikely.

Do I think a person gathered a group of 12 strangers and formed a religious cult (pre-cursor to Christianity) separating from Judaism? Religions splinter all the time Christianity must have started somehow, so sure, but is there an actual Simon Peter, James, John, Judas etc? - I don't know.

Did the sermon on the Mount happen? - Don't know
Were the words ascribed to the sermon actually spoken by Jesus? - probably not, it would have been hard for people to have remembered the words as much time passed before they were written down.

Do I think the leader of the The Way was crucified under Pilot? - Don't know.

Did the leader of the way have a relationship with Mary Magdaline? - Don't know.

Did any of the sayings attributed to Jesus come from the leader of the Way? - Probably not, given no-one wrote them down at the time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
15-03-2015, 02:11 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 02:07 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-03-2015 01:42 AM)A New Hope Wrote:  What side are you on? Out of curiosity do you think he did exist? Or that he didnt?
I don't know whether "he" existed or not.

I think it is quite a complex question.
It's hard to define what is meant by "Jesus" as a person.

By this I mean do I think a person was born in Bethlehem of a virgin woman and had supernatural abilities and was resurrected? - As far as we know this stuff is impossible so it can't be true.

Do I think a hunt was made to kill the first born in order to kill Jesus as a baby. - Seems highly unlikely.

Do I think a person gathered a group of 12 strangers and formed a religious cult (pre-cursor to Christianity) separating from Judaism? Religions splinter all the time Christianity must have started somehow, so sure, but is there an actual Simon Peter, James, John, Judas etc? - I don't know.

Did the sermon on the Mount happen? - Don't know
Were the words ascribed to the sermon actually spoken by Jesus? - probably not, it would have been hard for people to have remembered the words as much time passed before they were written down.

Do I think the leader of the The Way was crucified under Pilot? - Don't know.
Lol fuck all that do you think that at some point there was a guy named jesus who was born as the son of joseph who one way or another ended up on a cross?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes A New Hope's post
15-03-2015, 02:19 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 02:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-03-2015 01:27 AM)A New Hope Wrote:  Lol no a compeling form of argumentation would be to attack the the person themself that your in a debate with rather than refuting points or atleast moving on in an objective manner.

I'm sorry, are you under the mistaken impression that you have a valid point worth refuting? That would almost be precious, if it wasn't so pathetically stupid... Weeping
Lol i wasnt making a point at all merely an observation mixed with a little weed and some hard liquor. Cool LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes A New Hope's post
15-03-2015, 02:41 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 02:11 AM)A New Hope Wrote:  Lol fuck all that do you think that at some point there was a guy named jesus who was born as the son of joseph who one way or another ended up on a cross?

“The critical habit of thought, if usual in society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators ... They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens.”
-William Graham Sumner

Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-03-2015, 03:58 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 02:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-03-2015 02:11 AM)A New Hope Wrote:  Lol fuck all that do you think that at some point there was a guy named jesus who was born as the son of joseph who one way or another ended up on a cross?

“The critical habit of thought, if usual in society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators ... They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens.”
-William Graham Sumner

Drinking Beverage
Lol i dont understand my question was without any supernatural mumbo jumbo thrown in? Do i need to ask it a little different for ek to understand?


Wel here goes nothing...... do you believe that there just happend to be someone named jesus born to some dude named joseph that SOMEWAY OR ANOTHER (for example maybe he murdered someone? Punched a roman? Was caught peeping in the womens bathroom. ) ended up on a cross. And at some point in his life he was like "hey dont do that how would you like it if he did that to you?" And then people like ek were like "holy shit this guy speaks truth"


So lets say that only the parts spoken about in history are true and that the bible never existed. Did jesus exist?


Also can anyone tell me if eks agreeing with me or not? Ive been telling him in every thread that he needs to remember to remain objective and he always ignores it.... so did he fianlly learn? Hey maybe now you can answer the question in the other thread. I was like its not rocket science Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes A New Hope's post
15-03-2015, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2015 11:02 AM by Free.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(14-03-2015 10:10 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(14-03-2015 08:00 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me bring you right back on point here here and just break all this down for you nice and simple, okay?


You mean you're finally going to get to the fucking point instead of just punting afield again?

It has been my "fucking point" since this debate began, but since your intention is to constantly immaturely digress from the point with ad homs and meaningless internet memes, I am going to give you another "fucking chance" to debate this issue with some "fucking semblance" of intellect.

Big Grin

Quote:
(14-03-2015 08:00 AM)Free Wrote:  Listed below is the text that Tacitus sourced for his part on Christ, the Christians, and Pilate. Read it and respond to my Points below it, then read the rest and respond to those Points as well.


I'm sorely temped to tell you to fuck off in light of your repeated ignoring of my points in my previous responses.

Your tone has been telling me to "fuck off" since this discussion started, and I will indeed ignore your posts- not "points," because you've haven't made any- until you begin to behave like a mature adult.

Quote:
(14-03-2015 08:00 AM)Free Wrote:  "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, but as of hatred against mankind.

Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car.

Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
"


Okay. Your point?

Ummm ... what part of the red colored text, and bold type with the word "POINT" listed above did you fail to see?

Quote:
(14-03-2015 08:00 AM)Free Wrote:  Point 1: There is absolutely nothing in that text that even hints at a Christian source. In fact, the text describing the punishments of the Christians is something that we cannot find in any Christian source at all.


That's not the point you incredulous fucktard.[/quotte]

If it isn't one of my points, then why is it listed in red colored text and bold type with the word "POINT?" Do I need to spell it out for you, highlight it like a neon sign, and make it stand out?

Oh yeah, I forgot, I already did all that!

Big Grin

[quote] Once again, if you want to claim that this is a corroborative source, then you need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't just getting his information from Christians,

That has been accomplished. Just because YOU say a reasonable doubt exists after all this evidence in my POINTS does not mean any reasonable doubt actually exists.

There is no reasonable doubt.


Quote:who they themselves got their information from the Gospels. There is nothing in that text as to give positive indication beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of a non-Christian source. So the Christians were unpopular and had been scapegoated by Nero for the burning of Rome. What about any of that proves that Tacitus got his claims about Jesus from sources other than already believing Christians? He doesn't explicitly state where or who his sources were, and it is very probable that his information was sourced from Christians.

Here's where we totally demonstrate your lack of study in this area, get ready to get schooled.

Tacitus is using the scholarly consensus of previous historians who wrote their histories decades before he did. He is also using the Roman registries, personal letters of historical persons, et al.

Now, you are saying that he got his information from the Christians, who then got their information from the Gospels.

Firstly, the text does not demonstrate any such thing. You do not see anything in the Tacitus text which exists in any Gospel. The Gospels mention Jesus being crucified, not merely someone named Christus. The gospels say nothing of this Roman event regarding Christus and the Christians at all. Nor does any other text whatsoever. Why? Because it's ROMAN history, not Christian history.

Secondly, since it has been demonstrated that Tacitus is using previous historical records which include historians, Roman registries, et al, and it is agreed upon by historians including Mythicist historians such as Richard Carrier that the gospels didn't even exist during the Great Fires of Rome, then no historian who chronicled the event of the Great Fires of Rome could possibly have gotten any information transferred to him by any Christian via the Gospel record. The Gospels did not exist. Get it?

Thirdly, Tacitus named a high ranking Roman official, Pontius Pilate, as the one who executed Christus. He also names Tiberius as being the Caesar during the time period. He places the event in Judea, but gives no definite place within Judea, such as outside of Jerusalem, which Christians would know. Pontius Pilate has been proven to exist, and proven to be the Roman official in charge of Judea during that time, and there is no doubting the existence of Tiberius, the Caesar.

So are we to think that Tacitus would get his information from a class who was hated, an abomination, full of hatred for mankind, evil, criminals, and who held to mischievous superstitions, and then have Tacitus state as fact what you believe to be Christian "rumors" regarding Christus, and then record this Christus incident as historical fact pertaining to Caesar Tiberius' reign, and also to the personal history of a high ranking Roman official named Pontius Pilate?

Is that what you want us to think? Really? Laughat

In conclusion, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion of reasonable doubt. NONE. If you think you have any evidence at all, please feel free to present enough evidence to support reasonable doubt. Crickets

In fact, you have no evidence at all to support any doubt, PERIOD. Asserting doubt without evidence to support it is not skepticism, but rather it is DENIALISM.
Facepalm

Since everything else you've said hinges on your assumption that Tacitus somehow got his information from Christians- which has been demonstrated as nothing but the rantings of a mind gone mad- then there will be no point in repeating what I have already said.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: